News‘Tag Time’ tournament in #Limerick this Saturday in aid of ChildlineBy Staff Reporter – April 7, 2016 752 RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Limerick Ladies National Football League opener to be streamed live Previous articleMajor media names for LimerickNext articleGarda move over asylum centre attack Staff Reporterhttp://www.limerickpost.ie THIS Saturday three university students from Limerick will be running a one-day tag rugby tournament in aid of Childline.The ‘Tag Time’ event will be held in Garryowen FC and will commence at 10am, and organiser Michael McInerney is urging people to get involved as it is for a very worthwhile cause.“The tournament itself will host 20 teams of 10 players and we want to attract as many people as possible to play or support on the day. Tag Time is all about getting together with friends to enjoy the festivities. There will be entertainment and craic to be had with an all day DJ, live band, raffles, prizes and much more. So even if you have no interest in the rugby, there will be plenty of activities to keep entertained”.Lunch will be available on the day with Garryowen running a BBQ and all facilities will be available so that participants can relax and enjoy themselves with friends and colleagues.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up Each team of 10 players must have a minimum of 3 girls per team. Tags will be provided on the day. There is no need for specific team kits but if this is achievable then it will not be discouraged.The cost of entering a team is €200 and you can register on https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/tag-time-tickets-20426574434, or email [email protected] Limerick Artist ‘Willzee’ releases new Music Video – “A Dream of Peace” WhatsApp Print Email Predictions on the future of learning discussed at Limerick Lifelong Learning Festival Facebook Advertisement Limerick’s National Camogie League double header to be streamed live TAGScharitychildlinelimerickRugby Twitter Linkedin WATCH: “Everyone is fighting so hard to get on” – Pat Ryan on competitive camogie squads Billy Lee names strong Limerick side to take on Wicklow in crucial Division 3 clash
Race group members quit over ‘loss of independence’On 20 Feb 2001 in Personnel Today Related posts:No related photos. Four black members of the Metropolitan police force’sindependent advisory group on race relations have resigned over concerns thattheir role has become purely cosmetic.The independent advisory group was set up by the Met as partof its strategy to tackle its failings on race highlighted by the MacphersonReport into the Stephen Lawrence murder.In a resignation letter, the four said the IAG has becomecontrolled by the police and has lost its independence and credibility. They were also unhappy over a claim by the Met that groupmembers have reviewed the case of Ali Dizaei, one of the force’s top ethnicminority officers, who was suspended last month over allegations of misconduct.They say they were unaware of the IAG’s involvement until they read about it innewspaper reports.The IAG, which was originally billed as being made up of thesome of the Met’s sternest critics, advises the force on internal as well asexternal race relations. A Met spokesman said the force is sad that four of the IAG’soriginal members have thought it necessary to resign. He said, “They have always been among the greatest advocatesof the IAG’s assertion of the need to initiate, not merely validate, policy,procedures and working practices.“We are confident the remaining members of the group and theeight new members who joined yesterday will continue to challenge and provideconstructive criticism of policing in London.”“To have a continually smooth relationship with all IAGmembers would be impossible if their independence is to be maintained.”By Ben Willmott Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Article
Spying is a secret world that strives mightily to stay out of the public eye. But in an age of almost limitless electronic surveillance, that’s become much harder to do.Just in the past year, three men identified as Russian military intelligence officers were accused of poisoning a former spy, his daughter, and two others, using a deadly nerve agent. A Russian woman acting as a graduate student admitted to U.S. prosecutors that she was an agent for Russia while cozying up to officials in the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party. And this week, former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe said that he opened a counterintelligence investigation into whether the president might have been acting on behalf of Russia after Trump fired McCabe’s boss while the FBI probed that country’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.Suddenly, the topic of spies and spying dominates newsfeeds. Yet much of what the public and even policymakers know about this complicated subject is shaped by old James Bond films or John le Carré novels — and that needs to end, according to Calder Walton, Ernest May Fellow in History and Policy