| |||
| |||
Monday, June 17, 2013
Big Train Best Braves 4-2; MCEA Teacher Appreciation Night TONIGHT!
Sunday, June 16, 2013
GPG Virginia GPG fighters in Chicago
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Father's Day Tonight at Povich! Big Train's Win Streak Snapped
| |||||
| |||||
Can a water purifier cure cancer?
Can This Simple Water Purifier
|
Breast Cancer Survivor was told:
"You'll be dead in a year" (Pssst!! That was 12 years ago!)
Doctors didn't give Wiltrude much hope when they diagnosed her with cancer in the year 2000. Wiltrude, a German psychologist, never thought cancer would happen to her. But it did. And it came as a big shock.
One doctor told her, "You'll be dead in a year." Late stage breast cancer isvirtually incurable using conventional treatments. Even M.D.s admit it. They talk about "buying you more time." (Don't count on it. The evidence shows you're better off doing nothing than chemo.) When Wiltrude told her doctor she was going to try alternative treatments, he said, "You are committing suicide with what you're doing." But she was determined to find a way to beat her cancer. Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, this European woman came across a book by my good friend Bill Henderson, one of the smartest and wisest people I know when it comes to cancer treatment. She tried Bill's top, number one recommendation — a gentle treatment you can do at home for just $5.15 a day. What's more, the cost goes down to $3.50 after six weeks because you just need a maintenance dose. And it even tastes good. Not only has Wiltrude passed the five-year cancer survival mark, she's survived for 12 years. We just interviewed her recently for this publication. The radiologist who tests her every year told her, "You're the only one with this kind of result." You can find out more about Bill’s proven cancer treatment plan if you click here. When I ask him about some of the treatments that top alternative doctors use, Bill sort of shrugs and says, "They're fine, but why bother? My treatment works, you can do it yourself, and it costs practically nothing." He's coached thousands of cancer patients with all different types and stages of cancer. Most of the people who follow the detailed, specific plan in this Special Report get over their cancer and live for years. "Almost any kind of cancer is reversible," says Bill. "I never give up on anyone." Click here to learn more about Bill’s amazing cancer protocol. |
They also had other malaria symptoms including headaches… aching muscles and joints… nausea… diarrhea… and vomiting.
Unfortunately, the closest village with malaria medications was at least two days away through rugged jungle!
Humble thought about the stabilized oxygen he'd brought to purify his drinking water. He decided to give some to the sick workers.
To everyone's amazement, within an hour the shivering stopped. And within four hours, the men were talking and laughing at the dinner table!
Because he wanted to understand what caused the amazing turnaround, Humble spent a few years studying how stabilized oxygen affects the malaria parasite.
What he found out has saved the lives of thousands.
Humble discovered that it wasn't the stabilized oxygen that clobbered malaria. It was the trace amounts of chlorine dioxide and its chlorite ion that did the trick!
By using higher concentrations of sodium chlorite with an activator, Humble has helped more than 75,000 folks in Africa cure malaria, hepatitis, AIDS, and even cancer.
Humble called his product Miracle Mineral Supplement (MMS) initially. But persecution from — who else? -- the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prompted him to change the product name to Miracle Mineral Solution.
I often receive inquiries about the MMS treatment. It gets a lot of word of mouth. It's not one of my favorites, for reasons I’ll explain in a moment, but there’s not much doubt it's racked up some successes. The people who advocate it believe it's safe, considering that...
Unfortunately, the closest village with malaria medications was at least two days away through rugged jungle!
Humble thought about the stabilized oxygen he'd brought to purify his drinking water. He decided to give some to the sick workers.
To everyone's amazement, within an hour the shivering stopped. And within four hours, the men were talking and laughing at the dinner table!
Because he wanted to understand what caused the amazing turnaround, Humble spent a few years studying how stabilized oxygen affects the malaria parasite.
What he found out has saved the lives of thousands.
