The Chicago Black Sox Scandal
Top Tenz
The fixing of the 1919 World Series is still the most infamous sports gambling moment of all time.

Eight White Sox players were paid a total of $100,000 to purposely lose the Fall Classic, so gamblers could clean up betting on Cincinnati. The players were easily convinced due to their hatred of owner Charles Comiskey, who was notorious for underpaying his players.

Although the “Black Sox” — including the legendary “Shoeless Joe” Jackson — were found innocent of any crimes by a grand jury, Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis banned them from baseball for life, a ban that stand to this day.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#the-chicago-black-sox-scandal-16#ixzz1vBpE9rja

College Basketball’s Point Shaving Problems
College basketball has been the target of numerous point shaving scandals throughout its history, as unscrupulous gamblers find unpaid college kids easy to bribe.

The two most famous and widespread scandals involved the CCNY point shaving scandal in 1950-51. That operation involved seven schools, including four from New York City, and a total of 33 players..

The Boston College point shaving scandal of 1978-79 was more localized, as it only involved gamblers convincing some BC students to not cover the spread in nine of their own games. One of the organized crime figures involved was Henry Hill, who was the subject of the movie, “Goodfellas.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#college-basketballs-point-shaving-problems-15#ixzz1vBov8grq

Pete Rose Is Banned For Life

Right before the 1989 season, new baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti hired a lawyer named John Dowd to investigate allegations that the manager of the Reds had bet on baseball games.

The Dowd Report documented 52 bets Rose purportedly made in 1987, some of them involving Reds games that he was managing. Dowd said that he found no evidence that Rose ever bet against his own team, but in 2002, Dowd retracted this claim and said that he did believe Rose bet against his own team.

Rose eventually agreed to accept a permanent lifetime ban, believing he wouldn’t have to admit to betting on baseball, but would be allowed apply for reinstatement in one year. Eight days later, Giamatti died of a heart attack and Rose’s reinstatement was rejected by his successor Fay Vincent.

He remains permanently illegible to work in Major League Baseball or be considered for the Hall of Fame.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#pete-rose-is-banned-for-life-14#ixzz1vBoTBojJ

Michael Vick’s Dogfighting Operation
Michael Vick’s bankrolling of the Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting ring was one of the most appalling stories in sports history.

Vick’s plea bargain indicates that he did not place any bets, even though a source to ESPN claimed to have seen him bet up to $40,000 on a single dog fight. The district attorney involved in the Vick case also believed that Vick did place bets on dog fights.

Vick spent two years in prison, lost all his endorsements, and had to pay back some of his contract to the Atlanta Falcons, eventually filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Vick’s public image is still fairly tainted, but his standing has improved since signing with the Philadelphia Eagles and winning the NFL’s Comeback Player of the Year in 2010.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#michael-vicks-dogfighting-operation-13#ixzz1vBmbl3Of

Rick Tocchet’s Front Office Gambling Ring
Tampa Bay
Rick Tocchet was a former NHL player who ran a gambling ring that took bets from NHL players, while he was an assistant coach of the Phoenix Coyotes. (The wagers were not made on NHL games.)

Tocchet plead guilty and was given two years probation. He was temporarily banned from the NHL, but has since been re-instated, and even returned to coaching.

Adding to the intrigue was the potential involvement of his boss, Wayne Gretzky, and Gretzky’s wife Janet Jones, who admitted placing bets with Tocchet. (Both were cleared of any wrongdoing.)

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#rick-tocchets-front-office-gambling-ring-12#ixzz1vBkxIkD8

The Jordan Conspiracy Theory

Wikimedia Commons
One of the great urban legends of professional sports history (that many believe could actually be true) is that Michael Jordan’s first retirement from basketball in 1993 was not a retirement all, but a secret forced suspension brought on by his excessive gambling habit.

Prior to winning his third NBA Championship, Jordan was spotted gambling in an Atlantic City casino the day before an Eastern Conference final game against the New York Knicks, and had paid two childhood friends a combined $165,000 in gambling losses accrued on the golf course and the card table.

A friend named Richard Esquinas publicly claimed that Jordan paid him $1.25 million in golf-related wagers, raising concerns that gambling addiction could ruin his “Airness.”