at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS).Walton studies intelligence history and international relations, and co-runs the Applied History Project at HKS. He was recently named general editor of “The Cambridge History of Espionage and Intelligence,” to be published by Cambridge University Press in 2022. The three-volume work will document for the first time the vast and largely opaque record of how undercover information-gathering has been used and misused in conflicts from the ancient world through the cyberwarfare of the present.The Gazette asked Walton to help contextualize the FBI’s Russia investigation and the role other intelligence agencies may be playing in it, and to explain how intelligence and espionage have changed — and remained unchanged — since their earliest days.Q&ACalder Walton Former head of Britain’s MI6 recounts how intelligence gathering has changed deeply Gazette: First, what is the difference between espionage and intelligence?Walton: Espionage traditionally refers to human spies and spying. Intelligence is much broader. It can mean human intelligence, but it also can mean technical intelligence operations, like signals intelligence, or code-breaking, or imagery intelligence. Intelligence is not mysterious: It is secret information, which, by definition, requires secret means to obtain. Sometimes there’s not that much difference between publicly available information in The New York Times, for example, or in the Harvard Gazette, and in intelligence briefings — and when that happens, policymakers rightly ask what’s the point of intelligence briefings if they can read the same or similar information in the press? The purpose of intelligence is to provide policymakers, decision-makers, with something extra — something they can’t obtain, read, or see on the news or some other way. So, at its most basic, the purpose of intelligence is to help policymakers make their decisions. It’s to be able to know about enemies’ intentions and capabilities, and it is to be able to know about threats on the horizon. It doesn’t always work, as we’ve seen recently, but that’s the aim.GAZETTE: Is it always conducted by one government or state against another?Walton: Not necessarily. Intelligence existed even before there were states, as we understand them today — it goes back to the ancient and nomadic worlds. Today, intelligence is also being conducted in another way outside of governments and states: With the privatization of intelligence, with big businesses like Facebook, hoovering up data, intelligence exists in the private sector as well as the government. In fact, big companies like Facebook now know arguably more about people than even the government, in some cases. So that’s a form of intelligence. It doesn’t have to be state-to-state. But traditionally, for the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, it was state-to-state, yes.GAZETTE: What do you make of news that the FBI opened an investigation into whether the president of the United States has been working on behalf of Russia? In the history of Western espionage, has there been anything comparable to a major world power like the U.S. possibly being controlled by an enemy agent like Russia?Walton: I think what we’re seeing unfolding on the news every day right now is, potentially, the greatest intelligence or espionage scandal in modern history, maybe in history, full stop. The Kremlin has managed to get a candidate who’s very favorable to itself in the White House. It is still slightly hypothetical, because we don’t know the results of the investigation, but the fact that [the FBI] started an investigation at all, and this question had to be asked at all, shows how weird and unprecedented this situation is. If the music stops right now and actually there’s nothing to it, still the fact that we had to ask this question, and it was investigated, is extraordinary.My inclination is to say the FBI would have had to have a strong basis of evidence. Where did the information probably come from? We’ll hopefully know in 50 years’ time when the records are out, but it seems likely that they probably came from different sources, from signals intelligence, maybe from human sources, from foreign intelligence and from allies, as well. Unlike the U.S., and this is a crucial point, where there are restrictions on eavesdropping of phone calls and communications of U.S. citizens, those rules don’t apply to international allies. So it may well be that closer allies like Britain or Germany would have been collecting phone calls in a way the U.S. wasn’t. But it would not be inconceivable to say “this happened.”I’m struggling to find another parallel where Russia or another known power might have helped to install someone with loyalty to another country in the White House or in particular behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. The Kremlin used the KGB repeatedly throughout the Cold War to meddle in U.S. domestic politics. Every major branch of [President Franklin Roosevelt’s] wartime administration was penetrated by