Armstrong admits doping: 'I'm a flawed character'

CHICAGO (AP) — He did it. He finally admitted it. Lance Armstrong doped.

He was light on the details and didn't name names. He mused that he might not have been caught if not for his comeback in 2009. And he was certain his "fate was sealed" when longtime friend, training partner and trusted lieutenant George Hincapie, who was along for the ride on all seven of Armstrong's Tour de France wins from 1999-2005, was forced to give him up to anti-doping authorities.

But right from the start and more than two dozen times during the first of a two-part interview Thursday night with Oprah Winfrey on her OWN network, the disgraced former cycling champion acknowledged what he had lied about repeatedly for years, and what had been one of the worst-kept secrets for the better part of a week: He was the ringleader of an elaborate doping scheme on a U.S. Postal Service team that swept him to the top of the podium at the Tour de France time after time.

"I'm a flawed character," he said.

Did it feel wrong?

"No," Armstrong replied. "Scary."

"Did you feel bad about it?" Winfrey pressed him.

"No," he said. "Even scarier."

"Did you feel in any way that you were cheating?"

"No," Armstrong paused. "Scariest."

"I went and looked up the definition of cheat," he added a moment later. "And the definition is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe. I didn't view it that way. I viewed it as a level playing field."

Wearing a blue blazer and open-neck shirt, Armstrong was direct and matter-of-fact, neither pained nor defensive. He looked straight ahead. There were no tears and very few laughs.

He dodged few questions and refused to implicate anyone else, even as he said it was humanly impossible to win seven straight Tours without doping.

"I'm not comfortable talking about other people," Armstrong said. "I don't want to accuse anybody."

Whether his televised confession will help or hurt Armstrong's bruised reputation and his already-tenuous defense in at least two pending lawsuits, and possibly a third, remains to be seen. Either way, a story that seemed too good to be true — cancer survivor returns to win one of sport's most grueling events seven times in a row — was revealed to be just that.

"This story was so perfect for so long. It's this myth, this perfect story, and it wasn't true," he said.

Winfrey got right to the point when the interview began, asking for yes-or-no answers to five questions.

Did Armstrong take banned substances? "Yes."

Did that include the blood-booster EPO? "Yes."

Did he do blood doping and use transfusions? "Yes."

Did he use testosterone, cortisone and human growth hormone? "Yes."

Did he take banned substances or blood dope in all his Tour wins? "Yes."

In his climb to the top, Armstrong cast aside teammates who questioned his tactics, yet swore he raced clean and tried to silence anyone who said otherwise. Ruthless and rich enough to settle any score, no place seemed beyond his reach — courtrooms, the court of public opinion, even along the roads of his sport's most prestigious race.

That relentless pursuit was one of the things that Armstrong said he regretted most.

"I deserve this," he said twice.

"It's a major flaw, and it's a guy who expected to get whatever he wanted and to control every outcome. And it's inexcusable. And when I say there are people who will hear this and never forgive me, I understand that. I do. ...

"That defiance, that attitude, that arrogance, you cannot deny it."

Armstrong said he started doping in mid-1990s but didn't when he finished third in his comeback attempt.

Anti-doping officials have said nothing short of a confession under oath — "not talking to a talk-show host," is how World Anti-Doping Agency director general David Howman put it — could prompt a reconsideration of Armstrong's lifetime ban from sanctioned events.

He's also had discussions with officials at the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, whose 1,000-page report in October included testimony from nearly a dozen former teammates and led to stripping Armstrong of his Tour titles. Shortly after, he lost nearly all his endorsements, was forced to walk away from the Livestrong cancer charity he founded in 1997, and just this week was stripped of his bronze medal from the 2000 Olympics.

Armstrong could provide information that might get his ban reduced to eight years. By then, he would be 49. He returned to triathlons, where he began his professional career as a teenager, after retiring from cycling in 2011, and has told people he's desperate to get back.

Initial reaction from anti-doping officials ranged from hostile to cool.

WADA president John Fahey derided Armstrong's defense that he doped to create "a level playing field" as "a convenient way of justifying what he did — a fraud."

"He was wrong, he cheated and there was no excuse for what he did," Fahey said by telephone in Australia.

If Armstrong "was looking for redemption," Fahey added, "he didn't succeed in getting that."

USADA chief Travis Tygart, who pursued the case against Armstrong when others had stopped, said the cyclist's confession was just a start.

"Tonight, Lance Armstrong finally acknowledged that his cycling career was built on a powerful combination of doping and deceit," Tygart said. "His admission that he doped throughout his career is a small step in the right direction. But if he is sincere in his desire to correct his past mistakes, he will testify under oath about the full extent of his doping activities."

Livestrong issued a statement that said the charity was "disappointed by the news that Lance Armstrong misled people during and after his cycling career, including us."

"Earlier this week, Lance apologized to our staff and we accepted his apology in order to move on and chart a strong, independent course," it said.

The interview revealed very few details about Armstrong's performance-enhancing regimen that would surprise anti-doping officials.

What he called "my cocktail" contained the steroid testosterone and the blood-booster erythropoetein, or EPO, "but not a lot," Armstrong said. That was on top of blood-doping, which involved removing his own blood and weeks later re-injecting it into his system.

All of it was designed to build strength and endurance, but it became so routine that Armstrong described it as "like saying we have to have air in our tires or water in our bottles."

"That was, in my view, part of the job," he said.

Armstrong was evasive, or begged off entirely, when Winfrey tried to connect his use to others who aided or abetted the performance-enhancing scheme on the USPS team

When she asked him about Italian doctor Michele Ferrari, who was implicated in doping-related scrapes and has also been banned from cycling for life, Armstrong replied, "It's hard to talk about some of these things and not mention names. There are people in this story, they're good people and we've all made mistakes ... they're not monsters, not toxic and not evil, and I viewed Michele Ferrari as a good man and smart man and still do."

