Local NewsBusiness Pinterest WhatsApp Facebook Twitter Une nouvelle étude conclut que Xlear élimine et/ou désactive le SRAS-CoV-2 ; Efficacité contre les nouveaux variants WhatsApp Facebook Previous articleISACA publica novo relatório sobre tendências, obstáculos e previsões em matéria de privacidade às vésperas do Dia da Privacidade de DadosNext articleCORRECTING and REPLACING Expansion of JM Search Consumer Practice Digital AIM Web Support Pinterest EVANSTON, Illinois–(BUSINESS WIRE)–janv. 26, 2021– Une nouvelle étude in vitro réalisée en collaboration, par l’Université d’État de l’Utah et l’Université Northwestern, révèle que les composants du Xlear (extrait de pépins de pamplemousse et xylitol) éliminent de manière significative le SRAS-CoV-2, virus responsable de la COVID-19. La composante d’imagerie de l’étude de recherche a été réalisée dans les installations de BioCryo au centre NUANCE de l’Université Northwestern. Ce communiqué de presse contient des éléments multimédias. Voir le communiqué complet ici : https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210126005955/fr/ Using electron microscopy, we have visual evidence showing that xylitol and grapefruit seed extract (GSE) counters the virus. The GSE kills the virus, while the xylitol prevents the virus from attaching to the cell walls. The image shows SARS-CoV-2 viruses outside the cell and never attached, thereby preventing infection (Photo: Business Wire) L’étude a testé les titres du virus SRAS-CoV-2 et la Valeur de réduction logarithmique (LRV), en réponse à une seule concentration de spray nasal Xlear. Selon les résultats obtenus, et « Après un temps de contact de 25 minutes, le spray nasal a réduit le virus de 4,2 à 1,7 log10 DICC50 par 0,1 ml, une réduction statistiquement significative (P < 0,001) de 2,5 log10 DICC50 ». L’étude menée par Northwestern et l’État de l’Utah est la plus récente parmi toute une série d’études, et parvient à la conclusion que Xlear est efficace contre le SRAS-CoV-2. Ces travaux apportent par ailleurs de nouveaux éléments sur deux points essentiels : « Premièrement, nous concluons qu’en plus de lutter contre le SRAS-CoV-2, Xlear semble être efficace pour empêcher la propagation des futurs virus H1N1, notamment les variants émergents du SRAS-CoV-2, et d’autres épidémies virales. Cela est d’autant plus essentiel que nous sommes aujourd’hui confrontés à des variants plus transmissibles », a déclaré le professeur Mark Cannon, de la Faculté de médecine de Feinberg à l’Université Northwestern. « D’autre part, l’utilisation de la microscopie électronique nous a permis d’obtenir des preuves visuelles montrant que le xylitol et le GSE neutralisaient le virus. Le GSE tue le virus, tandis que le xylitol empêche le virus de se fixer aux parois cellulaires. L’image (ci-jointe) montre des virus SRAS-CoV-2 à l’extérieur de la cellule et jamais attachés, ce qui empêche l’infection », a ajouté le Dr Cannon. L’étude postule que le xylitol agit comme une cible leurre pour le SRAS-CoV-2, empêchant le virus de se fixer sur la paroi cellulaire. L’étude collaborative conclut : « En raison de l’absence de facteur de risque lié à l’utilisation de la thérapie combinée X/GSE, et de la disponibilité du spray nasal [Xlear] sans ordonnance, ajoutées au fait que [Xlear] permet un port du masque confortable à long terme, l’adoption de cette thérapie antivirale préventive devrait être encouragée. » Étude complète : https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.02.408575v3.full Pour en savoir plus sur Xlear (notamment où l’obtenir), rendez-vous sur : https://xlear.com/ Le texte du communiqué issu d’une traduction ne doit d’aucune manière être considéré comme officiel. La seule version du communiqué qui fasse foi est celle du communiqué dans sa langue d’origine. La traduction devra toujours être confrontée au texte source, qui fera jurisprudence. Consultez la version source sur businesswire.com :https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210126005955/fr/ CONTACT: Jeff Gulko 617.304.7339 [email protected] KEYWORD: UTAH ILLINOIS UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: INFECTIOUS DISEASES HEALTH SCIENCE PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH SOURCE: Xlear Copyright Business Wire 2021. PUB: 01/26/2021 01:09 PM/DISC: 01/26/2021 01:09 PM http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210126005955/fr By Digital AIM Web Support - January 26, 2021 Twitter TAGS
