Saturday, March 2, 2013

Steroids And Major League Baseball: Is More Testing The Answer?

The Miami New Times published a bombshell investigative piece this morning that tied multiple Major League Baseball players, including New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez, to a Miami drug company that was supplying them with anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and other performance enhancing drugs. The story of Biogenesis, the drug firm, and Rodriguez, who admitted to steroid use before, brought back an ugly issue baseball thought it had largely put behind it when it instituted strong drug testing and harsh penalties in 2004.

The response, of course, has been an immediate call for more testing and harsher penalties. But here’s a question few seem to be asking: do drug tests and harsh penalties deter drug use? And if they don’t, how will more drug tests and even harsher penalties do any better?

In baseball, that’s impossible to know definitively, since there are no before-and-after testing numbers. But academic research suggests that random drug testing probably doesn’t prevent drug use. Dr. Linn Goldberg testified during a House Oversight Committee last month that his two-year testing of high school athletes had no deterrent effect. Other academic research has found that “testing alone is not a sufficient deterrent to eliminate drug use among college athletes.” Research into random testing for drugs like marijuana, meanwhile, has found little proof that such testing prevents use.

If Rodriguez, who had already admitted to steroid use once, indeed used performance enhancing drugs again, drug testing and the threat of penalties and public shame obviously failed as a deterrent. Random tests and the threat of rescinded titles, a lifetime ban, and federal punishment didn’t stop Lance Armstrong, and harsh rules and penalties in professional cycling and the Olympics haven’t prevented numerous athletes from using performance enhancers.

It’s easy to suggest that drug testing acts as a deterrent and that more of it would prevent even more use, but it’s hard to find proof of how effective drug tests are at actually preventing use. I’m not sure what the solution to sports’ drug problem is. I’m not even sure there is one, especially if the technology and funding that goes into producing performance enhancing drugs continues to outpace the technology and funding that goes into testing for them. But before we rush to the intuitive “more testing, harsher penalties” solution, shouldn’t we first figure out if the testing that is being conducted now does any good?


View the original article here

UPDATE 2-Medical isotope maker Nordion explores alternatives

* Hires Jefferies & Co as adviser for strategic review

* Suspended dividend in September after arbitration loss

* Dispute with supplier AECL moves into court

Jan 28 (Reuters) - Canada's Nordion Inc, a major provider of medical isotopes, said on Monday it has hired advisers to examine options for its future, sending its shares sharply higher.

The company said no decision had been made on a deal and it intends to continue with planned business activities during the strategic review.

Jefferies & Company will advise the company in the review.

Nordion suspended its dividend in September after an arbitration panel rejected its claim for damages from its main supplier, state-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

Nordion is one of the world's leading producers of molybdenum-99, which is used in medical imaging, and it depends on raw material from AECL's ageing facility in Chalk River, Ontario. The plant has been operating since 1957, and while it is licensed to operate until 2016, its future beyond that is unclear.

The company had hoped to force AECL to pay damages or complete two new reactors that would have ensured a long-term supply of the radioactive material it needs.

Nordion has not given up that objective, and on Jan. 18 it filed an amended statement of claim against AECL in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, seeking damages of $243.5 million for negligence and breach of the agreement on isotope production.

The company may be required to pay some of AECL's arbitration costs. It said in December that AECL put the arbitration cost at $46 million.

Nordion, which has also been looking for another source of moly-99, terminated a supply agreement with a subsidiary of Russia's State Atomic Energy Corp in October and said it would begin talks with a related Russian source.

But even if the negotiations result in a new deal, Nordion would obtain less material than previously thought, the company said then.

The stock rose 13.7 percent to C$7.31 in early trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Prior to Monday's gains, the shares had fallen 41 percent from a year-high of C$10.86 in September.

Nordion, which reorganized its business into two distinct units in September, also reported a fourth-quarter loss of $43.5 million, or 70 cents per share, compared with a profit of $6.9 million, or 11 cents per share, a year earlier.

Adjusted to exclude restructuring charges, arbitration and legal fees and other items, the company earned 34 cents per share, up from 30 cents a year earlier.

Revenue remained flat at $74.7 million. Nordion expects medical isotopes revenue to decline 20 percent in fiscal 2013.


View the original article here

Senators Press Justice Dept. On Prosecutions Of ‘Too Big To Jail’ Banks

A bipartisan duo of senators sent a letter to the Department of Justice today to press Attorney General Eric Holder on the lack of prosecutions for employees and executives of the nation’s largest banks in the wake of financial crisis. The letter from Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) questioned Holder about “whether the ‘too big to fail’ status of certain Wall Street megabanks undermines the ability of the federal government to prosecute wrongdoing and impose appropriate penalties.”

“Wall Street megabanks aren’t just too big to fail, they’re increasingly too big to jail,” Brown said in a release. “Already, the nation’s six largest megabanks enjoy what amounts to taxpayer-funded guarantee by virtue of their size, making it harder for regional and community banks to compete. Now, these megabanks may also enjoy some impunity when they violate the law by laundering money or illegally foreclosing on homeowners. Wall Street should pay the full price of its wrongdoing, not pass the costs along to taxpayers.”

“Unfortunately, we’ve seen little willingness to charge these individuals criminally,” Grassley added. “The public deserves an explanation of how the Justice Department arrives at these decisions.”

Last month, Grassley criticized the “get out of jail free card” that has been given to the nation’s largest financial institutions, which have largely avoided serious prosecution since the financial crisis. Prosecutions for financial fraud hit a 20-year low in 2011. Many of the fines the banks have paid are tax-deductible, a problem Brown is currently seeking to remedy.

“Unfortunately, many of the settlements between large financial institutions and the federal government involve penalties that are disproportionately low, both in relation to the profits which resulted from those wrongful actions as well as in relation to the costs imposed upon consumers, investors, and the market,” Grassley and Brown wrote in the letter, adding that the perception that large banks are too big to face real prosecution “undermines the public’s confidence in our institutions and in the principal that the law is applied equally in all cases.”


View the original article here

Lilly fourth-quarter profit fall as generics hurt sales

  Published: Tuesday, 29 Jan 2013 | 6:43 AM ET

Jan 29 (Reuters) - Eli Lilly and Co said on Tuesday that fourth-quarter earnings had fallen as competition from generic drugs drove revenue lower.

The U.S. drugmaker said it had earned $827 million, or 74 cents per share, compared with $858 million, or 77 cents per share, a year earlier.

Excluding special items such as asset impairments, restructuring and other special charges, Lilly earned 85 cents per share. Analysts on average were expecting 78 cents per share.

Jan 29- Eli Lilly and Co said on Tuesday that fourth-quarter earnings had fallen as competition from generic drugs drove revenue lower. The U.S. drugmaker said it had earned $827 million, or 74 cents per share, compared with $858 million, or 77 cents per share, a year earlier.

View the original article here

Eli Lilly Loses to Generics, but Beats Estimates

Victor J. Blue | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Eli Lilly said on Tuesday that fourth-quarter earnings fell as competition from generic drugs, particularly for its top-selling schizophrenia drug Zyprexa, drove revenue lower.

The U.S. drugmaker earned $827 million, or 74 cents per share, compared with $858 million, or 77 cents per share, a year earlier.

Excluding special items such as asset impairments and restructuring, Lilly earned 85 cents per share. Analysts, on average, were expecting 78 cents per share.

Revenue dropped by about 1 percent to $5.96 billion, above Wall Street expectations of $5.81 billion.

The results sent shares up about 1.6 percent in premarket trading.

The company said falling sales from the loss of the Zyprexa patent was partly offset by gains in sales of other drugs and its animal health products.

Lilly said it expects earnings this year to increase to $3.82 to $3.97 per share, excluding special items. It said profit would benefit by 7 cents per share from a research and development tax credit that was delayed until this year due to the late signing of federal legislation.

It predicted sales will be flat to a bit higher this year, despite expected generic competition in December for its $5-billion-a-year antidepressant Cymbalta.