But that's nearly all Armstrong would say about the physician that some reports have suggested educated the cyclist about doping and looked after other aspects of his training program.

He was almost as reluctant to discuss claims by former teammates Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis that Armstrong told them, separately, that he tested positive during the 2001 Tour de Suisse and conspired with officials of the International Cycling Union officials to cover it up — in exchange for a donation.

"That story wasn't true. There was no positive test, no paying off of the labs. There was no secret meeting with the lab director," he said.

Winfrey pressed him again, asking if the money he donated wasn't part of a tit-for-tat agreement, "Why make it?"

"Because they asked me to," Armstrong began.

"This is impossible for me to answer and have anybody believe it," he said. "It was not in exchange for any cover-up. ... I have every incentive here to tell you yes."

Finally, he summed up the entire episode this way: "I was retired. ... They needed money."

Ultimately, though, it was Landis who did the most damage to Armstrong's story. Landis was stripped of the 2006 Tour title after testing positive and wound up on the sport's fringes looking for work. Armstrong said his former teammate threatened to release potentially destructive videos if he wasn't given a spot on the team. That was in 2009, when Armstrong returned to the Tour after four years off.

Winfrey asked whether Landis' decision to talk was "the tipping point."

"I'd agree with that. I might back it up a little and talk about the comeback. I think the comeback didn't sit well with Floyd," Armstrong recalled.

"Do you regret now coming back?"

"I do. We wouldn't be sitting here if I didn't come back," he said.

The closest Armstrong came to contrition was when Winfrey asked him about his apologies in recent days, notably to former teammate Frankie Andreu, who struggled to find work in cycling after Armstrong dropped him from the USPS team, as well as his wife, Betsy. Armstrong said she was jealous of his success, and invented stories about his doping as part of a long-running vendetta.

"Have you made peace?" Winfrey asked.

"No," Armstrong replied, "because they've been hurt too badly, and a 40-minute (phone) conversation isn't enough."

He also called London Sunday Times reporter David Walsh as well as Emma O'Reilly, who worked as a masseuse for the USPS team and later provided considerable material for a critical book Walsh wrote about Armstrong and his role in cycling's doping culture.

Armstrong subsequently sued for libel in Britain and won a $500,000 judgment against the newspaper, which is now suing to get the money back. Armstrong was, if anything, even more vicious in the way he went after O'Reilly. He intimated she was let go from the Postal team because she seemed more interested in personal relationships than professional ones.

"What do you want to say about Emma O'Reilly?" Winfrey asked.

"She, she's one of these people that I have to apologize to. She's one of these people that got run over, got bullied."

"You sued her?"

"To be honest, Oprah, we sued so many people I don't even," Armstrong said, then paused, "I'm sure we did."

Near the end of the first interview installment, Winfrey asked about a federal investigation of Armstrong that was dropped by the Justice Department without charges.

"When they dropped the case, did you think: 'Now, finally over, done, victory'?"

Armstrong looked up. He exhaled.

"It's hard to define victory," he said. "But I thought I was out of the woods."

___

AP Sports Writers Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas, Eddie Pells in Denver and Dennis Passa in Melbourne contributed to this report.

Read More..

The Neediest Cases: Medical Bills Crush Brooklyn Man’s Hope of Retiring

Andrea Mohin/The New York Times

John Concepcion and his wife, Maria, in their home in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn. They are awaiting even more medical bills.

Retirement was just about a year away, or so John Concepcion thought, when a sudden health crisis put his plans in doubt.

For the past 100 years, The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund has provided direct assistance to children, families and the elderly in New York. To celebrate the 101st campaign, an article will appear daily through Jan. 25. Each profile will illustrate the difference that even a modest amount of money can make in easing the struggles of the poor.

Last year donors contributed $7,003,854, which was distributed to those in need through seven New York charities.

2012-13 Campaign

Previously recorded:

$6,865,501

Recorded Wed.:

16,711

*Total:

$6,882,212

Last year to date:

$6,118,740

*Includes $1,511,814 contributed to the Hurricane Sandy relief efforts.

“I get paralyzed, I can’t breathe,” he said of the muscle spasms he now has regularly. “It feels like something’s going to bust out of me.”

Severe abdominal pain is not the only, or even the worst, reminder of the major surgery Mr. Concepcion, 62, of Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, underwent in June. He and his wife of 36 years, Maria, are now faced with medical bills that are so high, Ms. Concepcion said she felt faint when she saw them.

Mr. Concepcion, who is superintendent of the apartment building where he lives, began having back pain last January that doctors first believed was the result of gallstones. In March, an endoscopy showed that tumors had grown throughout his digestive system. The tumors were not malignant, but an operation was required to remove them, and surgeons had to essentially reroute Mr. Concepcion’s entire digestive tract. They removed his gall bladder, as well as parts of his pancreas, bile ducts, intestines and stomach, he said.

The operation was a success, but then came the bills.

“I told my friend: are you aware that if you have a major operation, you’re going to lose your house?” Ms. Concepcion said.

The couple has since received doctors’ bills of more than $250,000, which does not include the cost of his seven-day stay at Beth Israel Medical Center in Manhattan. Mr. Concepcion has worked in the apartment building since 1993 and has been insured through his union.

The couple are in an anxious holding pattern as they wait to find out just what, depending on their policy’s limits, will be covered. Even with financial assistance from Beth Israel, which approved a 70 percent discount for the Concepcions on the hospital charges, the couple has no idea how the doctors’ and surgical fees will be covered.

“My son said, boy he saved your life, Dad, but look at the bill he sent to you,” Ms.  Concepcion said in reference to the surgeon’s statements. “You’ll be dead before you pay it off.”

When the Concepcions first acquired their insurance, they were in good health, but now both have serious medical issues — Ms. Concepcion, 54, has emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and Mr. Concepcion has diabetes. They now spend close to $800 a month on prescriptions.