So the theory goes that Commissioner David Stern needed to send a Jordan a message, but rather than embarrass him or the league with a ugly suspension, allowed his best player to “retire” gracefully, before returning to the game 18 months and a short minor league baseball career later.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#the-jordan-conspiracy-theory-11#ixzz1vBkmizQM

John Daly’s Many Vices
In the hole!

AP
John Daly has what one might call “an addictive personality.” The man with one of the longest drives on tour has also had long battles with alcoholism, weight management, and gambling, which estimate say has cost him between $50 million and $60 million over 12 years.

He once lost $1.6 million in five hours, after taking the the prize money from a second-place tourney finish and pumping it into $5,000 Las Vegas slot machines.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#john-dalys-many-vices-10#ixzz1vBkNh5Se

Gilbert Arenas & Javaris Crittenton’s Gun “Battle”

A road trip card game turned ugly with, according to the sources, Arenas tried to get out of paying Crittenton a $25,000 pot.

When Crittenton threatened to shoot him in the knee, Arenas brought three loaded handguns into the Wizards locker room, placed them in front of Crittenton’s locker, and left a note reading “pick one.”

Crittenton allegedly drew his own gun (or threw one at Arenas, depending on who you believe.)

Arenas was charged with possession of an unlicensed pistol, which is a felony in Washington D.C., and he ended up getting a sentence of two-years probation and 30 days in a halfway house. Crittenton was given a year probation for his role in the incident.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#gilbert-arenas-and-javaris-crittentons-gun-battle-9#ixzz1vBk7gtyr

The Mets’ Man On The Inside
NBC
Longtime New York Mets clubhouse manager Charlie Samuels is currently under investigation by the NYPD and the Queens DA for betting on baseball games, organizing a gambling ring, providing insider tips in regards to each game, and using the Mets bank accounts to cover his own debts.

He is also being investigated for stealing memorabilia from the team to sell to collectors.

The Mets only paid Samuels around $80,000 a year in salary, but his tax forms indicate he had an income of at least eight times that. Wiretaps have produced recordings of Samuels making illegal bets on various sports, and mob associates talking about how helpful Samuels’ inside information is.

Samuels was fired at the conclusion of last season after the investigation became public.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#the-mets-man-on-the-inside-8#ixzz1vBjuc91D

Charles Barkley’s $10 Million “Non-Problem”In 2006, Charles Barkley admitted to ESPN that he feels that he has a gambling problem that had cost him close to $10 million

A year later, Barkley told ESPN he won $700,000 in one weekend betting on the Super Bowl and playing blackjack. He also claims he once lost $2.5 million in six hours.

In 2008, Barkley almost faced formal criminal charges over a $400,000 debt to the Wynn Casino, which he promptly re-paid. A little later that year, Barkley said that had sworn off gambling at least temporarily.

However, even though he admitted to being addict, Barkley has said that he doesn’t need to quit because unlikely some people he can “afford to gamble.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#charles-barkleys-10-million-non-problem-7#ixzz1vBjimXsr

Jaromir Jagr’s Secret Shame
AP
Back in 1997, Jagr ran up a $500,000 line of credit from a Belize-based sports gambling website.

When he stopped making payments on his debts, the owner of the site leaked the story to the media. Jagr immediately restarted payments, and thanks to the public shaming, the debt was eventually settled.

He had also settled an additional $350,000 debt with another gambling enterprise and fought with the IRS, who issued a $3.27 million lien against him in for his unpaid taxes back in 2001.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#jaromir-jagrs-secret-shame-6#ixzz1vBjVlK5R

Charles Oakley’s Dice War With Tyrone Hill
Bleacher Report/Getty Images
Toronto’s Charles Oakley and Philadelphia’s Tyrone Hill were both kicked out of a 2000 preseason game when Oakley slapped Hill in the mouth during warmups,

It turns out Hill owed Oakley $54,000 from a dice game and was slow to pay up.

Later that same season, Oakley was suspended again after throwing a basketball at Hill face during a shootaround. Hill eventually settled up, but because of his “coward move,” Oakley insisted that he pay double.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#charles-oakleys-dice-war-with-tyrone-hill-5#ixzz1vBjIwDOi

Kenny McKinley’s Suicide
Getty Images
Kenny McKinley was a young and talented Broncos receiver who killed himself last fall, shortly after an injury ended his football season.

