Yesterday, several media outlets disclosed the existence of a Russian think tank report, commissioned by Vladimir Putin in June 2016, which outlined a campaign to undermine voters’ faith in the American electoral system.  Unreported were sections of the report which focused on other national institutions.  Page 214 of the document prepared by the Moscow-based Russian Institute for Strategic Studies is titled, “Здесь останавливается шайба,” or “The Puck Stops Here.”

The underlying premise behind using the National Hockey League, and the Washington Capitals in particular, as an element of the Kremlin’s campaign to create unrest in the United States is described in the following excerpt.

Americans believe in hope. They yearn for it.  They search for it everywhere.  They twice elected Barack Obama as their president thinking that the first African-American in the oval office would result in a new era of post-racial harmony.  As we have seen, Americans will quickly change their attitude if confronted with a different reality.  It was this change in temperament which made  Donald Trump’s success in the Republican race for the presidential nomination possible.

This should be our model for undermining Americans’ hope in every aspect of their lives.  Take sports for example.  An indication of  their confidence in a better future is embodied in their mantra, “Wait ’til next year.”  Do we need look any farther than the fans of the Chicago Cubs?  A hundred eight years without a championship.  And still they fill the stadium and cheer their players.  One can only imagine what a World Series title would do to bolster the American dream that anything is possible.  Unfortunately, intervention targeted at Major League Baseball would require starting from scratch as Russia currently produces no players likely to be courted by the owners or managers.

An easier target is the National Hockey League (NHL).  We have been watching closely and it appears the Washington Capitals could be easily manipulated.  During the 2015-16 season they had the best regular season record in the league.  But as they have done so many times before, faltered during the playoffs.  The media was filled with stories trying to explain the Capitals’ collapse.  Our goal should be to assure this happens year after year.

 Maybe it is coincidence, but this certainly explains how one of the three Russians on the Capitals’ roster, Alex Ovechkin, can lead his team to the 2016-17 regular season title and once again be named league MVP.  Yet as he did last year, become a relative non-factor in the first round of the playoffs.  As you know, I have avoided promoting conspiracy theories in  this blog, but the accompanying photo of Ovechkin and Trump meeting on the outfield of an empty National’s stadium raises questions.  Meeting at the Verizon Center would have drawn too much attention.

Though unconfirmed, an unnamed source claims the FBI requested a FISA court warrant to surveil Ovechkin. They intercepted transmissions from a meeting attended by Ovechkin and the two other Russians on the Capitals’ roster–Evgeny Kuznetsov and Dmitry Orlov (code name “choking dogs”)–following Sunday’s loss to the Toronto Maple Leafs.*  Russian handlers warned the players that blowing a 3-1 lead and possibly losing in the first round of the playoffs was too obvious.

Evidence suggests they may be right.  Capitals coach Barry Trotz reduced Ovechkin’s time on the ice in both games three and four of the Toronto series.  To deflect suspicion Ovechkin scored early goals in both games.  Whether the Capitals’ survive this Russian attempt to foment discord in the nation’s capital is yet to be seen.  Last night’s winning goal by American-born Timothy Leif “T.J.” Oshie, assisted by Niklas Backstrom of NATO ally Sweden suggests there’s still hope and proves that the North Atlantic alliance is not obsolete.  However, if you think there was finger pointing after Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, it will be nothing compared to the second-guessing following a Capitals’ early exit from the Stanley Cup playoffs.

*NOTE: Secretary of Education Betsy de Vos recently thanked the Toronto front office for promoting the correct spelling of the plural for “leaf.”   

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Yesterday’s season finale of the National Basketball Association (NBA) was mired in controversy.  Three teams–the Chicago Bulls, Indiana Pacers and Miami Heat–were vying for the last playoff spot in the NBA East conference.  To secure a chance at post-season play, Miami needed a win AND losses by either Indiana or Chicago.

Miami did its part, besting the Washington Wizards 110-102.  But their playoff hopes were undermined when the Atlanta Hawks (Indiana’s opponent) and the Brooklyn Nets (Chicago’s opponent) announced they would be resting many if not all of their star players.  As predicted, Indiana and Chicago recorded easy victories, 104-86 and 112-73 respectively.  The losing teams made no apologies.  Atlanta was locked in fifth place in the East conference and argued its goal was to ensure its premier players, following the grueling 82-game regular season, were healthy and energetic when the playoffs commence this weekend.  Brooklyn, which had been eliminated from post-season competition weeks ago, saw their final game as an opportunity to evaluate its younger players in anticipation of off-season personnel changes.

Miami and most sports reporters and pundits cried foul.  For example, SB Nation columnist Kristian Winfield wrote:

The list of players resting on Wednesday could easily form one of the most formidable 12-man groups the NBA can offer. Missing that level of talent will sap a chunk of the value out of the 2016-17 season finale.