Mr. Concepcion, the family’s primary wage earner, makes $866 a week at his job. The couple had planned for Mr. Concepcion to retire sometime this year, begin collecting a pension and, after getting their finances in order, leave the superintendent’s apartment, as required by the landlord, and try to find a new home. “That’s all out of the question now,” Ms. Concepcion said. Mr. Concepcion said he now planned to continue working indefinitely.

Ms. Concepcion has organized every bill and medical statement into bulging folders, and said she had spent hours on the phone trying to negotiate with providers. She is still awaiting the rest of the bills.

On one of those bills, Ms. Concepcion said, she spotted a telephone number for people seeking help with medical costs. The number was for Community Health Advocates, a health insurance consumer assistance program and a unit of Community Service Society, one of the organizations supported by The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund. The society drew $2,120 from the fund so the Concepcions could pay some of their medical bills, and the health advocates helped them obtain the discount from the hospital.

Neither one knows what the next step will be, however, and the stress has been eating at them.

“How do we get out of this?” Mr. Concepcion asked. “There is no way out. Here I am trying to save to retire. They’re going to put me in the street.”

Read More..

DealBook: Michael Dell’s Empire in a Buyout Spotlight

The computer empire of Michael S. Dell spreads across a campus of low-slung buildings in Round Rock, Tex.

But his financial empire — estimated at $16 billion — occupies the 21st floor of a dark glass skyscraper on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.

It is there that MSD Capital, started by Mr. Dell 15 years ago to manage his fortune, has quietly built a reputation as one of the smartest investors on Wall Street. By amassing a prodigious portfolio of stocks, companies, real estate and timberland, Mr. Dell has reduced his exposure to the volatile technology sector and branched out into businesses as diverse as dentistry and landscaping.

Now, Mr. Dell is on the verge of making one of the biggest investments of his life. The 47-year-old billionaire and his private equity backers are locked in talks to acquire Dell, the company he started with $1,000 as a teenager three decades ago, in a leveraged buyout worth more than $20 billion. MSD could play a role in the Dell takeover, according to people briefed on the deal.

The private equity firm Silver Lake has been in negotiations to join with Mr. Dell on a transaction, along with other potential partners like wealthy Asian investors or foreign funds. Mr. Dell would be expected to roll his nearly 16 percent ownership of the company into the buyout, a stake valued at about $3.5 billion. He could also contribute additional personal money as part of the buyout.

That money is managed by MSD, among the more prominent so-called family offices that are set up to handle the personal investments of the wealthy. Others with large family offices include Bill Gates, whose Microsoft wealth financed the firm Cascade Investment, and New York’s mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, who set up his firm, Willett Advisors, in 2010 to manage his personal and philanthropic assets.

“Some of these family offices are among the world’s most sophisticated investors and have the capital and talent to compete with the largest private equity firms and hedge funds,” said John P. Rompon, managing partner of McNally Capital, which helps structure private equity deals for family offices.

A spokesman for MSD declined to comment for this article. The buyout talks could still fall apart.

In 1998, Mr. Dell, then just 33 years old — and his company’s stock worth three times what it is today — decided to diversify his wealth and set up MSD. He staked the firm with $400 million of his own money, effectively starting his own personal money-management business.

To head the operation, Mr. Dell hired Glenn R. Fuhrman, a managing director at Goldman Sachs, and John C. Phelan, a principal at ESL Investments, the hedge fund run by Edward S. Lampert. He knew both men from his previous dealings with Wall Street. Mr. Fuhrman led a group at Goldman that marketed specialized investments like private equity and real estate to wealthy families like the Dells. And Mr. Dell was an early investor in Mr. Lampert’s fund.

Mr. Fuhrman and Mr. Phelan still run MSD and preside over a staff of more than 100 overseeing Mr. Dell’s billions and the assets in his family foundation. MSD investments include a stock portfolio, with positions in the apparel company PVH, owner of the Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger brands, and DineEquity, the parent of IHOP and Applebee’s.

Among its real estate holdings are the Four Seasons Resort Maui in Hawaii and a stake in the New York-based developer Related Companies.

MSD also has investments in several private businesses, including ValleyCrest, which bills itself as the country’s largest landscape design company, and DentalOne Partners, a collection of dental practices.

Perhaps MSD’s most prominent deal came in 2008, in the middle of the financial crisis, when it joined a consortium that acquired the assets of the collapsed mortgage lender IndyMac Bank from the federal government for about $13.9 billion and renamed it OneWest Bank.

The OneWest purchase has been wildly successful. Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman executive who led the OneWest deal, has said that the bank is expected to consider an initial public offering this year. An I.P.O. would generate big profits for Mr. Dell and his co-investors, according to people briefed on the deal.

Another arm of MSD makes select investments in outside hedge funds. Mr. Dell invested in the first fund raised by Silver Lake, the technology-focused private equity firm that might now become his partner in taking Dell private.
MSD’s principals have already made tidy fortunes. In 2009, Mr. Fuhrman, 47, paid $26 million for the Park Avenue apartment of the former Lehman Brothers chief executive Richard S. Fuld. Mr. Phelan, 48, and his wife, Amy, a former Dallas Cowboys cheerleader, also live in a Park Avenue co-op and built a home in Aspen, Colo.

Both are influential players on the contemporary art scene, with ARTNews magazine last year naming each of them among the world’s top 200 collectors. MSD, too, has dabbled in the visual arts. In 2010, MSD bought an archive of vintage photos from Magnum, including portraits of Marilyn Monroe and Mahatma Gandhi, and has put the collection on display at the University of Texas, Mr. Dell’s alma mater.

