| Author | Message | ||
     ironhorse Citizen Username: Ironhorse Post Number: 3 Registered: 7-2001 |
There has been talk recently of improvements to the playing fields at DeHart, specifically putting down artificial turf. My understanding is that about half the money has already been raised through grants and that the Town Council is considering whether or not to apply for Green Acres money to help cover some (not all) of the remaining cost. Is there a reason why we wouldn't want to apply for this? With all the wear and tear that DeHart and all the other fields in town get, it seems that securing outside funding for a project like this makes a lot of sense. | ||
| kws Citizen Username: Kws Post Number: 122 Registered: 5-2001 |
There are a number of petitions circulating around town basically beseeching the TC to apply for the Green Acres funds. If the money is available why not apply for it?? | ||
| yabbadabbadoo Citizen Username: Yabbadabbadoo Post Number: 337 Registered: 11-2003  |
How much does the town (the taxpayers) have to put up? FF | ||
| ironhorse Citizen Username: Ironhorse Post Number: 4 Registered: 7-2001 |
That's not clear to me. It sounds like the proposal would be for all of the money to be raised from outside resources but that some grants have to be requested by the town. It likely would be the town's responsibility to maintain it, but we're already responsible for maintaining DeHart. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 7143 Registered: 5-2001 |
The problem with grants is that the taxpayers have to continue footing the bill once the grant money dries up. This shouldn't be a problem for securing outside funding to foot the entire bill for improvements to any of our playing fields unless the cost of upkeep of these improvements would be greater than the cost of what we have now. Does anyone if this is apt to be the case and if so approximately how much more per year such maintenance is apt to cost? Would there also be an additional cost to replacing artificial turf once it wears out or would we then go back to natural turf? | ||
| toad Citizen Username: Toad Post Number: 131 Registered: 6-2001 |
The synthetic turf "carpet" lasts approximately eight years. When the time comes to replace it the cost alone for disposal of the old carpet can exceed $150,000. Add the cost of the new carpet plus installation and the town is into some major costs. Also, there must be provisions for fresh water access at multiple points for cooling (the surface of the turf can exceed 125-140 degrees on a summer day) and for sanitation and cleaning. As far as I know, no provision has been made for water. After 16 years the underfill will have to be replaced. Current cost for a sand underfill is $1,000,000. | ||
| kws Citizen Username: Kws Post Number: 123 Registered: 5-2001 |
The beauty of turf fields is that they can be played on constantly, even after a rainstorm (when the most damage typically occurs to natural grass fields). And because it does not need to be seeded, fertilized and mowed, the maintenance cost for a turf field is actually less than that of a natural grass field. Let me add that the proposal for DeHart also includes upgrading the field lights there. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 7146 Registered: 5-2001 |
Toad: Some excellent reasons why additional thought has to be given to this proposal. KWS (or anyone else who may know): To the best of your knowledge would the savings in maintenance costs (artificial turf vs natural surface) equal or exceed the substantial additional costs of artificial turf that Toad has indicated? Would it be cheaper and better in the long run to seek grant money for better drainage on the field rather than for artificial turf, especially if flooding is the primary problem with the existing field(s)? | ||
| kws Citizen Username: Kws Post Number: 124 Registered: 5-2001 |
Toad, Those are interesting numbers. Mind if I ask you their source? The real heavy use would occur in the Spring and Fall. Would we still have to spray it down if no one is using it on a hot Summer day? Many municipalities around us have made the switch on at least some of their fields to turf. They should obviously be used as a resource before we make a decision here. My experience with my youngest playing Fall and Spring sports is that the fields here are overused and get beat up very quickly. We just have too many kids for the space available. And having travelled around this state for sports, our fields rank low in comparison to what I have seen. Better drainage is something that has to be addressed regardless of whether you stay natural or go to a turf. I think another benefit here would be higher useage, later into the evening at a park that seems to attract an unsavory element. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 998 Registered: 2-2002 |
