Latest news with #Haney
Daily Mirror
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Turki Alalshikh 'fires' boxing superstar after explosive social media rant
The stunning news comes weeks after the boxing sensation made his Riyadh Season debut against Arnold Barboza Jr in Times Square, New York Boxing star Teofimo Lopez has claimed he has been 'fired' by Saudi boxing chief Turki Alalshikh. The 27-year-old, who only just made his Riyadh Season debut, scoring an impressive decision victory over Arnold Barboza Jr in Times Square, has hit a potential career stumbling block. Following his win, whispers of Lopez agreeing to a clash with Devin Haney on August 16 in Riyadh at a 145lbs catchweight began to surface. However, that fight is now in jeopardy, after Lopez took to social media last night to surprisingly call out Alalshikh. In one tweet, he wrote: "I just got fired, guys. However, before things get better, bad things must happen first! #Resurrection." Just hours before the tweet, Lopez uploaded a snap of himself pretending to beg on the streets, with the caption: "Looking for a new job. #Hireme My son Teofimo Liam needs new goggles and a new spearfish gun." Taking to X - formerly known as Twitter - boxing journalist Dan Rafael claims the American's posts may have put his fight with Haney "in jeopardy." He posted: "Per three sources involved, Teofimo Lopez-Devin Haney was agreed to Tuesday night, but not signed, for Aug. 16 in Riyadh at 145 pounds. But fight is now in jeopardy after Teofimo's tweet storm." Before rumours of a clash with Haney, Lopez had his sights set on a showdown with Jaron Ennis, the IBF and WBA welterweight champion. That said, in a surprise twist, it seems as if Ennis is favouring a move up to super welterweight. 'No Boots fight. They said no," said Lopez in a video uploaded to his Instagram. "Boots, if you're on here and your father is on here, Bozy, listen to me. You are bozos. 'How do you claim yourself from Philly, and you don't want to fight the best? You're all putting Philly down, and Philly just won. Shout out to the Eagles. Come on, bro, I don't think you are from Philly." Lopez is hoping to remain active in the ring following his recent win. Having bounced back from his first-ever professional loss against George Kambosos Jr in 2021, the 27-year-old has since remained unbeaten, overcoming opponents such as Sandor Martin, Josh Taylor, Jamaine Ortiz, and Steve Claggett. Despite his impressive form, Lopez's upcoming fights seem uncertain, with bouts against the likes of Ennis and Haney now looking unlikely.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Can California Afford the Costs of Late Last Calls?
As CA Cities Choke in Debt, New Analysis Shows Crushing Costs from AB 342's Early Morning Bar Hours SAN RAFAEL, Calif., May 21, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Between law enforcement, reckless driving, crime, and injuries, the financial burden from 4 A.M. last call times may exceed $2 billion over 5 years, according to an analysis just released by Alcohol Justice. The costs far exceed the benefits, calling into question the wisdom of state legislator efforts to extend last calls through Assembly Bill 342 (Haney, D- San Francisco). These costs are driven by spiraling costs from emergency services, law enforcement, motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and violent crime, along with broader economic disruption. "Extending last call times only benefits a handful of bars, while spreading the cost of alcohol harm over everyone," said Raul Verdugo, Director of Advocacy for Alcohol Justice. "Year after year, Californians have spoken out against extended last call times. It's time the legislature listened." "California's health officers are deeply concerned about the harms associated with extending the alcohol service hours," said Kat DeBurgh, Executive Director, Health Officers Association of California. "AB 342 ignores decades of public health evidence showing that later last calls leads to more injuries, hospitalizations and deaths. These are preventable harms. At a time when alcohol-related mortality has increased 70% in just six years, we urge the Legislature to prioritize community health by rejecting AB 342." Although the bill was conceived to help San Francisco, it allows any city to establish weekend 4 a.m. zones of arbitrary size—and those zones would impact every other city in the area. Substantial research shows how alcohol harm spreads out around neighboring communities, including: A 2008 report from Ventura County Behavioral Health showing that intoxicated drivers travel 7 to 40 miles before being stopped. An analysis of New York state arrests showing that counties bordering another county with extended last call times still saw increased DUI arrests. A comparison of alcohol-related freeway deaths in the San Francisco Bay Area, showing that crashes are 50% to 120% more likely to occur coming out of the cities of Oakland and San Francisco than into them. "It's easy for lawmakers to pretend their cities are the only ones that exist," said Miryom Yisrael, Chief Operating Officer of Alcohol Justice. "But most of us live in residential areas, where the party isn't always happening, but the crashes sure are." The new cost analysis replicates the landmark 2019 cost study from Meena Subbaraman and