Just as the investment firms Rockefeller & Company (the Rockefellers, diversifying their oil fortune) and Bessemer Trust (the Phippses, using the name of the steelmaking process that formed the basis of their wealth) started out as investment vehicles for a single family, MSD has recently shown signs of morphing into a traditional money management business with clients beside Mr. Dell.

Last year, for the fourth time, an MSD affiliate raised money from outside investors when it collected about $1 billion for a stock-focused hedge fund, MSD Torchlight Partners. A 2010 fund investing in distressed European assets also manages about $1 billion. The Dell family is the anchor investor in each of the funds, according to people briefed on the investments.

MSD has largely remained below the radar, though its name emerged a decade ago in the criminal trial of the technology banker Frank Quattrone on obstruction of justice charges. Prosecutors introduced an e-mail that Mr. Fuhrman sent to Mr. Quattrone during the peak of the dot-com boom in which he pleaded for a large allotment of a popular Internet initial public offering.

“We know this is a tough one, but we wanted to ask for a little help with our Corvis allocation,” Mr. Fuhrman wrote. “We are looking forward to making you our ‘go to’ banker.”

The e-mail, which was not illegal, was meant to show the quid pro quo deals that were believed to have been struck between Mr. Quattrone and corporate chieftains like Mr. Dell — the bankers would give executives hot I.P.O.’s and the executives, in exchange, would hold out the possibility of giving business to the bankers. (Mr. Quattrone’s conviction was reversed on appeal.)

The MSD team has also shown itself to be loyal to its patron in other ways.

On the MSD Web site, in the frequently asked questions section, the firm asks and answers queries like “how many employees do you have” and “what kind of investments do you make.”

In the last question on the list, MSD asks itself, “Do you use Dell computer equipment?” The answer: “Exclusively!”

---

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 18, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated when an MSD affiliate raised money from outside investors for a hedge fund. It was last year, not earlier this year. The article also misstated which hedge fund and its focus. It was MSD Torchlight Partners, a stock-focused hedge fund, not MSD Energy Partners, an energy-focused hedge fund.

A version of this article appeared in print on 01/18/2013, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Michael Dell’s Empire In a Buyout Spotlight.

Read More..

No Votes Disguise Yes Sympathies for Some in G.O.P.

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — House Republicans have their Tea Party Caucus. They have their G.O.P. Doctors Caucus. And, joining the list of varied special interest caucuses, they recently picked up another influential but much more unofficial group — the Vote No/Hope Yes Caucus.

These are the small but significant number of Republican representatives who, on the recent legislation to head off the broad tax increases and spending cuts mandated by the so-called fiscal cliff, voted no while privately hoping — and at times even lobbying — in favor of the bill’s passage, given the potential harmful economic consequences otherwise.

Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, part of the Republican whip team responsible for marshaling support for legislation, said the current makeup of House Republicans could be divided roughly into a third who voted in favor of the bill because they wanted it to pass, a third who voted against the bill because they wanted it to fail, and a third who voted against the bill but had their fingers crossed that it would pass and avert a fiscal and political calamity.

One lawmaker, Mr. Cole said, told him that while he did not want to vote in favor of the bill, he also did not want to amend it and send it back to the Senate where it might die and leave House Republicans blamed for tax increases. “So I said, ‘What you’re really telling me is that you want it to pass, but you don’t want to vote for it,'” recalled Mr. Cole, who voted yes.

As House Republicans gather here in Williamsburg on Thursday for their annual retreat, the Vote No/Hope Yes Caucus is likely to come in for serious attention as party leaders and members of the rank and file try to map out an approach to coming confrontations with President Obama and Congressional Democrats that are certain to leave Republicans with uneasy choices.

The Vote No/Hope Yes group is perhaps the purest embodiment of the uneasy relationship between politics and pragmatism in the nation’s capital and a group whose very existence must be understood and dealt with as the Republican Party grapples with its future in the wake of the bruising 2012 elections.

Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist and once the top spokesman for the former House speaker J. Dennis Hastert, a Republican, described the phenomenon thusly: “These are people who are political realists, they’re political pragmatists who want to see progress made in Washington, but are politically constrained from making compromises because they will be challenged in the primary.”

The New Year’s Day tax vote was a case study in gaming out a position on a difficult bill that many Republicans knew had to pass but was also one they preferred not to have their fingerprints on.

The Republican leadership itself seemed to reflect the ambivalence of their membership; Speaker John A. Boehner voted in favor of the legislation, while Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the majority leader, voted no. Even Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the No. 3 Republican charged with securing votes for bills, voted against the deal. (Ultimately, 85 Republicans joined with 172 Democrats to pass it.)

“I think it’s important that leadership provide an example, so either you’re for it and you want your members to vote for it, and when you have confusion at the top, that leads to confusion in the rest of the ranks,” said John Feehery, a Republican lobbyist and also a former top spokesman for Mr. Hastert. “They have to be much more coordinated, and they have to do a much better job explaining to the rank and file what’s going on here.”

Explaining his own vote to his local newspaper at the time, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the Budget Committee chairman and a former vice-presidential candidate, seemed to acknowledge that some members of his party were not voting for a bill that they privately wanted to to pass, saying, “If you think a bill should pass, you ought to vote for it.”

The phenomena occurred again this week as the vast majority of House Republicans, many citing spending concerns, abandoned a measure to provide relief for states hit by Hurricane Sandy, even though Republicans clearly wanted the measure to ultimately pass.

At the two-day retreat, aides said, Republican leaders are expected to emphasize that a united conference going forward will offer House Republicans the strongest negotiating stance on crucial coming issues like the debt ceiling limit and spending cuts. Conservative rank-and-file members, meanwhile, plan to express their frustration at feeling largely cut out of the deal-making process, and to request more chances to offer input.

“I think there will be a lot of looking back on the fiscal cliff vote,” Mr. Cole said. “I think there will be some discussion on the divided leadership, saying, ‘You guys need to sort this out, you need to be willing to make a decision and lead.'”