Isn't this the same town that not long ago was looking at cutting library hours and health services to seniors for the sake of saving something like $70,000? The same town that is facing a $17 million dollar bond issue for the police station? A town with numerous maintenance issues at the schools, (like some freezing rooms at Columbia High School) and a school budget facing a likely potential shortfall of millions of dollars from the state which would have to be covered by you-know-who? The same town where everybody screams taxes, taxes, taxes? Green fake grass is nice, (I suppose). but if the town is at all likely to be left on the near-future or far-future hook for any kind of slightly major bucks I believe that there would be hell-to-pay, (ya know, sort-of), for anyone who had endorsed what turned into a moneypit. -Particularly if other priorities, particularly-particularly if other CHILDREN's priorities where left wanting while plastic grass heated in the sun. Unless such a guarantee could be made, (and I tend to doubt it, because of all the unknown quantities), there should be great cautious consideration made here. PS: I used to be a kid's soccer coach. We called our team "The Grass Stains". We all liked the name. The fields were crappy. We all had fun. | ||
| toad Citizen Username: Toad Post Number: 132 Registered: 6-2001 |
kws- "Understanding Synthetic Fields" - Cook College, February 28, 2006. | ||
| kws Citizen Username: Kws Post Number: 125 Registered: 5-2001 |
Steel, No argument, this is low priority stuff. In terms of ranking the need, I do however place it above brick crosswalks, fancy signage and the belgium block curbing that has been deemed necessary for life here! Let us look at this from all angles before making a decision. But in the meantime why not at least apply for the grants? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1024 Registered: 6-2001 |
Just wondering here in Maplewood. I had thought that the whole purpose of the Green Acres grants was to preserve and/or develop "green" areas. You know what I mean. Those places filled with carbon dioxide eating/oxygen producing things. Like trees and grass. In the event I have misapprehended the purpose of the Green Acres grants, somebody please correct me. I'm looking to have my house painted and would happily change the color from tan to green if I can get a grant. I'll even rip the lawn and put in astroturf in my own humble effort to achieve the goals of the Green Acres grant. Seriously. Is a Green Acres grant really available to fund artificial turf? TomR | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 513 Registered: 1-2004 |
Doesn't everyone remember that the TC voted that everyone's taxes were going to go up by $25 per year to fund recreational "green acres" essentially a fund that would collect $210,000 per year for town fields? /discus/messages/3132/91167.html?1128008218#POS T459933 | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 1000 Registered: 2-2002 |
Thanks for the reminder about the money crabby, although technically it was the voters themselves and not the TC who voted for that tax since it was a ballot question. | ||
| rssounds Citizen Username: Rssounds Post Number: 368 Registered: 5-2001 |
TomR Green Acres monies can be applied towards the following areas: Purchase of property to create open natural space, parks, outdoor recreational facilities, or other similar uses. Improvement or purchase of historic properties. Improvement of existing park or recreational facilites. There are no restrictions on the type of improvements as long as they meet state guidelines. Artificial turf fields meet those guidelines. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1027 Registered: 6-2001 |
rssounds, Thanks for the information. And thanks for ignoring the sarcastic tone in which I phrased the quwstion. TomR | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13147 Registered: 1-2003  |
And that sounds reasonable. If astroturf makes a suitable playing field, then it's a service to the public. I understand DeHart park's problem is that it is low. That's hard to solve with any type of turf. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 7161 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tom: The problem is that artificial turf would be a very expensive service with a high on-going cost at a time when the town is borrowing a very large sum of money to finance the police station and has other escallating costs. Grant money is only free when it funds a one time expenditure with no carrying or upkeep costs. | ||
| rssounds Citizen Username: Rssounds Post Number: 369 Registered: 5-2001 |
Maintenance costs are significantly lower with artificial turf. The main issue is whether the town is able to provide suitable facilities to keep up with the demand of ever expanding youth sports programming. Two fields in Maplecrest and Meorial Parks will be closed for 2006. This will have a serious impact on youth athletic progamming. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 7170 Registered: 5-2001 |