William Kerr of the Alcohol Research Group. This study looked at the impacts per extra drink sold in Los Angeles if that city extended its last call times to 4 A.M. seven days a week. For the new analysis, the impact-per-drink was extended to the entire state, limited to just weekend early mornings, and adjusted for inflation. Assuming just 1 in every 20 bars and restaurants in the state adopt extended last call times, the costs would top $376 million per year, and $2.046 billion over five years. Costs for individual cities include: San Francisco: $27.2 million/year, $150 million over 5 years Los Angeles: $27.9 million/year, $154 million over 5 years San Diego: $22.1 million/year, $122 million over 5 years Sacramento: $10.9 million/year, $60.4 million over 5 years This comes at a time when city after city is contemplating painful cuts to needed services, forced into austerity by budget holes. "From the desert to the redwoods, our cities' budgets are drowning in debt," said Carson Benowitz-Fredericks, Research Director for Alcohol Justice. "Ad hoc efforts to create Bourbon St. on Main St. will suck money away from public transit, housing, EMS, recovery services—everything that makes a city livable." "We've always known that late last calls bring a lot risks and harm," said Verdugo. "What we're realizing is that they're also financially devastating. We can't afford it. We call on the California legislature to keep common-sense last calls in place and reject AB 342." CONTACT: Raul Verdugo(310) 689-9401 Carson Benowitz-Fredericks(917) 426-6443 View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Alcohol Justice Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Can California Afford the Costs of Late Last Calls?
As CA Cities Choke in Debt, New Analysis Shows Crushing Costs from AB 342's Early Morning Bar Hours SAN RAFAEL, Calif., May 21, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Between law enforcement, reckless driving, crime, and injuries, the financial burden from 4 A.M. last call times may exceed $2 billion over 5 years, according to an analysis just released by Alcohol Justice. The costs far exceed the benefits, calling into question the wisdom of state legislator efforts to extend last calls through Assembly Bill 342 (Haney, D- San Francisco). These costs are driven by spiraling costs from emergency services, law enforcement, motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and violent crime, along with broader economic disruption. "Extending last call times only benefits a handful of bars, while spreading the cost of alcohol harm over everyone," said Raul Verdugo, Director of Advocacy for Alcohol Justice. "Year after year, Californians have spoken out against extended last call times. It's time the legislature listened." "California's health officers are deeply concerned about the harms associated with extending the alcohol service hours," said Kat DeBurgh, Executive Director, Health Officers Association of California. "AB 342 ignores decades of public health evidence showing that later last calls leads to more injuries, hospitalizations and deaths. These are preventable harms. At a time when alcohol-related mortality has increased 70% in just six years, we urge the Legislature to prioritize community health by rejecting AB 342." Although the bill was conceived to help San Francisco, it allows any city to establish weekend 4 a.m. zones of arbitrary size—and those zones would impact every other city in the area. Substantial research shows how alcohol harm spreads out around neighboring communities, including: A 2008 report from Ventura County Behavioral Health showing that intoxicated drivers travel 7 to 40 miles before being stopped. An analysis of New York state arrests showing that counties bordering another county with extended last call times still saw increased DUI arrests. A comparison of alcohol-related freeway deaths in the San Francisco Bay Area, showing that crashes are 50% to 120% more likely to occur coming out of the cities of Oakland and San Francisco than into them. "It's easy for lawmakers to pretend their cities are the only ones that exist," said Miryom Yisrael, Chief Operating Officer of Alcohol Justice. "But most of us live in residential areas, where the party isn't always happening, but the crashes sure are." The new cost analysis replicates the landmark 2019 cost study from Meena Subbaraman and William Kerr of the Alcohol Research Group. This study looked at the impacts per extra drink sold in Los Angeles if that city extended its last call times to 4 A.M. seven days a week. For the new analysis, the impact-per-drink was extended to the entire state, limited to just weekend early mornings, and adjusted for inflation. Assuming just 1 in every 20 bars and restaurants in the state adopt extended last call times, the costs would top $376 million per year, and $2.046 billion over five years. Costs for individual cities include: San Francisco: $27.2 million/year, $150 million over 5 years Los Angeles: $27.9 million/year, $154 million over 5 years San Diego: $22.1 million/year, $122 million over 5 years Sacramento: $10.9 million/year, $60.4 million over 5 years This comes at a time when city after city is contemplating painful cuts to needed services, forced into austerity by budget holes. "From the desert to the redwoods, our cities' budgets are drowning in debt," said Carson Benowitz-Fredericks, Research Director for Alcohol Justice. "Ad hoc efforts to create Bourbon St. on Main St. will suck money away from public transit, housing, EMS, recovery services—everything that makes a city livable." "We've always known that late last calls bring a lot risks and harm," said Verdugo. "What we're realizing is that they're also financially devastating. We can't afford it. We call on the California legislature to keep common-sense last calls in place and reject AB 342." CONTACT: Raul Verdugo(310) 689-9401 Carson Benowitz-Fredericks(917) 426-6443 View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Alcohol Justice Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