Humble discovered that it wasn't the stabilized oxygen that clobbered malaria. It was the trace amounts of chlorine dioxide and its chlorite ion that did the trick!
By using higher concentrations of sodium chlorite with an activator, Humble has helped more than 75,000 folks in Africa cure malaria, hepatitis, AIDS, and even cancer.
Humble called his product Miracle Mineral Supplement (MMS) initially. But persecution from — who else? -- the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prompted him to change the product name to Miracle Mineral Solution.
I often receive inquiries about the MMS treatment. It gets a lot of word of mouth. It's not one of my favorites, for reasons I’ll explain in a moment, but there’s not much doubt it's racked up some successes. The people who advocate it believe it's safe, considering that...
- Chlorine dioxide has been approved as a water purifier for nearly 70 years.1
- Medical professionals have used chlorine dioxide as an antiseptic and pathogen killer for more than 100 years.
- Chlorine dioxide and chlorite were used to decontaminate public buildings following the 2001 release of anthrax spores in the United States2.
You see, the FDA cops objected to selling his product as a health "supplement" because it hadn't gone through their rigorous approval process. For this reason, MMS is now sold only as a water purifier and is not labeled a supplement.
ClO2 = The Formula for a New Cancer Killer!
Chlorine dioxide is a chemical compound made of one chlorine ion bound to two ions of oxygen.
MMS is a solution of 28% sodium chlorite ion in distilled water. The solution changes to chlorine dioxide when you add an "activator" of lemon juice, vinegar or citric acid. Because only certain substances work as activators, it's very important to follow Humble's protocol when using MMS.
When chlorine dioxide contacts harmful pathogens, it snatches their electrons. This causes a sort of microscopic explosion—which won't harm YOU, but destroys pathogens.
This means harmful bacteria, viruses and other parasites die when they meet up with chlorine dioxide ions.
My friend Ty Bollinger, author of Cancer: Step Outside the Box, puts it this way: "Once chlorine dioxide ["activated" sodium chlorite] is introduced into the bloodstream, it performs a highly energetic acceptance of four electrons when it comes across any cell that is acidic (a pH below 7.35). This means that diseased cells are essentially vaporized while healthy cells are unaffected."
This spells trouble for cancer cells, which are known to thrive in acidic conditions.
MMS is a solution of 28% sodium chlorite ion in distilled water. The solution changes to chlorine dioxide when you add an "activator" of lemon juice, vinegar or citric acid. Because only certain substances work as activators, it's very important to follow Humble's protocol when using MMS.
When chlorine dioxide contacts harmful pathogens, it snatches their electrons. This causes a sort of microscopic explosion—which won't harm YOU, but destroys pathogens.
This means harmful bacteria, viruses and other parasites die when they meet up with chlorine dioxide ions.
My friend Ty Bollinger, author of Cancer: Step Outside the Box, puts it this way: "Once chlorine dioxide ["activated" sodium chlorite] is introduced into the bloodstream, it performs a highly energetic acceptance of four electrons when it comes across any cell that is acidic (a pH below 7.35). This means that diseased cells are essentially vaporized while healthy cells are unaffected."
This spells trouble for cancer cells, which are known to thrive in acidic conditions.
MMS Provides REAL Healing for Real People
In his book The Miracle Mineral Solution of the 21st Century, Jim Humble relates the experience of one pancreatic cancer patient whose cancer had returned following surgery.
The patient decided to take MMS in the 60 days leading to his next exploratory surgery at the Mayo Clinic. The results?
Humble said, "Within 2 weeks his cancer readings began to decline. The high reading was 82… At the next visit to the hospital the reading was 71.
"A month later the reading was 55. Two months later it was 29, and so on until the reading was less than 5.
"The doctors at the hospital didn't know what had happened, but as soon as the readings began to go down, they canceled the appointment at the Mayo Clinic. . .When the reading reached 3, they said there was no point in further testing."
This man's story is no isolated incident. Consider these experiences from others who have used MMS to treat tumors, cancers, and other health conditions:
The patient decided to take MMS in the 60 days leading to his next exploratory surgery at the Mayo Clinic. The results?
