The Debut of the East Cup Blog

Today, with the new dawning, I present another blog for you to chew on. Inspired by a great run at several fantasy hockey forums and because I have my own ideas of how the hockey world should look, I present you my attempt at some good old hockey fan fiction, in blog format. You can read it here:

http://eastcup.blogspot.com

Hope you enjoy it.

-DG

“Joe Pa” deserved a better ending

Just a month ago, the thought of firing Joe Paterno would be unthinkable. Today, after 61 years of service as head coach of the Penn State Nittany Lions, Paterno was unceremoniously dumped amidst allegations that one time heir apparent Jerry Sandusky was rampantly engaging in immoral sex acts with boys ranging in age from 8 to 15.

Normally, when something like this happens the next step is to examine the legacy left behind by a coach who is without peer as college football’s greatest coach. Such a nostalgic trip will have to wait as the circumstances behind this exit are much more odious, with many asking why Paterno didn’t do more to stop the scandal.

For those who are unaware of what happened, here is what we know:

· In 1977, Sandusky founded “The Second Mile” football charity for children, and continued to run the organization until 2010.

· In 1998, Sandusky faced the first set of allegations of sexual abuse against children, though this is unrelated to the indictment he is facing now. It is this allegation that is said to have led to Sandusky’s surprising resignation a year later, after being hailed as Paterno’s heir apparent for years.

· Despite the resignation, Sandusky remained employed by Penn State as “coach emeritus”, entitling him to an office in and access to the football stadium.

· According to the grand jury investigation, Sandusky assaulted a total eight boys from 1994 to 2009.

· The latest allegation involved a 15-year-old boy that Sandusky allegedly assaulted for four plus years, beginning when he was ten.

· Paterno got wind of these allegations from Mike McQueary, then a graduate assistant (and now an assistant coach), in 2002 after McQueary reportedly “walked in” on Sandusky performing an inappropriate act on a boy.

· When Paterno heard the allegations from McQueary, he immediately went to athletic director Tim Curley but did not go to the police himself.

· Curley then went to Gary Schultz, who ran the Penn State police department, and the only decision the two of them made was to prohibit Sandusky’s activities from the main campus, though they continued to allow him to operate The Second Mile at a satellite campus in Erie until 2008. This action was later approved by then Penn State president Graham Spanier.

· Because of their actions, Curley and Schultz were indicted for blocking the investigation and failing to report the abuses.

· For their parts, though police officials have criticized their actions, neither Spanier- fired as Penn State president as well today- or Paterno are facing any criminal charges, nor was Paterno cited for any wrongdoing.

· Since the case is before the courts, it’s important to remember that none of the allegations have yet to be proven.

There’s no question that if the allegations prove to be true that they are sickening and abhorrent. No one questions that- these allegations paint Sandusky as a predator at the highest level, taking advantage of youth who were already needy and lacking inner strength; and the idea that Curley and Schultz did not do their jobs and inform the proper authorities of the improprieties is doubly reprehensible. To know that needy children are being abused is one thing; for the school to know about it and do nothing about it is another. If the courts do find them guilty they deserve the fullest punishment available by law, which sadly won’t be enough to repair the damages these boys accrued.

None of this, though, should include Paterno, who should still be the coach of the Nittany Lions today.

Yes, it’s true that the visuals are pretty bad. Since when most think of Nittany Lion football they think of Paterno, the idea that Paterno let these horrifying incidents occur under his watch becomes ingrained in the heads of observers because Sandusky was running a football program on Penn State grounds. However, it is important to note that despite the fact that Paterno is the face of Penn State football, the decision to allow Sandusky on campus wasn’t his- that decision belonged to Curley, the athletic director who is responsible for hiring coaches and coordinating use of the facilities. Paterno likely has a lot of influence in those decisions, but Sandusky was operating a program outside of Paterno’s actual watch- the Nittany Lion football team- so the responsibility for allowing access to the facilities by Sandusky doesn’t fall to Paterno.

Furthermore, these allegations were reported to Paterno in 2002, three years after Sandusky had unexpectedly resigned from the Nittany Lion football program. Yes, it’s true that the allegations started while Sandusky was under Paterno’s employ, but from what we know, Paterno didn’t know of what Sandusky was doing until 2002 when, by that point, Sandusky wasn’t reporting to Paterno but to Curley, who was the one who made the decision to make him coach emeritus and allowed him to maintain the position despite the allegations. Therefore, it’s likely that Paterno couldn’t do much even if he wanted to, since the decision to fire Sandusky would not fall to him.

More to this point- and I know this is just speculation- is that Paterno acted the way he did because he didn’t want to upset the chain of command. We see this every day in our workplaces, where it’s constantly beaten into our heads that if there are any problems we have to report it to the proper supervisors. Granted, we don’t come across problems like the ones Sandusky is alleged to have caused, but we know it’s not our responsibility to “police” our workplaces- that’s the job of our superiors. Paterno, therefore, thought that Curley, being his superior and whose job it is to investigate the actions of his workers (which is not in Paterno’s job description), would take over from there.

Furthermore, it’s known that Paterno did not actually see any of the assaults take place- he only knew of the allegations because McQueary told him about them. Put yourself in Paterno’s shoes for a moment here- if you hear a story like this, what is your first reaction? Disbelief, likely, because no one would want to think that someone is abusing children on campus, let alone someone who held respect like Sandusky did. He couldn’t let something like this go, and it’s categorically proven that he didn’t- as soon as he learned of the allegations he reported it to his superior, Curley. Granted, we don’t know what Paterno and Curley discussed at that moment, but it could be that somewhere in that conversation Curley assured Paterno that he was going to take care of the investigation. Paterno, then, trusted the process and likely believed Curley when Curley- who the courts allege believed the crimes to be “not that serious”- told him that nothing was actually happening. Remember, since Paterno didn’t actually see anything he has no way of knowing anything other than what Curley- and, by extension, Schultz- is telling him. Since it’s Curley’s and Schultz’s jobs to investigate such matters, if they told Paterno nothing was going on Paterno was going to trust them. That it’s come to light that neither Curley or Schultz may not have done the jobs they were supposed to do is immaterial- at the time, all Paterno knew was a salacious rumour, and if his superiors told him nothing was actually happening, then he has no reason to believe otherwise.

It’s also possible that this isn’t the first piece of gossip that floated around the Penn State campus, and certainly isn’t the first salacious rumour that Paterno in all his years would have heard. In a macho environment that is football, anyone that remotely deviates from that mould can get all kinds of stories attached to them, not all of them pleasant. In 61 years on campus, how could Paterno not have “heard it all”? It may sound cruel that Paterno could have dismissed the Sandusky story as mere gossip, but, again, since this was just a story Paterno wouldn’t have much to act on, and, having been around for so many years and hearing so many tales, it’s possible Paterno believed this was just another one of them, especially after he was likely told that nothing wrong was actually happening.

This is what is central to the point that Paterno didn’t actually do anything wrong- the fact that he didn’t actually see anything. If Paterno had actually witnessed an event and failed to report the authorities it’d be different because then Paterno becomes part of the cover-up; but because he didn’t he did what he was supposed to and got the proper people to look into it and trust that they’d do something if something wrong was actually happening. Yes, Paterno could have done his own investigating but it’s not his job to investigate the transgressions of his colleagues, especially of those who he is not employing. The college employs people to investigate such stories, and Paterno likely trusted that they’d actually do their jobs. This touches upon the gossip point in the previous paragraph- since Paterno has likely heard many different lurid stories and since strange stories often get told of fellow coworkers (those in large companies can attest to this), no one, especially colleges or even the police, want to waste their time “chasing ghosts”. If all Paterno knows is a rumour, then he has to treat it as such- this could be serious or he could be chasing ghosts, and it’s not his job to chase ghosts- that’s Curley’s and Schultz’s job.

It is true that, knowing what we know now that Paterno likely should have acted differently, something Paterno himself admitted. We cannot apply what we know now to what happened then, and when you look at what happened then, the course of action Paterno took is understandable. Since he didn’t witness anything all he heard was a story, so he went to the people who are supposed to examine such stories and trust that they’d do something about it. That it’s come to light that they likely didn’t do their jobs properly doesn’t fall on Paterno, because it’s not “Joe Pa’s” fault that Curley and Schultz betrayed his trust. Furthermore, if the courts absolved Paterno of blame it should further the idea that Paterno does not deserve any himself- since legal courts have to follow a higher standard of proof than the “court of public opinion”, if the courts did not find any reason to indict Paterno then maybe we shouldn’t either.

All I know now is that the greatest college football coach of any generation is now disgraced by a scandal he doesn’t deserve to be a part of. Nothing, granted, can be uglier than the sex abuses perpetrated by Sandusky and allowed to continue by Curley and Schultz (if the allegations prove true), but robbing Paterno of the legacy he deserves could prove to be a crime all the same.

-DG

Dissecting the Tiger Woods saga

As the saying goes, “there’s always calm before the storm”. Nothing could capture the thunderstorm that has ravaged the formerly blissfully serene life of Tiger Woods ever since he crashed into a fire hydrant just outside of his home in the early morning hours of November 27. Since then, Woods- married to Elin Nordegren since 2004- has faced multiple allegations of extramarital affairs, cited as the source of tension between Woods and Nordegren that led to Woods making the fateful late-night road trip. “Shocking” is an understatement here- Woods has never found himself in a scandal of any kind, and the fact that this scandal has erupted beyond anyone’s imagination has made many wonder how many other skeletons lie in the closet of the previously uneventful private life of Woods.