It was later learned that had borrowed $65,000 from a former teammate to payoff his extensive gambling debts, including $40,000 owed to Las Vegas casinos, and the mounting money problems had contributed to his depression.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#kenny-mckinleys-suicide-4#ixzz1vBiyjRRI

Antoine Walker’s Bounced Checks
Brian Cuban
Antoine Walker made more than $100 million in his career, but lost nearly all of it through extravagant spending on custom suits for every game, dinners for his entire team, financially supporting up to seventy of his friends and family members, and, of course, gambling.

Walker had racked up $822,500 in gambling debts between three Las Vegas casinos, and when he tried to pay off the debt using a checking account with insufficient funds, he was arrested. At a casino.

He filed for bankruptcy in 2010.

Floyd Mayweather’s Big Wins
Boxing Dispatch
Floyd Mayweather Jr.’s nickname isn’t “Money” just because he’s good at boxing.

In the past year, he’s tweeted pictures of his betting slips from a $100,000 wager he place on Duke to win the first half of their Sweet 16 game against Arizona (he won $90,909) and another $41,000 bet on the second half of a Bulls-Hawks game. (He won $37,272.75 for that.)

Those are just the bets we know about (and that’s he’s won.) It’s a good wager that his gambling goes much deeper than that.

An MVP Is Kicked Out Of Football
AP
Paul Hornung was a Heisman Trophy winner and NFL MVP in 1961, and was a member of four World Champion Green Bay Packer teams, including the first Super Bowl winner.

But Hornung missed the entire 1963 season, along with fellow NFL star Alex Karras, when he was banned from the league for betting on football games. Hornung and Karras both bet between $100 and $500 on multiple NFL and NCAA games.

Hornung apologized and swore off gambling, but credits the lobbying of coach Vince Lombardi for getting him reinstated to the league.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/athletes-gambling-in-sports-2011-4#an-mvp-is-kicked-out-of-football-3#ixzz1vBigjW88

Michael Luchies, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Jul 23, 2009

Sports injuries account for 3.7 million emergency visits and cost Americans $680 million in medical expenses each year. Every injury comes with costs to the injured party including medical expenses, lost earnings and other damages. Questions rise from sports injuries to whether or not the injury was caused by negligence. Negligence can be summed up as a person’s failure to provide a standard of care that the law requires to protect other persons from injury. A commonly applied doctrine in sports injury cases used as a defense to negligence is the assumption of risk doctrine.
“Assumption of the risk negates the issue of a defendant’s negligence by virtue of a plaintiff’s previous abandonment of his or her right to maintain an action if an accident occurs.” (Parks & Recreation pg .35) The assumption of risk doctrine is applied to protect individuals from being sued who are participating in dangerous activities in which injuries are expected and frequent. This translates to a “play at your own risk” situation meaning that even if another party causes your injury, you bare the risk of injury.

Separate states have taken assumption of risk to mean different things when it comes to sports injuries. Several states including California use assumption of risk as a complete bar of recovery from negligence, meaning that no standard of care is required.

The assumption of risk defense in has extended to children sports and also cases in where there is alleged negligence in coaching. Children are held to assumption of risk but “A child is not to be held to the same standard or degree of care that an adult would have used. A child should be deemed to have assumed the risk if another child of similar age, intelligence, experience and development, would have acted differently under the circumstances.” (Parks & Recreation pg. 35) Despite this statement, it seems as though children are often held to the same standard as exhibited by the following cases; Kelly v. McCarrick (2004), and Kahn v. East Side Union High School District. The assumption of risk doctrine used as a complete bar to recovery in children’s sports injury cases is not an economically efficient application of the rule, and due to the agency problem, coaches are not held responsible for negligence that results in an injury that could have otherwise been prevented.

Kelly v. McCarrick (2004), Maryland

The Kelly’s (plaintiffs) daughter was injured in a children’s softball game while tagging out a runner at second base. The plaintiff’s daughter was standing incorrectly and suffered a severely fractured ankle as a result. The child had played softball for several years and was aware of how to play the game and had voluntarily done so for years.

