BRYAN FAUST/Herald photoMILWAUKEE — The Chinese calendar will have to add another animal to its Zodiac because 2006 will forever be known as the Year of the Badger.Two weeks after the Wisconsin women’s hockey team won the national championship, the men’s team followed suit with a title of its own by defeating Boston College 2-1 Saturday night at the Bradley Center in Milwaukee.The national championship marks the sixth in Badger history and the first for the program since 1990. It also made Wisconsin the first Division I program ever to win both the men’s and women’s Frozen Fours in the same year.The Badgers overcame an early deficit to win the game and dodged a bullet in the waning seconds of play, when a shot by Boston College’s Peter Harrold passed UW goaltender Brian Elliott’s outstretched leg pad and bounced off the right post with 1.6 seconds to go.While the stadium’s collective heartbeat stopped with the shot, Elliott never had a doubt it would miss its target.”Hopefully, if it was any closer, I would have gotten a pad on it,” Elliott said. “Posts are your best friend, and I got one tonight.”The post ended one of the longest minutes in the Badgers’ history. Simply scrambling to keep the Eagles from scoring, especially when Boston College pulled goaltender Cory Schneider with less than 30 seconds left, the Badgers held on for the last minute of play to take the title.”My group was the next group up, and I was looking for a change just so I can get out there [and] be in some kind of control,” UW captain Adam Burish said of enduring the last minute of play from the bench. “All of a sudden, [the ref] waves off the shot, and you don’t know what to do.”The Badgers found themselves in a hole early in the game after a costly mistake in their defensive zone. BC’s Dan Bertram played the role of aggressor, as Wisconsin attempted to move the puck forward. After forcing a turnover along the end boards, Bertram managed to skip the puck in front of the net, where it bounced around briefly before Pat Gannon backhanded it past an unsuspecting Elliott.”It was a bad bounce off [Bertram’s] stick, and he managed to get it out in front of the net,” Elliott said of the goal. “Somehow, he got it up with a backhand. It was a really good goal. He just got it top shelf.”UW’s Robbie Earl answered back at the start of the second period with a remarkable goal of his own. Earl made a move toward the bench after a hit in the neutral zone jarred his shoulder, but upon seeing Joe Pavelski keep the puck in the offensive zone, the Badgers’ leading scorer skated up the left side and one-timed a Burish feed past Schneider.When the teams went into the third frame tied 1-1, the game came down to 20 minutes for the title. With the Badgers on the power play, Pavelski found senior defenseman Tom Gilbert with a pass from the left side of the goal. Gilbert, camped out at the same spot he had occupied in the Badgers’ previous power plays, took a shot from the top of the slot that hummed past Schneider and gave Wisconsin a small cushion with which to work.The shot was Gilbert’s third opportunity to score on the night. He had taken a similar shot off a Jake Dowell feed that Schneider blocked. This time, however, he would not be denied.”I was thinking to myself, ‘I’m not going to strike out three times,'” Gilbert said. “Joe Pavelski made a great pass to me, I buried my head, and I knew the puck was going to go in.”The goal was a culmination of the countless power play opportunities throughout the match. The Badgers had the man advantage eight times Saturday night — five prior to Gilbert’s goal — while the Eagles had only four such chances throughout the game.”One power play goal was the difference in the game,” BC head coach Jerry York said. “We couldn’t score a power-play goal, and we had four chances. We gave them eight.”When looking at the shot count in the third period, it seemed only a matter of time before the Badgers scored, as they outshot Boston College 11 to four. They finished the game outshooting the Eagles 39 to 23, including a 17-shot first period that was the highest first-period total in a NCAA title game since 1988.With the championship win, the senior class, known as the “Junction Boys” for the hardships they went through in head coach Mike Eaves’ first year, won the title they had yearned for since those first grueling practices.”It’s a storybook ending and a Cinderella story,” senior forward Ryan MacMurchy said. “We hadn’t won anything our whole four years. It was everything it lived up to be in our dreams, and we got it done with blood, sweat and tears.”
