Kyverna Therapeutics Strengthens Leadership Team to Accelerate Next Phase of GrowthCollege Football Playoff & Bowl Game TV Schedule 20245jili 。

A rescue golden retriever with an unusual birthmark has taken the internet by storm, but his owner has told Newsweek that it actually has a very sentimental meaning that helped them form an instant connection. Dog owner Shannon Eschman, 37, often posts on social media (@peeta_the_golden) about her rescue dog, Peeta, and the unusual black birthmark that covers part of his chest. The adorable pup looks like a purebred golden retriever, apart from the patch, which truly makes him stand out. Whenever she's out walking Peeta, Eschman gets stopped by people who are fascinated by the birthmark, as they've never seen anything like it. But for Eschman, of Massillon, Ohio, it's no ordinary birthmark, and she told Newsweek that as soon as she saw him, she "knew he was made just for [her]." Prior to adopting Peeta, Eschman had Brinkley the golden retriever, and Millie Mae, a rescue who was a mix of chow chow, husky and German shepherd. She sadly had to say goodbye to Brinkley in February 2021 at the age of 14, and her grief was unfathomable. She still had Millie Mae, but she couldn't imagine getting another dog at the time. That was, until she saw Peeta, who seemed to carry a part of Brinkley and Millie Mae within him. Eschman said: "I was still grieving the loss of Brinkley, and I felt this hole in my heart that I didn't think I would ever get back. When Peeta was posted on Facebook through a rescue, I cried because I knew his purpose. "I felt an instant connection because of his birthmark. It was so special to me. I always look for signs that the pets we lose are still with us, and I couldn't have asked for a bigger sign. It was no coincidence, so I filled out the application for Peeta within seconds," she continued. Peeta was rescued in June 2021, and Eschman was told by the rescue that he was being rehomed because he'd recently lost his brother and seemed lost without him. As she herself was also grieving, Eschman knew this made the bond with Peeta even stronger and that they could help each other. After finding his forever home , Peeta got to spend his first three years alongside Millie Mae, until she sadly passed away in August 2024. She was 15 years old, and Eschman said she "stayed as long as she could." Just like Brinkley, she brought so much happiness into her life. "Brinkley and Millie were my first two soul dogs. I knew that, when I was ready, I would get another golden retriever, but now I had the best of both worlds. I have my Brinkley and my Millie," Eschman told Newsweek . "I have endless pictures of Brinkley's and Millie's gold and black fur touching, and now I have it all in Peeta. I felt like I got a piece of my heart back. It's inevitable that they can't be with us forever, but they did their best to make sure I always have a piece of them." Peeta has helped Eschman heal so much, and she is so grateful for the unconditional love he provides. Although Peeta likely has no idea of the impact he's had, he can't help but love all the attention he gets for his birthmark . "He knows he's special and he flaunts it," Eschman joked. Since posting about his sentimental birthmark on Instagram , the post went viral with more than 1.6 million views and 460,000 likes at the time of writing. Alongside the heartbreaking pictures, the caption says that it "means more than a birthmark," as Peeta has brought back a part of her late dogs. The online reaction has been unlike anything she was expecting, and Eschman hopes that it will encourage others to look for invaluable signs that their beloved pets are still with them in some way. She said: "I know all our pets are put in our lives for a reason, and no matter how long they are here, it's never long enough. Our time with them goes way too fast, but never give up hope that they are always with you. If we gave at least one person hope that their baby is still with them, we've done our job." The viral TikTok post has amassed over 3,100 comments already, and many social media users thanked Eschman for giving them hope, and some even shared stories of the signs they looked for. One comment reads: "This is extremely rare and 100% heaven sent." Another person wrote: "literally just got chills through my whole body." While one TikToker added: "As someone who lost her two soul dogs, this made my jaw drop. This baby was meant for you." Do you have funny and adorable videos or pictures of your pet you want to share? Send them to life@newsweek.com with some details about your best friend and they could appear in our Pet of the Week lineup.Amazon.com Inc. is asking online shoppers to provide information about product testimonials they’ve posted on TikTok, YouTube and Instagram, suggesting the e-commerce giant is more aggressively targeting paid reviews that merchants can use to gain a competitive edge. In a questionnaire sent to a reviewer and seen by Bloomberg, a member of the company’s product review team wrote: “We are researching reviews and would like to talk to you about the interaction you had with the seller on this product.” Eleven questions followed, including one that asked: “Can you describe the work you’ve done for this seller as an influencer (eg posted videos on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram etc)?” Amazon’s campaign coincides with a government clampdown on paid product reviews. In August, the Federal Trade Commission announced a new rule prohibiting businesses from paying for consumer reviews and giving the agency authority to seek civil penalties against violators. Before announcing the rule, the FTC notified 700 