Features
Downing of Ukraine Airlines flight: a classic case of mismanagement of a crisis
By YURI KOGAN and ZEV COHEN of Ergo Oriens Crisis Management. (Special to The Jewish Post & News)
PS752, a scheduled commercial flight by Ukraine International Airlines from Tehran to Kyiv disappeared from air traffic control radar a few minutes after departure in the early morning hours of Wednesday, January 10. Initial media reports, quoting local witnesses and Iranian officials reported the airliner disappeared 6 minutes after departure at an altitude of 8,000 ft. It was reported that no distress call was transmitted by the crew. All 176 crew and passengers on board were reported as casualties. There were no survivors. Most of those on board were either Canadian citizens or others on their way to Canada through Kyiv.
Shortly after the incident both Iranian officials and the embassy of Ukraine in Tehran claimed PS752 crashed due to technical causes, namely a burnout of one of the airliner’s engines. This theory was retracted after a short while as other versions of events started appearing, namely the possibility that the airliner was shot down by a Russian produced air defense missile operated by Iran.
The latter version was totally rejected by Iran. Seyyed Abbas Mousavi, the spokesperson of the ministry of foreign affairs of Iran, speaking at a press conference on Thursday, January 9th, had tagged the “early assessments by some Western media officials that a Ukrainian airliner carrying dozens of civilians have been shot down” as “the suspicious moves by the West to create a negative atmosphere against Iran” (https://en.rasanews.ir/en/news/448459/iran-slams-west%E2%80%99s-smear-campaign-over-crashed-airliner). This was supported by the head of Iran’s aviation authority Ali Abedzadeh, saying at a press conference on Friday, January 10th, “the missile theory could not be “scientifically correct” because it was not possible for an airliner to be hit and “continue flying for 60 to 70 seconds” (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/10/iran-says-certain-missile-did-not-ukrainian-plane-calls-west/). Iranian officials also initially refused to include Boeing Co., the manufacturer of the Boeing 737-800 airliner, or other US entities in the investigation of the event.
In parallel international media hubs began publishing evidence supporting the version by which PS752 was indeed shot down by “an object rapidly moving upwards” and assessed to be a missile launched by an Iranian air defense system. Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau was the first world leader to accuse Iran of unintentionally shooting down the Ukrainian civilian airliner carrying 63 Canadian nationals among its 176 passengers.
Eventually, on the morning of Saturday, January 11th, Iran admitted to shooting down PS752 by an air defense missile due to what was described by a statement of the general staff of Iran’s armed forces as “human error”.
Looking at the described sequence of events from the point of crisis management two crises arise. The first, an internal one, comprised of the sequence of events leading to the erroneous identification of a civilian airliner performing a routine departure maneuver in the vicinity of an international airport and the main gateway to the country, as a hostile incoming target and subsequently deciding to launch missiles and shoot it down. This could be pointing to an insufficient level of operational competence by the operating air-defense crew and will not be discussed here.
The second crisis, relevant to any entity facing an evident failure of a product or an action, causing a major disaster. The criticality of the realization that a crisis has erupted, and the need for putting into effect crisis management practices could not be overstated. This is augmented by the fact that, in this case, multiple sources were able to almost instantly provide a significant body of evidence supporting the version that PS752 was indeed shot down by an object launched from Iranian soil.
The sequence of statements made by Iranian officials, starting from the immediate hours after the disaster took place, claiming it was caused by a technical issue, namely a burnout of one of the airliner’s engines is nothing but erroneous in view of the short time passing since the disaster took place, clearly not allowing a proper investigation to take place and produce conclusions as to its causes. The fact these statements were taken ‘off the air’ shortly after being published only adds to the atmosphere of bad crisis management.
It seems nobody in Iran stopped to analyze the sequence of events and the probability of the availability of credible evidence pointing to a version of events contradicting the one presented and promoted by its officials. A claim that this was caused by the lack of information does not seem feasible as air defense missiles are not assault rifle rounds and the fact two were launched and are missing is not something a short examination would not discover. Moreover, in today’s highly monitored world, especially in a strategic hotspot such as the ‘Iranian neighborhood’, the ‘density’ of electronic monitoring and visual imaging is so high, it would be a critical error to deny the responsibility to causing a disaster, where multiple parties have significant motivations to prove you wrong and uncover the truth.
Providing almost automatic ‘I am not responsible’ statements could not be more wrong. In its statements Iran claimed the version of it being responsible to the disaster was aimed to smear it. Iran’s late and somehow lame claim to partial responsibility, putting the rest of it on earlier US actions is the one to negatively portray it, bringing up a picture of it being unsuccessful in covering the causes to the disaster up and being forced to admit guilt by mounting external evidence.