Since the scandal broke out, a lot of stories have surfaced regarding the events surrounding the crash, and it’s hard to deduce the certainties of the case. Using the skills I gained examining sources needed to obtain my History Degree, this much is known:

-On November 25, MediaTakeOut.com reported that Woods was having an affair with New York nightclub hostess Rachel Uchitel, whose previous claim to fame was as David Boreanaz’s adulteress and being featured in a memorable photo in the days after September 11 where a crying Uchitel, clad in a white halter top and a sling purse, was holding a picture of her late fiancée, who had just passed away in the infamous attacks. MTO stated its source of the story was that week’s issue of the National Enquirer (which hadn’t been released at that point), a tabloid known for paying sources for their stories, and the initial reaction to the story on the blogosphere was utter disbelief.

-However, in the early morning hours of November 27 (meaning it’s still technically “Thanksgiving night”), Woods jumped into his Cadillac Escalade sport utility vehicle and, not paying attention for some reason, backed out of his driveway then drove erratically into a nearby fire hydrant and then into a tree. A neighbour (not Nordegren) would call 911, sending paramedics and police to the scene. Despite the fact the crash would be labelled as “serious” (all crashes in Florida are labelled as such if the victim requires medical attention of any kind), Woods is not seriously hurt, suffering lacerations on his lip and a concussion. Woods’ injuries do prevent him from making a statement to officials at the time, who reported that Woods was “babbling (incoherently)”, so the investigation for the crash had to continue. Nordegren would eventually arrive at the scene brandishing a golf club that broke the Escalade’s windows allowing Woods to be taken out of the car, but her whereabouts immediately after the crash are unknown.

-In the days after the incident, Woods was evasive, but left hints that something was amiss when he termed the situation a “private matter”. He turned down requests by the Florida Highway Patrol for interviews, but the FHP would eventually conclude they did not need Woods’ testimony, settling on a $164 traffic citation and four points off his drivers’ license. Questions would abound though, such as “why was Tiger driving at 2:25AM?” and “how is hitting a fire hydrant a ‘private matter’?”

-On December 2, TMZ.com released grainy pictures taken at Tao nightclub in Las Vegas, showing Woods being “cozy” with a “leggy brunette” at around 1:30AM on October 4 of this year. Picture quality is too poor to deduce who the woman is, but not Woods, who is enjoying the conversation (it seems) with the woman.

-The same day as the TMZ photos getting released, Us Weekly released a voicemail message from the phone of Jaimee Grubbs, a Los Angeles cocktail waitress, where Woods pleads with Grubbs to “take her name” off her phone because Woods feared Nordegren was getting “suspicious”. Later that day, Woods would release a statement apologizing for “transgressions”, though he wouldn’t specify which one he was referring to.

In short, what is known about Tiger’s sordid affairs is that he crashed his Escalade late on Thanksgiving night and that this is related in some way to inappropriate conduct Woods is currently having with at least one woman. After that, the details are murky. It’s likely that Woods is having an extramarital affair given the tone of Woods’ remarks and the breadth of stories coming out detailing such affairs, but I wouldn’t call it “certain”. Perhaps the extent of it is that Woods went too far with a greeting, a gesture or a remark with these women but didn’t actually have sex with any of them, because only the tabloid stories are suggesting actual adultery whereas Woods has never explicitly gone that far; though I do believe it’s just a matter of time before we can actually say with certainty that some amorous transgressions are actually occurring.

Beyond that, certainties are hard to come by. The biggest quandary involves who, exactly, Woods is having these transgressions with. Through the rough, three women have been linked as adulteresses to Woods- Uchitel, Grubbs and Las Vegas club promoter Kalika Moquin. Moquin’s story is the flimsiest, since that story is only supported by an unnamed “insider” who witnessed the affair transpire, and Moquin would later deny the report. Uchitel also issued a denial to her rumour, but she would later retract the denial- insisting she was just “protecting Tiger”- and planned a press conference to discuss her affair, a presser that was cancelled at the last minute due to “unforeseen circumstances” (widely believed to be Tiger’s people paying her off). TMZ would later report that it was Uchitel’s “sexts” (not a Grubbs voicemail message) that caused the argument that led to Woods’ fateful crash, with the vestibule area of Woods’ home being destroyed just before Tiger pulled out of the driveway. It’s a plausible story, but the fact still remains it’s only Uchitel pushing this side of the story- Woods himself has been silent on the issue and while there’s allegations of shenanigans on his part to stop Uchitel from telling her side of the story, there’s nothing from Woods’ side of the story that- as of yet- definitively links the two together.

Grubbs’ story is the one that carries the most weight. It’s reported that Grubbs left a voicemail message on Woods’ home phone imploring the golfer to change his greeting which is what caused the argument, though latest developments are casting doubt on that side of the story. What is holding up is the fact that there’s a voicemail message from someone who sounds a lot like Tiger Woods begging Grubs to remove her name from her phone number because Nordegren was getting “suspicious”. It’s clear, then, that Grubbs and Woods were engaged in something untoward, but whether or not this is actually an affair is unknown. Grubbs claims to have had 20 sexual encounters with Woods but again, like Uchitel’s case, it’s just Grubbs’ side of the story being told- Woods hasn’t specifically dealt with it. However, the fact that Woods felt compelled to apologize for “transgressions” shortly after Grubbs’ voicemail messages got released suggest that this affair is likely true, because of the timing of Woods’ statement is too close for it to be simply coincidental. Still, unless Woods addresses the rumour specifically, there’s no certainty to this story either.