Soviet intelligence — in particular by now-infamous KGB agents such as Alger Hiss, who was working in the State Department. Also, FDR’s close adviser Harry Hopkins had set it up so that if, in 1944, FDR died — and unfortunately, it looked quite likely that he was going to die then — he would appoint Alger Hiss to be his secretary of state and Harry Dexter White to be his secretary of the treasury. And we now know from KGB records that both were Soviet agents.In 1968, the Kremlin offered to secretly subsidize the election campaign of Hubert Humphrey, who was running against Richard Nixon. He politely turned down the Kremlin’s offer. The KGB’s greatest attempt to meddle in U.S. presidential elections in the Cold War was against Ronald Reagan, whom the Kremlin regarded as the greatest single threat to the Soviet Union, which he probably was. So, in his various election bids, they did everything that they could, first, to undermine him, and second, to gather compromising material on him. They tried to dig up anything they could that would blacken his name, but they couldn’t find anything. And when that happened, they tried to do anything they could to support his opponents. Moscow sent a telegram to the KGB officers stationed in the U.S. saying essentially, “It doesn’t matter which party you get an agent in, Democrats or Republicans, but whoever it is must defeat Ronald Reagan.” None of this worked. Reagan won in a landslide. But the Kremlin’s strategy was clear: promote favorable candidates and undermine those hostile to Moscow.There have been extraordinarily high-level penetrations of the KGB, and then Russian intelligence, into the U.S. intelligence community itself as recently as the 1990s with Aldrich Ames, who was, at one point, the head of CIA Soviet counterintelligence, and Robert Hanssen, who was in the FBI.Even if this is nothing, the fact that we’re all spending so much time on this serves the Kremlin only too well in its long-term strategic aims. “The old phrase ‘gentlemen don’t read each other’s mail’ was unfortunately the dominant U.S. attitude before the Second World War — with catastrophic consequences at Pearl Harbor. … America learned the hard way: In reality, that was what everyone else was doing, and America was being not only naïve, but putting itself at risk by not doing so.” U.S. and Russia, behind the curtains Related Intelligence group gathers to analyze current relations, gauge future goals GAZETTE: What can you tell us about the forthcoming book project, “The Cambridge History of Espionage and Intelligence,” that you’re co-editing with Christopher Andrew, the renowned British intelligence historian?Walton: I’m thrilled to be leading this project, which will be a landmark three-volume study. There are about 30 chapters in each volume. The first volume is the ancient world and the medieval world; the second volume is from the Renaissance to the First World War. The First World War marked a major change in terms of the way the government gathered intelligence. And the third volume is from the First World War to present-day cyberwarfare.I’m general editor of the whole project, and also volume editor of the third volume on the 20th century. I’ll be contributing at least three chapters and also an introduction and a conclusion. Once we’ve got all 90 chapters together, then, as the two general editors, we will be bringing the whole thing together and trying to answer a fundamental question: Looking at this whole enormous tapestry of history, what difference can we say intelligence has made to statecraft and warfare? That’s really the aim of the whole project. What difference has it made? Does it make a difference, and if so, how? When and why hasn’t it made a difference? And what are the broad trends and themes that will help us understand intelligence — how it can be used and how it can be abused or misused? We’re calling the project, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, “Intelligence from Plato to NATO.”Gazette: Will any of the research be done at Harvard?Walton: Yes, absolutely. I’m here and we’ve got obviously a wonderful collection of historians here. We’re hoping to involve a number of historians at Harvard. The project fits well with the public policy research of HKS — in this case, informing policymaking by learning from history. I’m excited to bring it to the Applied History Project at HKS, which I help to run, and also the Intelligence Project at HKS, which I’m part of. My aim is to use “The Cambridge History of Intelligence” to make HKS into a world-leading center for the study of intelligence history. “The Cambridge History” has a clear applied-history spirit to it in that it’s trying to understand what’s going on today by looking to the past. That’s really what we’re trying to do. Gazette: Technology aside, how does intelligence and espionage today differ from 100 years ago, 500 years ago? Because at the end of the day, people are still people. We haven’t changed very much, I imagine.Walton: That’s right. The joke is that it’s the world’s second-oldest profession. Humans