Successful Crisis Management Practices would point first to the identification and acceptance of the fact a crisis is evident. Next, the “immediate suspect” should conduct a swift internal examination aimed at ascertaining the facts, while putting up a statement acknowledging the fact of the disaster happening and an investigation into its causes being conducted. Denying or taking responsibility for the causes if the disaster could take place only after internal checks and investigations were concluded with the facts and evidence clear, as well as their availability to other interested parties. Being perceived as guilty and forced to confess, rather than assuming responsibility for an unintentionally caused disaster is not a position anybody would aspire to.
Yuri Kogan is CEO of Ergo Oriens Consultants, a company specializing in crisis management. Zev Cohen is a former Winnipegger who has lived in Israel for over 50 years. Cohen is now working with Kogan on developing a series of a articles aimed at the general public, dealing with issues of crisis management.
Features
Hair straightening at Sets on Corydon
Features
Ontario Online Casinos Let Players Set Daily, Weekly and Monthly Deposit Limits
A deposit limit sets a ceiling on how much money someone can add to an online gambling account. In Ontario’s regulated market, players can choose limits covering 24 hours, seven days and one month, with the website’s system enforcing the amounts they select.
The settings are straightforward, but the timing deserves attention. A daily allowance may sit within weekly and monthly caps, while an increase can involve a waiting period. For adults using Chrome on a Chromebook, understanding these account rules starts with knowing where to find them.
Finding the Settings and Choosing a Period
Deposit controls sit within the gambling website’s account menus. The Tooniebet Ontario responsible gaming page is an operator-specific resource readers can consult alongside their account settings. ToonieBet is operated by Canadix Limited and regulated by the AGCO under an agreement with iGaming Ontario.
Ontario’s standards require an easy and obvious way to set financial and time limits during registration and afterward. Players must be offered deposit and loss limits when signing up, and the controls must remain easy to reach and change once an account is open.
Menu names differ between sites. Published examples place deposit limits under account settings or responsible-gaming tools, where players can select an amount and a period.
Each type of limit measures something different. Deposit limits cap money added to the account. Loss limits restrict net losses after winnings are taken into account, while time limits govern playing time. iGaming Ontario’s player guidance explains all three.
For Chromebook users, these settings are managed through the website’s account interface. Chrome’s own permissions handle separate browser functions, such as access to location information.
How Several Limits Apply to One Deposit
Players can have daily, weekly and monthly limits running together. A deposit must fit within every active cap.
Take a hypothetical account with limits of CAD $40 daily, CAD $100 weekly and CAD $250 monthly. These figures illustrate the process.
If someone has already deposited CAD $90 during the weekly period, the remaining weekly allowance is CAD $10. That becomes the most they can add, even when the daily limit has more room. Reaching the monthly cap would likewise block another deposit until some monthly allowance becomes available.
This is why checking all active limits matters. A new day may bring fresh daily capacity while the weekly or monthly total remains close to its ceiling. The longer periods continue to apply as the shorter one refreshes.
When Money Drops Out of a Rolling Window
The next question is when previous deposits stop counting toward a cap. Some sites use rolling periods, which track elapsed time from individual deposits.
Published Ontario policies include daily windows of 24 hours, weekly windows of 168 hours and monthly windows of 720 hours, equivalent to 30 days. Under that approach, each deposit frees up its corresponding allowance once it falls outside the window.
Suppose someone has a CAD $100 rolling weekly limit and deposits CAD $25 on Friday, followed by CAD $75 on Saturday. Seven days after Friday’s deposit, CAD $25 becomes available again. The other CAD $75 returns seven days after Saturday’s deposit.
Leaving the restored Friday allowance unused means it combines with Saturday’s restored amount. At that point, the full CAD $100 is available. Reviewing deposit dates and times helps explain how much room remains within a rolling period.
Changing a Cap Takes a Separate Step
A limit refreshing follows the schedule already attached to the account. Raising that limit requires a request and a wait.
Ontario’s standards require at least 24 hours before a player’s request to relax or remove an established limit can take effect. The existing limit remains enforceable during the cooling-off period.
Operators publish their own timings. Documented examples include a seven-day wait for deposit-limit increases or removals. Another published schedule allows increases after one day for a daily cap, seven days for a weekly cap and 30 days for a monthly cap.
Lower limits take effect immediately under these published policies. Some policies also restart the waiting period when a player requests another increase while an earlier change is pending. The effective date shows which amount currently applies.
Other Controls and Support
Deposit limits work alongside loss limits, time limits, short breaks and self-exclusion. Together, these give players ways to restrict account funding, gambling activity or access.
Ontario-regulated online casino play is restricted to adults aged 19 and older who are physically in Ontario. Gambling involves financial risk.
For concerns about your gambling or someone else’s, ConnexOntario offers free, confidential information and referral support around the clock. Call 1-866-531-2600 or text CONNEX to 247247. Standard message and data rates may apply.
Features
What “Best Odds” Really Means When Comparing Gambling Review Websites
The phrase best odds appears frequently in gambling discussions, but it is surprisingly easy to use imprecisely. MonsterBetList is primarily a casino review and rankings website, not a dedicated live sportsbook odds comparison terminal. That difference is central to evaluating what its reviews can and cannot establish. A casino rating may explain payout conditions, licence information and bonus restrictions, while a claim about the best available price on a sporting outcome requires a different kind of evidence altogether.