The following incidents were reported in the USC Dept. of Public Safety daily incident log between Monday, Jan. 9, and Tuesday, Jan. 10. Crimes against a personat 2:18 p.m. on Jan. 10, a staff member reported that, while standing in a parking stall she was saving for her husband, a non-USC female forced her out of the space by intentionally driving her vehicle into her. The female was subsequently detained by DPS officers and witnesses confirmed the staff member’s account of the incident. The female was then arrested and transported to 66th station for booking.at 10:37 A.M. on Jan. 9, a student reported she paid another student to sublet his apartment at Sunset Apartments and, after he cashed her check, she discovered he did not have a current lease and was not authorized to rent it. The reporting student has been unable to contact the second student since paying for the sublet and the matter was referred to DPS and LAPD detectives for investigation.at 4:50 p.m. on Jan. 9, a female student reported that a male suspect slapped her buttocks as she rode her bicycle past him near Jefferson Boulevard and McClintock Avenue. DPS officers responded, then located and detained the suspect. The suspect was determined to be intoxicated and the officers transported him to a transition house to sober up after the female student declined criminal prosecution of the matter.
…says additional spending to cover new ‘legal fees’ By Samuel SukhnandanOne month after Government formally filed legal proceedings against neighbouring Venezuela at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to finally confirm the legal validity and binding effect of the 1899 Arbitral Award, the coalition has moved to Parliament, seeking millions to pay legal fees.This request comes at a time when Government is yet to state how much of the US$18 million it received from ExxonMobil in the form of a signing bonus has been expended for this same case. That money is said to be sitting somewhere in the Central Bank in a private account.According to Financial Paper Number Two of 2018, the Government is requesting $488,000,000 to meet the estimated cost in 2018 of representing Guyana at the ICJ, including payment of legal fees. While $300 million was listed as voted provision, $788,049,000 in supplementary provision is now being sought.Asked to provide an explanation as to why this amount is being sought, Vice President and Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Greenidge disclosed that that sum will cover the cost for retaining lawyers to do whatever it is that is needed to be done during the course of 2018 in terms of this border case.“We don’t know exactly how much it would cost, because we don’t know how the court process will unfold. It depends in part on what the court requires. They may look at it and decide to ask us to do this or that…and we might have to go and get somebody else to supplement the information,” he explained.Greenidge said Venezuela may also choose to appear or not appear, and that too could affect the budget. “So it’s a little difficult to say exactly what will be required; that is why it is an estimate. So we may find at the end of the year that it is less or more. You pay lawyers by time, so it’s very much dependent on them.”The Minister had said US$15 million of the entire bonus had been set aside for legal fees, but Government might need to find more money as the case progresses. Greenidge said Cabinet has decided that, as the need arises each year, the money would be transferred from the special account at the Bank of Guyana to the Consolidated Fund to “meet the estimated expenditure” for the lawyers.Meanwhile, the Government has disclosed that the team which represented Guyana in the matter against Suriname in 2007 has been retained. That team is headed by Paul Reichler, a partner in the Washington office of law firm Foley Hoag LLP. There is still no word on which other firm has been hired.Minister Greenidge has, however, said Government may disclose their entire legal team in eight weeks’ time, depending on how soon the entire arrangement is finalised. The Minister is also not too keen on divulging that information yet, especially since Venezuela is still to decide whether they will challenge the matter.“When the entire arrangement is tied up, we will let you know…You got firms, and the individuals may not all be free all the time. At the moment, we have recruited three firms, and may likely recruit more, based on the need to do so. Some may be hired part time, as well to do research and so on,” he added.Guyana’s application to the ICJ follows a decision by UN Secretary General António Guterres to choose the ICJ as the next means of resolving the controversy that arose as a result of the Venezuelan contention that the Arbitral Award in regard to the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela was null and void.According to Guyana’s application to the World Court, for more than 60 years, Venezuela had consistently recognised and respected the validity of the binding force of the 1899 Award and the 1905 Map agreed by both sides in furtherance of the Award. Venezuela changed its position formally in 1962, as the United Kingdom was making final preparation for the independence of British Guiana.The court document further noted that while Venezuela has never produced any evidence to justify its belated repudiation of the 1899 Award, the neighbouring country has used it as an excuse to occupy territory awarded to Guyana in 1899, to inhibit Guyana’s economic development.The UN Secretary General’s authority to choose the ICJ as the means for resolving the controversy is rooted in the Geneva Agreement of 1966, negotiated just before Guyana attained independence.