rssounds: Toad wrote: "The synthetic turf "carpet" lasts approximately eight years. When the time comes to replace it the cost alone for disposal of the old carpet can exceed $150,000. Add the cost of the new carpet plus installation and the town is into some major costs. Also, there must be provisions for fresh water access at multiple points for cooling (the surface of the turf can exceed 125-140 degrees on a summer day) and for sanitation and cleaning. As far as I know, no provision has been made for water. After 16 years the underfill will have to be replaced. Current cost for a sand underfill is $1,000,000. " When I referred to maintenance costs, I was thinking long term including the carpet disposal and replacement and sand underfill costs Toad referred to in the above quote. Are you saying that the long term costs of upkeep for natural turf fields is even higher? If so, do you know what the relative cost figures are? Or, are you taking exception to the information Toad provided? Also: Why are the ball fields being closed? | ||
| rssounds Citizen Username: Rssounds Post Number: 371 Registered: 5-2001 |
Joan, Toad is mistaken. The fields have an 8 year manufacturers warranty. Life span is expected to be 12-15 years. Most artificial turf fields use a crushed stone base. More stable. The base is normally good for at least three generations of turf (45 years). Site prep costs (underfill) are estimated to be $350,000 installed. The $1,000,000 figure for sand underfill is, IMHO, extremely inaccurate. Water supply is being considered. Take a look at New Waterlands, Chyzowych Field, Maplecrest Park and Memorial Park. The natural turf fields in those parks cannot be maintained adaquately to meet the usage demand. Most of these fields are hard compacted dirt with little or no grass. Memorial and Maplecrest Parks' fields were closed to rest them. Field conditions were terrible. Natural turf fields need to go fallow as part of their maintenance. Unfortunately, we don't have the facilities to compensate for that loss of practice and game space. The carpet is recycled. The rubber infill can be recycled either for the new installation, or, if it is not suitable for reuse, it is sold as raw material for asphalt. I'm not sure about the $150,000 for disposal, I will look into that. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 7173 Registered: 5-2001 |
Rssounds: Thanks for the clarification. There is nothing quite like having the facts at hand when making a decision on an issue like this one. | ||
| toad Citizen Username: Toad Post Number: 134 Registered: 6-2001 |
Additional concerns about synthetic fields: 1.Static electricity must be reduced by applying fabric softener. What agency possesses a boom sprayer? 2.GMAX testing must be performed annually at a cost of $900/year. 3.Disinfectants must be applied as needed. Who is responsible? 4.Groomer is needed. Cost $1500-2300 5.Seam repairs $30-35/linear ft. 6.Heat concerns for players. Temperature can double that of natural turf. 7.Is ground rubber (from old tires) a potenential health and environmental hazard? | ||
| rssounds Citizen Username: Rssounds Post Number: 372 Registered: 5-2001 |
Toad: Here are some answers to your questions. I'll post the others later. Source is from one of the leading turf companies. 1. "Non issue. The infill is treated to prevent static electricity problems". 3. Simple Green in a spray bottle works just fine. Coaches can handle this issue. 4. "Groomer is supplied as part of the package. Free of charge". 5. "No call backs to repair seams for 8 years. Our seams do not fail. Our local installers can do repairs from damage at a nominal fee". 6. This is why water supply is being considered around the fields. "Simple sprinkling reduces heat by 35+ degrees at the surface". 7. "No. Ground rubber is cryogenically treated and has all the dirt and toxins removed in the freezing process". | ||
| yabbadabbadoo Citizen Username: Yabbadabbadoo Post Number: 341 Registered: 11-2003 |
Rssounds, you seem to being very knowledgable about the proposed field(s). What is the total cost and what is the township (taxpayers) being asked to put up? I've heard $1.5mm and $800mm respectively. Also, do you know how the immediate neighborhood feels about the proposal? FF | ||
| rssounds Citizen Username: Rssounds Post Number: 373 Registered: 5-2001 |
Fred, Cost is around $1.5 mm. $700,000 in grant money and private funds already raised. It is anticipated that $800,000-$1,000,000 in grants and private funding will be raised. The remainder will be a 2% loan from Green Acres. Works out to be around $37,000/yr to service the loan. Revenue from the new Open Space Trust Fund is one source of funding this loan. Therefore, there would be no additional imapct on the taxpayer. Local reaction is mixed. For example, 13 out of 15 homes (2 residents weren't home) on Taranto Court support the project. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 7185 Registered: 5-2001 |