In a statement released on July 3, PLN acknowledged that the anomalies were a result of their new billing method.The new method calculates monthly residential power bills based on consumption during the previous three months. For example, higher-than-usual energy consumption in April and May was billed in June.“Very likely, these are leftover installments from unpaid bills the previous month,” said PLN spokesman Agung Murdifi in a statement on July 3. “PLN will investigate the cases further,” he added.In June, 4.3 million post-paid residential customers saw bills 20 percent higher than in the previous month. PLN attributed this to higher electricity consumption as people stayed at home. PLN then relaxed its billing policy for 1.93 million consumers who experienced a spike in their June bills. It charged 40 percent of the June bill in that month and opted to charge the remaining 60 percent over the next three months on top of the subsequent months’ power bills.Read also: Consumers lament PLN electricity bill spikeYan Kardian’s screenshot of his bills shows that the bill from the previous month had been relaxed and that one third of the remaining sum was charged in the July bill.However, PLN charged Yan more than 70 percent of his June bill in June, higher than PLN’s promised 40 percent under the relaxation scheme, the screenshot shows.PLN executives, government officials and the Indonesian Consumers Foundation (YLKI) have repeatedly refuted netizens’ claims that the high bills were because PLN had secretly raised electricity tariffs.“Consumers felt they were being cheated with a higher rate. There is no higher rate,” said YLKI chairman Tulus Abadi in a video statement on June 7.Topics : Indonesian households have seen abnormal electricity bills for the third consecutive month, likely a result of the accumulation of monthly charges in state electricity firm PLN’s new payment scheme.Yan Kardian, an employee at a private company, reported on July 2 that his electricity bill rose 15 percent month-on-month to Rp 370,259 ($25.55) in July even though his consumption fell 20 percent to 242 kilowatt hours (KwH) over the same time period, according to a screenshot he posted on Twitter.“How can consumption be so little yet the bill go up?” he wrote on his Twitter account @yankpoesh on July 2.
For the first time since 1972, the U.S. Olympic Hockey team will head to the Olympics without any former or current University of Wisconsin Badgers on their roster.This development is even more surprising when you consider the head coach of the U.S. squad is Tony Granato, who also happens to be the UW Men’s Hockey coach.With that being said, the Badgers certainly will not be without representation in Pyeongchang, as former UW star defensemen Chris Chelios will act as the assistant coach and former UW forward Jim Johannson will act as the team’s general manager.This season the National Hockey League decided not to stop its season to allow its players to play in the Olympics for the first time. The NHL cited injury risks and a loss of revenue as reasons for the policy change.Women’s Hockey: UW takes on South Korean Olympic team SaturdayThe University of Wisconsin women’s hockey team will have the honor of hosting the South Korean Olympic hockey team at LaBahn Read…As a result, some former Badgers who would have likely had a significant opportunity to make the team were unable to try out. These include former Badger greats and current NHL stars Ryan Suter, Ryan McDonagh and Joe Pavelski. Two former Badgers, Tom Gilbert and Robbie Earl, currently play professionally in Europe and were granted tryouts, but both were cut by Granato, Johannson and the rest of management.“We’re real happy with the players that we announced today. I think we’ve put together an outstanding group of players that will represent us well come February and give us a great chance to do really well and compete for a medal,” Granato said of the roster, according to the Wisconsin State Journal.Granato and company made their goal of reaching the podium clear in the 2018 Winter Olympics, which begin on Feb. 8 in Pyeongchang, South Korea.In light of this, I thought it would be fun to look back on some UW Men’s Hockey successes during past Winter Olympics.Crease Creatures: the story behind UW’s first hockey student orgWhen you’re standing in the student section of the Kohl Center, it can be easy to feel distant from all Read…Mark Johnson: 1980 Lake PlacidIf you didn’t see this one coming you must have been living under a rock for the last forty years. Wisconsin women’s hockey coach Mark Johnson was an integral member of the U.S team that took down the mighty Soviet Union now known across the world as the “Miracle on Ice.”Mark Johnson finished these Olympics with five goals and six assists, including a pair of goals in the semi-final victory over the Soviet Union and one in the gold medal tilt with Finland. The unheralded U.S men’s hockey team came home with gold, and Johnson was one of the main reasons why.Johnson also went on to coach the women’s national team to the silver medal at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver.Bob Suter: 