Humble said, "Within 2 weeks his cancer readings began to decline. The high reading was 82… At the next visit to the hospital the reading was 71.
"A month later the reading was 55. Two months later it was 29, and so on until the reading was less than 5.
"The doctors at the hospital didn't know what had happened, but as soon as the readings began to go down, they canceled the appointment at the Mayo Clinic. . .When the reading reached 3, they said there was no point in further testing."
This man's story is no isolated incident. Consider these experiences from others who have used MMS to treat tumors, cancers, and other health conditions:
- "I have been taking MMS now for over a year… I have never felt better and I had an ovarian cyst, [which] has been a problem all my life, disappear after being told there was no cure for it!"
—Lynn3 - "I was told 4 weeks ago my mother had months to live with stage 4 uterine cancer… Four doctors told me that my Mom was a goner and it was just a matter of time. After taking MMS1 and MMS2 for almost a month… the cancer is almost gone from my mom's body! The doctors and surgeons said it was a miracle and did not know how to respond. They were amazed!"
—Sara4 - "One of my family friends has bone marrow cancer and before Thanksgiving he was told he would not see Christmas. He started MMS [around] Thanksgiving and he has gained his strength back to go out and do things with his sons. He has told me his blood work is improving rapidly—he isn't telling the doctors what he is taking but he is not gray anymore!"
—Kim5
This is just a sample of the thousands of folks with positive stories of health improvement—thanks to MMS. But the treatment can cause a few side effects. From what I've been able to learn, MMS can be difficult to use and to tolerate. A significant number of patients complain of nausea — even vomiting -- and stop taking the drops for that reason. Others find it hard to follow the precise directions, which require taking the MMS drops as often as six times a day.
One savvy reader wrote me that MMS works better than chemotherapy because it IS chemotherapy. You're using a known poison, chlorine, to kill the cancer cells or the parasites that cause them. He may have a point.
Most of the evidence I've seen is anecdotal (like the testimonials quoted above). MMS is by no means a simple miracle that will work for every cancer patient, but I'm inclined to believe the reports that many people find pain relief, improved energy and even complete remission from cancer as well as other diseases — provided they're able to stick with it. From what I gather, a lot of people can't.
I'm going to hazard a guess that MMS is perhaps more effective with diseases that are known to be infectious (such as malaria) than with cancer. The infection theory of cancer is controversial. I've become a lot more interested in it as I learn more, but I'm withholding judgment.
Quite a few alternative cancer doctors swear by the microbe and/or parasite theories and they've had success treating patients. But they usually use multiple cancer therapies at once and their success may or may not be due to killing off the critters. It's just not clear to me yet how all the pieces fit together — do parasites cause cancer or are they just frequently found side by side with it? The anti-infection and anti-parasite protocols work for some patients and not for others.
My good friend Bill Henderson, author of the book Cancer-Free, tells me, "I have high confidence in MMS for killing pathogens, including cancer cells. The only real problem is that this is not how you get over cancer. You get over it by revising the physiology of your entire body to make it hostile enough to cancer cells again that it will keep them under control as a healthy body normally does. So just like lots of other things that are effective at killing cancer cells, I usually don't recommend MMS except as a 'last resort'."
I agree. There are other treatments I'd try first, including the Budwig protocol that's Bill's first-line recommendation.
You can read more about MMS—and even purchase some if you choose—at Jim Humble's website: www.miraclemineral.org.
Humble's discovery is certainly fascinating and deserves more study than it will ever get from our boneheaded medical establishment. You may be one of the people who find that this water purifier can provide the healing waters of life you need!
One savvy reader wrote me that MMS works better than chemotherapy because it IS chemotherapy. You're using a known poison, chlorine, to kill the cancer cells or the parasites that cause them. He may have a point.