Toad and Rssounds: The two of you are posting very different figures and concerns for the same project. I assume this is because you are refering to data from two very different sources. Have either of you spoken with representatives of jurisdictions which have installed artificial turf on their playing fields and if so, what has the feedback been regarding cost, wear and tear, maintenance, player safety, etc? | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 461 Registered: 3-2005 |
University of Missouri Synthetic Turf Playing Fields Present Unique Dangers Columbia, Missouri (November 2, 2005) – Brad Fresenburg made a disturbing discovery when he took surface temperatures of artificial playing turf on a 2003 summer afternoon. The University of Missouri turfgrass expert found that on a 98-degree day at MU's Faurot Field the surface temperature on the synthetic grass was 173 degrees. Nearby natural grass showed a temperature of just 105 degrees. When Fresenburg took the temperature at head-level height over the faux turf, the thermometer registered 138 degrees. Fresenburg said there's a national trend toward high schools and municipal recreation departments replacing grass with artificial turf -- once the almost exclusive purview of college and professional sports teams -- and he wants coaches and parents to know how to keep players safe. "If they are going to have artificial fields, we need coaches, parents and players to know that temperatures on these fields are going to be anywhere from 150 to 170 degrees on some days," Fresenburg said. "You might as well be sitting in an oven somewhere." . . . Fresenburg suggested that sports teams schedule morning and evening practices, times when playing surfaces are cool. In the hot afternoon hours of August and September he said teams should seek out natural grass alternatives. [Ed: Kinda makes it useless for most summer play, yes?] Under any workout conditions, hydration of athletes should be closely monitored, he said.... MU has two artificial turf fields, the indoor field in the Devine Pavilion and the outdoor Faurot Field in Memorial Stadium. The older-generation turf used at Devine Pavilion is more tacky and prone to cause twisting-related injuries, Sharp said. The football players wear special cleats when practicing there. Faurot Field has the newer-generation FieldTurf brand surface. He said players can wear regular grass cleats there, and he believes that the surface is just as safe as natural grass. Fresenburg is not so sure. Tests Fresenburg has done show increased potential pressure on joints and bones from the inability of a fully planted cleat-wearing foot to divot or twist out, an action that releases force. The traction on synthetic turf is much greater, he said. "Grounds managers prefer artificial turf over natural because when teams play on grass, they leave divots and rip out grass," Fresenburg said. "Most people see those areas as damaged turf. I like to say those divots are a sign that the field is doing its job -- yielding to the athletes' cleats."... The hidden danger on an artificial field is the threat of bacterial infections, Fresenburg said. He said disinfectant should be sprayed as needed if there's a known infection risk, but Fresenburg said he doesn't know what procedures are necessary to prevent bacterial contamination in the first place. "Natural grass has a microbial system. It's self-cleaning. These synthetic fields don't have that," Fresenburg said. "There's warmth. There's moisture. Bacteria can thrive in there. There's sweat, spit and blood." Sharp said players need to immediately report any "turf-burns," abrasions so named for their similarity to rug burns. Turf burns are common on certain types of synthetic turf. They must be immediately washed with soap and water to prevent infection, Sharp said. Often young athletes are inclined to ignore seemingly minor injuries, Sharp said. "We have done a good job of educating our students on turf burns," Sharp said. "We've had to educate our kids to let us clean and treat those." Anyone interested in more tips on turfgrass safety can contact Fresenburg at (573) 442-4893. "Many schools or communities may only look at the maintenance chores of natural grass when deciding to switch to artificial turf," Fresenburg said. "They should look beyond that. They need to look at all the differences between the two surfaces." http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/ats/news/2005/synthetic/ | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 462 Registered: 3-2005 |