companies, including Amazon, Facebook and Google, about its plans to curb a scourge that has become more prevalent in recent years. While paid reviews date back to the early days of e-commerce, millions of people have since become influencers who earn money to tout products but sometimes fail to disclose their brand affiliations. It’s unclear how Amazon determines who should receive questionnaires or what it intends to do with the responses. It’s also unclear how effective the campaign will be since reviewers can simply ignore the questions. “We have robust and long-standing policies that prohibit review abuse, and we suspend, ban, and take legal action against those who violate these policies,” Amazon spokesperson Juliana Karber said. “We consistently monitor and enforce our policies so customers can shop in our store with confidence.” She declined to answer questions about the questionnaires. Amazon has automated systems designed to detect paid reviews and other signs of unusual behavior, and employs fraud-detection investigators, Karber said. Such efforts prevented more than 250 million suspect reviews from appearing on Amazon in 2023, she said. The company has filed multiple lawsuits against paid review farms, only for new ones to emerge. Representatives from TikTok and YouTube parent Alphabet Inc. declined to comment. Instagram parent Meta Platforms Inc. didn’t respond to requests for comment. Paying for reviews is especially tempting during the competitive holiday shopping season, when online merchants often generate most of their sales and profit. A successful paid review campaign during the busy holiday period can boost sales of obscure products before the paid testimonials can be detected and eliminated. Chris McCabe, a former Amazon executive who runs a consulting business for online merchants, said he has never seen the company send a questionnaire to social-media influencers before. He recently heard from multiple Amazon merchants worried the company would suspend them after influencers they worked with received the questionnaire. “Amazon sellers will all have to be very careful how they interact with TikTok influencers and social-media influencers in general,” McCabe said. “Amazon is starting to investigate the reviewer side of the problem and sellers are going to get suspended if they choose influencers poorly.”

Social media users are misrepresenting a report by the Justice Department inspector general’s office, falsely claiming that it’s proof the FBI orchestrated the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. The examined a number of areas, including whether major intelligence failures preceded the riot and whether the FBI in some way provoked the violence. Claims spreading online focus on the report’s finding that 26 FBI informants were in Washington for election-related protests on Jan. 6, including three who had been tasked with traveling to the city to report on others who were potentially planning to attend the events. Although 17 of those informants either entered the Capitol or a restricted area around the building during the riot, none of the 26 total informants were authorized to do so by the bureau, according to the report. Nor were they authorized to otherwise break the law or encourage others to do so. Here’s a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: A December 2024 report released by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General is proof that the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was a setup by the FBI. THE FACTS: That’s false. The report found that no undercover FBI employees were at the riot on Jan. 6 and that none of the bureau’s informants were authorized to participate. Informants, also known as confidential human sources, work with the FBI to provide information, but are not on the bureau’s payroll. Undercover agents are employed by the FBI. According to the report, 26 informants were in Washington on Jan. 6 in connection with the day’s events. FBI field offices only informed the Washington Field Office or FBI headquarters of five informants that were to be in the field on Jan. 6. Of the total 26 informants, four entered the Capitol during the riot and an additional 13 entered a restricted area around the Capitol. But none were authorized to do so by the FBI, nor were they given permission to break other laws or encourage others to do the same. The remaining nine informants did not engage in any illegal activities. None of the 17 informants who entered the Capitol or surrounding restricted area have been prosecuted, the report says. A footnote states that after reviewing a draft of the report, the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington said that it “generally has not charged those individuals whose only crime on January 6, 2021 was to enter restricted grounds surrounding the Capitol, which has resulted in the Office declining to charge hundreds of individuals; and we have treated the CHSs consistent with this approach.” The assistant special agent in charge of the Washington Field Office’s counterterrorism division told the inspector general’s office that he “denied a request from an FBI office to have an undercover employee engage in investigative activity on January 6.” He, along with then-Washington Field Office Assistant Director in Charge Steven D’Antuono, said that FBI policy prohibits undercover employees at First Amendment-protected events without investigative authority. Many social media users drew false conclusions from the report’s findings. “JANUARY 6th WAS A SETUP!” reads one X post that had received more than 11,400 likes and shares as of Friday. “New inspector general report shows that 26 