Still, he added: “I can make a pretty good case that our problem is less one of leadership than of followership. I’d be happy to just have some people who would follow decently.”

Part of the problem House Republicans are struggling with is philosophical: What does it mean to hold the majority in the House, but still be the minority in a town currently under Democratic control? What is ideal, what is achievable, and where does that fine line of compromise lie?

And what are the limits of their own conference?

“Look, the reality is we control one-half of one-third of the federal government in a Democratic-run town,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner.

Of course, legislators reluctant to take potentially unpopular votes are nothing new. A classic example occurs with Congressional pay raises, where, said David Dreier, a newly retired California Republican, the adage is, “Vote no and take the dough.”

In late December, Republicans encountered a similar challenge when Mr. Boehner put forth his “Plan B,” an alternative measure to avert the tax increases and spending cuts that ultimately failed because of lack of support in his own party. Republican aides and representatives said that while the House Republicans privately had nearly 230 members in favor of the plan, they were not able to muster commitments for the actual 218 votes necessary for a majority.

On both Plan B and the fiscal legislation, Republicans said that many of the representatives ultimately recognized that the compromises were probably as good a deal as they could expect, and ones that were necessary to avoid a financial meltdown. Yet opposing the bills proved a politically safer and more ideologically pure move.

“Some members are worried about being primaried from the right, and some members don’t want to be hounded by their constituents,” Mr. Feehery said. “It’s always easier to vote no. No one will yell at you if you vote no. They’ll only yell at you in the grocery store if you vote yes.”

Read More..

Missouri Lawmaker Wants Violent Video Games Taxed

A rural Missouri lawmaker wants her state to tax certain video games to help curb gun violence. The Associated Press reports state Rep. Diane Franklin, R-Camdenton, believes a 1 percent sales tax on video games rated teen, mature and adults only would help finance mental health programs aimed at reducing gun violence such as the recent mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

What does the legislation propose?

House Bill 157 proposes to create “an excise tax based on the gross receipts or gross proceeds of each sale” of video games rated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). The tax also involves the “storage, use or other consumption” of violent video games in Missouri including “tangible personal property.” This means the tax could extend to memorabilia derived from the games such as toys, clothing and video game accessories.

How does the legislation hope to enhance public safety?

The law hopes to procure “new and additional funding for treatment of mental health conditions associated with exposure to violent video games… .” The revenue from the tax cannot be used to replace existing revenue already in place. Franklin deems the legislation “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace and safety.” Therefore, if the legislation passes it will go into effect immediately. There is no mention in the legislation as to how much revenue should be generated, nor does it say whether the sales tax is just on new merchandise as opposed to used games on the secondary market.

Have similar laws been considered before?

A similar proposal was struck down in mid-February in Oklahoma. Democrat William Fourkiller crafted legislation in 2012 that is very similar to Franklin’s idea in Missouri. A subcommittee struck down the bill by a 6-5 margin. Fourkiller, in defending the law , said it wasn’t a “magic bullet” but that Oklahoma had “to start somewhere” to curb childhood violence. Oklahoma also would have taxed ESRB teen, mature and adults only games at a rate of 1 percent.

Does the Missouri law have a chance to pass?

CNN notes a federal appeals court made a ruling in 2003 that video games are free speech protected by the First Amendment. Ironically, it was a federal case stemming from St. Louis County, Mo., that created the precedent for video games as free speech. Senior U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh’s decision was reversed by an appellate panel. The ruling came shortly after the state of Washington banned the sale of certain video games to children under the age of 17. Gamasutra reveals New Mexico also tried, and failed, to pass a similar law in 2008.

What are Franklin’s credentials as they relate to the proposed bill?

Franklin was first elected in 2010 from Camdenton. She is a mother of two sons and served on Camdenton School Board from 1993 to 1999. She sits on the House Appropriations-Education committee. Franklin is a third-generation small business owner and comes from a farming family. Missouri Republicans currently have a veto-proof supermajority in the General Assembly. Camdenton is a small city of around 3,700 people near Lake of the Ozarks in central Missouri.

William Browning is a research librarian specializing in U.S. politics.

Gaming News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: Missouri Lawmaker Wants Violent Video Games Taxed
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/missouri-lawmaker-wants-violent-video-games-taxed/
Link To Post : Missouri Lawmaker Wants Violent Video Games Taxed
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

Lance Armstrong left it 'all on table' with Oprah

All the speculation is about to end. In a matter of hours, viewers can judge for themselves whether Lance Armstrong told the truth this time.

Armstrong's confession to Oprah Winfrey about using performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France a record seven times in a row will be televised at 9 p.m. Thursday, the first segment of a two-part special on the Oprah Winfrey Network. Since word of his confession during Monday's taping in Austin, Texas, was first reported by The Associated Press, there has been no shortage of opinions or advice on what Armstrong should say.

The International Olympic Committee didn't wait to listen.

The IOC on Wednesday stripped Armstrong of his 2000 bronze medal, sending him a letter asking him to return it, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

For others who will tune in Thursday, it's not just what Armstrong said that matters. How he said it, whether angry, tearful or matter-of-fact, will be judged as well.

"I left it all on the table with her and when it airs the people can decide," Armstrong said of his interview in a text sent to the AP on Wednesday. He dismissed a story earlier in the day that described him as "not contrite" when he acknowledged doping while dominating the cycling world.

Livestrong, the cancer charity Armstrong founded in 1997 and was forced to walk away from last year, said in a statement it expected him to be "completely truthful and forthcoming." A day earlier, World Anti-Doping Agency director general David Howman said nothing short of a confession under oath — "not talking to a talk-show host" — could prompt a reconsideration of Armstrong's lifetime ban from sanctioned events. And Frankie Andreu, a former teammate that Armstrong turned on, said the disgraced cyclist had an obligation to tell all he knew and help clean up the sport.