Most of the evidence I've seen is anecdotal (like the testimonials quoted above). MMS is by no means a simple miracle that will work for every cancer patient, but I'm inclined to believe the reports that many people find pain relief, improved energy and even complete remission from cancer as well as other diseases — provided they're able to stick with it. From what I gather, a lot of people can't.
I'm going to hazard a guess that MMS is perhaps more effective with diseases that are known to be infectious (such as malaria) than with cancer. The infection theory of cancer is controversial. I've become a lot more interested in it as I learn more, but I'm withholding judgment.
Quite a few alternative cancer doctors swear by the microbe and/or parasite theories and they've had success treating patients. But they usually use multiple cancer therapies at once and their success may or may not be due to killing off the critters. It's just not clear to me yet how all the pieces fit together — do parasites cause cancer or are they just frequently found side by side with it? The anti-infection and anti-parasite protocols work for some patients and not for others.
My good friend Bill Henderson, author of the book Cancer-Free, tells me, "I have high confidence in MMS for killing pathogens, including cancer cells. The only real problem is that this is not how you get over cancer. You get over it by revising the physiology of your entire body to make it hostile enough to cancer cells again that it will keep them under control as a healthy body normally does. So just like lots of other things that are effective at killing cancer cells, I usually don't recommend MMS except as a 'last resort'."
I agree. There are other treatments I'd try first, including the Budwig protocol that's Bill's first-line recommendation.
You can read more about MMS—and even purchase some if you choose—at Jim Humble's website: www.miraclemineral.org.
Humble's discovery is certainly fascinating and deserves more study than it will ever get from our boneheaded medical establishment. You may be one of the people who find that this water purifier can provide the healing waters of life you need!
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Walk-off Win Improves BT to 4-1; Nats Racing Presidents at Povich Field Tomorrow!
| |||
| |||
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Tonight's Game Rescheduled Due to Upcoming Storms; Truck Night Tomorrow with FREE Stadium Blankets!
| |||||||||||
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Big Train Keeps Rolling, Beats Youse's 5-1; Bunt Mini-Bobblehead Night on Thursday!
| |||
| |||
Why that conventional cancer drug won't work
Why Conventional Cancer Drugs Don't Work:
Drug Companies have Cooked the Results
It's no secret that mainstream American medicine relies heavily on evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific studies. But that world is being turned on its head. According to researchers C. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis, writing in the prestigious journal Nature, 89 percent of the published cancer studies they reviewed cannot be reproduced.
What does this mean? Easy: Those studies are wrong. Or at the very least, they don't provide the irrefutable evidence on which doctors claim to base their treatments. Not to beat around the bush, Begley and Ellis have exposed a whole world of fraud. Let's hold our noses and take a look. . .
Continued below. . .
What does this mean? Easy: Those studies are wrong. Or at the very least, they don't provide the irrefutable evidence on which doctors claim to base their treatments. Not to beat around the bush, Begley and Ellis have exposed a whole world of fraud. Let's hold our noses and take a look. . .
Continued below. . .
Is Fire In The Belly Slowly and Silently Killing You?
You bet it is. Inflammation is the number one ager and killer. It destroys tissues and organs. It marches you to the grave faster than any other aspect of health.
You need to understand how the gut is the origin of over 95% of the inflammatory processes in our bodies. Down there in the warmth and dark swarm trillions of microbes. Collectively they share one hundred times the genes we do. In one of the most startling medical discoveries of recent times, it has been discovered that these microbial genes tell our human cells what to do (not just human genes). The microbes in us set up inflammatory reactions, from heavy metals and food allergies, to enzymes dysfunction and toxic overload. Our guts are far more complex than ever recognized; we even have a second brain down there, with over 90% of our serotonin. No wonder all this affects our moods too! Get the real story from one of the world's top MD writers, in his sensational book: Fire in the Belly. |
The whole foundation of science is that if one scientist's experimental results are valid then another scientist can reproduce them by doing exactly the same thing in the same way. If you get a different outcome each time you run an experiment then the results are random and — essentially — meaningless.
It's fraud, pure and simple, to use non-reproducible research to guide medical practice. That's the very accusation medical doctors are always hurling at alternative medicine. Now we see the pot has been calling the kettle black. It's major drug companies that are conducting bogus research and who are missing the mark on exactly what kinds of chemical cocktails are needed to fight cancer.
Worse, the problem goes deeper than flawed scientific research. A lot of money, power, and influence appear to play a role — and the beneficiary isn't public health, it's Big Pharma.
It's fraud, pure and simple, to use non-reproducible research to guide medical practice. That's the very accusation medical doctors are always hurling at alternative medicine. Now we see the pot has been calling the kettle black. It's major drug companies that are conducting bogus research and who are missing the mark on exactly what kinds of chemical cocktails are needed to fight cancer.
Worse, the problem goes deeper than flawed scientific research. A lot of money, power, and influence appear to play a role — and the beneficiary isn't public health, it's Big Pharma.
Outdated and misguided cancer treatments
While any kind of study is subject to some human error, the studies reviewed by Begley and Ellis are missing the boat in major ways. Only six out of the 53 "landmark" published papers they reviewed could be reproduced in a clinical setting.
Instead of being taken with a grain of salt, as they should have been, these studies became the basis for introducing revolutionary approaches to cancer treatment. Entire healthcare guidelines and clinical treatment protocols have been designed around these results.
Worse still, a significant amount of published research appears to have been conducted under the cloud of conflicts of interest. Dr. Reshma Jagsi, M.D., who authored a study through the University of Michigan, found a considerable percentage of cancer research was made questionable by ties to the pharmaceutical industry. In other words, Big Pharma is behind the research, paying scientists to confirm that certain drugs will work in cancer treatment.
Once those treatments are officially "confirmed," they're pushed into hospitals and doctors' offices with a heavy price tag attached. Now, funding by a drug company isn't proof as such that a study is dishonest, but it's a red flag.
Funding of studies through Big Pharma was the most common type of conflict of interest, seen in 17 percent of papers. The next most common problem was studies in which the authors were drug industry employees, which happened in about 12 percent of studies.
Without pointing the finger at any one study, the results of these studies are suspicious when taken as a whole. For example, in the studies with reported conflicts of interest, randomized trials were more likely to find the drug was safe and effective. Truly independent studies were less likely to reach the same conclusion.
Instead of being taken with a grain of salt, as they should have been, these studies became the basis for introducing revolutionary approaches to cancer treatment. Entire healthcare guidelines and clinical treatment protocols have been designed around these results.
Worse still, a significant amount of published research appears to have been conducted under the cloud of conflicts of interest. Dr. Reshma Jagsi, M.D., who authored a study through the University of Michigan, found a considerable percentage of cancer research was made questionable by ties to the pharmaceutical industry. In other words, Big Pharma is behind the research, paying scientists to confirm that certain drugs will work in cancer treatment.
Once those treatments are officially "confirmed," they're pushed into hospitals and doctors' offices with a heavy price tag attached. Now, funding by a drug company isn't proof as such that a study is dishonest, but it's a red flag.
Funding of studies through Big Pharma was the most common type of conflict of interest, seen in 17 percent of papers. The next most common problem was studies in which the authors were drug industry employees, which happened in about 12 percent of studies.
Without pointing the finger at any one study, the results of these studies are suspicious when taken as a whole. For example, in the studies with reported conflicts of interest, randomized trials were more likely to find the drug was safe and effective. Truly independent studies were less likely to reach the same conclusion.
Why the majority of cancer research is compromised
The data from any legitimate scientific study should be treated objectively, but this new research makes it clear that those with a conflict of interest are biased in their analyses — whether the scientists are deliberately committing fraud or are biased without realizing it.
Sadly, evidence suggests the majority of these scientists know they are working with tainted research. When Begley and Ellis approached study authors for details of their experiments, the two were asked to sign agreements that they would not disclose their findings or their sources — proof that the study authors were aware of their own misleading results.
