Roman Abramovich has not made contact with Frank Lampard ahead of FA Cup final vs Arsenal

first_imgLampard hopes to win his first piece of silverware as Chelsea manager (Picture: Chelsea FC via Getty)‘I feel the support from the owner. I have felt it from the moment I have taken the job and felt it for many years as a player. I am happy if I can try and make him happy.‘I think last Sunday was a step forward and I want to continue making those steps.‘I have a very close relationship with Marina and with [technical advisor] Petr [Cech]. That relationship has been really good and that feels like a real strength for me, that I can speak to them regularly and we are joined up about how the club is moving forward.More: Arsenal FCArsenal flop Denis Suarez delivers verdict on Thomas Partey and Lucas Torreira movesThomas Partey debut? Ian Wright picks his Arsenal starting XI vs Manchester CityArsene Wenger explains why Mikel Arteta is ‘lucky’ to be managing Arsenal‘At the end of the day, all of that will come through the owner. It is his club, his prerogative and we work towards the aims and standards of this club. I am a big boy, I am in this job, I know that there are demands.‘I will always be obviously very welcome to take any call or have any meeting. Because this is my life and I am obsessed by how we can get to where we want to be.‘I do not need those calls, but will be there if they are there to be had.’Who will win the FA Cup final?Arsenal0%Chelsea0%Share your resultsShare your resultsTweet your resultsFollow Metro Sport across our social channels, on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.For more stories like this, check our sport page. Advertisement Advertisement Roman Abramovich has not made contact with Frank Lampard ahead of FA Cup final vs Arsenal Comment Metro Sport ReporterFriday 31 Jul 2020 11:36 pmShare this article via facebookShare this article via twitterShare this article via messengerShare this with Share this article via emailShare this article via flipboardCopy link917Shares Abramovich has not been in touch with Lampard (Picture: Chelsea FC Via Getty)Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich has not been in touch with Frank Lampard ahead of Saturday’s FA Cup final with Arsenal, the Blues manager has revealed. Lampard delivered Chelsea a top-four finish in his first season in charge after beating Wolves on Sunday but admitted Abramovich had not made contact since. However, the Chelsea legend insists he does not calls from the Russian owner in order to do his job and he maintains a close relationship with director Marina Granovskaia.‘We have not been in touch,’ Lampard said in his pre-match press conference. ‘There is nothing in that. My job is to work as well as I can do.AdvertisementAdvertisementADVERTISEMENT‘After the Wolves result and coming in the top four, which was something we aimed for and achieved, I do not need a phone call or a message or recognition like that.‘My job when we came fourth was to think about how we come higher than fourth next year and close the gap. And it will be similar whatever the result against Arsenal, whether we win or lose.last_img read more

Read More »