In addition to the Miami Heat, many sports writers and broadcasters identified fans as being equally aggrieved.  Winfield continued:

Season ticket holders pay hard-earned money to watch their favorite players go out and compete. For playoff teams, it’s different. The season isn’t over. But for teams like the Knicks, Nets, Mavericks, and Pistons, a service is owed to the fans who have put money in the pockets of owners and players alike. It’s one thing resting players for a deeper purpose. It’s criminal to deprive fans of their favorite players.

I’m sorry, but I have little sympathy for either the Heat or the fans.  Concerning the latter, I’m willing to bet those same ticket holders will have NO problem, when their teams are more competitive, if their coach and front office sit their stars to increase the chances of advancing through the playoffs.  The ultimate goal for every NBA franchise is to hold the Larry O’Brien Championship Trophy in mid-June.  Getting there requires both an on-court and off-court strategy.

As for the Miami Heat, I was reminded of my days as a member of the faculty at Miami University.  Without fail, one or more students would approach me after receiving their grades on the final semester assignment.  In every case, it seemed a one or two point deviation in their score would make a difference in their final grade, and in turn, their grade point average.  My response?  Why are you coming to me now?  You had myriad opportunities throughout the semester to raise your grade in the class.

So it is with the Heat.  All they had to do was turn ONE of their 41 defeats during the 2016-17 campaign into a victory and last night’s game would have been meaningless.  They, too, would most likely have rested their players in preparation for a playoff run.  There are many legitimate reasons why this did not happen.  Player injuries.  Hot shooters having an off night.  Bad coaching decisions (play calls or substitutions) during critical times in a game.  Questionable calls by the officials.  But a playoff contender should have been able to overcome these set-backs at least once in 41 tries.

So don’t blame the Atlanta Hawks or the Brooklyn Nets.  From opening day, the Heat had the ability to control its own destiny.  In other words, it’s not always how you perform in the end.  Sometimes it’s more important what you achieve at the outset.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Life isn’t fair.  But sometimes it is less fair than it ever should be.

Such was the case in the first major championship of the LPGA season.  Twenty-two year old Lexi Thompson exited the twelfth green during the final round believing she had a two stroke lead with six holes to play.  As she approached the thirteenth tee, an LPGA rules official informed her she had been assessed a FOUR stroke penalty.

What could a player possibly have done during the final round to deserve having her major championship hopes turned upside-down? The answer: NOTHING!

I thought about about calling this post, “Five Wrongs Never Make a Right.”  Here’s why.  During Saturday’s third round Thompson inadvertently placed her ball a fraction of an inch away from its original spot in reference to the ball mark she had used.  The infraction was so minor, no one at the time including her playing companion, their caddies, the officials accompanying the twosome or any member of the gallery noticed the difference.

WRONG #1: During the final round a fan watching the third round on DVR called the LPGA to report the infraction.  This is equivalent to someone watching a replay of a hockey game and calling the NHL to report an off-sides the day after a game.  If the off-sides had been called, the offending team would not have scored the tying goal and the winning goal in overtime.  By the LPGA’s logic, the NHL would award the game to the losing team.  As Tiger Woods immediately tweeted, “Viewers at home should not be officials wearing stripes.”

WRONG #2: Thompson was assessed a two-stroke penalty for misplacing her ball 22 hours after the incident had occurred.  Like any NORMAL sport, once a round of golf goes in the record books, it should stand.  HELL, in 1990, the University of Colorado was awarded a victory in a football during which they scored the winning touchdown on an illegal fifth down.  Even after the game officials were notified of the error the score was not take away.

WRONG #3: Because no one called Thompson on the infraction, she signed an inaccurate scorecard at the end of the third round for which she was assessed another two-stroke penalty under USGA rules.  How unfair is that?  I’m sure if she had been notified of the penalty before the end of the third round, she would have added the two strokes to her total and signed what would have been an accurate scorecard.  If so, she still would have won the tournament by two strokes.

WRONG #4: Sometimes common sense needs to take precedence over the letter of the law.  At worse, the LPGA should have assessed Thompson a two-stroke penalty for misplacing her ball.  There is no reasonable justification for the additional two strokes

WRONG #5: This was an opportunity for the other players to protest the unfairness of the LPGA’s actions and demand that the maximum penalty be two-strokes for the misplaced ball.  But no.  Winning was more important than making a moral declaration.  Sadly, that seems to be the order of the day in sports, finance and politics.

Thompson did her best.  She birdied three of the last six holes to make it into a playoff.  If she had won the playoff, many might have called it a fairy tale ending.  I disagree.  That outcome would have let the idiots who run the LPGA off the hook.  There is a proposed rule change that will take place in two years which would not have penalized Thompson for unknowingly signing the inaccurate score card due to no fault of her own.  In other words, the golf gods already recognize how unjust such penalties are.

She may not hold the trophy, but everyone with an ounce of sense knows Lexi Thompson won the ANA Inspiration championship.  And in turn, became an inspiration for young women (and men) everywhere.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the LPGA or the other competitors in the tournament.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

When trying to solve a problem or understand an event, counter-intuitive thinking requires two things.  First, make sure you are asking the right question.  Second, don’t overlook the obvious.  For a change, I’ll use an example from the world of sports.