The Kelly’s attempted to sue the catholic softball league of the grounds that there was negligence in the slide of the opponent, negligent coaching, and negligence on the part of the league through a ‘mismatch’. The court ruled that all three of these claims were covered under the assumption of risk doctrine.

Analyzing Kelly v. McCarrick

In this case three rules outline if Assumption of Risk has been established; 1). The plaintiff had knowledge of the risk of danger, 2) appreciated that risk and 3) voluntarily exposed him/her to the risk.

-Claim of Negligent Coaching

The Maryland court extended the assumption of risk principles to apply to claims of negligent coaching, and the plaintiffs were not able to collect on this claim. There was no evidence that showed a standard of care was not taken (if needed to be taken) into making sure the child was fully aware of potential risks from playing softball. The child had been playing the sport for several years and was expected to know how to properly field her position. It would not be in the best interest of the coach or the league to repeatedly make sure that every player knows exactly what to do in every situation even when they had played for several years. The court makes it known that the burden of precaution is on the child to make sure they know what is to be done while playing the sport.

In this case, if negligence was found against the coach because of the injury, effects of the judgment would harm sports across the country. The negative externality would be the increased costs of being a coach in children’s sports. If a coach is liable for their players’ injuries, it is likely that the marginal costs would outweigh the benefits of coaching. Since most of these catholic children league coaches are volunteers, they are not paid and their benefits are from the joy of volunteering. The costs of potential lawsuits due to injuries would make it economically inefficient to coach for any reasonable person.

-Claim of Mismatch

The Kelly’s claimed that the opponents of her child’s softball team were too skilled to be playing in the same league, and that the player who injured the Kelly’s daughter was more gifted then their daughter, which contributed to the cause of injury.

When playing sports, a participant assumes that some participants would be more skilled, and some less skilled. Unless the margin of ‘mismatch’ is extreme, ex: professional football players against elementary school children, then the court would not honor a mismatch claim.

-Claim of Negligence on the Opposing Player

Simply because the opposing player was aggressive is not enough to constitute negligence. Sporting events are both competitive and dangerous, and it is commonplace for aggressive play to occur. The court would not want to discourage aggressive and competitive play.

-Opinions on ruling in Kelly v. McCarrick

The court was correct in ruling that the Kelly’s could not recover damages from the coach of the Catholic Softball League team, the player who caused the injury, or from the softball league it’s self. In all three claims the Kelly’s daughter is the least cost avoider, meaning she can bare the risk of precaution the easiest. The plaintiff’s daughter could have avoided risk by avoiding contact at second place, better educating herself how to play second base, sought further instruction from coach, or she could have no participated in the game. Any of these would be easier then the league or coach taking extra precaution with each player to make sure an accident does not occur.

“The appeals court acknowledged that coaches must be aware of preventable risks to their athletes and must take measures to properly supervise and care for their players.” As far as the court found, the coach had fulfilled this. The court went on to state that the “coach owes a duty of care not to increase the risk of harm inherent in learning an active sport.” More than a showing of mere carelessness is needed to find negligence in coaching as a result for an injury. In the Kelly’s case there was no evidence that the coach increased the risk of harm to their daughter, and therefore the ruling was for the plaintiff.

Kahn v. East Side Union High School District

California District 6 Appellate Court 2002

In 1994 Olivia Kahn was a 14 year old high school freshman and a member of the Mount Pleasant High School girls swim team. Her coach Andrew McKay knew of the plaintiff’s inexperience and the plaintiff had expressed fears to the coach about diving into the pool, which would be done during a relay race if not the first swimmer in her four person relay. McKay had placed Kahn as the first swimmer of the relay team, so she would start in the pool and not have to dive in the shallow end of the pool during the race. Shortly before the third competition of the year, McKay informed Kahn that she would not be starting the relay, but would compete later in the relay, forcing her to dive in the pool in the shallow end, which she did not know how to do appropriately. Kahn pleaded with the coach to let her start from inside the pool as she did in the first competitions but McKay refused by saying “you either dive off the blocks or you are not swimming.” With only minutes to prepare for the race, Kahn went with two other swimmers to practice diving into the pool. While practicing for the dive, Kahn broke her neck on her third attempt. The Kahn’s later sued the school district and coach McKay on grounds of negligence.