American University: On the surface, AU teams are divided Some IM football players say Jacobs synthetic field is dangerous; field hockey less fazed about new home Kevin Hilgers Issue date: 9/29/05 Section: Sports In 1965, baseball's Houston Astros got a quick horticultural lesson: Grass grows best outside. After their first season in the Astrodome, their natural-grass field withered away. So they replaced it with the growing technology of synthetic turf, and thus began turf wars, which have divided athletes, fans and sports medicine experts. Some 40 years later, the issue has come to AU with the recent opening of the artificial turf field at the Jacobs Recreational Complex. On it, varsity and intramural teams face new challenges of sharing surface turf that some athletes have derided as an injury hazard. The field hockey and women's lacrosse teams, along with recreational sports, all use the facility. The turf is the surface of choice for field hockey because its uniformity makes play fast and predictable... "We absolutely love it," said senior defender Caroline Vo. "The turf and the surface is great, but it's more of the principle of home and having a place we can call our home. Just knowing that we have a place that's ours makes us want to play and gives us that extra support that we didn't have before." ... The surface on which field hockey thrives has been called dangerous by athletes from other sports. Like a natural grass field, the synthetic turf gives under pressure, but many athletes believe it's more taxing on joints. The short-cut fibers also make it more abrasive than the real thing, contributing in a turf version of rug burn. Some members of AU's intramural flag football teams have grown suspect of the new field. Chris Kalna, a Kogod junior, said he suffered a medial collateral ligament sprain during a recent game. He said he'd played on artificial turf in high school, but this one was the worst and that other intramural athletes have attributed injuries to it. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 463 Registered: 3-2005 |
NFL Players Survey: 85% of NFL players say they prefer to play on natural turf. By a large majority they say they suffer more injuries and fatigue on synthetic turf surfaces. In addition, they are worried that synthetic turf will shorten their careers and leave them with "quality of life" issues after they leave the game. Officials at school systems and parks departments considering installing synthetic turf systems should give careful consideration to the results of the 2004 NFL Players Association's (NFLPA) Playing Surfaces Opinion Survey released earlier this month. More than 1,500 active NFL Players from all 32 teams responded to the voluntary survey which was conducted between September and November, 2004. You can download the complete survey results (PDF, 404k) from the NFLPA Web site. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 465 Registered: 3-2005 |
And from "Clinical Infectious Diseases", November 15, 2004 and the "Infectious Diseases Society of America": A High-Morbidity Outbreak of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus among Players on a College Football Team, Facilitated by Cosmetic Body Shaving and Turf Burns Body Shaving and Turf Burns Spread Infection in College Football Team Last fall, ten football players out of 100 on a Connecticut college team contracted Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. Two of the players had to be hospitalized. The outbreak was reported in the November 15 issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases, a journal of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. MRSA is a type of drug-resistant bacteria that infects the skin, heart or central nervous system of hospitalized patients. In recent years, though, a more virulent strain has emerged that can infect healthy people. Staphylococcus outbreaks among athletes are becoming increasingly common, due to the players' frequent person-to-person contact... Athletes that practiced body shaving had a 43% risk of MRSA infection... The researchers also found that players who sustained turf burns on the artificial turf field were seven times more like to come down with an MRSA infection. It should be noted that the artificial turf by itself was not responsible for infection. The turf burns created abrasions which, when they were left uncovered, allowed the MRSA pathogen to be passed from one player to another. Turf burns may not be entirely preventable, but athletes should take note when they happen, said Dr. Begier. "When they have these large abrasions during game play they should stop and have them cleaned and covered to reduce the risk of contracting MRSA or transmitting it to other players," she said. | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 5367 Registered: 3-2002 |
Kathleen, Come across any articles on the dangers of playing on hard, compacted, uneven dirt fields with gulleys and rocks? I ask because we really dont have much in the way of grass ballfields any longer on a township or school level, but health and safety statistics regarding dirt fields would be pretty relevant. By the way, it can get incredibly hot on a summer day on an artificial turf surface, but the peak seasons for field usage are spring and fall. Summer field usage is largely (although not exclusively) at night. One reverse side plus of retaining heat..the surfaces are warmer and more comfortable to play on in colder weather. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11079 Registered: 5-2001 |