However interesting the speculation over the “who’s” in the affairs might be, none of it answers the real question, and that’s “why”. At this end there are only two possible reasons- that Woods initiated the cheating on his own or his wife’s actions spurred him into cheating- and both are ultimately mixed together. The first argument is that Woods, finally realizing he’s got power from being the sporting world’s first billion-dollar athlete, decided that he’d live the life he didn’t have before he met Nordegren. Remember, Woods met Nordegren in 2001 through Jesper Parnevik (for whom Nordegren worked as a nanny), where Parnevik reports that he had to ask Nordegren out for Woods because “Tiger was too nervous to do it”. Lots of things have changed since 2001, chief of which being Woods cementing his place in golfing history. Before meeting Nordegren at the 2001 British Open, Woods had just completed golf’s Grand Slam at the Masters, marking the first time he’d be golf’s undisputed dominant player (Woods did win two other majors, the 1997 Masters and the 1999 PGA Championship, but 2000 was his real “coming out party”). In the next seven years, Woods would win eight more majors, an unprecedented streak of golfing superiority that established him as the sport’s best-ever player. It’s possible that Woods gained a new sense of self-confidence after his run, as it definitely improved his recognition to the point where his celebrity transcended golf. You’d have to think that would lead Tiger to a world of women he’s never experienced before and Woods showed he was unable to resist that temptation. Granted, this is just speculation but it’s not unfounded- Woods himself has already admitted to acting inappropriately (quite possibly in this manner) and Parnevik himself didn’t shy away from condemning Woods and his character, meaning that the possibility of this being one of Woods’ vices cannot be dismissed.

Nordegren’s behaviour at the time of the incident, though, raises several questions about her own commitment level to the world’s No. 1 golfer. For starters, where was Nordegren immediately following the crash? She changed her official story to police, first saying that she went to look for Woods with a golf cart but later recanted that part of the story. There were also rumblings that Nordegren was abusive to Woods, though police would conclude that Woods was not at least physically harmed by Nordegren. The couple did seem to be having an argument at the time of the crash, but the extent of Nordegren’s wrongdoing is unknown. Woods himself would state that Nordegren acted “courageously” to rescue him from the Escalade, but why didn’t Nordegren call 911? Why did her neighbours have to do it? I also wonder, if Nordegren isn’t at fault for the incident as Woods implies, why did Woods feel compelled to storm out of the house late at night? If Nordegren did nothing here, why did Woods feel compelled to leave?

Finally, you have to wonder if Nordegren herself is doing things throughout the course of the marriage that make Woods seek out other women. Not to make apologies for Tiger, but in many cases infidelity is brought about because of anger towards a spouse, either for something the spouse did or is doing to the cheater. We can’t just jump to the simple conclusion that Tiger is cheating simply because of the above-mentioned vices or that he’s not “wired” to be faithful to Nordegren (or some other reason), because when a relationship fails it’s ultimately a two-way street. There’s a lot we don’t know about Nordegren, whose life is more guarded than Tiger’s is, and, like Tiger, who knows what skeletons exist in her closet that are just now being let out. Woods definitely deserves the scorn he gets for his behaviour, but I somehow don’t think Nordegren is faultless in this episode. Eventually, when the dust settles on the ordeal, both parties are going to have their share of the blame.

What does this all eventually mean for Tiger? Personally, I don’t tend to care about these stories much because it’s not fair to marry the private life of an athlete (or any celebrity) into their work life, unless the private life actually detracts from their work- the only reason why I care about this story is that it’s not every day you get to hear “TMZ” being quoted on TSN or ESPN, and this scandal is just too bizarre for me to ignore. So from my end, Woods is still “clean”, because I don’t see how his relationship with Nordegren is going to affect his golf game- all that matters is that he nails his putts. Others won’t be as forgiving, particularly his sponsors, as his previously “squeaky clean” image has taken a huge hit, and it will be quite some time before sponsors are not going to have their misgivings over employing him. It may be true, as Woody Paige pointed out on Around The Horn, that most of Woods’ products are directed at men (such as Gillette razors), but several times consumers will stop from buying a product sponsored by someone they don’t like, and that negative association with the brand may prove too big to ignore, regardless of the product. Woods will still likely emerge without too much damage to his reputation, since his offence isn’t too major (he may have committed a “moral” crime but no actual felony), but it will all depend on how he handles the future. At the very least, he’s got to address the rumours head on and stop being evasive about it because that’s the only way he can ensure proper closure and he’ll at least look like he’s taking responsibility for his actions instead of “hiding” from the problem as he is doing now. How he handles this scandal will have a major impact on his legacy, because only he can ensure that this is a minor blemish instead of the growth of a more serious stain.