The court stated the following:

Plaintiff was not forced to accept her coach’s challenges; she could have refused to swim. By voluntarily rising to the challenge of attempting an unfamiliar dive, plaintiff assumed the risk that she would be unable to meet that challenge.

The court ruled in favor of the school district, using assumption of risk as a bar from recovery by the plaintiffs.

Analyzing Kahn v. East Side Union High School District Judgment

Kahn v. East Side Union High School District is a clear example of when the assumption of risk doctrine is used inappropriately to bar recovery when negligence is exhibited. In Kelly v. McCarrick, assumption of risk was used to prevent families of injured children from routine sporting accidents from suing the sports league and the coach. There was no calculated negligence in the Kelly case because the child had experience playing softball and the coach would have assumed that the child knew how to play the position properly. In the Kahn’s case, the coach had knowledge of the child’s inexperience in the sport, fear of performing the given task, gave an ultimatum (put child in a state of duress), failed to give her instruction on how to make the dive, and failed to supervise her attempts to practice the dive shortly before it was to be performed in competition. The level of negligence clearly involved with this case is an overwhelming amount that was ignored by the courts use of the assumption of risk doctrine.

In this case the goal of tort law was not met. This case was not decided in an interest to minimize the cost of injury. The Kahn’s had to bare the cost of their child’s broken neck and her future medical cost and loss of enjoyment of life due to negligent coaching. Although in many cases coaches are not held responsible for injuries, the coach in this case did not exhibit a standard of care and should be held responsible for this injury. The coach was not a volunteer but a paid high school coach, and therefore should be held to a higher standard of care then a volunteer coach. Take the quote from the court in the first case; “coach owes a duty of care not to increase the risk of harm inherent in learning an active sport.” One could argue that by forcing the Kahn’s daughter to perform an act she had not practice was exposing her to an increased risk of injury. Using the Maryland courts findings, the outcome of the case may have been different.

Are children under the age of 18 able to assume all of the potential risks of injury?

Lawyer Richard Alexander states; “Fourteen year-olds do not have the legal capacity to agree to anything. They cannot enter into a binding contract, consent to surgery, open a checking account, buy a car, or vote. How a legally incompetent person simultaneously has the legal capacity to assume the risk of a life-threatening risk of permanent injury or death is not explained.” Children, unlike adults, cannot fully assume all risk of injury while involved in sporting events. The average child does not know the vast amount of damage that may result in their participating in a sporting event. A child needs to be taught about the risk and how to prevent themselves from injury, and the perfect person for this job is the coach.

Agency Problem with Assumption of Risk in Children’s Sports

An agency problem is present in children’s sports due to the application of the assumption of risk doctrine as a complete bar from recovery. Consider the agent as the coach of the children’s sports team, and the child and their family as the client. The coach is either paid on a consistent basis during the season or agrees to coach for free (as a volunteer). The client (the child and family) receives instructions and directions from the coach, and rely that the coach is looking out for their best interest. The current system gives an incentive for coaches in children’s sports to neglect teaching the team members how to properly play the sport and avoid injury. An agency problem arises where the coach no longer has a duty to provide further instruction, nor is it economically efficient for them to do so. The coach has no incentive to spend an efficient amount of time teaching the children how to play the sport, because there are no consequences if he/she does not, and no incentives if they do teach and coach an efficient amount.

Efficient Solution

The assumption of risk doctrine should serve as a complete bar in professional sports and be a possible defense in children’s (under the age of 18) sports. In cases where the injury was caused by a lack of instruction, the coach should be held responsible and the assumption of risk doctrine should not be admissible. This would provide an incentive for coaches to exhibit a standard of care and not make the cost too great so they would not participate. Making the possibility of a suit available would benefit both the children at risk for injury and would minimize the costs of injuries.

Professional athletes have completely assumed the risk, and are compensated for putting their bodies at risk to injury. Professionals are able to protect themselves financially by purchasing insurance, while a child cannot alone purchase insurance, and their family must bare the cost of their injury. Professional athletes have an advanced knowledge of their sport and bare all the risk of injury.

