The Russian doping affair that became public with a report by a World Anti-Doping Agency-supported independent commission in 2016 is only the latest doping scandal to rock the world of track and field. From the wide-scale doping programs in the 1980s Soviet Union and East Germany, to Ben Johnson and the Balco scandal that snared Marion Jones, doping has a long history in the sport.Now, a proposal developed by European Athletics and submitted to track and field’s international governing body, the International Association of Athletics Federations, aims to wipe the slate clean.The proposed rules would essentially annul records set before 2005, when new anti-doping standards took effect. “It’s a radical solution for sure, but those of us who love athletics are tired of the cloud of doubt and innuendo that has hung over our records for too long,” EA President President Svein Arne Hansen said in a statement. IAAF President Sebastian Coe has also expressed support for the proposal, and the IAAF plans to consider it by the end of the year.We gathered a few runners and sports journalists to discuss the proposal, the ethical issues it raises and what track and field might do to improve the sport’s credibility. The transcript has been lightly edited.Our participants:Christie Aschwanden is a lifelong runner and lead science writer at FiveThirtyEight.Bonnie Ford is an enterprise and Olympics reporter for ESPN, where she has written extensively about doping in sports.Kara Goucher is a two-time Olympian, an American record holder, World Championships silver medalist, and one of America’s most accomplished distance runners.Alex Hutchinson is a former physicist and national-class runner who covers the science of endurance sport for Runner’s World and other publications.Christie: Let’s talk about the specifics of the proposed rules in a minute. But first, I want to ask about the intention here. According to the proposal’s text:The sad reality is that there are records on the books at the World, Area (continental) and national levels in which people in the sport, the media and the public do not have full and complete confidence.Do you agree that there are records on the books that are questionable? Solutions aside for a moment, is the EA’s characterization of the problem accurate?Kara: Yes, I’d agree that there are records that are suspect.Bonnie: True. I’d add that this could be said of any modern sport.Alex: That’s an understatement. There are records we know were drug-aided. And there are some that are suspect for other reasons, i.e., Florence Griffith-Joyner’s record was almost certainly wind-aided.Christie: It’s interesting to see track and field address the doping issue in this way. Bonnie, do you know of any other sports that have seriously considered revising their records to account for doping (or other forms of cheating)?Bonnie: There was a big debate in swimming after the introduction/impact of the “tech suits,” [special suits that increased buoyancy and decreased drag] and 43 world records went down at the 2009 Rome worlds. Suits are now far more strictly regulated, but those records were ultimately left standing. Some “tech suit” records now have been broken or are being challenged.Christie: So in track and field, is this a case where there are certain records that are widely considered suspect, or are all of them suspect?Kara: That’s a good question. I think some are considered more suspect than others, but sadly, suspicion looms over most now.Bonnie: I do NOT by any means think all the extraordinary performances in track were achieved by doping.Alex: I don’t think it’s a binary answer. There’s no record I’m 100 percent sure is clean and no record I’m 100 percent sure is dirty. But as Kara says, some are a heck of a lot more suspicious that others. If the records are reset, there will absolutely be some clean athletes who lose records.Kara: I agree with Alex, and that’s why I think the reset is dangerous.Christie: OK, so let’s get to the proposal itself, which says that world and European records can only be recognized if:the performance is achieved at competitions on a list of approved international events where the highest standards of officiating and technical equipment can be guaranteed;the athlete has been subject to an agreed-upon number of doping control tests in the months leading up to the performance; andthe doping control sample taken after the record is stored and available for retesting for 10 years.Reasonable?Kara: I like the idea of stricter testing. I like the idea of scheduled retesting. But I think this must be grandfathered in. I am opposed to erasing records set prior to 2005.Bonnie: No. 1 seems like a no-brainer. No. 3 is now WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) standard and, as Kara said, should be grandfathered. Broad philosophy-wise: I oppose scrubbing any records for a few reasons. First, it does not give athletes due process. Second, record books are a reflection of actual events, not a perfect text.Alex: I think the specific rules are fine. In a sense, I think they just wanted some