thehog
BANNED
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Race Radio said:The last number I heard was $6-7 million, but that was at least a year ago. Has to be over $10 million now.
Archibald said:wow, what a past 10-15pages...
let me get this straight, the arguement has been all about how much LA made (or didn't make) from the wrongfully gained SCA payment.
Surely, in the calculations of the return figure there'll be an allocation towards what "interest" SCA would have made if they'd still had their original money, no?
Which means that it will boil down to whether LA made more (or lress) than what the projection of SCA's possible earnings from it would have been.
Somehow, I don't think that difference will be that much, and probably get wiped out by LA having to pay SCA's court costs...
Cool.
I'll leave Chewie's corrections alone regarding the fraud/misrepresentation comments along, other than to agree (back up his comments) that all insurance contracts factor in anything that is illegal in activities as well as fraudulent behaviour... And don't cover you should your claim come from such behaviour. Won't need to specify what that fraud or crime is.
Archibald said:wow, what a past 10-15pages...
let me get this straight, the arguement has been all about how much LA made (or didn't make) from the wrongfully gained SCA payment.
Surely, in the calculations of the return figure there'll be an allocation towards what "interest" SCA would have made if they'd still had their original money, no?
Which means that it will boil down to whether LA made more (or lress) than what the projection of SCA's possible earnings from it would have been.
Somehow, I don't think that difference will be that much, and probably get wiped out by LA having to pay SCA's court costs...
Cool.
I'll leave Chewie's corrections alone regarding the fraud/misrepresentation comments along, other than to agree (back up his comments) that all insurance contracts factor in anything that is illegal in activities as well as fraudulent behaviour... And don't cover you should your claim come from such behaviour. Won't need to specify what that fraud or crime is.
sittingbison said:good grief
I have banned thehog for a month for trolling.
I have banned race radio for a week for baiting.
Gentle(wo)men,
the past day trolling and baiting is totally unacceptable. Have a VERY serious think before participate/engage in this type of discussion.
cheers
bison
RetroActive said:P.S. If you want to do something interesting find out the who, what, where, when and why along with how the Pharmaceutical industry ties into this overall drama.
Energy Starr said:snip
King Boonen said:It doesn't.
Dear Wiggo said:Kinda does.
Weisel --> Amgen --> EPO.
??? --> ??? --> off-label drugs.
King Boonen said:It doesn't.
King Boonen said:Not really, at least not the way I read the comment. I read it as that there is a general, or at least wide spread, interaction on several levels of the pharmaceutical industry in doping in sports. If it was more specific (such as dodgy pharmacists then the comment should have been more specific). The Pharmaceutical industry is a highly regulated, multi-billion dollar industry of with doping in sport is inconsequential in terms of revenue but potentially business destroying in terms of regulation.
zigmeister said:That article you posted has nothing to do with off-label.
The company was also accused of marketing the drug to treat anemia caused by cancer, for which it was not approved, rather than to combat anemia as a side effect of chemotherapy treatments.
JMBeaushrimp said:You just said, "it doesn't", and in your next post you say you can't see how it could using a metaphor about some guy and the NHS.
So, metaphorically it "doesn't", or metaphorically "it could"?
I think Wiggo is trying to softly draw in the connections that Weisel et al had with pharma. Nothing wrong with that, and a good thing to look into...
Dear Wiggo said:In any discussion wrt this, I want to admit from the outset very little knowledge of the pharma industry per se, and stipulate a sincere intention to learn from people who know.
My first question is: how does off-label occur, without the express consent of a pharma company?
eg: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/us-amgen-plea-marketing-idUSBRE8BI1BT20121219
I don't recall now, but I read another report of an even larger pharma company being fined for a similar thing.
There was a report but no idea where it is that outlined the off-label vs prescribed intended use for EPO, I think. Interesting reading.
This is an interesting google search: "off-label court ruling"
King Boonen said:The Pharmaceutical industry is a highly regulated, multi-billion dollar industry of with doping in sport is inconsequential in terms of revenue but potentially business destroying in terms of regulation.
Oldman said:I heard from reliable sources that LA was going to name names at Amgen that assisted him with "new versions" of the drug. Apparently Weisel facilitated the meetings and it's all on tape...
Oldman said:I heard from reliable sources that LA was going to name names at Amgen that assisted him with "new versions" of the drug. Apparently Weisel facilitated the meetings and it's all on tape...
Fortyninefourteen said:Now that would get interesting....
DirtyWorks said:Doping has moved very well beyond the Wiesel->Amgen->EPO story. Generally speaking, peptides are revolutionary delivering performance enhancement without so many side effects. Peptides are relatively easy to manufacture compared to official big-pharma product.
Oldman said:I heard from reliable sources that LA was going to name names at Amgen that assisted him with "new versions" of the drug. Apparently Weisel facilitated the meetings and it's all on tape...