The Haneys still want revenge, and Ryan Garcia will decide if it's in boxing — or in court
Five words from Bill Haney sum up the dramatic shift in public opinion that surrounds welterweight boxer Devin Haney. 'It's Devin Haney versus everybody,' the father and longtime coach of the former two-division champion said Tuesday on "The Ariel Helwani Show." Advertisement Bill, perhaps, hasn't helped things as he once pushed a notion that Devin was the heir to Floyd Mayweather's throne atop American boxing. A sparring session between them in 2017 made the all-time great realize that 'the torch had been passed and he passed it to Devin,' Bill told reporters last year. Though Devin has fallen short of that lofty comparison, the California boxer's body of work at 26 years old remains impressive, as he's already beaten George Kambosos, Vasiliy Lomachenko and Regis Prograis, among others. Earlier this month, Haney added to his résumé with a routine victory over the former unified super lightweight world champion Jose Ramirez. The performances from both fighters were lackluster, as they combined to throw a paltry 503 punches — the sixth-fewest total shots for a 12-round bout in the 40-year operating history of boxing statistician CompuBox, per data sent to Uncrowned. 'That's boxing,' Bill said in defiance of criticism over the lack of aggression Haney and Ramirez showed, adding that he "loved" the performance. '[Devin is an] old-school fighter. You might call him boring, but you don't call him easy. You say a lot of s*** about him, but you don't call him a loser.' Advertisement Haney barely broke a sweat to score a lopsided win. Regardless, Devin's father insisted it was a useful exercise because it showed his son the discipline needed to stick to a winning strategy. 'A pressure fighter like Jose Ramirez, who traditionally throws a lot of punches [and] should be punching like his career depended on it, chose to have the lowest output of his career,' Bill said. 'I know Devin did that to him." In swatting Ramirez aside, Haney honored his immediate obligation before an anticipated rematch with Ryan Garcia. The rivals have unfinished business. That much was clear in the buildup to the recent Times Square show on May 2, as a fight week press conference quickly turned into the Haney and Garcia show. Garcia entered the ring in their first fight on April 20, 2024 having missed weight, then proceeded to drop Haney three times en route to a controversial victory. The New York State Athletic Commission overturned the win after reports showed Garcia tested positive for the banned substance ostarine. In September, Haney sued Garcia for battery, fraud and breach of contract. Bill and Devin have since said that the Garcia of today is markedly different to the one who stood opposite them in the ring in 2024. Garcia didn't look the same in-ring for his recent return either — he appeared lost in a listless loss to Rolando "Rolly" Romero, who dropped him in the second round and neutralized Garcia's famed left hook, on the same night Haney beat Ramirez. Advertisement 'Ryan Garcia said he prepared himself, [was] on his best behavior, but of course he didn't have that one key ingredient,' Bill said. 'There was no ostarine.' He then implored Garcia to get back into the ring 'with Devin, as a clean fighter.' While a bout agreement for a rematch always seemed to be in place, largely because of boxing financier Turki Alalshikh, there remain obstacles to clear, like drug-testing. Devin is 'ready to be tested at any given time,' Bill said. To demonstrate this, they gave the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association their whereabouts in Miami so VADA could continue to test Devin round the clock, through the year, even when he doesn't have a fight booked. Advertisement 'If you're not [enrolled] in VADA, talking about fighting Devin Haney, then we question whether or not you're clean,' he said. There is also lingering animosity between Bill and Oscar De La Hoya. The Golden Boy founder and Haney bickered on stage, and De La Hoya challenged Bill to a fight in public this past April. He also implored Devin to fire his own father from the team. There is therefore a question as to whether the two sides could put their differences aside, and get a lucrative Haney vs. Garcia rematch over the line. "Listen, Oscar doesn't dictate anything,' Bill said. 'It's the people who want to see the fight. [He needs to] stay on that side. I'll stay on my side [of the stage].' There is also the issue of Haney suing Garcia, and Garcia responding with a counter-suit of his own. But if Garcia comes to the ring as a clean boxer and fights Haney again, then Bill would drop his lawsuit. 