It is unclear to me as to how much of DeHart is going to be "turfed". Is this only the two ball diamonds? Or is the whole park going to get the turf. Personally, I think a turf infield is fine for baseball and softball. However, for soccer and lacrosse, I don't like turf fields because of the potential for injury. If only the baseball and softball infields are to be done, what effect will this have on using the park for soccer and lacrosse? At present when laid out for soccer the field uses part of the baseball infield. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 1007 Registered: 2-2002 |
Since this is really all about the children, I certainly hope that the promoters of the artificial turf are indeed throughly considering the heat factor. Speaking as a former Soccer Coach/Dad the heat used to be bad enough on regular grass on many an "off season" spring or fall day with kids coming off the field red-faced and practically ready to pass-out head-first into the ice cooler. I'd hate to think what play would have become if the temperature was an additional "artificially" raised 10 or 15 degrees hotter. Personally I don't think I would have let them play in such conditions if that had been the case on such days and then of what use is pretty plastic grass? Afterall, we are not talking about the field being used by hardened college or professional players. We are talking about little kids trying to have fun so I hope that you guys really are "cooly" confident about the heat factor. (heh, sorry about the pun). As to not using the field if it is too hot, -isn't part of the advocacy for needing the turf because the field is used all the time leaving no time for maintenance? Do they have to water spray this stuff down all day off-and-on on such hot days and if so doesn't that mean that the kids are then playing on wet slippery artificial turf? Again, since we seem to be speaking of protection, (from rocks, compacted earth and such) can the cure be worse than the disease? Why do I always have so many questions? | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 466 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hank, The burden of demonstrating this is an "improvement" for DeHart park is on the proponents of spending precious Green Acres funds and taxpayer money. I found the information I posted with a six second google search keyed to the hazards of artificial turf. I had already known about the excessive heat problems but I think the additional studies are equally if not even more damning. People who want to demonstrate how dangerous real grass is to children can do their own research to counter what I posted. | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 5368 Registered: 3-2002 |
Kathleen, I love and prefer real grass fields..I would love to walk out onto a lush green grass ballfield or have a group of kids running the bases around a beautiful grass infield. The only problem is..we dont really have those. Because of overuse and lack of maintenance and drought and many other factors, we have alot of dirt and rocks and weeds and some reasonable but rapidly disappearing patches of grass on our playing surfaces. And I can do a six second Google search that will also list odes to the wonders of artificial turf surfaces, and they probably wont include a piece about the dangers of body shaving (which did make a point to say when I read the piece you posted that artificial turf was not the cause of the infection risk). Have you played on or walked on some of these fields lately? Have you visited towns that have artificial surfaces and spoken with Rec and DPW and elected officials? Many of the proponents of this project have...some of the proponents were initially opposed to the project in fact. The Green Acres folks must also believe such projects are valid use of their grant money because theyve been funding these projects for some time now. | ||
| rssounds Citizen Username: Rssounds Post Number: 374 Registered: 5-2001 |
Toad, To answer your questions re gmax. The answer in bold was provided by one of the artificial turf companies. 2. GMAX testing must be performed annually at a cost of $900/year. Totally up to the user. We will pass GMAX at the time of construction. Up to the owner to determine if it is needed again. GMAX only changes if significant rubber infill is removed. Extra infill is left at the site after installation and grooming will redistribute the infill to "holes" created by one person shifting feet for a significant time at one location on the field. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11084 Registered: 5-2001 |
OK I will ask again, this time a little more directly. Will the turf baseball and softball fields render DeHart useless for other sports such as soccer, field hockey and lacrosse. | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 5371 Registered: 3-2002 |
Bob, The plan for the field is to have it configured as a multi-use facility for all the sports you mention, not any one or two. It is not going to become the home field for soccer or baseball or lacrosse or any other sport exclusively. |