are humans, as you just said. Having a well-placed spy in your enemy’s camp, that’s the same as it’s always been and will always continue to be even in the cyber era, with the role of the human agent who can give you codes and passwords into an enemy state or nonstate actor that is trying to launch a cyberattack. If you have an agent who can give you those passwords, that’s clearly crucial. It’s also no different than how agents have been recruited all throughout history.Aside from technology, the old phrase “gentlemen don’t read each other’s mail” was unfortunately the dominant U.S. attitude before the Second World War — with catastrophic consequences at Pearl Harbor. There was a belief in the U.S. government before World War II that lowering yourself to intercepting communications, well, that’s not what gentlemen did. But America learned the hard way: In reality, that was what everyone else was doing, and America was being not only naïve, but putting itself at risk by not doing so.How different are government interception activities today from the past? They’re different in scale and nature, obviously, with the digital revolution, the interconnectivity of everybody in the world, so there’s more data than ever before, and it’s growing exponentially. Government agencies and businesses are gathering more data more quickly than ever before. But the principle of intercepting communications that someone wants to keep secret, involving people aiming to do harm in one way or another, that goes right back to the ancient and classical world. So, the principle is the same, but the scale at the moment almost beggars belief compared to the past — a seismic change.The digital revolution unfolding in front of us right now, with knock-on consequences for intelligence gathering, is analogous to the development of the printing press in the 1400s. Both are revolutions in the transmission of ideas. And we saw what the printing press unleashed within Europe and then the New World. I think it’s safe to say that if that past is a guide, then the cyber revolution today will also be unleashing all sorts of social revolutions and dislocations that we can’t predict at the moment, but it definitely has an intelligence component for private business, citizens, and government.Gazette: If most of the espionage techniques, the active measures, Russia used in the 2016 election and is still using to shape U.S. politics and public opinion are straight from the old Soviet intelligence playbook, why are they still effective?Walton: You’ve hit on something that’s really close to my heart. We do know about these techniques — information about the KGB’s playbook is in the public domain — the professionals know about them within the FBI and the CIA. The problem is there’s a massive, yawning gap in terms of the public understanding about Russian active measures, in particular, and intelligence more generally. From my perspective, much of this stems from the fact that intelligence is not addressed in serious books of history. I guarantee you that if you pick up most books on post-war international relations, U.S. foreign affairs, and some of the best and most recently published books on the Cold War, intelligence is addressed in a lopsided manner, at best — more often as footnotes of history. You will likely find references to what the CIA did, about how they meddled in foreign countries and launched coups. But I guarantee you that you will find hardly any mention of the KGB, or Soviet active measures. The result is you’re given this lopsided, one-sided view of history where the CIA was apparently active in these countries doing various things, instigating coups, but there’s no mention of what the KGB was doing in those same countries. We are supposed to believe that CIA was operating in a vacuum.In reality, KGB active measures were often on a much larger scale than anything the CIA could marshal in the Cold War. So, part of the surprise and shock about recent revelations about Russian active measures, from poisonings in England to election meddling in the U.S., has arisen because of a lack of public understanding about their long history. I’m afraid it has a lot to do with historians and scholars of international relations not incorporating intelligence into their work. From my perspective, this is going to be my lifetime’s work, to try to get the use and abuse of intelligence incorporated into international relations scholarship in a way it is not at the moment.This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Goodbye James Bond, hello big data
