loses

JAKARTA: Indonesian rescuers launched a search operation Sunday after a passenger ship carrying at least 240 people lost contact in the Java Sea while traveling from East Java to South Kalimantan on Borneo island, officials said.

The Search and Rescue Office in Banjarmasin, the capital of South Kalimantan province, said they received a report the Virgo Transport 8 had experienced a communication failure while en route to the city from Surabaya, Indonesia’s second largest city in East Java province.

Initial information indicated the vessel’s last known position was in the Java Sea, about 148 kilometers (92 miles) from a pier in Banjarmasin. The ship’s manifest said it was carrying 241 passengers.

There were no immediate reports of casualties.

Arianto Ardi, operations chief at Banjarmasin’s rescue agency, confirmed the loss of contact with the vessel and said rescue personnel had been dispatched to the area.

“We have established an operations post at Trisakti,” Arianto said.

Authorities said the ship’s operator reported the incident after receiving information that the vessel had encountered bad weather.

The discrepancy between the official F1 measurement and the possible shorter distance did not mean that the official measurement was incorrect, the court said.

While it was concluded after the race that a shorter line was possible, the court of appeal ruled that “sporting fairness absolutely precludes the retrospective replacement” of an established calibration parameter “by a different geometric or measurement approach for the purpose of re-adjudicating an individual competitor’s result”.

The controversy arose from the fact that there was a 77-centimetre discrepancy between the officially measured distance of the pit lane and the real shortest route a driver could take.

It was established at Alpine’s appeal in June that Gasly had not exceeded the pit-lane speeding limit by this new measurement, which was why the penalty was overturned.

However, McLaren appealed on the grounds of sporting fairness and their own competitive interests, as Piastri had lost two points as a consequence of the situation.

The Australian was one of several drivers who did serve a five-second pit-lane speeding penalty.

The court of appeal verdict rests on the following conclusions:

Alpine said in a statement: “While we disagree with the decision, and still fully maintain that car 10 (Gasly) did not exceed the pit-lane speed limit at any point during the race, the team acknowledges the decision of the judging panel from the recent hearing in Paris.

“While the result is not what we had hoped for, as we feel that we have been unjustly punished, the team is firmly focused on continuing to improve its performance on track and remains in a close and very competitive championship fight.”

McLaren said: “We welcome the decision of the FIA international court of appeal, a decision which provides important clarity for teams and all the sport’s stakeholders and helps protect the integrity of the sport and trust in its regulatory framework.

“Our appeal was not directed at any competitor or at the FIA. It was brought, and pursued to its conclusion, in the interests of the sport and to support the consistent and fair application of the regulations for all participants.”

The court of appeal did not address the question of whether the pit-lane speeding penalties awarded to Ferrari’s Lewis Hamilton, Russell and Piastri were correct under the established measurement, or whether their cars ever physically exceeded the 60km/h limit.

That was not relevant to the bounds of the hearing, which was to address McLaren’s and Red Bull’s protest against the decision to rescind Gasly’s penalty.

Mercedes also contend that Russell never exceeded 60km/h. He was running ahead of Hadjar and Gasly before his first penalty.

He was demoted out of the points because Mercedes failed to correctly serve the penalty at a subsequent pit stop. That offence earned a drive-through penalty which dropped him to 12th place.

Alpine say they have sent the trophy for third place over to Red Bull’s Milton Keynes base, and that they are considering their options as to whether to take the case further.

Their only remaining likely course of action, should they wish to pursue it, would be to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Tiger Woods was suspended from driving for five years and fined after reaching a plea deal at a Florida court Wednesday in connection with a rollover crash in March.

The golf legend pleaded guilty to reckless driving and refusal to submit to a lawful urinalysis test. The agreement also includes a $1,000 fine.

Woods, 50, initially pleaded not guilty after being charged with driving under the influence on March 27. His Land Rover clipped a truck, rolled onto its side and he was arrested by police officers who responded to the incident after he failed a sobriety test.

An arrest affidavit indicated Woods said he was looking at his cellphone and changing the radio station when the crash occurred. The breathalyzer test showed no traces of alcohol, but Woods refused to take a urine test, had two hydrocodone pills in his pocket and admitted to taking “a few pills,” the report said.

Woods’ attorney, Douglas Duncan, pleaded not guilty to both charges March 31 and requested a jury trial. The judge allowed Woods to leave the country for inpatient treatment at a rehab facility in Switzerland.

Woods’ pivot to recovery came after a barrage of headlines about his rollover crash and unfocused, hiccups-laden aftermath captured on police officers’ body cameras that included a phone call to President Trump, the failed field sobriety tests, handcuffs and a drive to jail in the back seat of a squad car.

At a hearing in May, Steele granted prosecutors’ request for access to “any and all prescription medication on file” for Woods, including type of prescription, number of pills and dosage amount. Those details presumably would have been submitted as evidence at a trial, which now will not take place.

“I know and understand the seriousness of the situation I find myself in today,” Woods said in a statement in March. “I am stepping away for a period of time to seek treatment and focus on my health. This is necessary in order for me to prioritize my well-being and work toward lasting recovery. I’m committed to taking the time needed to return to a healthier, stronger, and more focused place, both personally and professionally.”

Woods’ struggles with prescription drugs became public in 2017 when police found him asleep at the wheel of his car with the engine running near his Jupiter, Fla., home. Painkillers, sleep aids and THC were detected in his system. Woods checked into rehab shortly after that incident, saying his efforts to manage insomnia and pain from his staggering number of back surgeries on his own was a mistake.

The latest crash is the fourth major incident involving Woods behind the wheel since 2009.

“I feel bad for Tiger,” fellow golf great Jack Nicklaus told the Palm Beach Post in April. “He’s been taking painkillers for a long time and I don’t know how much pain he’s in. But I don’t think he’d be taking them if he didn’t need them.”

Woods first hurt his back as a high school sophomore in 1992 when he became the youngest golfer to play in a PGA Tour event, shooting a one-over-par 72 at Riviera Country Club in Los Angeles. That began a career-threatening battle with back injuries that includes seven surgeries since 2014 — several microdiscectomies, a 2017 lumbar fusion and most recently a lumbar disc replacement performed in October 2025.

“Tiger Woods’ experience with spinal disease highlights a real and under-recognized issue among modern-era golfers,” said Dr. Corey Walker of the Barrow Neurological Institute. “Tiger’s use of the mechanics of the modern-day swing places a tremendous strain on the back.”

Woods last played in an official PGA Tour event at The Open Championship on July 19, 2024, at Royal Troon, missing the cut.

NEW YORK — Novak Djokovic grinded through physical and internal ailments, made one mistake after another and could not find what it took to beat a feisty, younger opponent who was not intimidated under the lights against tennis’ most decorated player.

The 39-year-old is out of the U.S. Open after a first-round defeat to Mariano Navone on Sunday night, losing 7-6 (5), 5-7, 4-6, 6-2, 6-1 in a five-set marathon that lasted 4 hours and 36 minutes. It was the longest opening match of a Grand Slam in Djokovic’s career and became his earliest exit in one in two decades, dating to the 2006 Australian Open. He had never lost in the first round at the U.S. Open.

With this defeat, 21 years to the day of his U.S. Open debut, the question now lingers as to whether this was Djokovic’s final match at this or any Grand Slam.

Djokovic made 70 unforced errors in a painful performance that ended mere minutes before midnight.

The record holder with 24 major titles threw up at least once and later appeared to be cramping when he grabbed at his left foot. Djokovic swallowed pills brought to him by a doctor and had his lower back massaged during a medical timeout between the fourth and fifth sets, and he grimaced after several shots.

Throughout his time on court, it was clear Djokovic was not himself, and the wear and tear of sickness and soreness took its toll. The No. 4 seed from Serbia cruised to early 3-0 and 4-1 leads before blowing them and losing the first set — the first time that happened to him in the first round of the U.S. Open since ’06.

With his wife, Jelena, watching from the stands with worried looks on her face, Djokovic had moments where he looked like one of the best to play the sport. His fist pump was reserved after winning the second set, and he put his hand to his ear and gestured to the crowd for applause on the way to taking the third.

But Navone — a 25-year-old from Argentina who earlier this year won his first ATP singles title — did not go away. After firing a shot wide in the fourth set, Djokovic landed awkwardly and dropped his racket.

Djokovic all but conceded the fourth set. But he was unable to muster enough for what would have been his 43rd five-set victory as Navone picked up his first.

Whyno writes for the Associated Press.

Holidaymakers may be entitled to claim compensation when an airline loses, damages or delays their luggage

Holidaymakers facing the misery of lost, damaged or delayed luggage could be entitled to compensation from their airline – but they need to act quickly.

Passengers arriving at their destination only to discover their suitcase has failed to make the journey with them have legal rights that can help them recover some of the costs. Citizens Advice says travellers have the right to claim compensation from an airline when checked-in luggage is delayed, lost or damaged. But there are important deadlines – and passengers should report a problem as soon as possible.

The consumer advice charity warns that the rules for cabin baggage are different. You can generally only claim for a problem with hand luggage where the airline was at fault.

Don’t leave it too late

Citizens Advice says holidaymakers should report missing or damaged luggage to the airline straight away. At the airport, this will normally involve completing a Property Irregularity Report (PIR) at the baggage claims area.

Passengers should keep a copy of the PIR, or obtain written confirmation from the airline if they report the problem later. Making a report does not necessarily mean a compensation claim has been made. Passengers will normally still need to submit a separate claim unless the airline agrees to pay certain expenses upfront.

There are strict deadlines

One of the biggest traps is assuming there is plenty of time to make a claim.

Citizens Advice says the usual deadlines are:

• Damaged luggage: claim within seven days of receiving it.
• Missing or damaged contents: claim within seven days of receiving the luggage.
• Delayed or missing luggage: claim within 21 days of the flight.
• Luggage not returned within 21 days: it is officially treated as lost, meaning passengers should make a claim as soon as possible.

A suitcase that eventually turns up after several days does not necessarily mean a passenger has lost their right to compensation. Citizens Advice says it is still possible to claim for delayed luggage if it is returned within the 21-day period.

What can you claim for?

The compensation available from an airline is generally limited. For delayed luggage, this can include the cost of essential items needed while waiting for the suitcase, such as toiletries and underwear.

Passengers may also be able to claim some of the cost of repairing or replacing luggage and its contents if they are lost or damaged. If a traveller has to collect delayed luggage themselves, says they may also be able to recover reasonable transport costs.

But holidaymakers should not assume they will receive the full replacement value of everything inside a suitcase. Airlines will often ask for receipts and proof of purchase, while Citizens Advice warns that they will not normally pay ‘new for old’ replacement costs.

There can also be restrictions around valuable, fragile or perishable items packed in checked luggage. Total compensation is generally limited to around £1,000 and is often considerably less.

Passengers cannot normally claim for stress or inconvenience caused by the luggage problem, or for knock-on problems such as missing a connection.

Keep every scrap of evidence

Anyone making a claim should keep hold of their paperwork.

Citizens Advice says airlines will usually expect passengers to provide documents such as:

• their boarding pass;
• luggage tags showing the identification number;
• the PIR or written confirmation that the problem was reported;
• receipts for emergency purchases made because of delayed luggage;
• proof of purchase for lost or damaged belongings;
• photographs showing damage; and
• estimates for the cost of repairs where relevant.

Travellers should keep copies of their claim and the original documents.

How to make the claim

Passengers should check with their airline to find out how it wants compensation claims submitted. If there is no specific claim form, Citizens Advice says travellers may need to write to the airline’s customer service department.

The charity advises making clear that the claim is being made under the Montreal Convention. The claim should include details of the flight, including the date, flight number, departure point and destination.

Travellers should explain what happened, set out the amount being claimed and provide a detailed list of the luggage or contents that were lost or damaged. Any essential items bought because of the delay should also be listed, with copies of supporting receipts and other evidence.

What if several airlines were involved?

Passengers travelling on connecting flights operated by different airlines may be able to claim against any of them. However, Citizens Advice says most airlines expect the claim to be made against the last airline boarded.

An airline cannot simply refuse to deal with a claim because another carrier was involved. If a passenger gets nowhere they can seek advice from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

What if the airline rejects your claim?

Holidaymakers who are unhappy with an airline’s response can take the matter further. Citizens Advice recommends first trying to resolve the complaint through the appropriate process.

The CAA can take up complaints against airlines or airports in certain circumstances, although its role depends on whether the airline or airport belongs to an approved alternative dispute resolution scheme. As a last resort, passengers can consider taking a case to the small claims court.

A luggage claim can generally be taken to court within two years of the flight, although court action can be costly and time-consuming.

Check your insurance too

There is another option that could prove easier and more generous. Citizens Advice says that if luggage is covered by travel insurance or a home contents policy, making an insurance claim may be preferable.

This is because insurance can potentially provide more money and may be easier to claim through than pursuing the airline.

Passengers needing further help can contact the Citizens Advice consumer helpline on 0808 223 1133 or use its online service.

The charity also advises checking the specific rules applying to the airline, as individual procedures and deadlines can vary. More information here.

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Friday once again spurned President Trump’s effort to erase his hush money conviction, rejecting the president’s bid to move the state court case to federal court and have it dismissed on presidential immunity grounds.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein reiterated his earlier finding against Trump, saying that the reasons Trump cited for renewing his request were “neither new nor legally sufficient.”

The judge added: “He has failed to show good cause and diligence.”

It is the third time Hellerstein has blocked Trump from having the U.S. District Court in Manhattan seize control of the case from the New York court where he was tried and convicted.

And, like before, Trump will appeal, according to a spokesperson for his legal team who called Hellerstein’s ruling “baseless and lawless.”

“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be removed to federal court, and immediately overturned and dismissed,” a statement issued on behalf of the legal team said. “President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn.”

The guilty verdict, reached in May 2024 while Trump was between terms, made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. Trump is also challenging his conviction through the state court appellate process, which is pending.

Hellerstein’s decision came after a federal appeals court last year ordered him to reconsider his prior denial. The judge previewed his ruling during oral arguments in February, slamming Trump’s lawyers for legal maneuvers that amounted to taking “two bites at the apple.”

State prosecutors did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case centered on a payment to Stormy Daniels

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose claim of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier had threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge, which left his conviction intact but spared him any punishment. He had long denied Daniels’ claim and said he did nothing wrong. He has sought to get the conviction overturned both by attempting to move the case to federal court and through the appeals process in state court, which is pending.

Hellerstein rejected Trump’s requests to move the case twice before. The first was after Trump’s March 2023 indictment. The second was after Trump’s trial, as his lawyers sought to nix his conviction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling that presidents and ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for official acts and prosecutors can’t use official acts as evidence that unofficial actions were illegal.

Trump appealed Hellerstein’s post-trial ruling and, last November, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the judge to reconsider his decision, finding that he had failed to consider “important issues relevant” to the president’s request to move the case.

A three-judge appellate panel said it expressed no view on how he should rule but instructed Hellerstein to closely review evidence that Trump claimed was related to official acts and whether Trump could argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties.

The judges also instructed Hellerstein to determine if Trump had “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court and whether the case can even be moved to federal court now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.

The judge questioned the Trump legal team’s strategy

During oral arguments in February, Hellerstein took issue with the Trump legal team’s decision-making after the Supreme Court ruling.

Instead of immediately seeking to move the case to federal court, he noted, Trump’s lawyers first asked the trial judge in state court, Juan Merchan, to throw out the verdict on immunity grounds. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. has ruled that exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown.

Trump, a Republican, did not attend the arguments.

Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision and that Trump’s legal team was crunched for time after the high court’s ruling because his sentencing was scheduled for just 10 days later.

Trump’s lawyers did not ask Hellerstein to intervene until nearly two months later, while their request to Merchan was still pending. The judge called that a “strategic decision” and suggested that by going to the state court first, Trump’s lawyers cost him the right to pursue remedies in federal court.

“No, your honor,” Wall replied. “It is what any sensible litigant would do” in that situation.

“Not so,” Hellerstein replied.

“That is a decision on your part,” the judge added. “You didn’t have to do that. You could have come right to the federal court. Just by filing a notice of removal, there would be no sentencing.”

Trump’s lawyers “made a choice,” Hellerstein said, “and you sought two bites at the apple.”

In his written ruling Friday, Hellerstein said Trump was asking for a “‘second bite at the apple,’ a result the law disfavors.”

The judge added that “Trump’s delay in filing for removal constitutes a ‘quintessential strategic decision,’ and the ‘fact that he later came to view that decision as a poor one is not sufficient, by itself, to establish cause.’”

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press.