FBI/DOJ confidential sources were in the crowd on January 6th, and some of them went into the Capitol and restricted areas. Is it a coincidence that Wray put in his resignation notice yesterday? TREASON!” The mention of Wray’s resignation refers to FBI Director Christopher Wray’s announcement Wednesday that he at the end of President Joe Biden’s term in January. Other users highlighted the fact that there were 26 FBI informants in Washington on Jan. 6, but omitted key information about the findings of the report. These claims echo a advanced by some Republicans in Congress that the FBI played a role in instigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021, when rioters determined to overturn Republican Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden stormed the Capitol in a violent clash with police. The report knocks that theory down. such theories “ludicrous” at a congressional hearing last year. Asked for comment on the false claims spreading online, Stephanie Logan, a spokesperson for the inspector general’s office, pointed The Associated Press to a about the report. In addition to its findings about the the FBI’s involvement on Jan. 6, the report said that the FBI, in an action its now-deputy director described as a “basic step that was missed,” failed to canvass informants across all 56 of its field offices for any relevant intelligence ahead of time. That was a step, the report concluded, “that could have helped the FBI and its law enforcement partners with their preparations in advance of January 6.” However, it did credit the bureau for preparing for the possibility of violence and for trying to identify known “domestic terrorism subjects” who planned to come to Washington that day. The FBI said in a letter responding to the report that it accepts the inspection general’s recommendation “regarding potential process improvements for future events.”Jimmy Carter, the 39th US president, has died at 100Jimmy Carter, 39th US president and noted humanitarian, has died

A pair of teams vying to put a stamp on overachieving campaigns will meet as Georgia Tech squares off with Vanderbilt in the Birmingham Bowl on Friday in Birmingham, Ala. Georgia Tech (7-5) is appearing in back-to-back bowl games for the first time since an 18-year run from 1997-2014, and a win would give the Yellow Jackets consecutive bowl wins for the first time in 20 years. For a Georgia Tech program that endured a 14-32 stretch from 2019-22, this season has given Yellow Jacket fans a reason to believe a resurgence is near. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings. Stacker compiled a list of cities with the most expensive homes in the Savannah metro area using data from Zillow. Click for more. Cities with the most expensive homes in the Savannah metro areaHOUSTON, Dec. 13, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Talen Energy Corporation (“Talen” or the “Company”) ( NASDAQ: TLN ) announced today that the Company has closed on its previously announced $850 million incremental Term Loan B credit facility (the “Financing”) and the repurchase (the “Repurchase”) of an equivalent value of shares of Talen’s outstanding Talen common stock, par value $0.001 per share (“Common Stock”) from affiliates of Rubric Capital Management LP (collectively, “Rubric”). The Company previously announced it would use the proceeds from the Financing to repurchase an equivalent value of shares of Common Stock held by Rubric. Upon the successful upsizing of the Financing from $600 million to $850 million, the Company determined it would use cash on hand to further increase the value of the Repurchase from $850 million to $1 billion in aggregate purchase price. Shares repurchased using the proceeds from the Financing are incremental to the Company’s previously announced share repurchase program. The additional shares repurchased with $150 million of cash on hand utilized capacity under the existing share repurchase program, leaving approximately $1.08 billion of remaining capacity available under the program through 2026. “Demonstrating our commitment to shareholder returns, we have now repurchased more than 20% of our outstanding Common Stock in the past year and, through these repurchases, have bought back nearly 75% of our market capitalization as of our emergence from bankruptcy in May 2023,” said Mac McFarland, President and Chief Executive Officer. “We will continue to deliver value to all our stakeholders, including Rubric, which remains a valued and substantial owner of Talen stock.” The Repurchase was priced at a 4% discount to a 15-day VWAP prior to the closing of the Repurchase, resulting in the repurchase of 4,893,507 total shares at a price of $204.35 per share. Following the Repurchase, 45,961,910 shares of the Company’s Common Stock remain outstanding. This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy securities, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any state or jurisdiction in which the offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction. About Talen Talen Energy ( NASDAQ: TLN ) is a leading independent power producer and energy infrastructure company dedicated to powering the future. We own and operate approximately 10.7 gigawatts of power infrastructure in the United States, including 2.2 gigawatts of nuclear power and a significant dispatchable fossil fleet. We produce and sell electricity, capacity, and ancillary services into wholesale U.S. power markets, with our generation fleet principally located in the Mid-Atlantic and Montana. Our team is committed to generating power safely and reliably, delivering the most value per megawatt produced and driving the energy transition. Talen is