Published on December 29, 2010 at 12:00 pm Comments NEW YORK — Nathaniel Hackett saw something click in Marcus Sales four weeks ago in practice. Something changed, in his work ethic and preparation.And when he saw Sales standing in the end zone for the third time on the day, with 7:53 remaining, it was clear something did click. After a season in which the junior wide receiver scored just one touchdown, Sales tripled his scoring output in one game.‘It feels real good,’ Sales said. ‘Finally, I got a chance and I just made the plays when they counted.’Behind a strong rushing attack led by Delone Carter and a big-play passing attack led by Sales, the offensive play-caller Hackett and head coach Doug Marrone’s offense opened up Thursday. In a wild inaugural New Era Pinstripe Bowl in Yankee Stadium in front of 38,274, Syracuse (8-5, 4-3 Big East) was able to keep up and win a 36-34 shootout over Kansas State (7-6, 3-5 Big 12).The win gave SU its first bowl victory since the 2001 Insight.com Bowl — also against Kansas State.AdvertisementThis is placeholder text‘They made a young kid from the Bronx’s dream come true,’ Marrone said of his players while accepting the Pinstripe Bowl trophy. ‘And win this trophy at Yankee Stadium!’The Orange defense bent but did not break late in the fourth quarter, which sealed the victory. With 1:13 remaining, KSU quarterback Carson Coffman tossed a 30-yard touchdown strike to Adrian Hilburn, who flashed a celebratory salute after scoring. The officials issued a personal foul for excessive celebration. Down by two, the Wildcats couldn’t convert the two-point conversion from 18 yards out.When asked about the penalty after the game, Kansas State head coach Bill Snyder paused four seconds before saying, ‘I can’t comment on that.’Though the Syracuse defense ultimately preserved the win, it was the SU’s offense that uncharacteristically brought the team to that point.Carter and the combination of quarterback Ryan Nassib and Sales carried Syracuse throughout the game. Twenty-seven carries, a career-high 198 yards and two touchdowns for the senior running back Carter in his swan song for the Orange.Five catches, 172 yards and three touchdowns all added up to a career game for the once-forgotten Sales. Nassib was happy to feed him the ball, as 172 of Nassib’s 239 passing yards and all three of his touchdowns went to Sales.Marrone singled Sales out in Wednesday’s pre-Pinstripe Bowl meeting with his team, reflecting upon the progress he saw in Sales.‘I pointed out Marcus Sales and how well he’s worked and the practices he’s had,’ Marrone said of that meeting. ‘And he came out and had a big game.’An SU offense that had only one play go more than 50 yards all year long would double that total Thursday.The first of those plays that came late in the first quarter. The Orange marched close to the 50-yard line, Hackett’s target point to open up the offense. And as Hackett looked at the KSU coverage, he knew the safety would bite.So as Antwon Bailey ran up the middle for what looked like a simple, straight-ahead running play, Hackett broke out the trickery. Bailey flung the ball back to Nassib on a flea flicker, and Nassib hung a perfect spiraling throw 52 yards to Sales to tie the game at 7-7.‘We practiced it all week,’ Sales said. ‘I knew it had a chance to come to me when the safety came down. So I just put my head down and ran, and looked for the ball when it came. And I caught it.’Behind another long Sales touchdown catch — this time from 36 yards out — SU went into the half tied at 14-14. The second half quickly turned into a shootout, with Syracuse and Kansas State trading offensive blows. Carter barreled in for two touchdowns, but the Wildcats answered with two touchdown scores of their own.The Orange found itself trailing by a point with 11 minutes left when Sales’ number was called again on the game-changing drive. First, he caught a crucial 18-yard pass to extend Syracuse’s drive on third down.And his second act came with the Orange on the KSU 44-yard line. Sales’ defender slipped, setting him wide open down the field, and Nassib found him again for the long touchdown score that gave SU the lead for good.The receiver who wasn’t on the depth chart at the beginning of SU’s season carried the team and program to its biggest victory in a decade.Flashing an uncharacteristic grin that was reminiscent of the boy from the Bronx, Marrone thought it was a fitting resemblance for where his program has come in just two short years.‘It’s about creating challenges and goals for your players,’ Marrone said. ‘And they responded.’[email protected] Facebook Twitter Google+
The innate immune response is tuned to pounce on types of molecules that are commonly found on bacteria and viruses but not in human cells. When a cell detects these invader molecules, it triggers production of an antiviral interferon protein. Interferon triggers the infected cell to die, limiting infection. Older Immune Systems Are Weaker Maybe your physician has checked your white blood cell levels. That’s a measurement of whether you have more B-cells and T-cells in your blood than usual, presumably because they’re fighting infection. However, the statistics get grimmer as the patients get older. Whereas people in their 60s have a 0.4 percent chance of dying, people in their 70s have a 1.3 percent chance of dying, and people over 80 have a 3.6 percent chance of dying. While this may not sound like a high chance of death, during the outbreak in Italy, 83 percent of those who succumbed to COVID-19 infection were over age 60. When