Conclusion

In law often there is no right or wrong answer. Debate will continue for years if not forever about the use of tort law and the assumption of risk doctrine. Through this research paper I contend that the efficient solution towards sports injuries is to only use the assumption of risk doctrine as a complete bar to recovery if the injury was during a professional or collegiate level event. Children are not able to assume the complete risk of injury as they are not able to act as adults. The assumption of risk doctrine used as a complete bar to recovery in children’s sports injury cases is not an economically efficient application of the rule, and due to the agency problem, coaches are not held responsible for negligence that results in an injury that could have otherwise been prevented. The use of assumption of risk to protect negligent coaches should not be allowed, as a coach of children’s sports should be held to a standard of care higher then simply not increasing the risk of injury for a child. Although it would not completely solve the issue at hand, but if coaches were held partially reliable to uphold a standard of care by the law, the agency problem would be solved and many injuries may be prevented in the increased amount of care that the coaches would take in teaching children how to safely play a sport.
Sources:

Alexander, Richard. Sports Injuries and the Immunity of Coaches, Instructors and Professional Trainers from Liability under California’s Primary Assumption of Risk. http://consumerlawpage.com/article/sports-injure.shtml

Kahn v. East Side Union High School. file:///C:/DOCUME~1/MICHAE~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/kahn%20v%20east%20side%20high%20school.htm

Knight v. Jewitt (1992).

http://home.uchicago.edu/~jmellis/Knight%20v%20Jewett.html

Kozlowski, James. “Injury Can Be Part of the Game.” NRPA Law Review. Parks & Recreation, June 2004 (34-39). Article #1 attached.

Sports and the assumption of risk doctrine in New York

Lura Hess. St. John’s Law Review. Brooklyn: Spring 2002. Vol. 76, Iss. 2; pg. 457, 25

Group A:- Malaysia, Nepal, India, Pakistan

Group B:- Qatar, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh

Venue : Bayuemas Oval, Kinrara Oval, Royal Selangor Club, Selangor Turf Club; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Dates : 23rd June – 1st July 2012

This is a Important tournament before the U-19 WC in August. Let’s hope the colts bring the trophy for India

LONDON: England manager Roy Hodgson is convinced that Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain’s selection for Euro 2012 will not mirror Theo Walcott’s ill-fated trip to the 2006 World Cup.

Oxlade-Chamberlain was the boldest name included in Hodgson’s 23-man party for Poland and the Ukraine on Wednesday, with the 18-year-old still yet to win his first cap at senior international level.

The Arsenal teenager’s selection echoed that of Walcott in the England squad six years ago, when then manager Sven Goran-Eriksson gambled on his inclusion only to end up not using him at any stage of the tournament.

However Hodgson is adamant that he has seen enough of Oxlade-Chamberlain, who like Walcott joined Arsenal from Southampton, to convince him that the teenager midfielder is ready to make the leap to international level.

“I wouldn’t have chosen him if I didn’t think he could start a game,” said Hodgson, who revealed he had been impressed by Oxlade-Chamberlain when he starred in Arsenal’s 3-0 Champions League win over AC Milan earlier this year.

“It won’t be easy for him to break into the team when you see the competition. But I’d like to think that I’ve seen him play in European matches, and he sprung to my attention in the Milan game.

“I thought he handled that occasion extremely well. He’s got a maturity beyond his years. He is a precocious talent and I think sometimes there’s got to be a place in the squad for precocious talent, especially if it’s someone you believe might go on and help you win matches in the future.”

While acknowledging the comparisons with Walcott, who was only 17 when picked by Eriksson six years ago, Hodgson believes Oxlade-Chamberlain will be unfazed by the prospect of playing alongside established England stars.

“I’m pretty sure that Sven selected Walcott for the right reasons but maybe it just turned out that Walcott wasn’t quite up to it at that time when push came to shove,” Hodgson said.

“But I am expecting that when we do our training sessions that Oxlade-Chamberlain will now be able to deal with that situation and won’t be over-awed by the Gerrards, the Lampards, the Barrys and the Parkers.

“I’m expecting him to stand up to that. I don’t know — but there’s only one way to find out and that’s to sling him in at the deep end because even if he doesn’t swim he’ll soon learn to swim in future.

Meanwhile Oxlade-Chamberlain admitted his selection felt “surreal.”

“I’m obviously delighted,” he told Arsenal.com. “To be picked for your country at any stage is a massive honour and to be at a huge tournament like the Euros is such a bonus.