change in rules as a legally defensible way of wiping the record slate clean. They say as much in their report.Christie: So Kara, you would be in favor of adopting these rules going forward but not eliminating the existing records?Kara: Yes, I could agree to that. But I’d like to see more clarification on how many tests they need and how often the will retest the stored sample. No. 2 is the hardest to implement.Bonnie: No. 2 is the tricky one. It LOOKS like a simple, easy fix to require a certain number of drug tests. But that would require a change in the WADA code and would be a nightmarish extra layer of bureaucracy.Christie: Kara, you have been a whistleblower and a vocal advocate for clean sport. Do you have a sense of how this proposal is being received among your peers?Kara: I think most people are for the proposal moving forward, but we are more concerned with what is happening in competitions right now. We are a little frustrated that it is focused on world records and not just clean competition across the board.Bonnie: The International Olympic Committee has also advanced this notion of having a required number of tests in a period before the Olympics, but the global infrastructure simply doesn’t exist to do this right now.Kara: Agree with Bonnie that it sounds good but will be nearly impossible to implement.Bonnie: And how would you account for someone who was not in a testing pool but qualifies for an Olympic or world team? It happens.Kara: It does happen.Christie: You raise an interesting issue, Kara. With these sorts of proposals I wonder how much of it is aimed at showing that the bureaucrats are doing something versus doing the most effective things they can to address the problems.Kara: Christie, that’s honestly how I feel. This is to show they care, to get good press. But what are they doing about actual everyday problems? Are they addressing competitions now?Alex: That’s an interesting point — focusing on world records is “easier” than cleaning up the sport at large.Christie: Do we know that new records are cleaner? There’s been a lot of suspicion about some recent records.Kara: We don’t know that new records are cleaner. We have seen two “unbreakable” records go down in women’s distance running in the last two years. Are those breakable?Bonnie: I view erasing sports history as just as dicey as erasing other history! If there are questionable records, letting them stand is a continual reminder that the system failed the industry, the athletes and fans, and that the system needs to be constantly monitored and improved.Kara: Yes, and the IAAF doesn’t like that.Alex: It’s maybe worth pointing out that history won’t be fully erased. Those times will still be in the books as part of IAAF history, much like Uwe Hohn’s javelin record under the old specifications. They just won’t be recognized as the current records. No one will forget, say, Marita Koch.1Koch set the world record in the 400 meters in 1985 as a member of the East German team, which was later found to have carried out a systematic doping program.Christie: Given how many of the recent doping scandals have been exposed due to whistleblowing and investigative work, not doping tests, is the reliance of these proposed rules on doping tests going to assure that new records are clean?Kara: I’d say absolutely not.Christie: Yeah, one of the problems with doping (and the fallibility of testing) is that it makes every good performance suspect. How do you balance the need to root out cheaters with the desire to recognize truly great performances?Kara: That’s the sad part of all of this. It makes all great performances be taken with a grain of salt.Bonnie: I can’t stress this enough: You can’t ever be completely sure.Kara: Agree — you can never be 100 percent sure either way.Christie: Right, you can’t prove you’re clean. Remember when Lance Armstrong talked about how many tests he’d passed? And that Nike ad where he said, “What am I on? I’m on my bike, bustin’ my ass, six hours a day.” It really comes down to trust. How does the sport win that back?Kara: Well, that’s the frustrating part. Lance never failed a test (although that is now disputable), so what does that prove? Nothing. Trust will only be won when the IAAF isn’t afraid to nail big names.Christie: Good point. The Armstrong case shows just how vested a sport and all its stakeholders can be in the sport’s stars.Bonnie: So what truly is the point of putting some world records back “within reach”? It does not eliminate the mistrust factor, so is it to benefit athletes who would get bonuses, or sponsors who would promote those athletes? Kara — you would know more about this; are there big incentives for world records written into contracts, or has that faded from fashion?Kara: No, there are still big incentives.Christie: So one question is whether the focus on records actually has a negative effect here, by incentivizing unbelievable performances.Kara: I think that people want records; they think that makes the sport more popular and interesting. But the competition can be sold in a way that is interesting. We don’t need world records for people to watch.Alex: So to me, it feels a little extra unfair for once-in-a-generation athletes who spend their careers being compared to ridiculous records. But then again, I thought that about the women’s 10,000 record too, which, as someone mentioned above, went down last year.Bonnie: I know track is a point-A-to-point-B sport, but shouldn’t the work and results be its own reward? (Easy for me to say, I know.) For example, there are mountains in the Tour de France that will likely never be climbed as fast as they were a while ago, but there’s still a winner and a best athlete on the day.Kara: I like Bonnie’s point. We need better marketing and selling of stories and personalities.Alex: There’s always a tension in the sport between those who think it should be all about head-to-head competition and those who think it’s about the clock or measuring tape. I think both are important and exciting, but I definitely think the ability to compare current stars to “all time” is one of the sport’s attractions. So records do have some meaning, even given the haziness surrounding some of them. To me, that’s one argument for trying to make at least some sort of attempt at keeping the records “real.”Bonnie: Alex is right in that there is a thrill, even in the press box, of being present to see a world record broken.Alex: I’m actually kind of ambivalent about the proposal.But given that Kara and Bonnie seem to be skeptical, I’ll try to articulate a bit some of the pros … 🙂Bonnie: Alex, I am interested in the pros, because I’m totally down on this proposal. I see it as a mixture of shell game and ill-conceived PR.Kara: Alex, I hear what you are saying, but you liked the sub-two-hour marathon attempt, right? It was interesting. It was captivating. But at the end of the day, it wouldn’t have been a real record.Alex: Yeah, that turned out to be way more exciting than I expected — but to me, that sort of argues that the pursuit of never-been-done times does have an attraction.Christie: As a fan, I prefer to watch a race like the 1500, where tactics come into play, over a race where everything spreads out and one runner dominates.Bonnie: Same with the marathon, Christie. I like seeing how athletes interact in real (and imperfect) conditions.Kara: There is a place for records and fast running, but there is still just as much thrill in head-to-head competition on the track or on the field. We’ve gotten away from that.Alex: It seems we’re sort of arguing here that world records aren’t that important. But if so, why the angst about resetting them?Kara: Well, they are important. But a world record is a world record, and it should be hard and it should be rare and it shouldn’t be taken away because we don’t like that they haven’t been broken in a long time.Alex: To me, you scan down the list of current records, and the message it sends is a white flag of surrender — like we’ve given up even pretending that the records are supposed to be undoped. Marita Koch’s doping regimen was released after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and there are other records that aren’t much more credible than hers.Bonnie: There are outlier cases like Koch’s where there is specific evidence out there, but that doesn’t exist for many/most old world records. My angst is from the athletes’ rights perspective.Kara: Imagine you are Mike Powell and you had a magical day and now you are told that your record doesn’t matter because no one has broken it. That’s insane! World records should be rare — they are magical moments when people achieve a new level of human greatness.Alex: Maybe it’s a messaging problem. The proposal clearly states that they’re not implying guilt or “taking away” records. They’re just starting a new list as of 2005. Just like the javelin, which changed technical specs in the 1980s. Instead of talking about “erasing” world records, maybe we should talk about starting a new list of post-2005 records, which will be listed alongside the pre-2005 records in the books.Just like, since turning 40, I get to keep track of my new “masters” PRs …Bonnie: I hear you, Alex. But what I don’t like is the implication that anti-doping now is foolproof. What happens when the “new” records get upended after retesting? Even more of a credibility issue, IMO.Alex: I guess I don’t take the implication that anti-doping is foolproof. No one could possibly believe that. They’re not trying to be perfect, they’re trying to be better.Kara: And yes, I think that is a huge part of it. We are seeing people beat some of these records now that were thought to be unbreakable. So now we are just supposed to believe it because of stored samples?Bonnie: Christie said that for this discussion, we should pretend we’re at a bar. I feel like I’m a couple drinks in.Christie: Ha 🍸Alex: 🙂Christie: So what would you all think of adopting these new rules, but only henceforth? So the old records stay, but new ones have to meet the new criteria. Then you have a line in the sand where records before/after either did or didn’t meet these criteria. (For whatever the criteria are worth.)Kara: I’m fine with requiring more testing. Athletes should always want more testing. But it should not erase what has happened in the past.Alex: Yeah, people like Powell, Paula Radcliffe — I totally understand why they’d be opposed. And maybe that’s sufficient reason not to do it. But then again, maybe there are broader sport-wide benefits that outweigh their needs. (And of course, me naming those two names carries a lot of implicit judgment that is totally fallible!)Christie: Alex, to me this is one of the most insidious things about doping — the atmosphere of suspicion that it creates. It’s totally unfair to clean athletes, but every athlete insists that s/he’s clean! I wrote a story about doping in advance of the 2012 Olympics and while interviewing an athlete who’d started a foundation to promote clean sport, all I could think of was, this is great PR.Kara: Christie, I don’t blame you. And that’s sad! But that’s the world we are in now. To be honest, I am the most skeptical person. I hardly believe anything I see. But I feel so strongly that it is wrong to put an asterisk next to records before 2005.Alex: Kara, you’ve now got a World Championship silver — surely that’s the kind of past that deserves updating! 🙂Kara: But that’s the frustrating thing. I don’t have a WC silver. I have never heard from the IAAF or USA Track & Field [the governing body for the sport in the U.S.]. I still have my bronze. How about they help athletes who have been cheated? Focus on that instead of a big PR move about world records.Alex: Ha, well that’s a fair point.Christie: Kara, I will throw you a huge party and ceremony when they finally deliver that medal! (Hopefully I’ll still be young enough to stand up and clap.)Kara: Haha, I’d love that! I hope that it can be something special I can share with my son and not just mailed to me 10 years after the fact.Christie: OK, let’s start to wrap up. If you were put in charge of the IAAF, what would you do to address these issues and improve the sport’s integrity?Bonnie: 1) Get their own house in order. 2) Show leadership in quality and geographic reach/fairness of testing. 3) Show leadership in quality of service to athletes denied medals by doping. 4) Serious consequences for nations/federations with multiple violations (standard TBD) of organized doping.Kara: All of Bonnie’s points are spot on. How can we trust anything until WADA and IAAF get their act together?Alex: I wish I had a useful answer. Stop accepting bribes?Kara: Yes, that would be a start!Bonnie: I just downed another fictional drink! O-pa!Kara: 😂Alex: Seriously, I don’t have any magical solutions. They should start by doing all the stuff that people like me assumed they were doing all along, until the scandals really started breaking the last few years. As for world records, it doesn’t really bother me one way or the other. I’m not sure I see enough positives from resetting the records to be worth the hassle and ill will it creates. But if they do it, I won’t be too upset either. As long as they don’t touch my City of Toronto Grade 9 1500 record (which was actually scrubbed from the books when they changed the age categories, now that I think about it).Kara: Sounds like a good record!Alex: And now no one can break it. 🙂Christie: 🏆 for you, Alex. I held my high school 1600-meter record for 22 years. For most of those years, I thought the event was the mile, but then I found out that 1600m is just short of a full mile! Not only that, the official record was 3 seconds slower than I remembered it. (The older I get, the faster I was …)Bonnie: I have no records, other than “time spent procrastinating while writing.”Kara: Well, I’m sure that record is clean, Bonnie.Bonnie: Fortunately, chocolate and Diet Coke are not on the banned list.Christie: This has been really fun. Final thoughts?Kara: I do think that athletes should be demanding more change. The more people are outspoken and join forces, the more likely people in charge will be to listen. Look at how amazing the response was for Lily King in Rio. We need more of that.Bonnie: Athletes have more power than they know. I truly think they are the only ones who can force/shape a more rational, honest system.Alex: I agree with Kara that athletes have an important role to play in demanding change. But as Kara and others know, that’s a very, very hard role to play while also trying to compete at an elite level.Kara: People in charge don’t like “whistleblowers.” They are a problem. Do you think the IAAF is reaching out to them and asking what they know? They are not.Bonnie: There’s some interesting research ongoing now about how athletes themselves can probably exert the most pressure on each other, but that is hard for any human in any field.Kara: Competing while being outspoken has been impossible at times. But the more people that do it, the easier it becomes.Bonnie: But if we look at some of the really seminal labor events in sports — the women’s tennis tour, for example — active athletes can have such a huge impact. And anti-doping is part of working conditions, when you come right down to it.Christie: That feels like a nice note to end on. Thanks everyone!Alex: Thanks, all!Kara: Thanks for respectful dialogue!!Bonnie: Thank you! Fun and informative.
In a sudden, potentially league-altering deal, Mike Garafolo reported late Tuesday that the New York Giants have agreed to trade their enigmatic star receiver, Odell Beckham Jr., to the Cleveland Browns. In return, New York will receive safety Jabrill Peppers and the 17th and 95th picks in the 2019 draft. Beckham will be reunited with his former LSU teammate Jarvis Landry in Cleveland, and the pair will give Baker Mayfield, the team’s No. 1 overall pick in 2018, a lethal receiving tandem to work with in his second year in Cleveland and his first full season as the Browns’ starter.The trade definitively signals that the Browns — just a year removed from a winless season in 2017 — are legitimate contenders for a playoff berth, if not a Super Bowl appearance. (Yes, we just used the words “Super Bowl” and “Browns” in the same sentence without a hint of irony.) The Giants — seemingly rudderless under the stewardship of GM Dave Gettleman — appear committed to a complete top-to-bottom rebuild.Unfortunately for the Giants, it is difficult to rebuild when you trade away your single best asset for less than what he is worth. According to Eric Eager at Pro Football Focus, the package of picks and Peppers that the Giants received in exchange for Beckham is worth approximately 1.85 wins above replacement over the next four years. That would be a solid haul for most players, but Beckham was worth 1.95 WAR in 2018 alone.Draft pick value is heavily influenced by whether a team selects a QB, and the 17th pick would be worth substantially more on paper if the Giants were to select an heir apparent to Eli Manning — a decision that’s largely viewed as a no-brainer to everyone outside the confines of East Rutherford, New Jersey.1Quarterbacks disproportionately account for the historical value of first-round picks. The value of the 17th pick falls from 1.6 WAR all the way to 0.75 WAR if any position other than quarterback is taken. And that’s much more likely as New York already holds the sixth overall pick, so if the Giants do decide to select a quarterback in the draft, they’ll almost certainly take one there. Peppers, a former first-round pick and high school standout from nearby northern New Jersey, was worth 0.62 WAR a year ago — and has a cumulative career WAR of 0.53 when you include his negative WAR rookie season.Again, compared with Beckham, who has averaged roughly 2 WAR per healthy year in the NFL — including a 2018 season with a zombie Eli throwing to him — there is little doubt that New York is getting the worst of this deal. By almost any measure of production — and at just 26 years young — Beckham has had one of the best starts to his career of any receiver ever. Few receivers have started with as much of a bang as OBJOdell Beckham Jr.’s early-career ranks, relative to wide receivers since the 1970 AFL-NFL merger, in various per-game receiving statistics Catches3rd2nd Adjusted Catch Yds*3rd1st Receiving yds4th2nd Receiving touchdowns5th4th Approximate Value16th13th That production should have a profound impact on the Browns’ performance in 2019. The Browns are embracing the offseason with a sense of confidence that’s been largely missing for three ugly decades. Under Mayfield and interim coach Gregg Williams, the team won five of its final seven games, and it’s possible that the Browns now smell blood in the AFC North water as the deal came days after Pittsburgh Steelers star wideout Antonio Brown forced his way out of town and out of the division (with teammate Le’Veon Bell reportedly right behind him).Beckham’s arrival in Cleveland has vaulted the Browns odds from 25-1 to 14-1 to win the Super Bowl, an increase of 2.8 percentage points of implied probability. These relatively short odds put the Browns ahead of the Bears, Colts, Chargers, Texans, Ravens, Seahawks and Eagles — otherwise known as the entire wild-card round of the most recent NFL playoffs.Meanwhile, the Giants fell from 40-1 to 80-1 odds, leaving them with an implied 1.2 percent chance of hoisting a Lombardi trophy this season. New York has won only eight games in two seasons and has gaping holes on both sides of the field. Peppers will fill one left by Pro Bowl safety Landon Collins, who reportedly will sign a six-year deal with Washington on Wednesday. A year ago, the Giants passed on numerous quarterback prospects to select running back Saquon Barkley, who will become the new face of the franchise — probably one who will feud less with management, shed fewer sideline tears and pick fewer fights with kicking practice nets. The reigning rookie of the year, though, is now left with little talent to help shoulder the load in his sophomore campaign.The man selected before Barkley, Baker Mayfield, has no such problems. Mayfield set a rookie QB record with 27 passing touchdowns without Beckham, and it’s difficult to imagine him not building on his breakout season throwing to Odell, Landry and promising young tight end David Njoku in 2019. Throw in second-year back Nick Chubb — who averaged 5.2 yards per rush in his rookie season — and it’s easy to see why Vegas is bullish on the Browns. Perhaps the biggest question facing Cleveland is if Freddie Kitchens, in his first full year as a head coach in the NFL, can help the Browns navigate such suddenly high expectations. GM John Dorsey has left him with scarcely any excuse for underperformance, and he may not be done. The Browns — winners of one of the wildest free agency periods in memory — could just be getting started.Neil Paine contributed research. Post-merger Rank, Through a receiver’s… Minimum 750 receiving yards per season.*Adjusted Catch Yards adjusts basic receiving yards by giving a 5-yard bonus for receptions and a 20-yard bonus for receiving touchdowns.Source: Pro-Football-Reference.com Category per gameFirst 3 yrsFirst 5 yrs read more
With arguably the biggest game of the year on the horizon, the Ohio State football team has a rivalry game to play Saturday.Sort of.Junior wide receiver Corey Smith (84), redshirt-sophomore wide receiver Michael Thomas (3) and sophomore H-back Dontre Wilson (2) perform a warmup drill prior to a game against Penn State on Oct. 25 in State College, Pa. OSU won, 31-24, in double-overtime.Credit: Mark Batke / Photo editorWhile the Buckeyes and the Illinois Fighting Illini play for the Illibuck trophy, no one in the OSU program seems to care about the 89-year-old tradition as OSU coach Urban Meyer didn’t once mention the wooden turtle during the week.Instead, Meyer is much more worried about the product the Fighting Illini will put on the field Saturday night.“Illinois is much better (than last season),” Meyer said. “I know they lost their quarterback, but they’re playing much better. I just spent all morning watching their defense, and they’re much better than a year ago on defense.”The Fighting Illini have started senior quarterback Reilly O’Toole the last two games in place of injured starter, Oklahoma State transfer redshirt-sophomore Wes Lunt who is out because of an injury.O’Toole poses more of a running threat for the Fighting Illini, as he has rushed for 88 yards in his last two games, compared to Lunt’s -61 yards on the ground in five games.When Lunt was at the helm for Illinois, however, Illinois was a pass-dominant team as Lunt was averaging 313.8 passing yards per game before his injury.OSU cornerbacks coach and special teams coordinator Kerry Coombs said Monday that the Buckeye defense must now be alert for a more balanced attack.“They’re running the ball more, obviously,” Coombs said. “This kid (O’Toole) is a dynamic runner, but you can’t not cover guys, and they still have the passing game and the same attack that they’ve had in the past, so they’re going to get guys down the field.”Junior defensive lineman Adolphus Washington said Wednesday that the defensive line will have to first slow down O’Toole in order to shut down the Fighting Illini offense.“That quarterback (O’Toole) is a lot more of a runner than the starter was from what I have heard,” Washington said. “We just got to contain him. I heard that he can run and throw the ball a little bit so just got to try and contain him and keep him in the pocket.”Staying in the pocket might also be the key for the quarterback on the opposite sideline.OSU redshirt-freshman quarterback J.T. Barrett enters Saturday’s game with a sprained left MCL, Meyer confirmed this week.The injury is similar to the one sustained by then-junior quarterback Braxton Miller last season that caused Miller to miss two full games and the majority of a game against San Diego State.Despite the injury, Meyer said he expects Barrett to play and improve on the things Meyer told his young quarterback to work on during the week.“Proper reads and throwing with authority. He didn’t play great (against Penn State). He played with a lot of heart, but didn’t play with a lot of…smarts,” Meyer said Wednesday.Junior offensive lineman Taylor Decker added Wednesday that he believes Barrett will be ready to go come game time. “I think he has been fine. Obviously he is trying to be careful with his knee, you don’t want to tweak it anymore,” Decker said. “Hope to have him as healthy as possible coming back for the game, but he has looked fine to me.”Barrett, who tore his right ACL as a senior in high school, said he played through the pain against Penn State, but is confident the team could continue to operate without him at the helm.“I’ve actually really never played with an injury to this degree,” he said Wednesday. “But I knew that I could take a drop, I could run, so it was just one of those things like, ‘Hey man, if you play, you play.’ It’s not like going in there half stepping, because if so, the team could use a (redshirt-sophomore quarterback) Cardale Jones that could go full-go.”Protecting Barrett will likely be a main focus for the OSU offensive line, something Decker said won’t necessarily be an easy task. “Watching their film, I was very impressed with the athletes they have,” Decker said. “They got good players all over the place. It’s definitely going to be a good challenge for us.”Two of those athletes include junior linebacker Mason Monheim and senior defensive back Zane Petty who both rank in the top-eight in the Big Ten in tackles. Petty recorded a career-high 15 tackles last season against the Buckeyes in a 60-35 loss. Another Illinois defensive back earned attention from Meyer this week as the Buckeye coach singled out junior V’Angelo Bentley during his meeting with the media Wednesday. “This returner (Bentley) put it to us last year,” Meyer said. “The issue is not talent at Illinois. They have guys who can play and you can see that on videotape.”Bentley, a Cleveland, Ohio, native and Glenville High School graduate, took an OSU punt back 67 yards for a score against the Buckeyes in last season’s matchup. Illinois is scheduled to come into Ohio Stadium for the third night game of the year for the Buckeyes, led by a former Buckeye assistant. Tim Beckman, a Berea, Ohio, native, coached under former OSU coach Jim Tressel starting in 2005 as the cornerbacks coach before leaving for the defensive coordinator job at Oklahoma State. Prior to his stint in Columbus, Beckman spent two years as Meyer’s defensive coordinator when Meyer was the coach at Bowling Green. Saturday will mark the third time Beckman has led a team into Ohio Stadium as a head coach, the second as the head man of Illinois. Beckman nearly pulled off the upset in 2011 as the head coach of Toledo before falling just short, 27-22, to the Buckeyes. Despite having been on different sidelines for more than a decade, Meyer said he still has a good relationship with the Illinois head coach. “He’s a colleague and a good friend, so it’s more conversations about our families,” Meyer said. “Certainly we don’t talk football because we’re in the same league, but (I have) a lot of respect for Tim. You watch his team, they’re getting better. Now it’s just a matter of how much better can they get, because I think their players are well-coached.”Meyer and the Buckeyes are scheduled to take on Beckman and the Fighting Illini Saturday at Ohio Stadium. Kickoff is set for 8 p.m. read more
July 29, 2018 00:00 00:00 spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster ↑↓volume mmute ←→seek . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60% XColor SettingsAaAaAaAaTextBackgroundOpacity SettingsTextOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundSemi-TransparentOpaqueTransparentFont SettingsSize||TypeSerif MonospaceSerifSans Serif MonospaceSans SerifCasualCursiveSmallCapsResetSave SettingsKUSI’s John Soderman was live at the Honor Flight San Diego Fundraiser where many World War II Veterans who were never officially thanked are raising money to support sending veterans to Washington, D.C. to visit the memorials built for their service and sacrifice. Honor Flight celebrates World War II vets who were never officially thanked John Soderman, John Soderman Categories: Local San Diego News FacebookTwitter Posted: July 29, 2018 read more
2019 TV shows you can’t miss Share your voice Tags Review • Kobo Glo: A worthy Kindle alternative Kobo Glo 0 50 Photos Kimmy Gatewood (top) and Rebekka Johnson in GLOW. Ali Goldstein/Netflix You could say Kimmy Gatewood has been blessed with Hollywood fairy tale magic. It wasn’t until later in life, the actor scored her big break — a role in Netflix’s female wrestling series GLOW, based on the real-life ’80s female wrestlers who came from acting, modelling and dancing backgrounds, to perform Backbreakers, Brainbusters and Chokeslams in lycra on TV.But stripping back the bold makeup and fancy costumes, Gatewood went through the Hollywood grind like anyone else. In that respect, she and her character on the show, hairdresser Stacey Beswick, have a lot in common.Kimmy Gatewood. Amanda Ramon Like Beswick, aka one half of wrestling duo The Beatdown Biddies (two old women whose walking frames provide an advantage in the ring), Gatewood found herself working in Las Vegas, the setting for GLOW’s third season currently out on Netflix.Once upon a time Gatewood drove into Sin City as one third of The Apple Sisters, an improv comedy trio. Unable to afford plane tickets, Gatewood would spend an hour every night on the road, coming to and from gigs. Company came in the form of best friend and fellow Apple Sister Rebekka Johnson. For years Gatewood and Johnson spent hours and hours driving the same road, together.”I’m really excited for when we’re 80, 90 years old, eating cheese cake like the Golden Girls,” Gatewood says.Now, when Gatewood hops into her car, she finds her own face — and beefed-up ’80s hair — beaming back at her from a billboard advertising GLOW. She also sees her best friend Johnson, because show creator Jenji Kohan — the groundbreaking writer and producer of Netflix’s female-led dramatic comedy Orange is The New Black — hired the two as a pair. Or, you might say, a tag team.”We did grinding, pounding the pavement for many years together and remained passionate about comedy, about art the whole time,” Gatewood