-DG

Time for video replay after refereeing blunder costs British Isles team for the second straight tournament

I know it’s sacrilege to associate the Irish with the British, but today, the Republic of Ireland’s location on the British Isles makes it a brethren to another resident of those same Isles- Scotland- after their national soccer team was robbed of a chance to play in a major soccer tournament by a refereeing mistake. Like the blunder that cost the Scots, the beneficiary were the French, only this time the tournament was the World Cup and the French were actually playing the Irish when the dubious call occurred, unlike the Scots who were playing the Italians for a chance to play at Euro 2008 and where a Scottish loss qualified the French.

For those of you who did not see the play, here’s what happened. Ireland entered the game in Paris down 1-0 in the two-game, total goals playoff. In the 31^st minute, Robbie Keane netted the game’s first goal, lifting Ireland level in the playoff. Because there were no other goals over the next 59 minutes (quelle surprise), the playoff was tied on aggregate meaning game went into extra time. Extra time in soccer is not “sudden death” as it is in hockey, but any goals scored in this period would have meant there would be no penalty shootout since the scores would be added to the aggregate score. If France scored more goals than the Irish in the period, they would advance to the World Cup, but if the Irish scored at least the same amount of goals as the French in the period, they would advance to the Cup on the “away goals” rule. France thus had more pressure, since if they conceded a goal they needed to score twice, making the defending job easier for the Irish.

It was here in this extra period where the Irish were robbed. In the 13^th minute of extra time- the 103^rd in the game- a ball was lifted over several Irish defenders into the penalty box towards French striker Thierry Henry. The ball was hit too hard for Henry’s outstretched feet to meet the ball, so Henry stuck his arm out and met the ball with his hand- twice. The ball landed to his feet where he lobbed a perfect pass to William Gallas’ head, allowing the Arsenal defender to nod the ball past helpless Irish goalkeeper Shay Given. Given and the Irish protested to referee Martin Hansson, who upheld the goal. Ireland did still have 17 minutes to secure an equalizer, but ultimately Hansson’s howler sealed their fate.

After the game, the Irish were- to a man- rightfully claiming they were jobbed, and Henry himself admitted he handled the ball, but passed the buck, stating “I am not the referee.” Hansson said he did not see the offence, and, given the fact that Hansson was standing around 30 yards away from the incident and Henry was behind several defenders, Hansson is believable, though this doesn’t make the bungling excusable. This was not the first time Ireland felt jobbed by FIFA officials- when FIFA announced they would be “seeding” teams for the European qualification playoffs, the Irish players were at the forefront of the protestations, fairly stating that the move sought to hurt “small” soccer nations like Slovenia and Ireland at the expense of the “big” nations like France and Portugal. Accusations were levelled at the time at FIFA for acquiescing to commercial interests in ensuring the “big” nations progressed to the Cup tournament in South Africa. Perhaps FIFA president Sepp Blatter is laughing at the “poetic justice” he wrought on the Irish, but the truth is that his shenanigans are sullying the prestige and even the legitimacy of his sport.

To be fair, Hansson’s mistake is different than the one Manuel Mejuto Gonzalez made against the Scots, as that was a foul Gonzalez saw but erred on the call, but it was still a refereeing error all the same. In that incident, Scotland and Italy were tied at one in a game that essentially decided which nation would qualify for Euro 2008. In the 91^st minute, Italian winger Giorgio Chellini and Scottish left back Alan Hutton raced for a loose ball near Scotland’s left corner flag. Hutton got to the ball first, but Chellini literally bodychecked him then, as if on cue, Chellini himself fell to the ground. A whistle came for the foul, so Hutton- thinking the foul was on Chellini, as it should have been- got up, brushed aside Chellini and was about to boom the ball upfield before being told the foul was actually on him. The surprised Scots protested unsuccessfully and took up defensive positions, but it was to no avail- Italy’s Andrea Pirlo curled a perfect ball into the box for Christian Panucci to nod home for a 2-1 Italian lead that was sure to stand up with just seconds to go in the game (though Scotland did manage one half chance before time expired). The loss officially eliminated a plucky Scot team similar in character to the 2009 Irish team from contention for Euro 2008 and, just like Hansson’s decision, put an undeserving French team into the prestigious tournament.