“I would have probably laughed if someone had told me I would be in the Euro 2012 a year ago.

“Obviously you would like to think that and it is what you aim towards but sometimes you have to be realistic and realise it might take a little bit longer than that.

“So for everything to happen as quickly as it has, it has been surreal and I don’t think it has really sunk in properly yet.

Olympic Park was ready by about 80 percent. The main objects are in the final stages of construction and will be completed by the summer of 2011. Delivery of the Park for a year before the Olympic Games – the undoubted success of the organizers.

Olympic Village: More than a third of residential plots are ready for commissioning. Work in full swing and now is building health clinics in villages, as well as the creation of water areas and seating greens.

Aquatics Centre: The frame of the building and the wavy roof installed. Work is underway on the installation of seats for spectators.
50-meter pools and a diving pool has already been tested. Инфраструктура здания начинает приобретать свои очертания. Building infrastructure is beginning to take shape.

Basketball Arena: Two-thirds of the 12,000 seats for spectators have been installed. The frame is fully assembled.. By June, the object will be ready to surrender to the organizing committee to conduct the test before the Olympics.

Olympic Park: Work is under way, handled about 250 hectares of land in the former industrial area of ​​the city. After the 2012 Olympics, this park will become the largest city park in the UK.

International Centre for Broadcasting and Media Center. To date, the structure of buildings is fully prepared, carried out the inner workings.

http://daypic.ru/news/30551

Mass action planning meeting – with special guests

Saturday 14th April 2012, 11 – 4.30 pm
Bishopsgate Institute, 230 Bishopsgate London EC2M 4QH

Please forward widely

We’ve heard about the soaring costs, debt, repression, pollution, displacement and lack of consultation. We’ve been told of the drones to be deployed, the renewable targets ignored and neighbourhoods pushed sideways for a giant consumer playground. The laws have even been rewritten to deter us from disrupting the glorified three-week party. And we’ve been fighting back for months – and even years – with activist groups working to protect Greenwich Park, save Wanstead Flats, occupy Leyton Marsh, oust Dow… the list the goes on.

But now the Olympics are upon us. Most of the damage has been done. It’s time to come together, uniting behind the common cause that people from London to Portland and beyond are sick of being sacrificed for this giant corporate bonanza.

Come along to Bishopsgate Institute to plan for major actions over the coming months and during the Olympics – the target, location, date and nature of the action are all open for discussion.

We will be joined by Clayton Thomas Muller from the Indigenous Environmental Network who will share his experiences on organising around the 2010 Vancouver Olympics and campaigning against ‘Sustainability Partner’ BP, along with Derrick from Gulf Coast campaign against BP. Newham Monitoring Project will be providing a thorough explanation of the complex legal situation we face. Also coming to London from Vancouver, the Vancouver Poverty Olympics torch will be handed over at the Bishopsgate Institute to inspire our own alternative torch relay.

Free entry – hot soup and bread lunch will be provided on the day for £1, tea and coffee for donation.

http://counterolympicsnetwork.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/counterolympics-at-bishopsgate-institute/

http://www.guy-sports.com/olympics/london_olympics_jokes.htm

A late penalty given in favour of Flamengo was converted by Ronaldinho to notch Flamengo up to a win against Duque de Caxias in a match that would have gone either way.

In the same match,goalkeeper Felipe was wheeled off the field with an ambulance after a collision with Duque de Caxias striker Gilcimar in the 20th minute,doctors have passed him to be fine after nursing fears of a head trauma.

Goalkeeper Felipe dived to his right for a low cross into the area and his head hit Gilcimar’s knee as both players went for the ball and he has been ruled out of the team’s Copa Libertadores match against Ecuador’s Emelec on Thursday in Rio.

The first goal for Flamengo came from the boot of former CSKA striker vagner Love who has four goals in his kitty.

Ronaldinho scored Flamengo’s winner with a penalty in the 83rd after Vagner Love was held by a defender inside the area. Vagner Love, who has scored a goal in each of the last four matches, opened the scoring in the 11th, and Rodrigues equalized for Duque de Caxias in the 60th as Flamengo played a man down from the 75th after Argentine playmaker Dario Bottinelli was sent off for a hard foul.

http://www.channelstv.com/home/2012/03/05/ronaldinho-inspires-flamengo-win/