View the original article here

South Dakota Bill Would Exclude Weekends And Holidays From 72-Hour Abortion Waiting Period

South Dakota Republicans aren’t satisfied with imposing one of the nation’s longest waiting periods for women seeking abortions. As RH Reality Check reports, the state legislature will also consider a bill that would adopt a “business hours only” definition for its waiting period: while women wait the state-mandated three days before getting an abortion, weekends and holidays won’t count toward fulfilling that quota.

South Dakota’s extreme waiting period was enacted in 2011 and has been tied up in court for the past year — but since Planned Parenthood recently decided to drop the case in order to focus their resources on more pressing attacks to women’s health in the region, it may soon take effect. But on top of the restrictive law itself, RH Reality Check points out that a new bill seeks to further clarify the strict parameters of the 72-hour waiting period:

No surgical or medical abortion may be scheduled except by a licensed physician and only after the physician physically and personally meets with the pregnant mother, consults with her, and performs an assessment of her medical and personal circumstances. [...] No Saturday, Sunday, federal holiday, or state holiday may be included or counted in the calculation of the seventy-two hour minimum time period between the initial physician consultation and assessment and the time of the scheduled abortion procedure. No physician may have the pregnant mother sign a consent for the abortion on the day of this initial consultation.

Mandatory counseling sessions and waiting periods are simply methods of limiting women’s reproductive rights, and they don’t actually help women decide whether or not to have an abortion. Women can make up their own minds, and studies show that nearly 90 percent of the women seeking an abortion already feel very confident about their decision when they first approach their doctors. Unnecessary roadblocks that attempt to shame them out of having the voluntary medical procedure don’t actually work, and simply end up creating outsized barriers for low-income women who may not be able to make multiple trips to a health clinic.

Excluding weekends and holidays from South Dakota’s unnecessary waiting period puts an even bigger burden on women seeking reproductive care, and there’s no good justification for it. RH Reality Check notes that no other state with this restrictive policy defines their waiting period in this way.


View the original article here

Sen. Cruz to Rahm Emanuel: Keep your 'anti-gun crusade' out of Texas

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wants Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) to stay away from Texas when it comes to gun reform.

Cruz sent a letter to Emanuel and the heads of two banks and two gun manufacturing companies on Tuesday in response to a call by Emanuel, President Obama's former chief of staff, for the banks to stop lending to the gun makers.

"Your continued anti-gun crusade may well cause some to wonder if the interests of the citizens of Chicago are being sacrificed in pursuit of a partisan agenda," Cruz writes. "Regardless, directing your attack at legitimate firearms manufacturers undermines the Second Amendment rights of millions of Texans. In the future, I would ask that you might keep your efforts to diminish the Bill of Rights north of the Red River."

On Thursday Emanuel wrote to the top executives of Bank of America and TD Bank, respectively, urging them to stop lending to gun manufacturers Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co. In Cruz's response, the junior senator from Texas urges the bank CEOs to come to Texas.

"Both of your companies do considerable business in the City of Chicago, and you may be understandably concerned that there are risks to refusing to comply with the demands of a politician who has earned the nickname, 'The Godfather,' " Cruz writes to the bank chiefs. "In Texas, we have a more modest view of government.

"We do not accept the notion that government officials should behave as bullies, trying to harass or pressure private companies into enlisting in a political lobbying campaign. And we subscribe to the notion, quaint in some quarters, that private companies don't work for elected officials; elected officials work for private citizens.

"In light of the reception you have received in the Windy City, please know that Texas would certainly welcome more of your business and jobs you create," Cruz adds.

And to the gun manufacturers, Cruz offers to introduce their companies to banks in Texas.

"Should Mayor Emanuel's bullying campaign prove successful, I am confident that there are numerous financial institutions in Texas that would be eager to earn your business. And in the event that it might prove helpful, I would be happy to introduce you to their leaders," he writes.

Emanuel has recently been active in pushing stricter gun laws, both in his hometown and at the federal level. He recently appeared at a panel at the Center for American Progress alongside Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on a House task-force for reducing gun violence, to discuss passing new gun restrictions.

Read Cruz's letter below:
Cruz letter to Emanuel, bank chiefs

View Comments

View the original article here