also powering the digital infrastructure revolution. We are well-positioned to capture this significant growth opportunity, as data centers serving artificial intelligence increasingly demand more reliable, clean power. Talen is headquartered in Houston, Texas. For more information, visit https://www.talenenergy.com/. Investor Relations: Ellen Liu Senior Director, Investor Relations InvestorRelations@talenenergy.com Media: Taryne Williams Director, Corporate Communications Taryne.Williams@talenenergy.com Forward-Looking Statements This communication contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws, which statements are subject to substantial risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements are intended to qualify for the safe harbor from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this communication, or incorporated by reference into this communication, are forward-looking statements. Throughout this communication, we have attempted to identify forward-looking statements by using words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecasts,” “goal,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “seek,” “should,” “will,” or other forms of these words or similar words or expressions or the negative thereof, although not all forward-looking statements contain these terms. Forward-looking statements address future events and conditions concerning, among other things, capital expenditures, earnings, litigation, regulatory matters, hedging, liquidity and capital resources and accounting matters. Forward-looking statements are subject to substantial risks and uncertainties that could cause our future business, financial condition, results of operations or performance to differ materially from our historical results or those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statement contained in this communication. All of our forward-looking statements include assumptions underlying or relating to such statements that may cause actual results to differ materially from expectations, and are subject to numerous factors that present considerable risks and uncertainties.

Every day at dawn, tens of thousands of people begin lining up at Acadia Healthcare's addiction clinics to get a cup of methadone. The daily dose staves off opioid withdrawal and keeps many from turning to dangerous street drugs such as fentanyl. The for-profit chain of 165 methadone clinics -- the country's largest -- has generated more than $1.3 billion in revenue since 2022. It is "a business that we continue to feel great about," Acadia's CEO told investors this year. That business has been built in part on deception, a New York Times investigation found. Methadone is a narcotic, and the clinics are heavily regulated by federal and state governments. In addition to handing out methadone, the clinics are required to provide counseling and other services, such as drug testing. But Acadia often fails to provide that counseling, according to five dozen current and former employees in 22 of the 33 states where the company has clinics. Instead, employees at times falsify the medical records that Acadia uses to bill insurers, according to the employees and internal emails. Sometimes a counseling session recorded in a patient's medical chart is simply a chance encounter. For example, medical records for a patient in Iowa show she had a 40-minute counseling session in December 2023, but the patient said in an interview that it was actually a hallway chat that lasted less than five minutes. Acadia's business is built on volume. Its counselors carry caseloads that are sometimes more than double the limit set by state regulators, according to employees and inspection records. With so many patients, the clinics can become assembly lines, offering little more than a cup of methadone. Clinic directors can get bonuses when their patient enrollment goes up, an incentive that has led Acadia to treat people who do not have opioid addictions but are dependent on other drugs, according to current and former executives and employees. People who are not addicted to opioids can get high from methadone. "I'm not proud of it, but our clinic has admitted patients who shouldn't have qualified for treatment because we were under pressure," said Jeannie Taylor, who was a counselor at an Acadia clinic in Oregon until she retired last year. Employees at clinics in at least 13 states warned their supervisors about Acadia's practices, according to the employees and complaints reviewed by the Times. Tim Blair, a spokesperson for Acadia, said the company did not falsify medical records, overbill insurers or pressure employees to treat patients who weren't addicted to opioids. He said that Acadia had rigorous internal controls and trained its employees on proper billing practices, and that regulators and auditors regularly reviewed its records. "We take our responsibility to our patients and the communities we serve extremely seriously and patently reject claims that Acadia places profits over patients," he said. Acadia's methadone clinics have come under investigation for other issues. In 2019, federal prosecutors in West Virginia accused Acadia of overbilling Medicaid for blood and urine tests. The company paid $17 million to resolve the allegations. Three years later, Acadia reached another settlement with federal prosecutors who accused the company of hiring counselors without proper credentials at a clinic in Virginia. The company did not admit wrongdoing in either settlement. In addition to methadone clinics, the company runs psychiatric hospitals around the country. In September, a Times investigation found that those hospitals, which account for