1980 Lake PlacidSuter, the father of current NHL great and former Badger Ryan Suter was a starting defenseman on the 1980 gold medal team. Although Bob’s pro career does little to rival Ryan’s, this one immaculate Olympic accomplishment outshines anything his 10-time NHL all-star son has achieved so far. Ryan’s greatest success in the Olympics was a silver medal in Sochi in 2010 and he failed to medal with the team in Vancouver 2014. While Ryan has a lucrative NHL career of which to be proud, he will likely never match the enormous Olympic accomplishments of his father.How will the Olympics impact men’s and women’s hockey this year?With the 2018 winter Olympic games underway, many are wondering how University of Wisconsin hockey is going to be impacted. Read… Mike Richter: 2002 Salt Lake CityThe former Badger goaltender lead the U.S. to a silver medal in the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. Richter started in net throughout the tournament and had one of the greatest tournaments for a goaltender in Olympic history. Richter had an astounding 97.7 save percentage throughout the tournament and had 374 total saves. Richter’s biggest performance came in a 3-2 victory over Russia in the semi-final matchup. Although the U.S would go on to lose in the gold medal game to Canada, Richter’s incredible tournament will never be forgotten.
According to the Statistics SA *Quarterly Labour Force Survey, released in the first quarter of 2013, there are 4.6-million unemployed South Africans. The country’s official unemployment rate now sits at 25.2% of the total population. Students attending one of Learn to Earn’s 11 week Sewing courseThe reasons for this are many; a legacy of structural inequality; a failing education system; a lack of jobs for unskilled workers; and in a vicious cycle, people lacking the skills to enter the workplace. The knock-on effect is deepening poverty, and a continued lack of access to job opportunities for generation after generation.Aiming to break this cycle of poverty is Learn to Earn (LtE), a skills development organisation based in Khayelitsha, and in the seaside town of Hermanus, in the Western Cape.The organisation’s philosophy is “give a hand up and not a hand out”; and it focuses particularly on helping people take charge of their own financial and social wellbeing.“LtE was established in 1989 and since then we have had over 10 000 people graduate from our programmes, “says Barbara Lipp, communications and events manager at Learn to Earn.“For those who work and volunteer at Learn to Earn the most rewarding part is seeing the change in our graduates’ perspectives of themselves,” says Lipp.“It is an amazing moment to see a person change from being in a negative, self-depreciating space to that of wholeness and realising that they have a role to play in changing their communities and South Africa for the better.”PROGRAMMESSkills courses offered include Sewing, Home Management, Woodwork, Office Administration, Graphic Design, and Point-of-Sale and Customer Service. Each course has different entry requirements, which range from basic literacy and numeracy to a completed Grade 10. All courses include a Life Skills component and Old Mutual’s On the Money basic finance skills programme.The life skills course includes modules on self-awareness, self-esteem, family relationships and conflict resolution, CV writing and job preparation, as well as dealing with substance abuse.The Feel Good Project aims to train unskilled and low-skilled people to work in the retail supply chain. The project was initiated in 2008 in partnership with South African retail giant, TFG (The Foschini Group). Project trainees are selected from students who have completed one or more of the organisation’s market-related training courses for further training in the retail, supply and warehousing sectors.ENTREPRENEURSHIPLearn to Earn’s Business Resource Centre aims to assist graduates in converting their newly acquired sewing skills into income generating activitiesLearn to Earn’s three-year Enterprise Enabling Environment or E³ programme arms budding entrepreneurs with small business skills to open up their own businesses. The course teaches students bookkeeping, marketing, and human resource management, among others. The students work with mentors experienced at running small businesses.“As an organisation, Learn to Earn’s mission is to develop people, especially unemployed people, socially, economically, emotionally and spiritually,” says Lipp.“When we achieve our mission, we are then able to start achieving our vision – to eradicate unemployment and other legacies of injustice in South Africa and Africa as a whole.”PLAY YOUR PARTOn average it costs just more than R9 000 to put one of the participants through the programmes and Learn to Earn welcomes corporate and personal donations. The organisation also holds fundraising dinners and works with partners to pay running and programme costs.To find out more or donate to Learn to Earn, email the organisation at [email protected], or contact Aleks Jablonska on 021 671 2230 for more details.*The QLFS is a household-based sample survey conducted by StatsSA and covers the labour market activities of people aged 15 to 64.
