Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[thehog]

Oh look! Case in point!

Muni's!

Bob should buy Google shares at is rate!

 

[sittingbison]

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

 

[eleven]

The last number I heard was $6-7 million, but that was at least a year ago. Has to be over $10 million now.

This is simply not true. Let's imagine the attorneys started getting paid in March of 2010. Four years. The claim that the attorneys are billing 2 million dollars per year is pure fantasy.

2M per year = 165,000 per MONTH, which = 330 hours per month at $500 per month.

That's four full time time attorneys billing $500 full time, 40 hours per week, for four straight years.

Which is as silly as claiming that an 8% return since 2007 is surprising or hard to fathom for a high-wealth investor.

 

[Archibald]

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.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

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.

............

 

[MarkvW]

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.

The Armstrong--SCA Arbitration Process cannot be any broader than the process specified in either of the two Armstrong--SCA contracts. That is fundamental because both Armstrong and SCA always have the right to take their disputes to court--unless they have contracted that right away.

The breadth of that Arbitration process is highly disputed. One of the more interesting disputes is over the "sanctions" that SCA is trying to get the Arbitration panel to impose. This looks to me like SCA is trying to get the Arbitration panel to make Armstrong pay more than the settlement agreement could authorize.

Courts do not award prejudgment interest in contract cases unless the contract in question specifies that interest. That has not happened in this case in either of the two Armstrong--SCA cases. It is difficult for me to imagine an arbitration panel handling the matter any differently.

Courts do not award attorney fees in contract cases unless the contract in question specifies attorney fees. Again, it is difficult to imagine an arbitration panel handling the matter any differently.

SCA is shotgunning at Armstrong. To use a different metaphor, they are throwing a whole pile of stuff at the wall and hoping that some of it will stick.

While anything can happen in an arbitration, it is very, very far from a sure thing that SCA will get attorney fees, interest, or "sanctions."

 

[RobbieCanuck]

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

How is it the banned and the damned still get their comments posted?

 

[Energy Starr]

What is not "easy to follow" is The Hog's ridiculous claims of 8% annual returns on deposits and 15% annual returns in the market. If it was so "easy to follow" he would provide examples of ease of obtaining such returns instead of nonsense like "off shoring" funds to "Hawaii"

Certainly there are some equities that have returned 15% annually over the last 8 years, but they are the minority. As for deposits, hard to find those returns without substantial foreign exchange risk.

RR- Not necessarily disagreeing with you and I realize that GUARANTEED returns are nowhere near those figures, however 7M gets you access to all kinds of investments that certainly COULD make 8-15% look rather, um, weak shall I say. 7m gets you into a game that only the smallest percentage of people in the world get to play.

 

[King Boonen]

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.

It doesn't.

 

[Night Rider]

snip

Maybe time to drop the interest/investment subject rather than re-ignite it?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It doesn't.

Kinda does.

Weisel --> Amgen --> EPO.

??? --> ??? --> off-label drugs.

 

[King Boonen]

Kinda does.

Weisel --> Amgen --> EPO.

??? --> ??? --> off-label drugs.

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.

There is no doubt that there are rogue operators in all industries, pharmacists must have been involved in doping at some point, but that does not mean that the generalisation can be made. There may even be people higher up who are involved, as you point out, but their involvement would be only them and not involve the industry as a whole or even in general.

So really my problem was the tarring with a broad brush and the implication that the industry in general has some sort of purposeful involvement in doping.

It's a bit like finding out Harold Shipman killed people, then whenever a death in a hospital occurs saying "Yeah, but we need to know how the NHS was involved."

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

It doesn't.

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]

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.

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"

 

[zigmeister]

^A doctor can prescribe pretty much any FDA approved drug to anybody, whether it was for its intended purpose or not. Because it is at their discretion as a doctor and responsibility as the "expert" how to utilize the drug for each patient based on their circumstances/health history.

There are a few exceptions and classes of drugs which a doctor might be targeted, like GH for people without explicit pituitary issues. But even then, many drugs are widely prescribed off-label. Like children getting anti-depressents, can still be written by a doctor.

That article you posted has nothing to do with off-label. Amgen was pushing higher dosing than the FDA testing process during trials, in theory to get doctors/patients to take more, so they sell more.

Different topic altogether...and $170M is a drop in the bucket, and their stock has been doing fantastic in my portfolio this past year....thanks Amgen.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

That article you posted has nothing to do with off-label.

Wrong .

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.

 

[deviant]

During clinical trials the Pharmaceutical company will have to state which conditions the drug is for, their research will have covered this and the patients the drug is trialed on will be sufferers of the intended disease/illness etc etc...

....but once the drug is approved and out there for prescription DRs can pretty much use it for whatever they want, hence 'off label' uses....there is a risk to this, if a treatment goes wrong during off label use the prescribing DR will be at fault but if there are problems with a drug during normal recommended use then there is usually some way to track back to the pharmaceutical company for compensation etc etc.

 

[King Boonen]

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...

My later post went into more detail as you saw. My point is that just because someone who works in the industry has been involved does not mean that the industry as a whole or generally is involved, as was implied by the post I replied to, or how I feel it could reasonably be read. I should point out I have a good knowledge or the industry at every level and the regulatory processes in the UK so do speak with at least a little authority on the subject. Rogue operators can be expected, mainly doctors and pharmacists, but realistically they are only peripherally related to the pharmaceutical industry, as strange as that might sound. The next part of this reply, in response to DW, might make that clearer.

The potential gain for the industry is minuscule compared to the potential risks from being caught. It's just not even likely that any company in "big pharma" even considers PED usage when developing products.

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"

Advertising off-label is something different to prescribing off-label.

A doctor can prescribe any licensed pharmaceutical for treatment of any disease. They would of course have to justify it if ever questioned but this is off-label prescribing and is how cyclists may get hold of their PEDs. For example, no chemotherapy drug is licensed for use in children that I'm aware of (if there are any it will be few) because testing chemotherapy drugs on children is borderline unethical due to problems with consent and requirements of the testing regimes. However, many chemotherapy drugs will be prescribed for children, and work very well, by a doctor who looks at the evidence in adults and makes a decision. This is off-label prescribing at it's most obvious. It does not require permission from the pharmaceutical company, although they may be involved in discussions at some level depending on the product.


Off-label advertising is when a pharmaceutical company advertises a product for treatment of something it is not licensed for. This is illegal but does not put PEDs in the hands of athletes. That has to happen through the prescriber (Doctor or possibly pharmacist depending on the product and the regulatory laws in the country it is being prescribed). Off-label advertising carries large fines and penalties and the tiny benefits likely from off-label PED-usage advertising would be massively outweighed by the potential ramifications. The article you linked to shows Amgen advertising their product at a different dose than it was licensed for, all drugs have specific licenses that must be adhered to in the companies advertising. This is also off-label advertising but not quite as obvious, it is the most likely form of it though.


Now, it is perfectly possible someone like Weisel has access to data showing product A will give a marked increase in a particular type of athletes performance, and he could pass this information on to the athlete or his doctors, but that can't be viewed as big pharma being complicit in the same way that Harold Shipman killing people can't be viewed as the NHS being complicit.

For information, the pharmacists, at least in the UK, is always liable for what they prescribe. It is up to them to check any prescription for dose, interactions, complications etc. and contact the doctor if they see problems. This is why the pharmacist who issued Shipmans prescriptions was brought up on charges (but ultimately cleared I think).

 

[DirtyWorks]

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.

Given the international features of elite cycling, supply is not the issue. In some countries you walk the rows of pharmaceuticals looking for the one your doctor told you to take, then buy it as if you were purchasing fruits and veggies.

What's urgently needed is someone with the knowledge to unlock super-performance and never test positive.

Once a drug is released, it's my understanding the compound is known. Manufacturing a copycat is much simpler, but not always easy.

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]

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...

 

[D-Queued]

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...

I would like to believe this.

Not saying that you and your sources are not reliable, but this would be an incredible about-face for Lance.

I guess I still believe in miracles! Or, will at least hold out hope for a small miracle.

Dave.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

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...

Now that would get interesting....

 

[DirtyWorks]

Now that would get interesting....

What? Thom has gone on record of having no knowledge of doping. Ever.
If such a thing exists, let's hope the execution of the revelation is much better than Wonderboy's other disclosures.

Fight Wonderboy! Make the world understand you were just a victim ruthlessly singled-out by USADA! Take the fight to Thom!

 

[Hemassist]

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.

EPO is fairly difficult to produce, especially compared to peptides other larger recombinant proteins.

 

[MarkvW]

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...

Amazing April 1 story.