more than half the company's revenue, often held patients against their will to maximize payments from insurers. The Times article prompted several federal agencies, including the Justice Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to investigate the company's practices. News of those investigations, coupled with lower than expected patient volumes, has caused Acadia's stock price to fall by 50%, knocking nearly $4 billion off its market value. Amid that gloom, its fast-growing network of methadone clinics remains a bright spot for investors. But the Times found that business is dogged by its own problems. Doctors began treating opioid addiction with methadone in the 1960s, and its use accelerated as veterans returned from the Vietnam War dependent on heroin. Research since then has found that methadone, itself an opioid, eases cravings for more dangerous opioids and lowers the risk of overdoses. Acadia got into the methadone business a decade ago when it bought a large chain of clinics from Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Acadia's investment was prescient. In 2020, the federal government started requiring that Medicaid and Medicare cover treatment at the country's roughly 2,100 methadone clinics, most of which are run by for-profit companies. Over the next couple of years, revenue from Acadia's clinics increased 30%, according to financial filings. Clinics bring in an average of roughly $3 million each in annual revenue. Those figures could soon rise. States and counties nationwide have started to get money from settlements with companies accused of fueling the opioid crisis. Acadia is angling for a slice of the settlements, which are worth at least $50 billion. This year, for example, the company successfully lobbied the Kansas Legislature to allow for-profit companies to receive grants from the settlement. Christopher Hunter, Acadia's CEO, has told investors that the settlement funds will be "a really nice tail wind" for the company. At the same time, Acadia has been trying to fend off a serious threat to its business. A bipartisan bill in Congress would allow patients to avoid clinics such as Acadia's and pick up methadone at pharmacies instead. Proponents say that although counseling may help methadone users, widening access to the drug is more important. Acadia and other companies have sought to derail the legislation by arguing that providing methadone without counseling could lead to more overdose deaths. In a letter this year to the bill's sponsors, Acadia wrote its suite of services was the "gold standard" and provided "individualized care." Yet, Acadia's counseling services are sometimes a pretense, the Times found. Brian Pagano, a counselor at an Acadia clinic in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania, said he quit in August after his supervisors chided him for spending too much time with patients, including one who was hallucinating. "I was told this is not a mental health clinic, this is a methadone clinic," he said. Dozens of counselors told the Times they were overwhelmed by caseloads that were far higher than what their states allowed, with some responsible for as many as 120 patients. In September, Acadia cut the schedules of its full-time counselors and other clinic workers nationwide by up to four hours a week, further taxing their capacity, employees said. Blair, the company spokesperson, said, "Your characterization that counselors often have patient caseloads exceeding regulatory limits is false." Under pressure to meet the company's productivity goals, employees have falsified records so that it appears patients received counseling when they did not, according to employees, internal emails and complaints to regulators. Those records serve multiple purposes. They are used to bill insurers and to show regulators and outside credentialing groups that Acadia is complying with state rules dictating how much therapy clinics must provide. California, for example, generally requires that patients receive at least 50 minutes of counseling each month. Regulators check patients' files to ensure clinics are following the rules. Blair said Acadia provided tens of thousands of patients with high-quality treatment, including counseling. "We prioritize our counselors' and clinicians' spending meaningful time with patients," he said. But at many clinics, Acadia chastised or congratulated counselors depending on whether they saw enough patients, employees said. Some counselors said they were dinged in performance reviews for not hitting their productivity goals. The result was a saleslike culture that rewarded those who took shortcuts. At a clinic in Indiana, managers handed out a stuffed goat -- a play on the acronym for "greatest of all time" -- to counselors who hit their weekly targets. Two employees said a counselor who had won the prize bragged about how she simply said hello to patients who were waiting in line and then recorded a therapy session in their charts. Blair said Acadia's counselors were not compensated based on the number of patients they see. Employees in 17 states said supervisors and peers had taught them to cut corners by recycling old language from therapy notes or treatment plans without meeting with patients. In Asheville, N.C., notes from two therapy sessions in 2021 were identical, even though they happened three months apart, according to screenshots included in a court filing. Both notes said a patient "states he goes for walks and leaves his phone at home just 'to get away from the noise.'" Blair said that "Acadia's policies strictly prohibit falsifying records." He said the company carried out regular reviews of medical charts and billing