That play and this latest play bring about short-term and long-term solutions. The short-term solution and the only real answer to the problem is for soccer to adopt some kind of video replay. It’s absolutely ludicrous that the most televised sport in the world refuses to use this valuable footage to get the calls on the field right and, as we’ve seen, blown calls are costly. You’d think after embarrassments such as Henry’s hand or Rivaldo’s dive that FIFA would be more receptive to the idea of video review, but the “purists” of the game- the same lot who think that just criticizing defensive-minded managers will get them to change their ways (name me a coach who’d rather be entertaining than a winner and I might consider joining the purists) instead of considering *some* rule changes- always protest, accusing it of being an “Americanization” and that it would “slow down the game”. The “Americanization” part I won’t deal with because it’s an emotional argument with no rationale, but as to the game being “slowed down”, it is a legitimate complaint but one that ultimately holds no water. It would be an extra delay, but it wouldn’t be a costly one- video reviews can take just a minute or two, and soccer games are already held up by things like players feigning injuries and a team trying to organize its set piece “just right” (not to mention protestations to the ref...).

Implementation would be the only concern, though. Soccer’s clock is continuous and technically has no “timeouts”, so finding the right moment to stop play is a challenge. It’s possible just to limit video review to disputed goals (and, perhaps, by extension penalties) which have “natural” breaks, but there so many other points of dispute (like, perhaps, a missed penalty or an offside call) that could decide a match and thus would benefit from a review, so it would be pertinent to figure out how to work that kind of a review into the game. Managers should also be given the opportunity to “stop” the game to challenge a call because if we just leave that discretion to the referees, no doubt they are going to miss a contentious event (would Hansson have thought to seek out review, for instance, considering he was too far away from the play to see it clearly?). Obviously, managers would have to be restricted in this regard- I say just once per game, successful or not- because we don’t want managers to obsessively nitpick every call, but it’s clear they need to have some power in disputing a potentially game-changing call.

As for Ireland’s replay request- granting it seems fair, but I’m hesitant about it, because we don’t want to have every contentious game being replayed as that would mean hundreds of games would be redone every year. Replays should only be ordered in extreme situations, and I’m just not sure if Hansson’s error is that extreme. Sure, it cost Ireland a spot in the World Cup, but they are not the only one nor will they be the only one to have a refereeing error cost them a spot in the tournament. There is precedent for a replay- Uzbekistan and Bahrain were told to replay the first leg of their 2006 Cup qualification playoff after referee Toshimitsu Yoshida made a mistake in applying the rules dealing with penalties- but I’m not sure how the Irish game measures up in comparison. As “Pardon The Interruption” host Tony Reali pointed out (without naming names), Hansson missed a call, Yoshida erred in applying it; and even then, it’s debatable that incident was extreme enough to warrant a replay anyway. Besides, the Irish shouldn’t think a replay would send them to the World Cup- Uzbekistan requested that replay in 2005, and they lost to Bahrain in their playoff. So be careful of what you wish for.

Long-term, this may just be the straw that breaks the back of Blatter’s presidential career. In his eleven years of being FIFA president, I have a hard time coming up with positive changes he’s enacted in the game. His record is tarnished by multiple embarrassments, such as Rivaldo’s dive, inane remarks (such as calling Manchester United’s 2008 refusal to sell Cristiano Ronaldo “slavery”), botched games like the Ireland game and multiple accusations of corruption. He, like his counterpart at the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) in Michel Platini, has been the poster-boy for soccer “purism”, refusing to buck from his narrow-minded nostalgic viewpoint of the game, like when he dreamed up the “6+5” rule (where club teams would be required to start six players considered “nationals” of the country they are based in) thinking this would end the disparity of “big clubs” against “little clubs”, instead of coming up with a better distribution system for soccer’s wealth to end the big clubs’ current monopoly on it. As Blatter and his 1978 way of thinking is the roadblock to soccer’s entry into the 21^st century, it’s pertinent we get rid of the roadblock- and find someone who will take the crucial next step. We can’t have any more disputed games accruing corruption allegations and crippling the sport’s legitimacy, not if soccer wants to continue as the world’s top sport. Shay Given, the Irish and the sport’s billions of fans deserve no less.

-DG

Top 10 reasons why Bill Belichick went for it on 4th down Sunday night

Perhaps I’m late with this, but two nights after it happened, I still can’t believe New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick would think of trying to convert a fourth down with 2:08 to go where he was up by just six points, and on archrival Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts no less. Since Belichick isn’t in the habit of actually giving detailed explanations (all he had to say about the botched play- a short pass to Kevin Faulk which Faulk bobbled, resulting in a tackle a yard short of the first down marker- was that “we thought we could make it”), I figured I’d do some crack research and come up with some answers. My findings are based on responses Belichick was overheard to have given other people shortly after the game. The results may surprise you.

10. “Punt? That’s a four-letter word, you better not say that again.”

9. “We gained 477 yards in that game. What’s another 2?”

8. “Nostradamus said we would get it.”

7. “4^th and 2? Well, 4 divided by 2 is 1, so that has to mean ‘first down’.”

6. “[Detroit Lions kicker] Chris Hanson left the Lions yesterday, so Jason [Hanson, the Patriots’ punter] had to fill in for him today. Jason was too tired to take that punt.”

5. “I knew the game was on NBC, so I thought I’d make my game entertaining for once.”

