SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cactus Jack who wrote (187474)3/2/2010 4:30:11 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361925
 
Fantastic talk. He's spot on. Philip K. Howard: Four ways to fix a broken legal system

ted.com



To: Cactus Jack who wrote (187474)3/3/2010 4:18:55 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361925
 
A-Rod’s Dodge Makes Jeter’s Blood a Necessity:

Commentary by Scott Soshnick

March 3 (Bloomberg) -- Here we go again. Already.

Spring training has barely sprung and there’s already one heck of a drug-related hullabaloo surrounding the New York Yankees’ Alex Rodriguez.

This spring was supposed to be unlike last spring, when A- Rod sat before inquisitors and teammates and fessed up to being foolish about performance-enhancing drugs. Used them, he said. Young. Stupid. Sorry.

And yet, here we are, once again asking questions about magic potions instead of magical World Series-winning seasons and a retooled and repeat-minded roster. It’s March madness, all right.

What is it they say about insanity and doing the same thing?

Just a year after Major League Baseball’s highest-paid player summoned up contrition while supposedly coming clean there are more drug-related questions being lobbed at A-Rod, which, of course, means there are more questions about A-Rod.

Only he isn’t answering. Not yet, anyway.

Earlier this week, A-Rod said he had been contacted by federal authorities seeking information about Canadian-based doctor Anthony Galea, who is being investigated for distributing performance-enhancing drugs.

A-Rod is aware of the probe, he said. And he’s cooperating. Whatever that means. Only when A-Rod was asked if he’d ever been treated by Galea, he offered obfuscation instead of absolutes.

“I can’t really get into that,” he told reporters at the club’s spring training site in Tampa, Florida. “You’ll know within time, all at the same time. This is about someone else. Like I said I’m going to cooperate the best I can and focus on baseball.”

Fresh Thinking

Now there’s a novel idea. Imagine actually getting to focus on things like OBP (on-base percentage) instead of HGH (human growth hormone).

Here’s an important reminder. While HGH is banned under baseball’s anti-drug policy, baseball doesn’t test for it. Seriously.

Earlier this week the New York Times reported that baseball, at long last, plans to explore the implementation of blood testing for HGH in the minor leagues later this year.

Baseball can implement whatever rules it wants for the minors, where even chewing tobacco is banned. Those sorts of things must be collectively bargained at the big-league level, where an obstructionist union and willfully blind management can’t seem to end this steroid silliness.

And to think that Commissioner Bud Selig declared baseball’s steroid era over after Mark McGwire’s admission a few months ago that he cheated. You know, for health purposes, not any hit-the-ball-far advantage.

It’s Over

“The so-called steroid era -- a reference that is resented by the many players who played in that era and never touched the substances -- is clearly a thing of the past,” Selig said in a statement.

On the contrary, commissioner. Clearly it’s a thing of the present. Ask Carlos Beltran, who, according to the New York Times, has chatted with investigators about Galea, who has treated the Mets’ outfielder. Ask A-Rod. Or the Yankees, who were quick to issue a statement distancing themselves from Galea, who has been charged by Canadian authorities with conspiring to smuggle HGH into the U.S.

“The Yankees never authorized Dr. Tony Galea to treat Alex Rodriguez, nor do we have any knowledge of any such treatment,” the team said.

Teams, executives and players have been using the Sergeant Schultz defense for far too long. It’s inconceivable that everyone knew nothing.

Silent Treatment

The players, especially those who never did anything wrong, are a big part of the problem.

It’s worth mentioning that two-time American League Most Valuable Player Frank Thomas, who retired last month, was the only player -- the only one -- who assisted former Senator George Mitchell’s investigation into the use of performance- enhancing drugs in baseball.

Thomas, by the way, will have his No. 35 jersey retired on Aug. 29, when the White Sox host -- you guessed it -- the Yankees.

Perfect.

Surely baseball’s rank and file must be tired of answering questions about drugs and cheats. If so, then why aren’t they doing something to once and for all make baseball a clean game?

It was two years ago that A-Rod’s teammate, Derek Jeter, the team captain, said he endorsed the idea of blood testing at the major-league level. What’s one more needle prick, he said, breaking ranks with the union, which says it will consider a scientifically validated blood test for HGH.

Consider. Baseball and its players are, once again, playing from behind.

No Good Arguments

Last week, British rugby player Terry Newton became the first athlete to be suspended for using HGH after testing positive. Newton, who admitted taking the substance, was fired by his team.

David Howman, director of the World Anti-Doping Agency, told the New York Times that the Newton case makes clear that any arguments against testing for HGH are a farce.

“The sports people who said it can’t be detected are fooling themselves,” he said.

Presumably no one wants to look foolish. Certainly not the image-conscious A-Rod.

Good thing baseball’s so-called steroids era is over.

(Scott Soshnick is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Click on “Send Comment” in the sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.

To contact the writer of this column: Scott Soshnick in New York at ssoshnick@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: March 2, 2010 21:00 EST



To: Cactus Jack who wrote (187474)3/3/2010 6:12:25 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361925
 
New Survey Suggests In-House Lawyers Are Poised to Hire
_______________________________________________________________

By Amy Miller
Corporate Counsel
March 03, 2010

More chief legal officers plan to beef up their legal departments this year, according to the results of the Association of Corporate Counsel's 10th Annual Chief Legal Officer Survey.

But it's not a sign that the economy is recovering and budgets constraints are easing, says ACC deputy general counsel James Merklinger. Rather, Merklinger says, the added hiring most suggests that the recession is forcing chief legal officers to change the way they operate. They're bringing more work in-house, spending less on outside counsel, and boosting spending on alternative fee arrangements, the survey shows.

"This may be part of an overall restructuring that lets them be more efficient and effective, and that's a good sign," Merklinger says. "The economy has raised the awareness that it's time to do things differently."

About one-third of the 970 chief legal officers who responded to the survey said they're planning to add to their departments this year, up from 23 percent last year. Meanwhile, more than a third (34 percent) said they've cut spending on outside counsel.

When they have hired outside counsel, the survey respondents said they were slightly more likely last year to negotiate alternative fee arrangements to cut costs than they have been in the past. Forty-four percent relied on such arrangements in 2009, compared to 41 percent in 2008, the survey shows. And nearly four out of every five of the in-house lawyers surveyed expressed a desire to increase their spending on outside counsel under alternative fee arrangements this year.

Not everyone agrees these changes reflect a long-term trend. Chief legal officers are still being cautious in this economy, says legal department consultant Rees Morrison, president of Princeton, N.J.-based Rees Morrison Associates. Morrison argues that chief legal officers just had less work to give to outside counsel last year. "In a recession, there's just less business going on," he says.

Most chief legal officers who responded to the ACC survey would disagree. Just over half said their workload has actually increased, thanks in part to increased regulation. Indeed, 57 percent of survey respondents said they're concerned by the stepped-up scrutiny by regulators and law enforcement officials that their companies are now subject to.

Even with the recession and a heavier workload, chief legal officers said they still like their jobs. Just over 90 percent said they're satisfied with their chosen career, a figure that's up slightly from the 88 percent who said the same thing last year. That, Merklinger says, is because most chief legal officers like challenges and solving problems.

"It's a chance for them to shine. It's a chance for them to prove their value," says Merklinger. "They view it as opportunity."