records to ferret out inaccuracies. Megan Rife, who has been in treatment at Acadia's clinic in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for nine years, wanted counseling as she struggled to overcome an addiction to painkillers. But, she said, her meetings with counselors were infrequent and often lasted less than 10 minutes. One session noted in her medical records, which the Times reviewed, supposedly took place at 1:15 p.m., when the clinic was closed. (Methadone clinics often close around noon.) Iowa's Medicaid program paid Acadia $199 a week for her care, according to billing records that Rife shared with the Times . During a recent session, she said, her counselor spent the time answering emails. "Her computer is just dinging right and left," Rife said. "I don't think she heard a single thing I said to her." Acadia's practices sometimes jeopardized patients' safety. Clinic employees were discouraged from turning anyone away, even if the person did not meet the criteria for methadone treatment, according to current and former employees, including doctors, in 12 states. To be eligible for treatment at a methadone clinic, people need to meet medical criteria for being addicted to opioids. Acadia sometimes accepted patients who did not meet that standard. A former clinic director in Indiana said her manager had pressured her to boost the clinic's patient count by enrolling people who were addicted to cocaine and methamphetamine but not opioids. And a former clinic director in Georgia said she, too, had been pressured to add patients who were not addicted to opioids. Methadone cannot treat addictions to cocaine or methamphetamine. But it can produce a high -- and possibly a dependence -- for someone who is not already using opioids. Some clinic directors said they received bonuses based on the number of patients enrolled. Others said the bonuses were tied to their clinics' financial performance, which improved when their patient volumes increased. Blair said Acadia's compensation practices were consistent with those of other companies. He said medical staff, not clinic directors or counselors, decided which patients to treat, after a thorough screening process. Acadia was also trying to keep a tight lid on staffing costs -- sometimes with negative consequences. Reports filed by health inspectors in at least six states have criticized Acadia's methadone clinics for inadequate staffing. Part of the problem is that clinic employees rarely last long because they don't make much money and deal with stressful work environments. Blair denied that clinics were understaffed. He said turnover among clinic employees had declined in recent years. In the spring of 2021, inspectors who visited Acadia's clinic in Cedar Rapids learned that none of the nurses had shown up that week, leaving unlicensed workers to hand out methadone, according to an inspection report. States require methadone to be dispensed by trained medical staff. A state-appointed monitor later identified other problems. A worker's young child had briefly grabbed a cup of methadone inside a room that was supposed to be locked. Two patients were given double doses of buprenorphine, a different opioid addiction treatment, and no one checked on them to make sure they were all right. In 2020, a clinic director in Goldsboro, N.C., complained to an Acadia executive that the company refused to stop accepting new patients even though there were not enough workers, according to an email reviewed by the Times. "I have continued to request admission holds as the staff here are overly stressed," the director wrote. "Those emails are simply ignored because they would decrease revenue."

The leadership group of the Canadian national development team at the 2024 Women's Euro Hockey Tour, from left to right: Anne Cherkowski, Emmalee Pais, Jocelyn Amos and Jenna Buglioni.

Dr Martens' huge end of year sale has 40% off best selling boots, sandals and loafers

College Football Playoff & Bowl Game TV Schedule 2024

Cowboys go scoreless in the second half, falling to the Philadelphia Eagles

Citizens' rights to safety as important as that of accused, says Supreme CourtOne of the SEC’s starting quarterbacks is walking away from football. Kentucky quarterback Brock Vandagriff has decided to retire. A school spokesperson on Sunday confirmed the news to Jon Hale of the Lexington Herald-Leader NEW: While Brock Vandagriff did not enter the transfer portal this month, he is not returning to UK. After one season starting at Kentucky, he is retiring from playing football, Vandagriff confirmed Sunday through a UK spokeswoman. https://t.co/Z72rpeq27I — Jon Hale (@JonHale_HL) December 29, 2024 Vandagriff had one year of eligibility remaining. He was benched for Kentucky’s final game of the regular season in favor of freshman Cutter Boley, which led to speculation that Vandagriff might transfer. Vandagriff did not enter the portal by Saturday’s deadline, however, as he had decided he no longer wants to play. A former 5-star recruit, Vandagriff started 11 games for Kentucky this season. He finished the year with 1,593 passing yards, 10 touchdowns and 8 interceptions. The Wildcats went 4-7 in games that Vandagriff started. Kentucky had high hopes for Vandagriff when he transferred to Lexington from Georgia after the regular season last year. Vandagriff had played behind Stetson Bennett and Carson Beck with the Bulldogs, so he never go an opportunity to showcase his potential. Kentucky’s starting quarterback job is now wide open once again, as another notable QB on their roster transferred prior to the season. This article first appeared on Larry Brown Sports and was syndicated with permission.