"I have no idea what the future holds other than me holding my kids," Armstrong said in the text.

Armstrong has held conversations with officials from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, including a reportedly contentious face-to-face meeting with USADA chief executive Travis Tygart near the Denver airport. It was USADA's 1,000-page report last year, including testimony from nearly a dozen former teammates, that portrayed Armstrong as the leader of a sophisticated doping ring that propelled the U.S. Postal Service team to title after title at the Tour de France. In addition to the lifetime ban, Armstrong was stripped of all seven wins, lost nearly all of his endorsements and was forced to cut ties with Livestrong.

According to a person with knowledge of the situation, Armstrong has information that might lead to his ban being reduced to eight years. That would make him eligible to compete in elite triathlons, many of which are sanctioned under world anti-doping rules, in 2020, when Armstrong will be 49. He was a professional athlete in the three-discipline sport as a teenager, and returned to competition after retiring from cycling in 2011.

That person also said the bar for Armstrong's redemption is higher now than when the case was open, a time during which he refused to speak to investigators. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing a confidential matter.

Armstrong, who always prized loyalty on his racing teams, now faces some very tough choices himself: whether to cooperate and name those who may have aided, abetted or helped cover up the long-time use of PEDs.

Armstrong left his hometown of Austin, where the interview was taped at a downtown hotel, and is in Hawaii. He is named as a defendant in at least two pending lawsuits, and possibly a third. The Justice Department faces a Thursday deadline on whether to join a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by former teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title for doping.

That suit alleges Armstrong defrauded the U.S. government by repeatedly denying he used performance-enhancing drugs. Armstrong could be required to return substantial sponsorship fees and pay a hefty fine. The AP reported earlier that Justice Department officials were likely to join the lawsuit.

___

Jim Litke reported from Chicago, Jim Vertuno from Austin.

Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: Officials Say Checks Won't Be in the Mail

The jig is up.

Two years ago, the Treasury Department initiated its Go Direct campaign to persuade people still receiving paper checks for their Social Security, Veterans Affairs, S.S.I. and other federal benefits to switch to direct deposit.

“At that point, we were issuing approximately 11 million checks each month,” or about 15 percent of the total, Walt Henderson, director of the campaign, told me.

After putting notices in every monthly check envelope, circulating public service announcements and putting the word out through banks, senior centers, the Red Cross, AARP and other organizations, the Treasury Department has since shrunk that number to five million monthly checks.

That means 93 percent of those getting federal benefits are using direct deposit or, if they prefer or lack a bank account, a Direct Express debit card that gets refilled each month and can be used anywhere that accepts MasterCard.

“So people have been getting the word and making the switch,” Mr. Henderson said. Now, federal officials are pushing the last holdouts to convert to direct deposit by March 1.

Although officials say the change is not optional, the jig isn’t entirely up. If you or your older relative does not respond to their pleading, “we’re not going to interrupt their payments,” Mr. Henderson said. But the department will start sending letters urging people to switch.

The major motive is financial: shifting the last paper checks to direct deposit or a debit card (only 2 percent of recipients go that route) will save $1 billion over the next decade, the department estimates.

But safety enters the picture, too. One reason some beneficiaries resist direct deposit, Mr. Henderson said, is that they fear their electronic deposits can be hacked or diverted. Having grown up in a predigital age, perhaps they feel safer with a check in their hands.

But they probably aren’t. In 2011, the Treasury Department received 440,000 reports of lost or stolen benefits checks. With direct deposit, “there’s no check lingering unattended in a mailbox,” Mr. Henderson noted.

The greater reason for sticking with paper is probably simple inertia. “It’s human nature to procrastinate,” he said.

But unless you or your relatives want a series of letters from the Treasury Department, it is probably time for the last fence-sitters to get with the program.

They don’t need to use a computer. People can switch to direct deposit, or get the debit card, at their banks or the local Social Security office. More simply, they can call a toll-free number, (800) 333-1795, and have agents walk them through the change. Or they can sign up online at www.GoDirect.org.

They will need:

1. Their Social Security number.
2. The 12-digit federal benefit number found on their checks.
3. The amount of the most recent check.
4. And, for direct deposit, a bank or credit union routing number, usually found on the front of a check. They can have direct deposit to a savings account, too.

A caution for New Old Age readers: If you think your relative has not switched because he or she is cognitively impaired and can no longer handle his finances, you can be designated a representative payee and receive monthly Social Security or S.S.I. payments on your relative’s behalf. This generally requires a visit to your local Social Security office, documentation in hand.

---

Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

DealBook: JPMorgan’s Board Uses a Pay Cut as a Message

Shortly after the markets closed on Tuesday afternoon, an emissary from JPMorgan Chase’s board of directors walked two flights down to the 48th-floor corner office of the bank’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, to deliver a stark message. The board had voted to slash Mr. Dimon’s annual compensation for 2012 by half.

At first blush, the move appeared to be a stinging rebuke of Mr. Dimon for his failures of leadership that contributed to the bank’s multibillion-dollar trading loss last year.

But the pay cut was actually a message from the board to regulators and worried investors that it was a strong watchdog over the nation’s largest bank, according to several people with knowledge of the matter.

After facing criticism for its lax oversight, the board wanted to assert its position as a check on top management, according to the people, who declined to be named because the discussions were not public.

Mr. Dimon, who was the highest paid chief executive at a large bank in 2011, was unfazed when he heard the news. On Wednesday, Mr. Dimon said the board “had a tough job” in assessing how to reduce his total compensation for the year. He called the trading episode an “embarrassing mistake” and said, “I respect their decision.”

The decision came after back-to-back board meetings earlier this week where the head of the board’s compensation committee, Lee R. Raymond, the former chief executive of Exxon Mobil who is known for his no-nonsense style, made a compelling pitch to his fellow directors. The group, Mr. Raymond argued, needed to take swift, decisive action.

While a few members were initially skittish about the depths of the proposed cuts, the board voted unanimously to reduce Mr. Dimon’s pay to $11.5 million from $23.1 million a year earlier, according to the people. The directors also voted to release the results of internal investigations into the trading losses, which largely fault other top executives for the problems.

The extent of the cut took some JPMorgan executives by surprise when news of the compensation was disclosed on Wednesday along with the bank’s earnings, which surged to an annual record of $21.3 billion.

“Mr. Dimon bears ultimate responsibility for the failures that led to losses,” the board said in a statement. It added that upon learning the extent of the losses, he “responded forcefully.”

Still, the trading losses, which have swelled to more than $6 billion, have cast a long shadow over the board and management of the bank. Many of JPMorgan’s hallmarks that Mr. Dimon has trumpeted, from its deft management of risk to a deep bench of executive talent, have been partially undercut by the trading fiasco and ensuing upheaval.

Despite the board’s move on pay, some federal regulators are skeptical that the directors have prowess to adequately police risk, according to several current and former regulators with knowledge of the matter. Mr. Dimon, 56, who successfully steered the bank through the turbulence of the 2008 financial crisis relatively unscathed, still maintains a tight grip on the bank.

Some federal regulators worry that the board, which largely exonerated themselves in their internal investigation of the losses, cannot sufficiently push back against the hard-charging Mr. Dimon. Others, the regulators said, are concerned that the directors lack the financial acumen to rein in risky activities.

At the time of the losses, the board’s risk committee had three members, a smaller group than many of its major Wall Street rivals. Also troubling, the regulators said, the three included executives with little banking experience: the president of the American Museum of Natural History, Ellen V. Futter, and David M. Cote, the chief executive of the manufacturer Honeywell. Since the losses were disclosed, Timothy P. Flynn, formerly the chairman of the auditing firm KPMG, joined the risk committee.

Joseph Evangelisti, a JPMorgan spokesman, said, “This is the same board that brought us through the worst financial crisis in our history with flying colors.”

Since revealing the trading losses in May from a soured bet on complex credit derivatives, Mr. Dimon has exerted his powerful influence over the shape and direction of the bank. He has reshuffled the upper echelons of its management, claiming the jobs of some of his most trusted lieutenants. Two notable casualties are Douglas L. Braunstein, who ceded his role as chief financial officer in November, and Barry L. Zubrow, a former chief risk officer, who resigned as head of regulatory affairs late last year. Mr. Braunstein is a vice chairman reporting to Mr. Dimon.

Adding to the turmoil at the top of the bank, Ina R. Drew resigned as head of the chief investment office shortly after the trading losses were announced. Her precipitous fall was followed this year by the departure of James E. Staley, once considered a potential heir to Mr. Dimon.

To replace them, Mr. Dimon has elevated a group of younger executives, most of whom are in their 40s. Some bank analysts and executives at JPMorgan worry that the group does not yet have the institutional knowledge or experience of their more seasoned predecessors, according to several people with knowledge of the matter.

At a conference in San Francisco earlier this month, Mr. Dimon called the current group of executives “the strongest leadership team we have ever had in place.” He mixed his praise, however, with a sharp criticism of others at the bank in the aftermath of the trading losses. “Instead of helping, they were running around with their head chopped off,” he said. Some “acted like children” and wondered “What does this mean for me personally? How’s my reputation?”

At the same time, Mr. Dimon has emerged relatively unscathed. While critical of Mr. Dimon, an internal report, led by Michael J. Cavanagh, a head of the corporate and investment bank, leveled its most scathing attacks on the executives who directly oversaw the London traders who made increasingly outsize wagers in the bank’s chief investment office. “Responsibility for the flaws that allowed the losses to occur lies primarily with C.I.O. management,” the report, which was released on Wednesday, said. Also ensnared are Mr. Zubrow and Mr. Braunstein.

The cuts target Mr. Dimon’s bonus compensation. While his salary remained the same from a year earlier at $1.5 million, his bonus was whittled down to $10 million, paid out in restricted stock.

Still, Mr. Dimon has accumulated much wealth in his years at the bank. He owns bank shares valued at $263 million.

Ben Protess contributed reporting.

A version of this article appeared in print on 01/17/2013, on page A1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: JPMorgan Uses Big Cut in Pay To Send Signal.

Read More..

DealBook: JPMorgan Cuts Dimon’s Pay, Even as Profit Surges

Even as profit surged, the board of JPMorgan Chase cut the pay package of its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, by 50 percent, in light of a multibillion-dollar trading loss last year.

By the overall numbers, it was a good year for JPMorgan. The bank reported a record profit of $5.7 billion for the fourth quarter, up 53 percent from the period a year earlier. Revenue was also strong, rising 10 percent, to $23.7 billion for the period.

“The firm’s results reflected strong underlying performance across virtually all our businesses for the fourth quarter and the full year, with strong lending and deposit growth,” Mr. Dimon said in statement.

But the year was clouded by a multibillion-dollar trading loss stemming from a bad bet on derivatives. JPMorgan continues to unwind the bungled trade, which had racked up $6.2 billion in losses through the third quarter of 2012. The bank said it “experienced a modest loss” in the last three months of the year.

In light of the trading losses, the bank’s board voted to reduce Mr. Dimon’s total compensation. That decision was driven by a desire to hold him accountable for some of the oversight failings that led to the troubled bet, according to several people close to the board.

The board cut Mr. Dimon’s total compensation for 2012 to $11.5 million from $23 million a year earlier. While his salary remained the same at $1.5 million, his bonus was reduced to $10 million, paid out in restricted stock.