4. “I wanted to make up for the fact we didn’t get that 4^th and 13 conversion in the Super Bowl a while back.”

3. “I knew Tony Dungy was watching. I wanted to remind him how I beat him all those times.”

2. “I knew Rodney Harrison was watching. I didn’t want him to see why we miss him so much.”

1. “I’m Bill Belichick B***”.

-DG

P.S. This is a joke, in case you didn’t guess it.

Let's not get blue about swine flu

I had my graduation ceremony this past Tuesday at Georgian College. You can probably guess how much fun I had at a canned ceremony full of talking heads who had absolutely nothing to do with my program (so much for the school being “student-friendly”) telling us all the same clichés about all the potential we’d achieve (including some New Age crap about how some guy felt restricted by “having a finish line”...I guess he never got anything done, did he?), as well as having some “Convocation Marshalls” who were quite snippy. The only good news was that I saw most of my old classmates, which made the pain of the ceremony a little easier to take.

That wasn’t the worst part of the ceremony- the worst part was when one of the emcees of the ceremony announced that because of “fears of H1N1” the dignitaries who’d be giving me my diploma and make me feel special to share the stage with them would refuse to shake my hand- never mind that Brian Tamblyn, the president of Georgian, got his head really close to most of us in moving our sash from our arms to our shoulders, allowing us to momentarily share the same airspace face-to-face, which would be enough time with enough proximity to transmit a flu to Mr. Tamblyn anyway, even though he didn’t touch our evil hands. I have to say, it never felt so weird- or more wrong- to get congratulatory “fist pumps” from our teachers instead of a handshake. Hey guys, I’m not Matt Stairs after he hits a home run or that guy who turns everything he touches into Skittles- my hands aren’t evil.

The embarrassing ordeal did get me thinking about this apparent “swine flu” crisis that’s apparently starting to hit our shores as we speak, a fact that was underscored by the death of a 13-year-old male hockey player to H1N1 over the weekend. The player- Evan Frustaglio- apparently came down with the flu, seemingly recovered then unexpectedly collapsed. It was reported that Frustaglio had no prior medical condition, but both a doctor and his father did cite prior respiratory problems in his life, it’s not entirely unprecedented for athletes to experience untimely deaths (look up Sergei Zholtok and Alexei Cherprenov) and one shouldn’t be surprised that a hockey player- playing and sweating in freezing conditions- could get the flu. Frustaglio’s death is unfortunate, but let’s keep it in perspective.

What is the truth regarding H1N1, the stuff the sensationalist media (one Mr. Tamblyn and his staff at Georgian take a little too literally) is not telling you? Well, to begin, we have to start with the flu that the 2009 virus is being compared to and that’s the 1918-19 “Spanish influenza”, currently the deadliest flu outbreak in human history.

First of all, it’s technically incorrect to call it the “Spanish flu”, because it did not originate in- or even hit first- the country of Spain. The reason why it’s called the “Spanish flu” is because when the flu started to hit- in early 1918- World War I was still going on, and Spain was the only country affected by it and reporting on it that was neutral, so it was thought that Spanish authorities were the most trusted sources of information and were largely seen as the only ones really “doing anything about it”. The origin of the flu is not known, but it did hit North America before it hit Europe, and it hit in two waves- first in the summer then in the fall of 1918.

The first wave behaved like a normal flu, with extremely low mortality rates with deaths only in the so-called “expected” groups- infants, the elderly and any other kind of immunocompromised person. Then, in late August, the second wave- the one that would become the famous flu- hit, having a mortality rate between 10-20% of infected cases, with many of those deaths being young, healthy adults between the ages of 20-40. Some of the most famous deaths from the virus include Montreal Canadiens defenceman “Bad” Joe Hall (his death and the sickness of many players forced the cancellation of the 1918 Stanley Cup Final), the first South African Prime Minister Louis Botha and British diplomat and soldier Mark Sykes (whose body would be later exhumed for Spanish flu research). It’s estimated that of the population of people affected by the flu, 50% were infected, leading to the death of between 3-6% of the world’s total population, leading some historians to dub the flu as worse than the 1348 Black Death (that one got 25% of Europe (which was “the world”) which I think makes it worse than the 1918 epidemic but that’s a different debate).

The extremely high infection and death rates, not to mention the population profile of the hardest-hit victims, are the most peculiar aspects of the virus. Many theories have been postulated as to why the virus struck as it did. The cause of death in many of the victims is something called a “cytokine storm”, or basically when the immune system’s response to a pathogen is so strong it starts to hurt the body itself. It is reasoned here that naturally, the immune systems of young adults are stronger than the immune systems of others and would be more susceptible to this kind of attack. However, the reasons why a cytokine storm occurs are not yet fully understood, and there are other reasons why the 1918 flu struck as it did, without having to sensationalize it.