'Make the fight happen and [it's] gone,' he said on X in April. Advertisement It's a matter of compensation, he elaborated when speaking to Uncrowned. 'Devin, who I work for, hasn't been compensated in any way,' Bill said. As part of Garcia's punishment for testing positive for ostarine, he had to forfeit over $1 million of his purse for the bout. Haney said this figure went directly to Golden Boy Promotions, rather than Devin. 'We weren't compensated a dime,' he said. They intend to either get what they feel is owed to them from the suit, or through the booking of a rematch. And they may well get that chance at a venue in Riyadh, in October, Bill said. "That's the compensation we need — whipping his ass.'
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
A new push to bring recovery homes into state's 'housing first' homeless model
After a long journey of personal recovery and years volunteering as a substance abuse peer counselor, Thea Golden launched her own recovery home. She and her husband, Tyler, bought a house in the Jefferson Park neighborhood west of USC, turned an illegally converted garage into a permitted ADU, formed a nonprofit and put out word through their unofficial social services network that they had two beds for women seeking a sober environment. Her tiny program, LA Recovery Connect, opened in 2021. Since then, five enrollees have lived in the unit behind their home and moved on to their own housing — two reunited with family and three into their own homes paying their own way. Now Golden wants to buy or lease another house and add four or five more beds. But even though she's housing people who would otherwise be homeless, Golden has no access to the hundreds of millions of dollars California hands out each year to do exactly that. A 2016 law adopting the "housing first" model as state policy prohibits state homelessness money from being spent on programs that are based in abstinence. The rationale is that there should be no condition, such as religious indoctrination or required sobriety, on a homeless person receiving housing. That could change this year as even some of the strongest proponents of housing first are rethinking that rigid restriction, amid growing evidence that a large share of homeless people would prefer to live in a sober environment. "When we passed our 'housing first' law we were so intent on reducing barriers to addicts that we inadvertently created new barriers to addicts who wanted to get sober," said Adrian Covert, senior vice president of policy at the Bay Area Council. Assemblyman Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), who supports the state's "housing first" policy, is now pushing legislation that would amend it to allow funding of sober living homes. The bill, AB 255, would authorize local jurisdictions to channel up to a fourth of their state homelessness funds to residential programs that practice sobriety. An earlier version in the last legislative session died in the Appropriations Committee. Haney has made changes to quell opposition, and the new bill has passed through the Assembly's housing and health committees. It's now in Appropriations. "If somebody wants to get off of a deadly, dangerous drug like fentanyl, they often need to be as far away from it as possible, and yet the state currently prohibits any of our funding to go towards effective, proven models of drug-free recovery housing," Haney said in an interview. "It's counterproductive. It's wrong. For many people it's dangerous." Debate over the bill revolves around the perceived incompatibility of "recovery" housing that requires residents to maintain sobriety with the "harm reduction" policy that "recognizes drug and alcohol use and addiction as a part of tenants' lives," as defined in current law. In a 2015 policy brief, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development advised that recovery housing "can fulfill a unique and specific role within a community's homelessness services and behavioral healthcare systems." California went the other way, however, adopting SB 1380, written by then-state Sen. Holly Mitchell, which required housing programs to follow the principle that "housing should not be denied to anyone, even if they are abusing alcohol or other substances." For providers of recovery housing like Golden, that effectively closed the door to state funding such as the multibillion-dollar Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program. The Haney bill is responding to growing support for a counter-argument that, as currently practiced, harm reduction is actually harmful for people seeking sobriety by forcing them into housing where drugs and alcohol are used. "We're trying to break the cycle of relapse for people in recovery," Salvation Army recovery advocate Tom Wolf told the Assembly Health Committee in an April hearing. "People exit treatment after a 90-day Medi-Cal program and they get placed into an SRO where everybody around them is still using drugs. If you're trying to be clean and sober in that environment back in that same neighborhood in Skid Row or the Tenderloin, it's next to impossible." Proponents of the bill cite recent surveys showing a strong connection of substance use with homelessness and a preference of more than a third of unsheltered homeless people for abstinence-based housing. There is no organized opposition to Haney's bill, which he's amended to reconcile the two philosophical positions. It requires a harm reduction option to be available to anyone offered recovery housing. Relapse cannot not be a cause for eviction, and the provider must assist a tenant who wishes to leave the program in finding alternate housing following principles where abstinence is not required. Housing California, an advocacy group that backs housing first, is not currently opposing the bill but still has objections that it hopes can be worked out in the state Senate, said policy director Christopher Martin. "We do think there is a place for sober living," Martin said. "We want to make sure it is not abused." Martin said Housing California is concerned that the bill could direct too much money to recovery homes and will try to get the 25% limit reduced to 10%. Haney said that he negotiated that threshold with homeless services providers but that he is still open to discussing any objections. There's also concern about chronic complaints about bad operators who abuse insurance or summarily evict residents who relapse. "There are a ton of great providers out there that follow great practices," Martin said. "We have to protect against the worst behaviors." In four lawsuits against a network of for-profit recovery homes, attorney Karen Gold alleges that her clients were transported to California from other states, stashed in poorly supervised homes and then put on the street when their insurance ran out. "From my standpoint, any level of care is only as good as they are regulated," Gold said. "The more any level of care is regulated, the better results you are going to get." The bill requires the state Department of Health Care Services to establish certification of recovery homes and adopt standards. It specifies that those could come from of a private association, the National Alliance for Recovery Residences, a government agency, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or another, unspecified, group. While the two sides are working out their policy disagreements, practical implications for small-scale providers such as Golden remain up in the air. Golden said said she follows the guidelines of another group, the California Consortium for Addiction Programs and Professional, but has not sought certification. She's not sure how her policy on relapses fits in. It's a complex issue. Relapse is generally accepted as a natural part of recovery. A first relapse would be handled through peer counseling. A second would probably lead to a referral to outpatient treatment and a third to a residential treatment program with the bed held for the resident's return. Golden said she would try to find alternate housing for someone who gives up on abstinence. She hasn't had to yet but can see the possibility. "This is a hard space to step into when you get into the nitty-gritty and it's the daily routine and we keep that structure and we have a curfew," Golden said. "If this isn't a fit for you, let's get you into the next step." With no access to the formal housing system it could be problematic. So far, Golden's residents who graduated have found new homes through her informal recovery network. Another option she hasn't had to use yet is SHARE!, a Culver City-based nonprofit where she received her peer counselor training and volunteered. SHARE! supports recovery meetings across the county and leases about 40 single-family homes that provide low-cost housing in shared bedrooms with peer counseling support. SHARE! worked with Haney on his first bill and hopes to gain access to state funding, said Jason Robison, director of advocacy, business development and training. But it isn't clear if its shared-bedroom model would be consistent with language in the law requiring state-funded housing to "ensure individual rights of privacy, dignity and respect." "Sharing bedrooms is an essential component" for both types of housing at SHARE!, Robinson said. "In the abstinence-based models, if someone relapses, they are far more likely to overdose and die if they have their own bedroom." He said the homes maximize privacy with outdoor seating, family rooms, dens and home offices "so that people can choose to be by themselves or with other individuals when they are outside of their bedrooms." For Golden, and hundreds of other small recovery programs, there is no direct path to obtain state money. The bill authorizes local agencies to fund recovery housing. That money is distributed through bidding and generally goes to large nonprofits such as PATH and the People Concern. Covert, of the Bay Area Council, thinks that to the extent local agencies choose to invest in recovery homes it would be to expand the supply with new construction. "I would be surprised if a significant amount of money went toward programs currently providing services," Covert said. Even if she never obtains direct financial support, Golden still sees benefit in the policy change. "I'm an advocate for opening up services to people and if it's not us — I want it to be — but if it's not, I'm still here to be an advocate for that to open up to other places that I know it would help." Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