Union ruling comes at bad time for NCAA

first_imgIn this Sept. 21, 2013 file photo, Georgia Tech quarterback Vad Lee (2), wears APU for “All Players United” on his wrist tape, as he works against North Carolina during an NCAA football game in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart, File)They’re battling in courtrooms, and could one day meet over a bargaining table. About the only things the two sides in the debate over big-time college athletics agree on is that things are changing.Schools bringing in hundreds of millions in television contracts. Coaches making kind of salaries that the late UCLA legend John Wooden wouldn’t recognize. Athletes insisting on rights, if not outright cash.And now a union for football players at Northwestern that would previously have been unthinkable in college sports.A ruling that the Northwestern football team can bargain with the school as employees represented by a union may not by itself change the way amateur sports operate. But it figures to put more pressure on the NCAA and the major conferences to give something back to the players to justify the billions of dollars the players bring in — and never see.“While improvements need to be made, we do not need to completely throw away a system that has helped literally millions of students over the past decade alone attend college,” The NCAA said in a statement.There’s huge money at stake — nearly $18 billion alone just in television rights for the NCAA basketball tournament and bowl games. Already fighting a flurry of antitrust lawsuits challenging its control of college athletics, the NCAA can’t afford too many more defeats.“This is a colossal victory for student athletes coming on the heels of their recent victories,” said Marc Edelman, an associate professor of law at City University of New York who specializes in sports and antitrust law. “It seems not only the tide of public sentiment but also the tide of legal rulings has finally turned in the direction of college athletes and against the NCAA.”For the NCAA, the timing of a National Labor Relations Board opinion allowing a union at Northwestern couldn’t have been worse. In the middle of a tournament that earns schools close to $1 billion a year, it is being taken to task not only for not paying players, but for not ensuring their health and future welfare.Add in revelations like Florida coach Billy Donovan’s new $3.7 million-a-year contract and the $18,000 bonus that Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith got for one of the school’s wrestlers winning an NCAA title, and some are frustrated with the NCAA’s contention that everything it does is done for the benefit of athletes who play for the glory of their school.“Fifty years ago the NCAA invented the term student-athlete to try and make sure this day never came,” said former UCLA linebacker Ramogi Huma, the designated president of Northwestern’s would-be football players’ union. “Northwestern players who stood up for their rights took a giant step for justice. It’s going to set a precedent for college players across the nation to do the same.”The players currently at Northwestern may have already graduated by the time the team gets a chance to bargain — if it ever does.According to federal law, Northwestern football players have 30 days from Wednesday’s decision to vote on whether to authorize the College Athletes Players Association, or CAPA, to represent them. But Northwestern is expected to appeal the landmark ruling to the National Labor Relations Board by an April 9 deadline, potentially stalling the union vote. The NCAA is also likely to continue to fight the description of college athletes as employees.“We frequently hear from student-athletes, across all sports, that they participate to enhance their overall college experience and for the love of their sport, not to be paid,” the NCAA said in a statement.Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter speaks during a news conference in Chicago, Tuesday, Jan., 28, 2014. (AP Photo/Paul Beaty)It was that love of the sport that drew outgoing Wildcats quarterback Kain Colter — as well as a scholarship worth up to about $75,000 annually. But Colter, backed by lawyers with the United Steelworkers union, began the union push after growing disenchanted with the time demands placed on him in football that forced him to drop his plans to go to medical school.Colter also worried about the long-term health risks of football long after players have left school. Players have said they want more research into concussions and other traumatic injuries and insurance and guarantees that they will be covered for medical issues later in life. They also want money for continuing education and for schools to offer four-year scholarship deals instead of year-to-year pacts.“If we are making sacrifices like we are, we should have these basic protections taken care of,” Colter told ESPN. “With the sacrifices we make athletically, medically and with our bodies, we need to be taken care of.”One day that could mean money, over and above the $2,000 extra annual stipend that NCAA president Mark Emmert proposed but failed to get implemented over the objections of small-budget schools. There’s plenty to go around, with a $10.6 billion contract for television rights to the NCAA basketball tournament and a recent $7.2 billion deal for football bowl games.The NLRB ruling described how the life of a Northwestern football player is far more regimented than that of a typical student, down to requirements about what they can eat and whether they can live off campus or purchase a car. At times, players put 50 or 60 hours a week into football, the ruling said, qualifying them to be treated as employees of the university and eligible for a union.By itself, the ruling could be little more than an irritant to private universities and the NCAA. But combined with the antitrust lawsuits — one filed just last week by a prominent attorney called the organization an “unlawful cartel” — they present a clear challenge to the unique way college sports operates.The model of coaches and administrators making millions while the athletes providing the labor are paid in room and board and books is one that could be difficult to defend in court.One of those suits, filed by former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, is scheduled for trial June 9 in California and is being carefully watched by those on both sides of the issue. O’Bannon, who led his team to the national championship in 1995, sued after seeing his likeness in a video game licensed by the NCAA without his permission.“It’s never been about monetary gain,” O’Bannon told The Associated Press earlier this week. “It’s all about changing the rules and making sure the players, both present and former, are represented as well.”last_img read more

Read More »

LOS ANGELES STAKES QUOTES – MONDAY MAY 25, 2015

first_imgNOTES: The winning owners are Edward Brown, Alan Klein and Phil Lebherz. JOCKEY QUOTES -30- TRAINER QUOTES MIKE SMITH, SAN ONOFRE, SECOND: “Distinctiv Passion was hard to catch today. He has unbelievable speed and it’s hard to catch him coming from behind. My horse finished up real well, though. I wish we were going six and a half today.” EDWIN MALDONADO, DISTINCTIV PASSION, WINNER: “This time he put his ears forward as soon as we left the gate and I didn’t move on him; he relaxed beautifully today.“I knew I had enough to win today. I was just waiting to push the button, waiting on San Onofre. I knew it was going to be a two-horse race.“That trip to Dubai, he was fine. He was fine the whole time but that grass was too long and wet and he couldn’t get a grip off of it. He came back good after the race and during the race he was good.”             JEFF BONDE, DISTINCTIV PASSION, WINNER: Asked if he was surprised he had little pressure up front early: “I know my horse is quicker than anybody I’ve ever had. I’ve never seen anybody that could go with him early. Everybody who ever has, paid the price. I figured they were thinking they’d try to catch him late.“The Dubai race (on turf) was a totally wasted race. If you look at all the American horses over there that ran on the turf, they did miserably. On the main track, they did fine. The grass lies over five inches, and we’re staying at this hotel that looks right down on the track and they’re watering it every night. Even though you’re in a desert, it’s a bog.“I’m sure you’ll see the horse next in the Bing Crosby (at Del Mar).”last_img read more

Read More »

Can “ag-gag” prevent secretly filming at livestock facilities?