Hours before the Australian Open started in Melbourne on Monday, BuzzFeed News and the BBC published results from a joint investigation showing that tennis authorities hadn’t punished male pros repeatedly flagged for suspicions that they were fixing matches — deliberately losing, or arranging for their opponent to lose, to maximize their or others’ betting profits. Tennis authorities quickly gathered in Melbourne for a news conference responding to the charges, saying they had “thoroughly investigated” any evidence brought to them.The process by which tennis investigates alleged match-fixing is so secretive that it’s impossible to judge the accuracy of authorities’ response. But the BuzzFeed-BBC report, and its aftermath, does provide a case study of how difficult it is to evaluate what could look like suspicious betting activity. It’s possible to use data analysis, as BuzzFeed did, to raise questions about certain matches and players; it’s much harder, and may be impossible, to use that data to accuse specific players of throwing matches without the additional investigative powers tennis authorities wield — and according to the BuzzFeed-BBC report, often aren’t using.As part of the investigation, John Templon, an investigative data reporter for BuzzFeed News, spent more than a year analyzing 26,000 professional men’s matches and found 15 players who lost matches with unusual betting patterns “startlingly often.” (Match-fixing is also believed to occur in professional women’s tennis, but the BuzzFeed-BBC investigation focused only on men’s tennis, so we are in this article, too.) BuzzFeed and BBC didn’t name these players, citing a lack of evidence of wrongdoing and possible alternative explanations for underperformance, including injury. But BuzzFeed did release an anonymized version of the data it used on GitHub, including a file containing betting odds and the year for 129,271 matches.Quickly, people wrote on Twitter and on GitHub that the data could be de-anonymized, thereby identifying the 15 players Templon mentioned. Ian Dorward, a London-based tennis bettor who used to set and adjust tennis betting lines for a bookmaker, emailed me the list of what he believed to be the 15 names. After Chris Bol, a data analyst based in Utrecht, the Netherlands, published the same names, Dorward went public with his findings, which criticized BuzzFeed for making the data relatively easy to crack.1How could the data be de-anonymized so quickly? Dorward told me he went through the process step by step, analyzing the big data set of matches. First he identified outlier players: Those who are almost always favorites are likely the very top players. Then he found unusual matches, like those that weren’t completed. That allowed him to identify some opponents. And so on, repeating the process. Bol used a different method, comparing the anonymous players’ annual win-loss records with those of actual players and finding the ones with the closest fit. The GitHub user said by email that finding odds for any single match on OddsPortal.com, the source for BuzzFeed’s betting-odds data, one would have a good chance of finding in the BuzzFeed data a unique match with those same odds and year, and repeating that process could identify the players. The user compared it to how anonymized AOL search data released in 2006 could be matched to individual Americans. BuzzFeed hasn’t confirmed the list of names — we’ll call them the BuzzFeed 15 — though the methods Bol and Dorward used appear straightforward and arrive at the same names. Asked for comment, BuzzFeed investigations and projects editor Mark Schoofs sent a statement by email. “The betting data we used in our analysis is publicly available — that’s how we got it,” Schoofs said. “In our journalism, we try to show as much of our work as possible, which is why we made the algorithm public.”Dorward looked more closely at eight matches that BuzzFeed’s analysis flagged and concluded that for each one, there was “no evidence of anything suspicious.”“It’s very, very dangerous to make blasé assumptions about a match being dubious because of prematch movements,” Dan Weston, a tennis analyst and trader who writes for the website of the sports book Pinnacle, said in a telephone interview. (Using only data on betting and results to demonstrate fixing has proven problematic in other sports.)“By itself, the analysis of betting data does not prove match-fixing,” Schoofs said in his statement. “That’s why we did not name the players and are declining to comment, and also why our investigation went much wider than the algorithm and was based on a cache of leaked documents, interviews across three continents, and much more.”So how could a player lose matches with big odds movements “startlingly often” without fixing matches?Well, lots of ways:A player could tank a match — deliberately lose it — without fixing. Sometimes players stand to make more money by losing early in one tournament so they can get to another. Other times, players might collect a bonus or appearance fee for showing up to a tournament they’d rather not play and then lose early so they can rest and focus on a bigger upcoming tournament.No. 1 Novak Djokovic was accused of doing just this — showing up to collect a bonus but losing deliberately at a tournament in Paris — in 2007 by the media and tennis-forum posters at the time, and by an Italian newspaper this week. At the time, Djokovic said he wasn’t well. Djokovic said Wednesday that he didn’t throw the match: “It’s not supported by any kind of proof, any evidence, any facts. … It’s not true.”Deliberately losing a match is punishable by a fine, but is a much less serious offense than fixing a match for gambling purposes.Bettors could have inside information on a match outcome without the player’s involvement. For instance, if the player isn’t at full strength, his coach, trainer, spouse, family members or friends might know it before betting markets do and use that knowledge or pass it on to other bettors. It might not even involve an insider at all. In the early rounds at small tournaments, a fan who happens to overhear a conversation or witness an injury at practice could trade on that knowledge before anyone else in the betting markets knows.Betting markets could simply get the opening odds wrong. BuzzFeed’s analysis identified matches for which at least one of seven major bookmakers’ odds moved by so much from when the market opened to when it closed — generally, the day or so between when a matchup is set and when the match starts — that one player’s implied chance of winning decreased by more than 10 percentage points. That typically happens when many bets are placed against the player, suggesting the initial odds were too bullish on his chances. Bookies then adjust the line to increase and balance betting volume and to reduce their exposure.Heavy betting against the player could mean some bettors know he’s going to lose. But it could also mean that many bettors spot favorable odds for reasons that the bookmaker isn’t taking into account. Often bookmakers use an algorithm to set initial odds. Depending on how sophisticated it is, that algorithm could fail to take into account injuries, or a bad matchup, or lack of play on the court surface. The more obscure the athletes involved, the more likely sports books are to whiff with their opening bid. (For reference, professional bettors in the U.S. say they focus their energies on a single, relatively unnoticed part of the sports landscape — say, backwater college basketball conferences or Major League Soccer — and use their expertise on this little swath of the sports cosmos to beat the relatively uninformed book. These bettors will often also make arrangements to trade their picks for another bettor’s picks in a different, equally obscure sport, which is how syndicates are formed and lines are moved.) Many of the flagged matches involve little-known players in third-tier tournaments, making the lines vulnerable to a well-informed bettor.BuzzFeed’s analysis included only the 39 players who lost 11 or more matches in which the odds moved heavily against them, and the 15 players it flagged were ones who lost far more of those matches than would be expected. BuzzFeed also corrected for what’s known as the multiple-testing problem, which can produce spurious results that look statistically significant, by using a Bonferroni correction — and it still found four players with significant results. So that should help mitigate concerns about any one match being a false positive. But some players are particularly tough for bookmakers to handicap, whether because they’re coming off an injury, or because they don’t play that often, or because they’re ranked higher than their true talent after a run of good luck that bettors, but not the bookmakers’ algorithms, account for. These kinds of reasons could help explain the presence of several of the players Dorward identified as being on BuzzFeed’s list. They’re also why alternative sourcing is so crucial; BuzzFeed provides supplementary evidence where it can, but as we’ll cover below, seemingly straightforward things like video of the matches in question can be hard to come by.The details of how BuzzFeed chose to do its analysis could affect which players are flagged as losing suspicious matches suspiciously often. BuzzFeed’s analysis is impressive in many ways. It’s vetted by two professors of statistics, covers 26,000 matches, excludes books with opening odds that are major outliers, accounts for multiple testing and chooses the same bookmakers that Dorward says he would have used. But any analysis involves making choices, and the more robust findings are ones that hold even when different reasonable choices are made.To check that, we enlisted the help of Jeff Sackmann, a tennis data analyst who wrote his own code, at our request, to collect and analyze tennis betting data. He checked more than twice as many matches — nearly 63,000 — from late 2008 through the start of this year. These included matches from the ATP World Tour and Grand Slam tournaments, which are included in BuzzFeed’s analysis, but also from Challengers, the sport’s minor league, where prize money and public attention are lower and the risk of match-fixing is believed to be higher.Following BuzzFeed’s methodology,2Dorward wrote by email that he identified the seven bookmakers BuzzFeed used: Bet365, Bwin, Pinnacle, Unibet, SBOBET, Ladbrokes and 188BET. BuzzFeed and Sackmann both excluded odds for each match from books that disagreed with the median implied winning probability by more than 10 percentage points. Sackmann found similar results for his expanded data set, including the same four players topping the BuzzFeed 15 list by losing the most matches relative to expectations. However, he also found that some players excluded from the analysis because they had too few flagged losses otherwise would have appeared because they lost every match with big odds movements.Sackmann also found that the results had less statistical significance — just one player, not four, lost a significantly larger number of matches than expected, after applying the Bonferroni correction. That’s in large part because Sackmann made one different choice: He used the median of all bookmakers’ opening odds for the true probability of a player winning the match, as opposed to the probability suggested by the opening odds from the bookmaker that had the biggest odds movement. That bookmaker usually was more bullish than its competitors about the player’s chances, so using its odds makes the player’s loss seem more surprising than it really was to the market as a whole. Also, Sackmann tested all players with at least 10 matches in which the odds moved heavily against them — not just players with 11 or more losses in matches like that.He also checked how the analysis would differ with a different set of bookmakers.3He chose 5Dimes, Island Casino, Bestbet, Jetbull, DOXXbet, Bet-at-home and Tipico because these are the ones with the most odds data in the database, excluding the seven BuzzFeed used, for matches for which five or fewer books set lines. He set the cutoff for flagged matches at 8 percentage points, not 10, to get roughly the same number of matches. When Sackmann used the same methodology that reproduced BuzzFeed’s list above, but with this set of bookmakers, he got very different results. Most of the names he identified as losing these matches surprisingly often were not the same as the ones he identified using BuzzFeed’s list of bookmakers.In its article, BuzzFeed writes that at least six of the 15 players it identified “have been flagged to tennis authorities by outside sources.” But the overlap could just mean that BuzzFeed and the outside sources were studying similar data with similar methods. Many of these outside sources named by BuzzFeed were using betting data as their basis for suspecting players of fixing; some, in fact, were part of the betting industry — a firm, a watchdog, a sports security association that collects alerts of suspicious betting from bookmakers. And some of the decisions BuzzFeed made in its analysis — such as where to set the cutoff in odds movement for a match to be worthy of more investigation — were based on suggestions from sports-betting investigators.None of this means that the BuzzFeed 15 haven’t fixed matches — just that, as BuzzFeed and the BBC themselves have made abundantly clear, the data analysis by itself isn’t conclusive.“It’s incredibly difficult to actually prove fixing,” Dorward said in a telephone interview.So what would be more conclusive?Other betting data. Tennis betting experts say the market has moved toward so-called in-play betting — bets placed during a match, as odds shift in response to what’s happening on the court. So, for instance, when a player wins a set, or a game, or even just an important point, bookmakers or betting exchanges quickly change the odds to reflect the increase in his probability of winning the match. That creates opportunity for bettors who know the fix is on to bet against the player who is ahead with even more favorable odds than the prematch line. BuzzFeed published a document from a 2008 investigation into match-fixing that identified several matches with that kind of suspicious betting pattern — including the sport’s most well-known example of suspected match-fixing and two other matches whose participants can be identified from the scores and opponent listed. None of the players involved are among the BuzzFeed 15. In-play betting data is available for purchase from some past matches, though it is difficult to use because it is not coded with information on the score at the time of bets. We also don’t have data on betting volumes and on maximum bets, which would show whether large amounts of money were at stake in flagged matches.Video evidence. Former player Daniel Koellerer — who was banned for life from pro tennis for fixing but denies the accusations — told the BBC that it would be easy for a pro to go unnoticed while fixing matches. But not every fixer covers his tracks well. Being able to review video of suspected matches would at least let authorities (or casual but interested onlookers) scrutinize a player’s effort throughout a match. However, not all matches are televised, and video is hard to get after the fact even for those that are. Tennis authorities ask YouTube to pull unauthorized matches and make video of archived matches available on the subscription site TennisTV for just seven days. Some older matches are available through the ATP Media Digital Archive, but this includes just one of the matches flagged for any of the BuzzFeed 15.Other corroborating evidence. This could include texts between or about players, bank records and other information.BuzzFeed and other journalists don’t have ready access to this kind of data. But tennis authorities do. The Tennis Integrity Unit — backed by the men’s and women’s pro tours, the four Grand Slams and the International Tennis Federation — can compel players to turn over phone and bank records, and it has access to detailed betting data. “Co-operative agreements with the betting industry, regulators and other parties (including ESSA, Betfair, UK Gambling Commission) can provide immediate real-time access to gambling market intelligence,” TIU spokesman Mark Harrison said in an email.Is the TIU using all of this information, along with tips about players suspected of fixing, and pursuing it as far as it can? The TIU says yes. It also maintains extreme secrecy around its operations, going so far as to not reveal details of its inquiries even in the rare cases when it announces a punishment. “TIU estimates that most, if not all, of the 18 successful corruption charges laid since 2010 would not have been achieved without the ability to work in confidence,” Harrison said.Maybe the TIU really has done all it can to root out corruption, chasing every player whose name comes across its desk. Maybe some turned out to be red herrings, like some of the BuzzFeed 15 might turn out to be. Maybe others really are fixing — giving in to the temptation to earn far more than they can by playing to win — but have gotten wise to tennis’s investigative approach and avoid using their phones or bank accounts. Or maybe fixing is very rare, and suspicious betting usually has innocent explanations.However, experience from other sports tells us there is also good reason to suspect that when sports regulate themselves, oversight can be lax. That’s really what’s at the core of BuzzFeed and the BBC’s reporting, more than the data analysis: a group of six former tennis insiders on one side saying tennis authorities haven’t followed up on what the former insiders think is compelling evidence of match-fixing, and on the other side those same authorities saying they have followed up, but confidentiality rules bar them from saying much more.Andrew Flowers contributed analysis to this article.
Manti Te’o’s girlfriend did not exist, as it turns out, and a flabbergasted nation wonders aloud how the Notre Dame star linebacker could be duped, as he claims.The story goes that Te’o met Lennay Kekua on the Internet and began a “relationship” with her, although he never actually met her. On Sept. 12, his grandmother died. Within hours, he received news that “Kekua” had died of leukemia. This made big news, that the player carried on with a heavy heart of two deaths.Well, Deadspin.com blew the whole thing up, reporting Wednesday that the woman did not exist. Te’o issued a statement saying he was part of a cruel hoax.Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick said in a news conference Wednesday night that coaches were informed by Te’o and his parents on Dec. 26 that Te’o had been the victim of what appeared to be a hoax. Someone using a fictitious name “apparently ingratiated herself” with Te’o, the school said, then conspired with others to lead him to believe she had died of leukemia.“On the morning of Dec. 26, very early morning, Manti called his coaches to inform them that while he was in attendance at the ESPN awards show in Orlando, he received a phone call from a number he recognized as having been that he associated with Lennay Kekua,” Swarbrick said. “When he answered it, it was a person whose voice sounded like the same person he had talked to, who told him that she was, in fact, not dead. Manti was very unnerved by that, as you might imagine.”The school hired an investigative firm that determined Te’o was duped into an online relationship with a woman whose death was then faked by the perpetrators of the hoax.“I want to stress, as someone who has probably been as engaged in this as anyone in the past couple of weeks, that nothing about what I have learned has shaken my faith in Manti Te’o one iota,” Swarbrick said Wednesday night.Annette Santiago, Te’o’s 72-year-old grandmother, died in September. Six hours later he said he was told that “Kekua” had lost her battle with leukemia. After Notre Dame’s 20-3 win over Michigan State on Sept. 15, Te’o said:“My family and my girlfriend’s family have received so much love and support from the Notre Dame family. Michigan State fans showed some love. And it goes to show that people understand that football is just a game, and it’s a game that we play, and we have fun doing it. But at the end of the day, what matters is the people who are around you, and family. I appreciate all the love and support that everybody’s given my family and my girlfriend’s family.”According to Deadspin, the only photos that have been found online that identified Kekua are actually pictures of another 22-year-old woman. That woman, not named in the report, told Deadspin one of those photos likely was shared by Ronaiah Tuiasosopo.Deadspin contacted friends and relatives of Tuiasosopo, and the website reported that they believe Tuiasosopo created Kekua.A Notre Dame source told ESPN he believes Te’o was not involved. But a friend of Tuiasosopo told Deadspin he was “80 percent sure” that Te’o participated and did so with publicity in mind. According to the Deadspin report, Te’o and Tuiasosopo have been in contact via Twitter, including exchanging several friendly messages last summer.Te’o said in his statement:“This is incredibly embarrassing to talk about, but over an extended period of time, I developed an emotional relationship with a woman I met online. We maintained what I thought to be an authentic relationship by communicating frequently online and on the phone, and I grew to care deeply about her.“To realize that I was the victim of what was apparently someone’s sick joke and constant lies was, and is, painful and humiliating.“It further pains me that the grief I felt and the sympathies expressed to me at the time of my grandmother’s death in September were in any way deepened by what I believed to be another significant loss in my life.“I am enormously grateful for the support of my family, friends and Notre Dame fans throughout this year. To think that I shared with them my happiness about my relationship and details that I thought to be true about her just makes me sick. I hope that people can understand how trying and confusing this whole experience has been.“In retrospect, I obviously should have been much more cautious. If anything good comes of this, I hope it is that others will be far more guarded when they engage with people online than I was.”
Four injured in suspected gang shootout on Valencia Park Street SAN DIEGO (KUSI) – Four people were shot, including a 30-year-old man who suffered life-threatening injuries, during a suspected gang shootout between two groups on a Valencia Park street, police said Monday.It happened around 11:20 p.m. Sunday on Logan Avenue near Euclid Avenue, San Diego police Officer John Buttle said.“For unknown reasons, the two groups started shooting at each other,” Buttle said. “Over 20 rounds were fired.”A 30-year-old man was shot in the neck and taken to a hospital for treatment of life-threatening injuries, the officer said. An update on his condition was not immediately available.A 57-year-old man suffered several gunshot wounds to his leg, a 30- year-old man was shot in the neck and face and a 19-year-old man was shot in the chest, Buttle said, adding that all three were taken to a hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries.Gang detectives were investigating the shooting. KUSI Newsroom, Posted: August 12, 2019 Categories: Local San Diego News FacebookTwitter August 12, 2019 KUSI Newsroom