Along with that, very few scientists involved in anti-cancer research disclose any potential sources of bias, even though all scientists are expected to sign conflict-of-interest and sources-of-funding statements before publishing any work.
The fact remains that cancer is a major killer. Over half a million Americans died from cancer last year, and another 1.6 million cases were diagnosed. The amount of money involved in their treatment is stupefying — more than enough to light up the eyes of the greedy. Big Pharma is well aware that a lot of money can be made off these people, who are often frightened and willing to try any treatment, pay any price.
It's a classic example of "disease mongering" where the industry widens the definition of treatable illness just to expand the market, when really, the vast majority of small cancers and early-diagnosis cases can be treated naturally and by supplementing a patient's immune system, while the expensive treatments are all but worthless against late-stage cancer.
Sadly, evidence suggests the majority of these scientists know they are working with tainted research. When Begley and Ellis approached study authors for details of their experiments, the two were asked to sign agreements that they would not disclose their findings or their sources — proof that the study authors were aware of their own misleading results.
Along with that, very few scientists involved in anti-cancer research disclose any potential sources of bias, even though all scientists are expected to sign conflict-of-interest and sources-of-funding statements before publishing any work.
The fact remains that cancer is a major killer. Over half a million Americans died from cancer last year, and another 1.6 million cases were diagnosed. The amount of money involved in their treatment is stupefying — more than enough to light up the eyes of the greedy. Big Pharma is well aware that a lot of money can be made off these people, who are often frightened and willing to try any treatment, pay any price.
It's a classic example of "disease mongering" where the industry widens the definition of treatable illness just to expand the market, when really, the vast majority of small cancers and early-diagnosis cases can be treated naturally and by supplementing a patient's immune system, while the expensive treatments are all but worthless against late-stage cancer.
How can we raise standards for cancer treatment?
Our medical community, our government, and the public at large have essentially been hoodwinked by the unscrupulous players of the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, the government and some members of the medical community are partners in the fraud. The end result is that major drug companies determine which treatments can be legally used, and how much they'll cost.
The question that remains is how to separate legitimate cancer research from a manipulative, self-interested drug industry. Dr. Jagsi calls for more public funding and general support so medical research doesn't have to rely on industry funding.
I believe more aggressive and generous funding of research into alternatives would yield important breakthroughs, with the important stamp of scientific approval the public craves. This taxpayer-funded research should then be non-patented and available to all.
Instead, the system works in the opposite way: Research that's largely funded by the taxpayers and by private "nonprofit" sources somehow becomes someone's private property and the very taxpayers who paid to find the cure have to pay millions to get access to it if they have cancer.
I believe eventually the present system is going to collapse because it's so incredibly expensive and it doesn't cure people. The public is turning to alternative treatments because they're affordable and effective. Many oncologists as well as doctors from other specialties are frantically trying to learn about natural and alternative treatments because that's what their patients are asking for.
The kind of fool who tells his cancer patients, "Eat whatever you like, there's no evidence of a connection between food and cancer," is going to wind up as a museum exhibit, in the same category as those barbers who used to moonlight as doctors by bleeding people. (George Washington was killed by a doctor who "bled" him to cure an infection — it was considered advanced medical science back then. Lucky were the poor people who couldn't afford the "best" medical care.)
In the meantime, your best bet is to question everything. If your own well-meaning doctor quotes a study that he or she feels should determine your cancer treatment, question it. Get a second opinion. Look at other studies. Dig for results on natural treatments and herbal remedies. We do our best to present them here to you, but without the deep pockets of Big Pharma it's virtually impossible to get the same kind of exposure for natural treatments that work as we see for invasive drug methods.
And of course, do everything you can to take your health into your own hands and practice smart eating and consistent exercise habits. Care of your own body's immune system is the one thing that's been proven time and again as the best way to prevent and treat cancer.