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Ellen Essman, Sr. Research Associate, Ohio State University Agricultural & Resource Law ProgramNationwide, it seems as though “ag-gag” laws are being challenged and overturned left and right. “Ag-gag” is the term for laws that prevent undercover journalists, investigators, animal rights advocates, and other whistleblowers from secretly filming or recording at livestock facilities. “Ag-gag” also describes laws which make it illegal for undercover persons to use deception to obtain employment at livestock facilities. Many times, the laws were actually passed in response to under-cover investigations which illuminated conditions for animals raised at large industrial farms. Some of the videos and reports produced were questionable in nature — they either set-up the employees and the farms, or they were released without a broader context of farm operations. The laws were meant to protect the livestock industry from reporting that might be critical of their operations — obtained through deception and without context, or otherwise.Here in Ohio, we do not have an ag-gag law; instead we have the Ohio Livestock Care Standards, which are rules for the care of livestock in the state. The rules are made by the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, which is made up of farmers, food safety experts, farmers’ organizations, veterinarians, the dean of the agriculture department from an Ohio college or university, consumers, and county humane society representatives. There are standards for the care of different species of livestock, as well as standards for euthanizing livestock, feeding and watering livestock, transporting livestock, etc. Violating the standards could lead to civil penalties. Part of the thinking behind the Livestock Care Standards was that by bringing together farmers, veterinarians, and animal welfare representatives, among others, all sides would be represented, and therefore ag-gag laws and deceptive reporting could be avoided. The laws regarding the Ohio Livestock Care Standards can be found here, and the regulations here. Kansas law challengedOn December 4, 2018, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), along with other animal and food safety organizations, filed a complaint against the state of Kansas, arguing that the state’s ag-gag law is unconstitutional on freedom of speech grounds.Kansas’ ag-gag law can be found in the Kansas Statutes, sections 47-1826, 47-1827, 47-1828 and 21-6604. The law, among other things, makes it illegal, “without the effective consent of the owner,” to “enter an animal facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera or by any other means” with the “intent to damage the animal facility.” The law also makes it illegal for someone to conceal themselves in order to record conditions or to damage the facility. “Effective consent” cannot be obtained by “force, fraud, deception, duress, or threat,” meaning it is not permissible for an undercover whistleblower to apply for a job at an animal facility and work at the facility if they really intend to record and disseminate the conditions.ALDF and their fellow plaintiffs argue that the Kansas ag-gag law violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. The plaintiffs argue that purpose of the Kansas law is to suppress certain kinds of political speech, namely the speech of animal rights activists and food safety organizations “because of their viewpoint and the content of their messages.” The plaintiffs assert that “[t]he law ensures only [the livestock] industry’s side of the debate” is heard. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that the Kansas law is overbroad in its attempt to limit freedom of speech, “prohibiti[ng] substantially more speech than the First Amendment permits.” The Kansas lawsuit is very similar to one in Iowa, where the judge recently overturned the state’s ag-gag statute. Iowa law overturnedOn January 9, 2019, James E. Gritzner, a U.S. District Court judge in the Southern District of Iowa found Iowa’s ag-gag law to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Like the complaint in Kansas, this lawsuit was initiated by ALDF and other groups against the state of Iowa. Gritzner’s decision is available here.Iowa’s law, which, as of this writing is still available here, makes it a crime to “[o]btain[] access to an agricultural production facility by false pretenses,” and/or “[m]ake[] a false statement or representation as part of an application or agreement to be employed at an agricultural production facility, if the person knows the statement to be false, and makes the statement with an intent to commit an act not authorized by the owner of the agricultural production facility, knowing that the act is not authorized.”Much like the Kansas lawsuit discussed above, the plaintiffs in this case argued that Iowa’s law was content-based, viewpoint-based, and overbroad, and thus violated the First Amendment right to free speech. Judge Gritzner agreed.Judge Gritzner used precedent to explain that “a free speech challenge proceeds in three stages. First, the Court resolves whether the challenged statute implicates protected speech. If it does, the Court determines which level of scrutiny applies. Then, the Court applies the appropriate scrutiny and confirms whether the statute satisfies the applicable standard.”In this case, Gritzner found that the speech being implicated, “false statements and misrepresentations,” was protected speech, citing the Supreme Court to make his point: “one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace.” In other words, even though the protected speech in this case consists of false statements, such speech is still protected under certain circumstances.Secondly, Judge Gritzner weighed in on the issue of scrutiny. Here, it was a question of whether to apply strict scrutiny, which the plaintiffs argued should apply, or intermediate scrutiny, which the defendants favored. Strict scrutiny requires that the challenged law deals with a compelling state interest, and that the law is narrowly tailored to accomplish that interest. Intermediate scrutiny is a step down from strict scrutiny; it requires the law to serve an important government objective, and to be substantially related to realizing that objective. Gritzner reasoned that it didn’t matter which level of scrutiny applied, because the Iowa law did not pass either one of the scrutiny tests.Finally, Gritzner explained why the Iowa statute did not satisfy either scrutiny standard. Here, the state of Iowa argued that the law was meant to protect the “state’s interests of private property and biosecurity.” Judge Gritzner noted that private property and biosecurity were not the only reasons for the statute—at least one state senator had been quoted as saying that the bill was meant to stop groups from giving “the agriculture industry a bad name.” In addition, Gritzner reasoned that these interests were not “compelling,” pointing to case law that found similar interests—protection to animals, people, and property—did not fall under the “compelling” category. Furthermore, Gritzner found that the statute was not “narrowly tailored,” because the language was not “actually necessary to protect perceived harms to property and biosecurity.” In other words, Gritzner thought it was a stretch to believe that someone giving a false statement or misrepresentation in order to access or become employed by an agricultural production facility is really related to property damage or biological harm. Gritzner also pointed out that Iowa has protected against such harms elsewhere in its statutes in “content neutral” language that does not affect freedom of speech. The judge did not spend much time discussing intermediate scrutiny, instead he explained that the Iowa law is simply too broad, harm is unlikely, and the need to prohibit the lies is small, which can be interpreted to mean that the law does not serve an important government objective. Future not looking good for ag-gag lawsSeveral other states — including Idaho, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Utah, have passed ag-gag laws similar to the laws in Kansas and Iowa. However, the laws have also been overturned in several states. In January 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined most of Idaho’s ag-gag law violated the First Amendment. A federal district court in Utah also struck down Utah’s ag-gag law for violating freedom of speech. A similar lawsuit against a North Carolina law is also in progress. The North Carolina lawsuit will be an interesting one to watch since the statute applies to other property owners, not just those involved in agriculture. Time will tell whether the remaining state ag-gag laws meet constitutional muster.last_img read more