Consider Super Bowl LI.  During the three weeks of non-stop pre- and post-game television and radio coverage, pundits of the game felt their bona fide as experts depended on the ability to see things the average fan missed.  Toward this end, they often over-analyzed the situation or focused on something that was largely irrelevant.

Yesterday, the four panelists on ESPN’s Sports Reporters–Mike Lupica, Bob Ryan, Gene Wojciechowski and Manish Mehta–shared their perspectives on the game.  For the most part, the discussion centered on how New England quarterback Tom Brady, at 39 years of age, continues to win his battle with Father Time.  While these so-called experts (sorry, I couldn’t resist) may have chosen the right variable–time, I believe they opted for the wrong unit of measurement.  They should have addressed minutes, not years.

Brady’s performance in the Super Bowl was exceptional but should not have been surprising for the following reasons.  First, he maintains a diet and exercise regimen designed to prolong his career.  Second, even with three playoff appearances, he played less games (15) versus a typical regular season (16) due to the “deflate-gate” four game suspension.  Third, as a result of an improved offensive line, Brady was sacked just 15 times during the 2016 regular season versus 38 times in 2015.

Instead of asking, “Can a 39 year old quarterback still win a Super Bowl,” the question should have been, “How long can a defense stay on the field without running out of gas?”  And the answer was right there in black and white. It’s called the stat sheet.  The Patriots ran 93 offensive plays compared to the the Falcons’ 46.  In terms of time of possession, the Falcon defense was on the field for 40 out of the 63 and a half minutes played including the overtime.  If this had been a basketball game, the Falcon defensive players would have been bent over, hands on knees, trying to catch their breath

I am not a Bill Belichick fan.  Just the opposite.  But it’s time to give credit where credit is due.  Several times, during the second half, I questioned how much time the Patriots took between snaps considering the score at the time.  In hindsight, there was a method in Belichick’s apparent madness.  The Falcons had already demonstrated during the first 30 minutes, if fresh, their defense could outplay New England’s offense. Every second on the field during the second half was time the defense was on its feet, not resting on the bench.

Sometimes, you don’t have to beat up on the opposition.  All you need to do is wear them down and outlast them.  The same can apply to non-sporting venues as well.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

On March 8, 2000, Boston Bruin defenseman Marty McSorley was charged with assault with a weapon when he attacked Vancouver Canucks forward Donald Brashear with his stick during the February 21 game in Vancouver.  The strike and subsequent fall to the ice resulted in a Grade 3 concussion.  Brashear did not fully recover from his injury and never played professional hockey again. Later that year, McSorley was found guilty of assault with a weapon and sentenced to 18 months probation.  The NHL suspended McSorley for a full year, after which he too never played in another NHL game.

I was reminded of the McSorley/Brashear incident during the second quarter of yesterday’s Packers/Giants playoff game.  Green Bay wide receiver Jordy Nelson was struck in his leftt side by New York defensive back Leon Hall while attempting to catch an Aaron Rogers pass. Initial injury reports range from bruised ribs to possible damage to Nelson’s kidneys and spleen.

I am not suggesting Hall be charged with assault ala McSorley.  But as I continued to watch the game I noticed something which I believe is the cause such incidents are becoming more frequent with an increasing number of serious injuries.

I never played competitive football other than pick-up games, most under the rules associated with what is known as touch or flag football.  On rare occasions the game included tackling and blocking.  However, even in those contests involving full contact, not once was a teammate or opponent carried off the field or injured beyond a few scrapes or surface bruises.

Consider the following.  First, in those days, tackling meant wrapping your arms around an opponent to halt his forward progress.  Watch today’s game.  The art of “tackling” has given way to “knocking” an opponent to the ground, something which requires more force than that needed to bring a runner or receiver down by clutching his legs or lower body.  Second, we did not wear any protective gear.  Therefore, a tackler needed to be equally concerned about his own safety as that of his target.  Leading with the crown of one’s head is only rational if the defensive player has a false sense of security ironically heightened by design improvements to equipment meant to decrease injuries from blows to the cranium.

Imagine you weighed 200 pounds and could run a 40 yard dash in less than five seconds (an NFL standard for defensive backs).  Now, whenever driving your car, you put on headgear consisting of a hard plastic shell with thick padding inside.  For good measure, your headgear includes metal bars coated with plastic which protect your face.  During a road rage encounter, you lower your head and ram someone with the crown of your headgear.  Most people would consider that unacceptable regardless whether the attack resulted in injury.  Yet, minus road rage as a trigger, this is exactly what happens several times during every NFL game.

The major difference is. in the case of professional football, humans are paid large sums of money to subject themselves to these physical assaults.  In other words, civil suits stemming from these forms of violence, are settled out of court prior to the incident.  And the compensation for future injuries is called player’s salary.  Unfortunately, college players ink the same out of court settlements on signing day except those documents do not include the compensatory financial award.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP