Given a document, find the main entity about whom the author is writing. Write the full name if mentioned in the text. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

Ex Input:
A woman runs past an Under Armour store in downtown Chicago on Oct. 16. (Christopher Dilts/Bloomberg)
Americans  it seems  are over Under Armour.
âThis is an abrupt about-turn for a company that  until recently  was on a mission to challenge the might of Nike â Neil Saunders  managing director of the analytical firm GlobalData Retail  said in an email. âUnder  Armour  has become just another brand in a sea of brands.â
The problems are multiple  he said. Although Under  Armour  racks up billions of dollars in sales each year  analysts say it has failed to drum up much loyalty among its customers. It has also been slow to resonate with women and has struggled to compete with larger rivals such as Nike and Adidas  which often offer lower-priced goods. Another factor: bankruptcy filings by key retail distributors such as Sports Authority and Sports Chalet.
âWe are incredibly disappointed with our 2017 performance â Kevin Plank  Under Armourâs founder and chief executive  said during the call with analysts. âWe have not performed to the level we had originally aspired to.â
Under Armour tried to keep up  he said  by discounting prices and offering more promotions than usual  which further cut into the companyâs profit margins. But  Plank added  those were just temporary efforts to shore up sales and not a long-term strategy for the company  which once could command higher prices than its competitors. (Menâs running shoes  for example  start at $74.99 at  Under Armour   $65 at Adidas and $60 at Nike  according to the companiesâ websites.)
âIn no way  shape or form do we anticipate changing the pricing model that makes Under Armour special and unique â Plank said. âWe invented the $25 T-shirt. Weâve pressed the bounds as to what consumers will pay for apparel. Thatâll continue. No one is looking for  Under Armour  to have the $25 hooded fleece. They want Under  Armour  at the $75 and $100 price points.â
But analysts say that might be a tough sell  particularly as customers grow accustomed to deep discounts. Saunders added that a âmarked slowdownâ in demand for athletic apparel is likely to further complicate Under  Armour âs turnaround efforts.
âWhile customer numbers have risen  loyalty to the brand is not deep-rooted in the same way that it is at Lululemon and Nike â he wrote. âWhat this means is that as demand moderated  Under  Armour  has been quick to drop off the radar of many consumers.â
The latest round of disappointing earnings comes on the heels of a tough year. The company posted its first-ever loss in April and in August announced it would lay off 2 percent of its workers. Thereâs also been changes to the leadership team. Still   shares of Under Armour stock  which are currently trading at about $13   have lost more than half  their  value this year.

Ex Output:
Armour


Ex Input:
One of the reasons  Jimmy Vesey  didnât sign with  his  hometown Bruins when the Harvard product was a college free agent in 2016 was because  he  wanted to get out of  his  comfort zone.  He  sure looks comfortable playing against them.
 Vesey  scored twice in a 29-second span in the first period in the Rangersâ 4-2 home win Wednesday night against Boston  the Blueshirtsâ fifth straight win as they continue to distance themselves from their rough start to the year.
For Buchnevichâs fellow sophomore Vesey  Wednesday represented some progress in that he remained a contributor until the final horn. In three of the previous five games   Vesey  had either had limited third-period ice time or been benched altogether for the third.
 Jimmy Vesey  celebrates  his  first of two goals scored. (Bruce Bennett/Getty Images)
âMaybe he wasnât finishing on a lot  but  Jimmy  was working hard and  like you saw (Wednesday) early on  before he scored the goals  he made a couple real strong plays along the wall in our end that permitted us to get the puck out â Vigneault said. âSo thereâs more than just finishing.â

Ex Output:
Jimmy Vesey


Ex Input:
Well  it’s now happened.  The great scandal of the modern Catholic Church  —  its  tolerance for clergy who abuse children  and  its  laxity when dealing with bishops who themselves tolerated or enabled priest-abusers — now touches directly on  the pope himself .
 It ’s worth laying out the timeline clearly. In 2015  Pope Francis appointed Juan Barros Madrid to the bishopric of Osorno  Chile. The appointment was met with local protests  among Catholics and non-Catholics who believed that Barros was implicated in the crimes of child sexual abuse committed by his friend Father Fernando Karadima  a prominent Chilean churchman who habitually kissed and fondled boys. In the days after the installation of Barros at Osono  Pope Francis told an archbishop that there was “no objective reason at all” to oppose the appointment. The Vatican’s own department governing these matters  the Congregation for Bishops  released a statement saying they had “carefully examined the prelate’s candidature and did not find objective reasons to preclude the appointment.”
In the months following the appointment   Pope Francis  became extremely dismissive of complaints. “Osorno suffers  yes  for silliness ”  the pope  said of the outrage in the media. “Think with your head  and do not be carried away by the noses of the leftists  who are the ones who put this thing together ” he added.
A few weeks ago   Pope Francis ’s visit to Chile was marked by protests  and  the pope  continued  his  extremely brusque dismissal. “The day I see proof against Bishop Barros  then I will talk ” the pontiff said. “There is not a single piece of evidence against  him . It is all slander. Is that clear?”  Francis  said that no victims had come forward to  him . It was apparently this statement that caused Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston to scramble down to Chile and meet with the pope. After O’Malley’s intervention  presumably  the pope issued a half-apology  but repeated that the accusations against Barros were “slander” before adding  “I’m convinced he’s innocent.”
And now the news drops. In the time between the pope’s appointment of Barros and his commentary about protesters being carried away by leftists  members of the Vatican’s own Commission for the Protection of Minors gathered to discuss the appointment. They had a representative hand-deliver a letter to Pope Francis  from Carlos Cruz. The letter alleged  in lurid detail  that Barros had personally witnessed the abuse of Cruz at Karadima’s hands. Members of the commission photographed the hand-off of the letter to  the pope   to reassure Cruz that they were doing everything possible to make his cry for justice heard.
The facts as we know them leave us with a few interpretations. 1)  Pope Francis  simply never read the letter  ignoring this extraordinary intervention by the Vatican’s own commission on a matter of public controversy for  his  pontificate. 2)  Francis  read the letter but forgot about it  reverting to  his  original understanding of the case. 3)  Francis  read the letter  but stuck to  his  decision for Barros  committing unintentional or intentional deceptions about the state of  his  knowledge of the accusations. 4)  He  read the letter  but either doubted the accusations in it  or at least found them so unimpressive that  he  did not decide to follow up on them.
The first explanation would mean that  Francis  was culpably ignorant. The second that  he  may lack the mental or moral faculties to competently govern the Catholic Church. The third that  he  is too stubborn or vain to change course in the face of evidence. And the last that  he  has little trust or faith in the Commission on the Protection of Minors to pass on credible counsel to  him . Perhaps more reporting or disclosure will change our understanding  but none of these are satisfactory.

Ex Output:

Pope Francis Letter