The question that remains is how to separate legitimate cancer research from a manipulative, self-interested drug industry. Dr. Jagsi calls for more public funding and general support so medical research doesn't have to rely on industry funding.
I believe more aggressive and generous funding of research into alternatives would yield important breakthroughs, with the important stamp of scientific approval the public craves. This taxpayer-funded research should then be non-patented and available to all.
Instead, the system works in the opposite way: Research that's largely funded by the taxpayers and by private "nonprofit" sources somehow becomes someone's private property and the very taxpayers who paid to find the cure have to pay millions to get access to it if they have cancer.
I believe eventually the present system is going to collapse because it's so incredibly expensive and it doesn't cure people. The public is turning to alternative treatments because they're affordable and effective. Many oncologists as well as doctors from other specialties are frantically trying to learn about natural and alternative treatments because that's what their patients are asking for.
The kind of fool who tells his cancer patients, "Eat whatever you like, there's no evidence of a connection between food and cancer," is going to wind up as a museum exhibit, in the same category as those barbers who used to moonlight as doctors by bleeding people. (George Washington was killed by a doctor who "bled" him to cure an infection — it was considered advanced medical science back then. Lucky were the poor people who couldn't afford the "best" medical care.)
In the meantime, your best bet is to question everything. If your own well-meaning doctor quotes a study that he or she feels should determine your cancer treatment, question it. Get a second opinion. Look at other studies. Dig for results on natural treatments and herbal remedies. We do our best to present them here to you, but without the deep pockets of Big Pharma it's virtually impossible to get the same kind of exposure for natural treatments that work as we see for invasive drug methods.
And of course, do everything you can to take your health into your own hands and practice smart eating and consistent exercise habits. Care of your own body's immune system is the one thing that's been proven time and again as the best way to prevent and treat cancer.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
UDC Hosts Press Conference to Announce Mike Riley as New Head Men's Basketball Coach
June 11, 2013
University of the District of Columbia Hosts Press Conference to Announce Michael Riley as New Men’s Basketball Head Coach
WASHINGTON, DC – The University of the District of Columbia hosted a press conference in the UDC Sports Complex lobby on Tuesday afternoon, June 11th, 2013 to announce Michael Riley as the new head men's basketball coach.
Director of Athletics Patricia Thomas, while introducing Riley, said she was elated to have him on board as the school's new head coach.
"[Mike] will develop an outstanding rapport with the young men under his leadership. He is a mentor, and so he will guide them…he will make sure that they achieve academic success, he will ensure that they are viable members of this community, and that they go out and serve the community…"
"And I have no doubt that we will be very successful in the East Coast Conference and throughout the NCAA [Division II] as well…"
"Michael is a good, honest person, and I trust him with everything that I have, and I just know that he's going to do a tremendous job, and he's going to make this University very proud to have him as our head coach."
When Riley took the podium to address supporters and the media, he said his first mission is to build a program.
"When you take these [coaching] jobs, people always ask, 'Are you going to win?' These jobs are always taken by people who think they're going to win…I'm not any different," Riley said. "I think that we can win. But what I'd like to do first though is build a program. Build a program by putting things in that you know that you can do, and that you feel comfortable with. And that's what we plan to do."
Riley said the men's basketball program was very fortunate, under the direction of Patricia Thomas, to have joined the East Coast Conference in 2011.
"It's great to be in a league, because you know if you win [the conference championship tournament], you're in [the NCAA Tournament]. You don't have to worry about formulas or anything like that," Riley said. "So from that standpoint, the East Coast Conference is a very good conference, it's a very competitive conference, and we're very happy to be a part of it."
Riley concluded his remarks by explaining that his program would be built on the idea of sustainability so that the Firebirds would have the opportunity to win year in and year out.
"I'm not going to do a Joe Namath right now…I'm not going to predict anything…not going to predict a championship, not going to predict the NCAA [Tournament]…but I would like, as a coach here, to leave some mark, a positive mark. Something that we can point to and say, 'hey, this is the way we did it.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