a pathogen invades, the difference between illness and health is a race between how fast the pathogen can spread within you and how fast your immune response can react without causing too much collateral damage. The mist ejected by a sneeze can launch viruses airborne, so other people can inhale them. That’s where your immune system comes in. It’s your body’s defense system against these kinds of invaders. Before you’re even born, your body starts producing specialized B-cells and T-cells – types of white blood cells that can recognize pathogens and help block their growth. Another type of innate immune cell, called a monocyte, acts as a sort of cellular bouncer, getting rid of any infected cells it finds and signaling the adaptive immune response to shift into gear. Keeping at least 6 feet away from other people helps significantly reduce your chance of being infected by these aerosol droplets. But there’s still the possibility for virus to contaminate surfaces that infected people have touched or coughed on. Therefore, the best way to protect vulnerable older and immunocompromised people is to stay away from them until there is no longer a risk. When you’re very young, you don’t have a lot of these B- or T-cells. It can be a challenge for your body to control infection because it’s simply not used to the job. As you mature, your adaptive immune system learns to recognize pathogens and handle these constant invasions, allowing you to fight off infection quickly and effectively. The coronavirus pandemic is taking a particularly harsh toll on older people. As you age, the reduced “attention span” of your innate and adaptive immune responses make it harder for the body to respond to viral infection, giving the virus the upper hand. Viruses can take advantage of your immune system’s slow start and quickly overwhelm you, resulting in serious disease and death. COVID-19 is caused by a respiratory virus, which can spread via tiny virus-containing droplets. Larger droplets fall to the ground quickly; very small droplets dry up. Mid-range droplets are of most concern because they can float in the air for a few feet before drying. These droplets can be inhaled into the lungs. Data from the initial outbreak in China and then Italy show that infected people under the age of 60 are at low—but not no—risk of dying from COVID-19. More recent data from the U.S. suggest that a higher rate of people in their 30s and 40s have experienced severe illness and even death than previously thought. Curiously, young children do not appear to be at increased risk of serious COVID-19 complications, in contrast to what happens with other viruses, like the seasonal flu. Low-grade chronic inflammation in individuals that commonly occurs during aging can also dull the ability of the innate and adaptive immune responses to react to pathogens. It’s similar to becoming used to an annoying sound over time. The innate and adaptive immune systems can act together as a fine-tuned machine to detect and clear out pathogens. Everyone, no matter their age, needs to protect themselves from infection, not just to keep themselves healthy but also to help protect the most vulnerable. Given the difficulty older individuals have in controlling viral infection, the best option is for these individuals to avoid becoming infected by viruses in the first place. During an infection, your B-cells can proliferate and produce antibodies that grab onto pathogens and block their ability to spread within your body. T-cells work by recognizing infected cells and killing them. Together they make up what scientists call your “adaptive” immune system. The Covid-19, health, safety and pandemic concept – senior old lonely woman wearing protective medical mask sitting near the window in his house for protection from virus Social Distancing Is Vital While white blood cells are powerful people protectors, they’re not enough on their own. Luckily, your immune system has another layer, what’s called your “innate” immune response. Every cell has its own little immune system that allows it to directly respond to pathogens quicker than it takes to mobilize the adaptive response. What is it that puts older people at increased risk from viruses like this? It’s primarily thought to be due to changes in the human immune system as they age. Your Body’s Tools to Fight Off Virus Infections Brian Geiss is an Associate Professor of Microbiology, Immunology & Pathology at Colorado State University As people age, their innate and adaptive immune responses change, shifting this balance. This is where washing hands, avoiding touching your face, self-isolation and social distancing all become important, especially for COVID-19. As you go about your life, your body is constantly bombarded by pathogens – bacteria, fungi and viruses that can make you sick. A human body is a great place for these organisms to grow and thrive, providing a nice warm environment with plenty of nutrients. As COV1D-19 continues to spread, this older age group will continue to be at risk for serious disease and death.