Read More »

Miami Football: Report: 4-Star 2017 WR Kemore Gamble Commits To Miami

first_imgKemore Gable commits to Miami.Twitter/@kemoregamble15According to a report by 247Sports’ Ryan Bartow, Al Golden has added yet another top player to the 2017 class, in four-star receiver Kemore Gamble.Breaking: 4-star WR Kemore Gamble commits to #Miami. @kemoregamble15 @jcshurburtt— Ryan Bartow (@RyanBartow) June 17, 2015Gamble, a Miami native, is listed a 6-foot-3, 200 pounds. His commitment comes after camping at Miami back on June 6. He also holds offers from Louisville, Rutgers, Syracuse, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and others.With this commitment, Miami has eight players in its 2017 class, which currently ranks third nationally.last_img

Read More »

The Top 10 Colleges With The Most Ashley Madison Accounts

first_imgIt’s been a big year for the Big Ten. The conference took home its first college football national championship in more than a decade, saw its top basketball team defeat then-undefeated Kentucky in the Final Four and, now, it’s dominating the cheat-on-your-spouse game. According to data gathered by Inside Higher Ed, the Big Ten dominates a top 10 list of Ashley Madison profiles by college. Ashley Madison, the site that makes it easy to cheat on your significant other, had a significant data leak earlier this week. Inside Higher Ed searched the leaked data by .edu email addresses. The Big Ten does cheating better than every other conference. Michigan State, Penn State, Ohio State, Minnesota and Michigan all have spots in the top 10.  Inside Higher EdInside Higher EdThese Big Ten schools have massive enrollments and a huge alumni base, so this really isn’t that surprising. Alabama, meanwhile, topped the state list. [The Big Lead]last_img read more

Read More »

Parents Of Texas A&M’s Admon Gilder Left Game Early, Missed His Game-Tying Layup vs. Northern Iowa

first_imgAdmon Gilder shoots a lay up against Northern Iowa.Twitter/@marchmadnessTexas A&M’s epic comeback against Northern Iowa, in which the Aggies made up a 12 point deficit in 44 seconds, is statistically the greatest last-minute comeback in college basketball history. Unfortunately, the parents of Admon Gilder, the Aggie who capped off the comeback with the game-tying layup before the buzzer, weren’t in the arena to see it. The Gilders left the game minutes earlier, assuming that the Aggies were about to lose, to head back to Dallas with work the next morning. Of course, because of it they missed their son being part of basketball history.Admon Gilder says his parents left Northern Iowa game early to get back to Dallas for work. Watched end in car on phone.— Kate Hairopoulos (@khairopoulos) March 23, 2016Yahoo Sports‘ Jeff Eisenberg has more:“They left the game with probably about a minute to go,” the younger Gilder said Wednesday. “They were at the gas station on the way back and someone came out and told them that I’d just hit the game-tying shot.”Paula and Admon Sr. both had to be at work early the next morning in their hometown of Dallas, a roughly four-hour drive from Oklahoma City. They decided they were already too far from the arena to turn around, so they followed overtime and double overtime on their phones instead.Gilder, now an Aggie hero, doesn’t hold it against his parents.“I probably would have left too,” Gilder said.Don’t expect to see the Gilders leaving Thursday’s game in Anaheim against Oklahoma early…unless they think they’re bringing the team a bit of luck.[Yahoo Sports]More: Vote In Our “Most Annoying People In Sports Media” Bracket >>>last_img read more

Read More »

RSS praises Air Force Modi govt for air strike in Pakistan

first_imgGwalior: The RSS Friday lauded the Indian Air Force (IAF) for hitting terror launch pads in Pakistan and also praised the government for taking the decision. A resolution to this effect was passed on day one of the three-day meeting of the Akhil Bhartiya Pratinidhi Sabha, RSS’ highest policy-making body, which began here Friday. “The meeting passed an ‘abhinandan prastav’ lauding the IAF for the air strike and also praised the government for this decision,” RSS joint general secretary Manmohan Vaidya RSS told reporters. “The government has taken the right decision to deal with the anti-national forces and Indians should also remain cautious of such elements,” he said. The meeting also expressed deep sorrow over the Pulwama and other terror attacks that killed armed forces personnel, he said. “India’s sahishnuta (tolerance) should not be treated as its weakness,” Vaidya said. Around 1,400 members of the Pratinidhi Sabha including RSS head, Mohan Bhagwat and Sarkaryavaha Bhaiyaji Joshi are taking part in the meeting, which will also discuss the Sabrimala temple issue, he said. Vaidya said the Kerala government is working against the spirit of Supreme Court ruling on the shrine by playing with the faith of Hindus and forcing entry of women who are not Hindus in the temple. On the Ram temple issue, he said all those associated with the matter are putting their views in the Supreme Court. “We have full faith in the judicial system and hope the all obstacles will be cleared and the temple constructed,” Vaidya said. He said no separate discussion will take place in the meeting on the ensuing Lok Sabha elections, adding the RSS believes that maximum number of people should vote. Participants at the three-day meet will share their ideas and experience on issues like social harmony, environment conservation, saving water, reducing use of plastic and tree plantation, Vaidya said. The number of RSS ‘shakhas’ (branches/units) increased this year, compared to last year, he said. In 2018, there were 58,967 shakhas and the number now is 59,266, he said. As part of the meeting, Sangh workers of 35 bodies associated with the RSS will place their views before Bhagwat, he said. The meeting will also decide next year’s agenda for the organisation, he added.last_img read more

Read More »

Delhi court issues notice to ED on Michels plea

first_imgNew Delhi: A Delhi court Saturday issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate on plea of Christian Michel, alleged middleman arrested in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper case, alleging the agency of politicising the case by leaking the chargesheet copy to the media. The agency, on the other hand, sought an enquiry as to how the copy of the charge sheet was leaked to the media and asked for issuance of notice to a news organisation asking to explain how they accessed the document. Also Read – Uddhav bats for ‘Sena CM’Special judge Arvind Kumar issued notice to the agency and directed it to file a reply on Michel’s plea, which had stated that he had not named anybody in connection with the deal during investigation by the ED and that even though the court has not taken cognisance over the documents filed before it, in order to make the entire case a sensation again in the media, the agency had leaked the charge sheet. The court will take up the matter of leaking of the charge sheet copy on April 11. The court also issued summons to Michel’s business partner and middleman David Nigel John Syms as accused in the case. Syms, named as accused in the charge sheet, will have to appear before court on May 9.last_img read more

Read More »