On an earnings call on Wednesday, Mr. Dimon emphasized that this latest quarter largely signaled the end of the trading debacle. “We are getting near the end of it,” he said. Mr. Dimon acknowledged that the board “had a tough job” in assessing how to reduce his total compensation for the year. While “this was one huge mistake,” Mr. Dimon said, the board had to look at “the positives and the negatives.” He added that he “respects their decision.”

Although Mr. Dimon’s compensation fell sharply, he dodged much of the criticism for the trading losses in two reports released on Wednesday. One report details the result of a sweeping investigation into the trades led by Michael J. Cavanagh, formerly the bank’s chief financial officer, and the other outlines the board’s findings.

In the case of Mr. Dimon, the reports mainly took aim at his over-reliance on senior managers. “He could have better tested his reliance on what he was told,” the investigation found.

Instead, much of the blame centered on Ina R. Drew, who oversaw the chief investment unit where the trading took place. Ms. Drew resigned in May shortly after the losses were disclosed.

Under Ms. Drew’s leadership, there were failures “in three critical areas,” including the execution of a complex trading strategy and gaps in oversight of the large portfolio, according to the investigation. The report indicated that Ms. Drew failed “to appreciate the magnitude and significance of the changes” as the riskiness of the trades escalated.

Barry Zubrow, the bank’s former chief risk officer, was also singled out. Douglas Braunstein, who left his position as chief financial officer in November, was cited “for weaknesses in financial controls.” The investigation found that the organization should “have asked more questions or to have sought additional information about the evolution of the portfolio.”

Despite the overhang of the bad bet, JPMorgan produced record profit for the quarter, as economic and credit conditions improved. The bank reduced the money it set aside for potential losses, adding to overall profit. And the bank recorded gains in all its major divisions, showing strength in both consumer and corporate banking operations.

For the full year, JPMorgan reported earnings of $21.3 billion, compared with $19 billion in 2011. Revenue in 2012, at $97 billion, was essentially flat.

Despite the rocky market conditions and uncertainty related to the budget impasse, the corporate-focused businesses reported nice gains. Investment banking fees jumped 54 percent, to $1.7 billion, with improvements in debt and equity underwriting. Revenue in the commercial banking group hit $1.75 billion, after the 10th consecutive quarter of loan growth.

Income in JPMorgan’s asset management group rose 60 percent, to $483 million. JPMorgan has been ramping up the business, as riskier ventures get crimped by new regulation.

Like other big banks, JPMorgan’s earnings have been bolstered by a surge in mortgage lending, driven in part by a series of federal programs that have helped drive down interest rates. As homeowners seize on the low rates, JPMorgan is experiencing a flurry of refinancing applications. The bank is also making bigger gains when those loans are packaged and eventually sold to big investors.

Over all, the mortgage banking group posted profit of $418 million for the fourth quarter, compared with a loss of $269 million in the period a year earlier.

But those low interest rates also present a challenge for JPMorgan, which is dealing with glut of deposits. The bank reported average total deposits of $404 billion, up 10 percent from the fourth quarter of 2011.

As deposits pile up, the situation is weighing on profitability. The margin on deposits continued to shrink, dropping to 2.44 percent from 2.76 percent the period a year earlier.

The bank also continues to face a slew of legal problems.

In the last year, JPMorgan has worked to move beyond some of the issues stemming from the mortgage crisis. Along with competitors, JPMorgan reached deals with federal regulators over claims that its foreclosures practices might have led to wrongful eviction of homeowners. JPMorgan and other banks agreed this month to a $8.5 billion settlement with the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve, which ends a costly and flawed review of loans in foreclosure ordered up by the regulators in 2011. The bank spent roughly $700 million this quarter on costs associated with the review.

Still, the bank is dealing with other cases that could prove costly. New York’s attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, filed a lawsuit against the bank related to Bear Stearns, the troubled unit that JPMorgan bought in the depths of the financial crisis. In the suit, filed in October, the attorney general claimed JPMorgan had defrauded investors who bought securities created from shoddy mortgages.

JPMorgan was also hit with two enforcement actions this week, the first formal sanctions from federal banking regulators over the bank’s multibillion-dollar trading loss. Regulators from the Federal Reserve and the Comptroller of the Currency identified flaws throughout the bank, citing failures in its ability to assess how big losses might swell as a result of the complex trades. In addition, regulators found that bank executives did not adequately inform board members about the potential losses.

Read More..

iPhone demand said to be ‘robust,’ recent cuts don’t reflect weak demand

Following recent reports from Nikkei and The Wall Street Journal that suggested Apple (AAPL) slashed iPhone 5 component orders in half due to weak demand,  the company’s stock fell significantly and opened below $ 500 for the first time in nearly a year. The reports have been called into question, however, with many believing they do not represent true consumer interest. Shaw Wu of Sterne Agee wrote in a note to investors on Tuesday, per Apple Insider, that his supply chain checks have indicated that demand for the iPhone 5 “remains robust.” The analyst believes the recent reports are a result of improved yield rates and possibly Apple’s recent supplier changes.

[More from BGR: PlayStation 4 and Xbox 720 could cost just $ 350, expected to launch this fall]

Despite the recent concerns, Wu expects Apple to post better-than-expected earnings for the December quarter led by sales of 47.5 million iPhones with a gross margin of 38.7%. Both estimates are above Wall Street’s expectations of between 46 to 47 million iPhones and a 38.3% gross margin.

[More from BGR: HTC One SV review]

Sterne Agee reiterated its Buy rating on shares of Apple with a price target of $ 840.

Wu’s expectations remain bullish compared to other Wall Street analysts. Stuart Jeffrey of Nomura is the most recent analyst to cut his outlook on Apple stock. Nomura reduced the company’s price target to $ 530 from $ 660 Tuesday morning, citing weak demand for the iPhone 5 and increased pressure on Apple’s margins.

This article was originally published on BGR.com

Wireless News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Read More..