First of all, it was wartime, and not just that but the end of what was a brutal, uncompromising war. Let us not forget that the powers that be in 1914 went to war believing that they’d only be fighting for a few months and weren’t prepared for a five-year war- so they dug trenches and went back and forth shooting at the pathetic attempts to run to the other trench to take it over, the running soldiers mere “moving targets”. You can only imagine what the close quarters of a trench would do, combined with obviously fatigued (and somewhat immunocompromised) soldiers- it’s a perfect powder keg for the emergence of a deadly flu. The other part of the equation is that doctors at the time did not know what they were dealing with, as they would not wear their masks properly (they may cover their mouths but not their noses) and would at times misdiagnose the pathogen altogether. Obviously, now we’re more knowledgeable at handling and identifying the flu (we even have a vaccine for the swine flu) so we’re better prepared for an outbreak. It is also worth noting that sanitary conditions in 1918 were nothing like they are now, to say nothing of the medical conditions. How many of those deaths could be prevented had those other factors been taken into consideration is an open debate, but I believe if the Spanish flu hit today, it wouldn’t be as devastating.

This brings us to the current outbreak. There was an initial frenzy after the flu was first reported in Mexico in late March, providing an additional scare since several deaths fit the profile of several of the deaths from 1918, but since the Mexican outbreak, the flu hasn’t been nearly as deadly, regressing to fit the behaviour pattern of a “normal” flu- i.e., one that affects the essentially immunocompromised. Why it struck Mexico particularly hard was baffling at first, though it bears mentioning that living conditions in Mexico City- the hardest hit area in Mexico- are still quite depressed (although it is improving) and that perhaps contributed to some deaths. New details have also emerged, suggesting that Mexico vastly underreported its cases and even misidentified some of the cases as “swine flu” when the affliction was another pathogen altogether. Finally, it’s worth noting that since Mexico had its initial outbreak, nothing else has come of it, as the Mexican policy of shutting down the entirety of its capital city for a weekend at the height of the outbreak appeared to curb it, as no new serious news has arisen from Mexico since the initial outbreak.

Since the scare, further research has shown that the flu poses no threat to gain in lethality. Scientists at the University of Maryland mixed swine flu with seasonal flu and concluded that both would not combine into something more lethal. The virus also only showed increased severity in Mexico- everywhere else it has been mild, and as stated before there is reason to believe it wasn’t that dangerous in Mexico at all. Finally, while previously healthy people have come down with severe complications from H1N1, they are the exceptions rather than the rule and in some cases they even had a prior history of medical problems (the 13-year-old boy who died in Toronto did have respiratory problems earlier in his life, for example).

This isn’t to say that we should ignore H1N1- far from it; since it’s new we ought to be cognizant of it. However, overreactions such as refusing to give a graduate a handshake are unnecessary- this isn’t an overtly serious virus and besides, living in fear is no way to combat a virus. I also believe if this virus ever does become more severe- which is doubtful at this stage- we’d all be quarantined and wouldn’t be allowed to interact like we already do; plus we have the capability to fight the flu better than we did in 1918, so any fears of a repeat are unfounded. The only frustrating part about the outbreak is the fact that the vaccination is delayed, but it still doesn’t change the fact this virus isn’t that dangerous.

It doesn’t change the fact that I’m still owed a handshake, so Mr. Tamblyn and my teachers...I’m waiting. Unless you’re worried I’m going to turn you into Skittles.

-DG

Russian fan takes penalty kick into his own hands...or feet

I have a question, my fellow soccer/football fans: how many times have you seen your favourite team get a crucial penalty awarded to them only for the player who took the penalty to muck it up badly? On Saturday, during a game between Moscow sides Spartak and Saturn, a fan couldn't bear the thought of Spartak's Alex (he of the Brazilian national team) taking the penalty he had been awarded in that game, so the fan decided to run onto the field to take the penalty himself. The fan proceeded to run to the ball and stamp it home towards the left side of bemused Saturn goalkeeper Antonin Kinsky. The fan was joined on the field by his friend, who went to Alex and tried to hug him. I'm not sure what happened to the fans, but as for Alex, he would hit the penalty (in the exact same spot as the fan did) once he got a chance to actually take it. You can view the video here:



Was there a reason for the fan to worry about Alex's penalty-taking ability? The fan was likely drunk and wanted to be stupid (that being the sole motivation) but Alex hadn't taken a penalty in nearly two months (the last one being on July 26 against CSKA) and this being an important game (Spartak was six points behind leaders and defending champion Rubin Kazan entering the contest with mid-table Saturn) you could understand if the Spartak fans were a little antsy. Alex's conversion leveled the contest at 1, but to Alex's (and probably the fan's) chagrin, Spartak would lose the game on Marko Topic's 53rd minute goal, and- after Rubin's 0-0 draw with FK Tom' Tomsk- fell to seven points behind Rubin with eight games to go. Hey, maybe Spartak can coax the fan to come back...they may need him for the stretch run just so they can have a chance.

-DG