Odds and ratings answer different questions
Sports betting odds represent a price offered on a specified outcome. A review rating is an editorial judgement built from multiple criteria. These two numerical systems cannot be substituted for one another. A bookmaker rated highly for service may offer a less competitive price on a particular match, while a service with a more attractive price may impose different limits or verification rules.
Similarly, a casino review can discuss return-to-player statistics, but RTP is not the same as sportsbook odds. RTP describes a theoretical long-run percentage built into a game model. It does not tell a reader what will happen in one session and it is not an individually negotiable market quotation.
What makes sports odds comparable?
A fair odds comparison starts with identical selections: the same event, outcome, market rules and settlement conditions. Comparing a three-way football result with a draw-no-bet price is invalid because the products pay under different circumstances. The observation time also matters; displayed prices can change quickly as market information or trading decisions evolve.
The numerical format should be standardised. Decimal odds provide one convenient representation, but American and fractional formats express the same underlying idea differently. Converting these formats is straightforward. What matters is the net price, the operator’s rules and whether the quoted offer remains available when reviewed.
Overround explains the hidden cost of many markets
In a simplified two-outcome market, dividing one by each decimal price produces an implied probability. If the implied probabilities add to more than 100%, the excess is commonly described as the bookmaker’s overround. It is one way of understanding the margin embedded in prices, although individual market structure and adjustments can complicate the interpretation.
This concept explains why the word best should not be attached to a price without context. A strong headline may look appealing yet represent an ordinary margin after calculation. More importantly, any single quote is time-dependent. Genuine comparison requires a dated observation and equivalent market rules; broad editorial praise is not enough.
What casino rankings can establish instead
MonsterBetList publishes casino reviews and guides addressing licences, bonuses, payout experiences and responsible gambling. Those topics are relevant to evaluating consumer risk and service quality. A report about the length of a withdrawal process, for example, can be useful if its methodology is transparent. A bonus review can help identify restrictive wagering requirements that marketing headlines omit.
However, a casino ranking should not be presented as evidence that its highest-rated operator consistently offers the best sports prices. Unless a site publishes repeated market-by-market comparisons, that conclusion is not supported. Readers benefit when publishers clearly distinguish what was measured from what readers might assume was measured.
Bonuses can complicate comparisons
A sportsbook may offer free-bet tokens, cashback or other promotions. Their effective value depends on conditions rather than the largest number printed in a banner. Some credits are not withdrawable as cash; others require qualifying selections, minimum odds or a deadline. Casino welcome bonuses often introduce wagering requirements, game-contribution rules and limits on withdrawals. Combining these products under one generic promotional score can hide important differences.
For instance, a large matched deposit might require extensive play before bonus-related funds become eligible for withdrawal. The required betting volume is not a promise of profit. The presence of a promotion may therefore make comparisons more complex instead of simpler. Clear disclosures should precede any judgement about value.
Editorial independence and methods
Review sites sometimes state that rankings are editorially independent. Such a statement is relevant but does not replace evidence of consistent testing. Readers should look for the criteria used, the date of each review, whether real transactions were examined and how negative findings are treated. If one platform receives detailed testing while another is scored on marketing copy, the ranking loses comparability.
Commercial incentives should also be visible. Referral relationships or sponsorships do not automatically make every observation inaccurate, but they create reasons to ask how rankings are insulated from revenue. A publication that explains its methodology and corrections process gives readers a stronger basis for trust than one that simply declares its winners.
Licensing and dispute rights before price claims
A marginally attractive price is of limited value when the operator is not legally available to the reader or does not provide meaningful avenues for redress. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and a licence in one country may not authorise service in another. It is prudent to verify the legal entity behind a brand and the current status of any licence through official records.
Consumers should also review identity verification, account restrictions and dispute resolution procedures. These operational conditions influence the actual experience of using a gambling service. A sensible evaluation includes them before discussing promotions or theoretical market advantages.
Why guaranteed-profit language is a warning sign
No ordinary review or odds list can guarantee that an individual will win money from gambling. Claims of certain returns often omit the fact that results are uncertain, prices move and transactions are subject to restrictions. Casino games generally incorporate a house advantage, and sports outcomes remain uncertain regardless of a persuasive analysis. The safest response to absolute promises is scepticism.
Readers should also avoid treating gambling as a means of addressing financial problems. Chasing previous losses and increasing stakes to recover money can deepen harm. Consumer-oriented coverage is more valuable when it explains risk and offers realistic options for stepping away.
Conclusion: define the claim before ranking the service
“Best odds” is a specific comparative proposition, not a synonym for a high casino rating. MonsterBetList can be examined for its published casino research, review structure and risk disclosures, but those materials should not be stretched into claims they have not tested. Clear definitions, dated evidence and honest limitations are the foundations of trustworthy comparison journalism.