says. “To be able to share the success together has made it so much sweeter.”The cast of GLOW. Ali Goldstein/Netflix In many ways, Gatewood embodies the spirit of GLOW. Most of the characters are aspiring actresses who take jobs on a brand-new experimental show called Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling. The pay is low, TV executives could pull the plug at any moment and barely anyone involved actually knows how to wrestle.In GLOW’s third season, the now experienced wrestlers relocate from their dingy training center in Los Angeles to an air-conditioned palace in the City of Lights. Instead of shooting a TV show, they perform live shows on stage every night.”It almost feels like every character this season went through some existential crisis. You’re doing the same show over and over and over again … you start to question yourself,” Gatewood says.The cast of GLOW became a team on and off screen. Ali Goldstein/Netflix Vegas was hard but it allowed Gatewood to hone her performing skills. It was also where she discovered the healing effect of fellow creatives in the same boat. Before GLOW, the car journeys to Vegas passed all the more quickly with Johnson’s company. On the set of GLOW, the 15-strong cast of women form a collaborative, comfortable and supportive team.”Within an hour of meeting each other, we were rolling around on the ground and holding each other and shoving our heads in each other’s armpits,” Gatewood says. “We were told we have to keep each other safe and not drop someone. It was amazing the trust we all had.”We also sang a lot of songs randomly,” she adds.The cast, including Alison Brie and Betty Gilpin, do a Secret Santa every year — a tradition Gatewood says the writers finally incorporated into the show. Outside gift giving, the cast band together to see each other’s films, plays or gigs. Their Instagrams scrapbook it all.A new face in those frames is Geena Davis, who plays Sandy Devereaux St. Clair, the Vegas hotel’s entertainment director. “For her to want to be on our show really elevated everyone’s game,” Gatewood says. “She’s a living legend.”Geena Davis. Ali Goldstein/Netflix Gatewood offers a Davis tidbit that needs to go on the show’s Imdb trivia page. “In episode 9, that was 100% [Davis’] idea was to get into a showgirl costume,” Gatewood says. “You never see women of a certain age singing in a skimpy outfit, doing something sexualized. It was her idea that she brought to the table and the creators were like heck yes, we’ll put you Geena Davis in a sparkly showgirl outfit.”Davis’ famous role in 1991’s female buddy road film Thelma & Louise springs to mind when looking at Gatewood and Johnson’s own journey. A two-decade long journey as friends and collaborators through the entertainment industry, which saw Gatewood nab directing gigs including an episode of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend for show creator and star Rachel Bloom, who Gatewood has since directed music videos for.Along with acting and motherhood, Gatewood’s got a busy schedule ahead. She’s directing an episode of The Baby-Sitters Club for Netflix, her short comedy called Consent is hitting select theaters, and come October she’s launching a podcast called Mother of all Shows (which takes an anthropological look at motherhood).But everything could so easily have fallen apart.Before GLOW, Gatewood reached a point where she was ready to quit acting and take on a job executive producing a podcast network. Then she saw an email with “Jenji Kohan” in the subject line and then she saw that she could audition with her best friend.”It was a crazy moment. I was going to get on a plane and accept a job doing not acting … If I could go back and tell myself, all those years grinding it out, ‘Just go for it,’ maybe it would have been a different experience.”Gatewood, who actually watched the Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling when it was on TV in the ’80s, is more than happy to have one “awesome” job in her lifetime, especially one with a diverse, collaborative female ensemble.”When you see a billboard with your face on it, you’re like, ‘I did it.'” Post a comment TV and Movies read more
The developers and the authorities, that look after the whole affair including construction activities and delivery of projects, have decided to address the issue of most of the projects whose possessions have been scheduled after December, 2015. Notably, delivery of nearly five lakh flats of over 250 projects are round the corner but the realty sector has been facing the apathy of investors and buyers due to delays in project delivery, oversupply and lack of infrastructure. Also Read – Company director arrested for swindling Rs 345 croreAs per the report, all three authorities — NOIDA, Greater NOIDA and YEIDA have asked the builders to ensure possession of flats to the buyers within one or two years. They have also been asked to ‘decode recession’ by finding out reasons, fixing responsibilities and getting solutions to the ongoing crisis that has led to the decline of property rates up to 15