The Beaver Valley Nitehawks live to play again.Dylan Heppler had two points and Tallon Kramer stopped 26 shots to spark the Murdoch Division Champs to a 2-1 victory over the Kimberley Dynamiters in Kootenay International Junior Hockey League Kootenay Conference playoff action Saturday night in Fruitvale.Kimberley leads the best-of-seven series 3-1 with Game five set for Monday in the Bavarian City.The Hawks scored all the goals they would need on the power play in the second period to post their first win of the series.Heppler, selected Game Star for the Hawks, opened the scoring 15 seconds into the frame on the power play before Blake Sidoni made it 2-0 with an extra-man marker later in the period. Jared Marchi scored Kimberley’s only goal late in the third.But that was all the scoring the defending KIJHL could muster as Kramer shut the door.Tyson Brouwer was solid between the pipes for Kimberley, and was name the Nitros Game Star.If a Game six is neccesary, it will be played Tuesday in Fruitvale.In the Okanagan/Shuswap Conference Playoff, 100 Mile House defeated Summerland 5-4 to take a 3-1 advantage in the best-of-seven series.Game five is Monday in 100 Mile House.
The Nelson Neptunes continue to get better with age.The Heritage City club stole the show at the Kootenay Summer Swim Association Regionals this past weekend in Colville, Wash., finishing ahead of the rest of the field to claim the overall title.Neptunes coach Cynthia Pfeiffer said every single Neptune swimmer finished in the top three of their respective individual event, or top two in relay events.This means the entire team qualified for the upcoming BC Summer Swim Association Championships, August 19-21 in Coquitlam.“I don’t think it’s our talent in our pool that we can solely attribute our win to,” Pfeiffer said. “I believe the strong bond our team has, and the care and excitement we have for all of our teammates is what has gotten us through the difficulties of our last few seasons, and has allowed us to still come out on top.”Pfeiffer said the formula for selecting the winning team at the Regionals was calculated by taking overall points and dividing it by number of swimmers who attended the meet.Nelson took a clear lead in front of second place Kimberley and West Kootenay rival Castlegar.Highlights of this meet include Lachlan Bibby-Fox, Kallie Badry, and Jaylen Rushton sweeping gold in their events; Enna Cowan’s four best times; Madeline Holitzki’s first time 200-meter IM and Olivia Cowan’s first place 100 meter Freestyle.Then there was Morgan Robertson-Weir, Chloe Malenfant, and Jaylen Rushton’s Neptune sweep in 50-meter Butterfly as well as both Division 3 and Division 4 girls winning all four of their relays. “This little team has a lot of team spirit and I don’t think anything can slow them down,” Pfeiffer said.Pfeiffer said 13 of the 20 Neptune qualifiters have committed to make the trip down to Coquitlam to compete for the Kootenay region. She said races to watch for include Jaylen Rushton and Lachlan Bibby-Foxes 50-meter Breaststroke.The Neptunes, who spent the past few seasons on the road, will be back in the friendly confines of the NDCC Pool next now that renovations to the facility are close to completion.