Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Masters Week! 🌺 And another drop by Alan Shipnuck. 📖 “Enjoy the tale.” Here’s an excerpt, the end of the foreword and as it relates to whether or not Rory would sit and talk to Alan for this book: “You fucked Phil,” McIlroy said. “Actually,” I replied, “Phil fucked...

98,693 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Sorry if I did not answer many of you. I’ve never been a fan of the online eulogy. The immediate fallout is always about loved ones. And we should leave those closest be. And then I realised of course I was just incredibly upset, and a large digital outpouring is inevitable and testament to his character. My devastation came from having to watch it all unfold. From spending years trying to help and actually getting him close to a point where he almost had a normal life again - then being powerless to stop him doing things he should not have. Powerless in every sense as it also meant it sometimes not being my place to say anything. In the end watching some of the evil shits around enable the worst of it was too much for me, I had to step back it was too painful to watch. I told my mate who was filling in for me looking after him “ah I just need some space from it all, I’ll be back with him after Christmas” and then suddenly there was no Christmas. And it turned out no one was to blame, and I immediately looked to blame myself most of all, fearing the worst. But it was a simple accident in the end. A bolt out of the blue. So if you are ever estranged or overwhelmed by friends and family and think it will all be OK one day - DON’T put it off. Reach out now. Grab that person and hold them tight. There may not be a tomorrow. You might not be around to see them off. There may not be the grand luxury of time available you thought there was. He died in the arms of his beloved son, and that is a measure of comfort, if a passing can ever have any. He was my mentor, my friend and my glad burden. And there was nothing I would not do for him.

The Secret DJ.

40,740 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨🎙️MLS BAN WARNING FOR MESSI? THREE-GAME SUSPENSION COULD BE ON THE TABLE “I think Lionel Messi has a serious disciplinary problem on his hands after what happened against Philadelphia, and I would not be surprised if MLS decides to come down heavily on him. “We have to separate the player Messi is from the incident itself. He is one of the greatest footballers the sport has ever produced, but that does not mean he gets a different set of rules when he is involved in an off-the-ball incident. “What makes this interesting is that it was not part of a footballing action. Messi was involved in a confrontation with Quinn Sullivan, there was a lot of pushing and talking, and then you see Messi make contact with the back of Sullivan’s head or neck. The referee did not issue a card at the time, but MLS has the ability to look at incidents retrospectively. “If the disciplinary committee decides that the contact was intentional and constitutes violent or unsporting conduct, then a suspension becomes a realistic possibility. They will have to look at the video, the referee’s report, the sequence of events before the contact and whether Messi was reacting to something Sullivan had done. “For me, the fact that there was no serious injury does not automatically make it acceptable. The disciplinary process cannot simply say, ‘It was Messi, so it was harmless.’ The question should be whether the action crossed the line. “I could see MLS considering a three-game suspension if they believe the slap was deliberate and that the incident deserves punishment beyond what the referee saw on the night. Whether they actually go that far is another question, because there are mitigating circumstances and the contact itself was relatively minor. “But MLS also has to think about the message it sends. If another player did exactly the same thing and the footage clearly showed an intentional slap to an opponent’s head or neck, would we expect the league to investigate? Of course we would. “Messi cannot be immune from that standard simply because of his status. In fact, with his profile, there is probably an even bigger responsibility on him to avoid these situations. “And remember, this was already a very heated match. The game finished 2–2, there was another confrontation late in the match, two players were sent off, and emotions were clearly boiling over. MLS will have plenty of footage to examine. “So I would not say Messi is definitely getting three games. That would be irresponsible at this stage. But if the committee concludes that he deliberately struck Sullivan and believes it falls under conduct deserving disciplinary action, three games is certainly a punishment they could consider. “The big question now is whether MLS treats this as a minor incident that warrants a fine, or whether they decide that putting a hand to an opponent’s head off the ball deserves a suspension. Messi’s name should not decide that. The evidence should.”

MatchReport

68,967 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce

Brooks Koepka leaving LIV Golf is an obvious blow to the league. But, it would be a considerably bigger blow if Bryson DeChambeau were to do the same. Bryson is contracted through the end of 2026, but he’s currently in discussions to extend early. Speaking exclusively to Tom Hobbs from Flushing It Golf, he spoke about the current situation: “I mean, look, it's confidential. I’m not going to share too much, but the conversations are in process. We have to get to a place where both parties have a good understanding of one another. It is getting to a place that makes sense for both sides. “And, I think that can happen, but you never know. Life throws curve balls and, obviously, we saw what happened today (Brooks Koepka leaving LIV Golf) and that was quite a shock to a lot of people and something that, you know, it is what it is. “People make decisions for whatever their needs and wants are and, ultimately, you have to respect it and move on and it feels like it was a mutual understanding and that's great. “I think that as a league now we have more opportunity to make some movements and I think that team has an opportunity to do some things differently than the past few seasons. So, we'll see where it all goes and where it all leads. Ultimately, it's quite interesting.” It certainly is interesting. Throughout the season, LIV Golf officials were trying desperately to convince media members that Brooks was happy and committed to the league and his franchise, when perhaps they were actually just trying to convince themselves. So, were the players aware he felt this way and did they expect the news to come so soon, before the end of his current contract? “There was always rumblings, but ultimately, it was a shock when I saw it today. I was like, whoa, all right, well, didn't know it was going to happen today. I didn't have that on my bingo card for the 23rd of December. “There's also, people can look at it as an opportunity. I always look at it as when one door closes another opens, right? And, I'm not going to speak for LIV, but I think that's what we're thinking of, at least from my perspective. If I was running the league, I'd look at it as an opportunity, not in a negative or positive way. It's just, it is what it is, right?” Bryson makes an interesting point. Brooks was never really committed to his captaincy of Smash GC or building a franchise, so perhaps a change of leadership and the opportunity that offers is actually a positive. There’s no point in having a big name player on the league if he’s not even prepared to wear his own team branding. So, now that Brooks has officially left, does Bryson think Brooks should be allowed back onto the PGA Tour? “I don't know, man. I don't know what they should allow or not… If they're going to be doing it by the book, they should do it by the book and not give any special exemption. But if there's a special exemption, it definitely opens the doors for others to do the same, which, you know, it's a slippery slope for sure.” Currently, no official pathway back to the PGA Tour for Brooks Koepka has been announced. So, any decision that is made will definitely be something all players on the LIV Golf League will be paying very close attention to. Follows on in a quote of this post. Bryson DeChambeau Crushers GC LIV Golf

Flushing It

1,206,807 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

🇺🇸 🇮🇷 THE BIG QUESTION: SHOULD TRUMP FINALLY HIT IRAN'S INFRASTRUCTURE? History does not repeat, but it rhymes loud enough to hear. In 1945, Japan was finished. Its navy was gone. Its cities were burning. Its war machine could not replace what it lost. And still the leadership would not surrender. Iran today looks eerily familiar. Its radar sites keep getting flattened. Its small boats keep getting sunk. Its missile stockpiles keep getting hit. And still Tehran keeps shooting, mining, and lying its way through every ceasefire it signs. To be clear, nobody is talking about the weapon that finally ended Japan's war. Trump is not dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran, and nobody serious is suggesting he would. That is not the parallel. The parallel is the dilemma itself. What do you do with an enemy that is beaten by every rational measure, yet refuses to act like it? Trump has tried to solve that puzzle the hard way, the careful way. Hit the drone depots. Hit the coastal radar. Leave the power plants standing. Leave the water desalination facilities alone. Spare the bridges and highways ordinary families use every day. He said it himself. He does not want to punish a population for the sins of a regime they never chose, and he does not want American taxpayers footing the bill to rebuild a country we did not break in the first place. But restraint only works on an enemy capable of reading the signal. Iran keeps proving it cannot, or will not. So the real question is not whether Iran is beaten. It clearly is. The real question is what finally convinces a regime that will not admit defeat, without turning millions of ordinary Iranians into collateral damage for their leaders' stubbornness. That is the needle Trump has to thread. Escalate enough to end this, without becoming the very thing his restraint was designed to avoid. The world will be watching which targets he chooses next as closely as it watches whether Iran ever really surrenders at all.

Bill Mitchell

33,676 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

#ZimElection2023 CHAMISA RAN HIS CAMPAIGN LIKE AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE WITH NO STRUCTURES AND EXPECTED TO WIN AND BECOME PRESIDENT WITH NO MAJORITY IN PARLIAMENT This is what Nelson Chamisa said on 21 June 2023 about the strategic thrust of the campaign of his CCC in the 2023 harmonised general election held last week: "our [CCC] campaign is going to be basically a presidential... our [CCC] focus is not to be in parliament but to be in government. We [as MDC opposition] have been in parliament for a long time, that's not our [CCC] station of choice at the moment". The fact that Chamisa thought he could win the presidential election even if, or regardless of whether, his CCC won a majority in Parliament, explains his crushing defeat. An election in Zimbabwe is defined in terms of section 4 of the Electoral Act which provides that: election” means— (a) the election of a member of Parliament; or (b) an election to the office of President; or (c) an election for the purposes of the Rural District Councils Act [Chapter 29:13] or the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15]; as the case may be. These three elections used to be held separately before they were harmonised for the first time in the 2008 election in terms of section 38 of the Act. It is odd and even irrational, and it defies the logic of the harmonised general election for any political party that seeks power to govern the country as a whole to only target – as did Chamisa in the 2023 harmonised general election held last week –winning only one of the three elections, just the presidential election. It is foolhardy for a political party to say its strategy and focus is only to win the presidential election, without basing that strategy and focus on winning the local authority and parliamentary elections, as well. Such a strategy, if it can be called a strategy, renders the presidential candidate no different from an independent presidential candidate who contests for the presidency without the advantage of the structures of a political party. Simply put, a presidential candidate in Zimbabwe cannot win a presidential election if the candidate does not have a campaign strategy that is based on his or her political party winning a majority of wards in the local authority election, and a majority of constituencies in the parliamentary election. If it’s an independent presidential candidate, then he or she must have ground structures of one sort or another, or forget it. Chamisa contested the presidential election as if he was an independent candidate, and he boasted about it, without relying on his CCC and without any ground structures. In the circumstances, just how or why did Chamisa expect to win the presidential election by effectively running as an independent candidate? Which structures did Chamisa expect to use, or did he in fact use to campaign for the presidency in every street and every village, across the length and breadth of the country? Since by his own admission, as quoted above and reflected on the attached video clip, Chamisa was clearly not relying on his CCC to win the presidency. This begs the question: by not relying on CCC structures, and by not having alternative ground structures in the streets and in villages, did Chamisa think that ZanuPF members and supports would vote for him, as an act of God, perhaps? Was Chamisa's presidential election campaign, for him an article of faith, in other words was it about his belief that God had chosen him, and that he would win regardless of whether or not CCC won a majority in the local authority and parliamentary elections? Where did Chamisa and his supporters in Zimbabwe and among the legions of his fans in America and Europe think he would get the necessary number of polling agents to monitor the voting and vote counting at the country’s 12,374 polling stations, and to secure the 12,374 V11s from those polling stations, given the fact that he actually ran for the presidency as an independent candidate, expecting to be supported less by his own CCC party and more by the members and supporters of ZanuPF? Does this kind of strategy make sense to anyone on earth? And, does that strategy make sense to Nerves Mumba and his Sadc Election Observation Mission or to any other foreign election observation mission that was in Zimbabwe last week like, say for example, the European Union Observer Mission or any of the several observer missions from the United States that were in Zimbabwe to observe the elections? How did the various foreign election observer missions and Chamisa’s social media supporters expect him to win the presidential election, not only where and when his CCC party was losing the local authority and parliamentary elections but, and critically, where Chamisa himself did not believe that the local authority and parliamentary elections were important or necessary for him to win the presidency? The fact that the loquacious, belligerent and inflammatory foreign election observer missions that are peddling falsehoods about the elections, and Chamisa’s social media supporters who claim with no evidence that Chamisa won, did not raise a finger against the results of the local and parliamentary elections that were declared at 1970 wards and 209 constituencies well ahead of the declaration of the result for the presidential election on 26 August, clearly means that there was no problem with two of the three elections that make up Zimbabwe’s harmonised general election. Only after the declaration of the presidential election result on 26 August did all hell break loose. It must be asked, again, how did anyone expect Chamisa to win a presidential election whose campaign was – as per Chamisa’s deliberate strategy – organised and pursued as if it was the presidential campaign of an independent candidate? Chamisa’s presidential election campaign was not based on the CCC parliamentary election campaign or on CCC’s structural capacity on the ground, strangely, it was based on the expectation that ZanuPF members and supporters would vote for Chamisa. Why on earth did anyone expect ZanuPF members and supporters to vote for someone whose base is ever singing cacophonic noise that ZanuPF must go, and hurling insults at the incumbent party, its officials and its supporters? What kind of politics is that? You are contemptuous of ZanuPF and anyone associated with it, but you expect ZanuPF members and supporters to vote for you. This expectation does not compute, certainly not in electoral politics. As things turned out, ZanuPF members and supporters who are registered voters voted for their party candidates in all the three elections: local authority election, the parliamentary election and the presidential election. As a result, in the parliamentary election, CCC won just 73 constituency seats. There's just no way that CCC's 73 constituency seats in the National Assembly would have boosted Chamisa to win the presidency. No ways. In Zimbabwe's first harmonised general election in 2008, Morgan Tsvangirai did well in the first round of the presidential election primarily if not only because the two MDC formations used their round structures to win a majority in Parliament with a combined strength of 110 constituency seats, while ZanuPF garnered 99 seats and an independent got one seat. This was the first time since independence in 1980 that the opposition commanded the majority in Parliament. So, clearly, in 2008 Tsvangirai was propelled by the solid parliamentary performance of the MDC formations. The same structural dynamic was conspicuously absent for Chamisa in the just ended harmonised general election. Chamisa ran a solo presidential election campaign and, predictably, it went horribly wrong. The fact that CCC did not field local authority candidates in 90 wards made a bad situation worse for Chamisa, and it was further compounded by the fact that CCC did not have ground structures to harness and harvest from the loose and unreliable protest vote, especially in the wards and constituencies outside CCC strongholds, which in fact used to be MDC strongholds in the days of Morgan Tsvangirai!

Prof Jonathan Moyo

98,230 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce