What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight (1 Viewer)

I'm not a fan of Shkreli and his antics.  He comes across as a rich guy that is starving for the attention that typically comes with being a celebrity.  He does everything in his power to get the celebrity fame using his riches and its really pathetic.  He's an arrogant egomaniac that makes him nearly impossible to be likable. With that being said--I do hope he ends up with a minimum sentence.  Being arrogant and unlikable is not illegal.  Even if the three convictions do stand--he is a first time offender in a financial crime. If I understand right--the losses that he costed investors were relatively small or non existent in regards to the charges that he was convicted guilty of.     You essentially have somebody that is a first time offender of a financial crime that resulted in relatively minor financial loss for the victims. As much as I hate the dude--no way he deserves anything close to a maximum sentence for what he was convicted of.  

 
jvdesigns2002 said:
I'm not a fan of Shkreli and his antics.  He comes across as a rich guy that is starving for the attention that typically comes with being a celebrity.  He does everything in his power to get the celebrity fame using his riches and its really pathetic.  He's an arrogant egomaniac that makes him nearly impossible to be likable. With that being said--I do hope he ends up with a minimum sentence.  Being arrogant and unlikable is not illegal.  Even if the three convictions do stand--he is a first time offender in a financial crime. If I understand right--the losses that he costed investors were relatively small or non existent in regards to the charges that he was convicted guilty of.     You essentially have somebody that is a first time offender of a financial crime that resulted in relatively minor financial loss for the victims. As much as I hate the dude--no way he deserves anything close to a maximum sentence for what he was convicted of.  
Click to expand...
He ruined many lives with his antics. Would you feel different if he was poor and hurt people directly?

 
Maybe we should reexamine our society. This guy is only a celebrity because he profited from the illness of others. He traded fake money to rob others. On top of all that he bought music others wanted just to keep it from the public for his own self gratification ( not that its good music but still)

Hes the embodiment of everything wrong with our "country". No better than any slimy , profiteering politician. But because it was a " financial crime" it's ok. 

There re is a lot of evil in this world. Some of it manifests as a serial killer here and there. We hear about the cold, dark animals and it's chilling. The biggest evil we can imagine.

But some murderers do it from a boardroom. They step in to our lives as easily as a murderer breaks in to a home. It's all psychopathy.

Often the boardroom murderers step in to infinitely more homes than a serial killer can. But it's the same mentality. Why are we celebritizing these people?

Its the poison of our nation and that poison runs deep.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OrtonToOlsen said:
I have no idea to this day what those nine black fellows were singing about.  Truth is, I don’t want to know. Some things are best left unsaid. I’d like to think they were singing about something so beautiful, it can’t expressed in words, and it makes your heart ache because of it. I tell you, those voices soared higher and farther than anybody in a great place dares to dream. It was like some beautiful bird flapped into our drab little cage and made those walls dissolve away, and for the briefest of moments, every last man in  Alderson felt free.

 
Click to expand...
Zihuatanejo. 

 
OrtonToOlsen said:
I have no idea to this day what those nine black fellows were singing about.  Truth is, I don’t want to know. Some things are best left unsaid. I’d like to think they were singing about something so beautiful, it can’t expressed in words, and it makes your heart ache because of it. I tell you, those voices soared higher and farther than anybody in a great place dares to dream. It was like some beautiful bird flapped into our drab little cage and made those walls dissolve away, and for the briefest of moments, every last man in  Alderson felt free.

 
Click to expand...
:lmao:  

ETA - I started reading this with my internal voice but once I realized what it was my brain morphed in to Freeman on the fly. :lmao:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jvdesigns2002 said:
I'm not a fan of Shkreli and his antics.  He comes across as a rich guy that is starving for the attention that typically comes with being a celebrity.  He does everything in his power to get the celebrity fame using his riches and its really pathetic.  He's an arrogant egomaniac that makes him nearly impossible to be likable. With that being said--I do hope he ends up with a minimum sentence.  Being arrogant and unlikable is not illegal.  Even if the three convictions do stand--he is a first time offender in a financial crime. If I understand right--the losses that he costed investors were relatively small or non existent in regards to the charges that he was convicted guilty of.     You essentially have somebody that is a first time offender of a financial crime that resulted in relatively minor financial loss for the victims. As much as I hate the dude--no way he deserves anything close to a maximum sentence for what he was convicted of.  
Click to expand...
I hope they increase his sentence 5000% overnight

 
RokNRole said:
He ruined many lives with his antics. Would you feel different if he was poor and hurt people directly?
Click to expand...
You are kinda preaching the to choir here.  I was very clear in saying that I personally do not care for him, his antics or his actions.  I commented solely on what his sentence should be.  In this country--our sentencing is based on a few things--- what you were actually found guilty of--if you have had prior offenses--and the amount of loss and suffering that your victims have for the crimes that you are convicted of.   There are probably a few more factors----I'll limit myself to only write the main ones.   The three counts that he was found guilty of represent first offenses for him.   They were financial crimes that resulted in little to no loss.  The cumulative amount of the fraud for the 8 counts that he was being charged with was something like $11 million dollars.  The seventh count for which he was found "not guilty" represented approximately $10 million of those alleged fraud dollars.  He was also found "not guilty" of four more charges which certainly represent even more of the alleged fraud dollars.  I get that you don't like him--but the amount of suffering in regards to the count that he was found guilty on are relatively small.  If he was any other person with this same set of facts--there is no way that he gets much more than a minimum sentence.   With that being said--the dude is soo arrogant that I wouldn't be surprised if he gets in more trouble in the future thinking that he can get away with anything. If and when that happens--he won't have the luxury of being a first time offender. 

I assume that you are somehow mixing in him raising the drug price as part of your disgust towards him (and understandably so--as I had a problem with that too).  However--you (as well as myself) are not fully looking at the flip side of the coin.   Starting a pharma company takes hundreds of millions of dollars of investments coming from numerous investors.  You spend millions of dollars creating and testing a drug that happens to work for a relatively rare disease.  You start to sell that drug--and at $18 per pill--the profitability of your company is little to non existent, the investors that helped to create this life saving drug are suffering because they cannot get their money back, and on top of that---you are not making enough money to research and develop potentially more life saving drugs.   I think that the amount of money that he raised the price of for drug was laughable--but I also find it very disturbing as a business owner and a business manager that the government or public should be able to limit anybodies profitability for their own creation.   Nobody stepped in and told True Religion that they couldn't sell their jeans for $200-$300 because they are unaaffordable to most.  Heck--nobody cared that Wu Tang themselves only made one copy of their album available and marketed it for $2 million. If anything Shkreli paying $2 million for an album is supportive of the arts and music.   People spend $2 million for a piece of art or a classic car that they put in their homes--and nobody flinches there?  On top of that--apparently something like over 60% of the drug was given away for free to people that couldn't afford it--so it's not like his company was not distributing it to people that couldn't afford it.  

 With that being said: do I like the guy? hell no.   Do I think that are system is perfect? Hell no.  Do I think that there are lines between morals and business that sometimes get crossed? hell yes.  

This is an interview with Shkreli shortly after he was first arrested for the alleged frauds. I had a hard time sleeping last night and ended up watching it on youtube.  It's a pretty interesting watch and he does open up a bit in it. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JTNOWSKMS10

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/7905218/martin-shkreli-wu-tang-clan-prospective-juror-dismissed

Harper’s posted transcripts of jury selection from the trial, which confirms that the process was protracted due to so many potential jurors lustily expressing their extreme distaste for Shkreli. According to Harper’s, over 200 jurors were dismissed, including Juror No. 59, who was clear to make it known that Shkreli had crossed him by f--king with the Wu-Tang Clan
Click to expand...
THE COURT: All right. I'm going to excuse you. Juror Number 59, come on up.
JUROR NO. 59: Your Honor, totally he is guilty and in no way can I let him slide out of anything because --
THE COURT: Okay. Is that your attitude toward anyone charged with a crime who has not been proven guilty?
JUROR NO. 59: It's my attitude toward his entire demeanor, what he has done to people.
THE COURT: All right. We are going to excuse you, sir.
JUROR NO. 59: And he disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan.

Then there was this person, who cut straight to the heart of the matter:

THE COURT: Well, I’m going to excuse you. Juror Number 144, tell us what you have heard.
JUROR NO. 144: I heard through the news of how the defendant changed the price of a pill by up-selling it. I heard he bought an album from the Wu-Tang Clan for a million dollars.
THE COURT: The question is, have you heard anything that would affect your ability to decide this case with an open mind. Can you do that?
JUROR NO. 144: I don’t think I can because he kind of looks like a ####.
Click to expand...

 
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/shkrelis-bail-revoked-after-bounty-offered-for-hillary-clintons-hair.html

Judge sends Martin Shkreli to jail for Facebook post offering bounty for Hillary Clinton's hair

Martin Shkreli said the $5,000 bounty he posted for Hillary Clinton's hair was meant to be a joke.

He apologized for the stunt to a federal judge.

Prosecutors claimed he is a danger to the public because of the Clinton post and online comments he made targeting two other women.

An angry federal judge revoked the $5 million bond of convicted fraudster Martin Shkreli on Wednesday and ordered him jailed after prosecutors argued the notorious "pharma bro" was a danger to the public because of his offer on Facebook of cash for samples of Hillary Clinton's hair.

Judge Kiyo Matsumoto's ruling came after a hearing in Brooklyn federal court where Shkreli's high-powered lawyer Benjamin Brafman pleaded with her for nearly an hour not to toss him in jail despite what the attorney said was a "stupid" Facebook post.

And it came a day after Shkreli, 34, apologized for posting a $5,000 bounty last week to any of his 70,000 Facebook followers who grabbed some of Clinton's hair, saying he used "poor judgment" with "my awkward attempt at humor."

Federal prosecutor Jacqueline Kasulis, who appeared to be seething about the disgraced pharmaceutical executive's posts about Clinton and other women, said Wednesday, "I think this escalating pattern of violence against women is incredibly disturbing."

"He knows exactly what he is doing. He needs to go in," Kasulis said to a packed courtroom that included Shkreli's father.

Matsumoto said she didn't find anything funny about either Shkreli's posts about Clinton, or his online boast that he would get to "f---" a female journalist with whom he has feuded since January once his trial this past summer was over.

"The fact that he continues to remain unaware ... of the inappropriateness of his actions or words demonstrates to me he may be an ongoing danger, or risk to the community," Matsumoto said.

"I''m going to remand Mr. Shkreli," Mastumoto said.

A somber-looking Shkreli, wearing a purple dress shirt and a shaggy mop of hair, was taken into custody by two deputy U.S. Marshal just after 6 p.m. as his grim-faced legal team stood by.

"We are obviously disappointed," Brafman said outside court to reporters. "We believe the court arrived at the wrong decision but she's the judge and right now we will have to live with this decision. It's unfortunate. It was unfortunately avoidable, but the judge has ruled and she's the judge."

 
jvdesigns2002 said:
You are kinda preaching the to choir here.  I was very clear in saying that I personally do not care for him, his antics or his actions.  I commented solely on what his sentence should be.  In this country--our sentencing is based on a few things--- what you were actually found guilty of--if you have had prior offenses--and the amount of loss and suffering that your victims have for the crimes that you are convicted of.   There are probably a few more factors----I'll limit myself to only write the main ones.   The three counts that he was found guilty of represent first offenses for him.   They were financial crimes that resulted in little to no loss.  The cumulative amount of the fraud for the 8 counts that he was being charged with was something like $11 million dollars.  The seventh count for which he was found "not guilty" represented approximately $10 million of those alleged fraud dollars.  He was also found "not guilty" of four more charges which certainly represent even more of the alleged fraud dollars.  I get that you don't like him--but the amount of suffering in regards to the count that he was found guilty on are relatively small.  If he was any other person with this same set of facts--there is no way that he gets much more than a minimum sentence.   With that being said--the dude is soo arrogant that I wouldn't be surprised if he gets in more trouble in the future thinking that he can get away with anything. If and when that happens--he won't have the luxury of being a first time offender. 

I assume that you are somehow mixing in him raising the drug price as part of your disgust towards him (and understandably so--as I had a problem with that too).  However--you (as well as myself) are not fully looking at the flip side of the coin.   Starting a pharma company takes hundreds of millions of dollars of investments coming from numerous investors.  You spend millions of dollars creating and testing a drug that happens to work for a relatively rare disease.  You start to sell that drug--and at $18 per pill--the profitability of your company is little to non existent, the investors that helped to create this life saving drug are suffering because they cannot get their money back, and on top of that---you are not making enough money to research and develop potentially more life saving drugs.   I think that the amount of money that he raised the price of for drug was laughable--but I also find it very disturbing as a business owner and a business manager that the government or public should be able to limit anybodies profitability for their own creation.   Nobody stepped in and told True Religion that they couldn't sell their jeans for $200-$300 because they are unaaffordable to most.  Heck--nobody cared that Wu Tang themselves only made one copy of their album available and marketed it for $2 million. If anything Shkreli paying $2 million for an album is supportive of the arts and music.   People spend $2 million for a piece of art or a classic car that they put in their homes--and nobody flinches there?  On top of that--apparently something like over 60% of the drug was given away for free to people that couldn't afford it--so it's not like his company was not distributing it to people that couldn't afford it.  

 With that being said: do I like the guy? hell no.   Do I think that are system is perfect? Hell no.  Do I think that there are lines between morals and business that sometimes get crossed? hell yes.  

This is an interview with Shkreli shortly after he was first arrested for the alleged frauds. I had a hard time sleeping last night and ended up watching it on youtube.  It's a pretty interesting watch and he does open up a bit in it. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JTNOWSKMS10
Click to expand...
The drug whose price was hiked was released in 1973 by a completely different company. Turing bought the drug in 2014. They had zero development costs related to it.

And $1M isn't a small amount of money to steal. If a black dude stole a $1M car, I can guarantee you that nobody would be arguing that he should get a really lenient sentence because $1M isn't a lot of money.

 
squistion said:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/shkrelis-bail-revoked-after-bounty-offered-for-hillary-clintons-hair.html

Judge sends Martin Shkreli to jail for Facebook post offering bounty for Hillary Clinton's hair

Martin Shkreli said the $5,000 bounty he posted for Hillary Clinton's hair was meant to be a joke.

He apologized for the stunt to a federal judge.

Prosecutors claimed he is a danger to the public because of the Clinton post and online comments he made targeting two other women.
Click to expand...
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

 
7 years is going to require a lot of lube.

Breaking news: Valeant has just purchased all patent rights on lube and raised the commissary distribution price to $15,627 a tube.

 
ShamrockPride said:
Sad thing is he'll probably be hired the day he gets out.
Click to expand...
I doubt that.  He certainly won't be getting a job at any reputable fund as he's tarnished for life.  In this era of compliance and risk management, he's a toxic cancer to any allocator doing due diligence.  Plus, he might be barred from securities trading for life as part of his sentence, I don't know that, but would guess he won't be allowed to get out and run another fund again.

I don't think he will find the employment arms open and welcoming to him once he's out.  Also bet he won't look so smug upon his release.  

 
chet said:
'Pharma Bro' Martin Shkreli cries in court, is sentenced to 7 years for securities fraud

He's not so smug now.
Click to expand...
The judge ruled earlier this week that Shkreli would have to forfeit more than $7.3 million in a brokerage account and personal assets including his one-of-a-kind Wu-Tang Clan album that he boasted he bought for $2 million. The judge said the property would not be seized until Shkreli had a chance to appeal.
Click to expand...
:)

 
This had nothing to do with the jacking up of the drug prices, though.  Did he ever get into any "trouble" (legally speaking) for that?  I saw the "dirty money" episode about him on Netflix, really makes your blood boil. 

 
matttyl said:
This had nothing to do with the jacking up of the drug prices, though.  Did he ever get into any "trouble" (legally speaking) for that?  I saw the "dirty money" episode about him on Netflix, really makes your blood boil. 
Click to expand...
No, he was indicted for running a ponzi like scheme and defrauding investors, but the dumb little tw@t thought it wise to taunt the Eastern District on social media and run his mouth before the trial.  That combined with his drug jacking certainly didn't help him curry any favor with the judge or the prosecution, so while he wasn't in any trouble over the drug hike directly, it didn't help him.

 
General Malaise said:
I doubt that.  He certainly won't be getting a job at any reputable fund as he's tarnished for life.  In this era of compliance and risk management, he's a toxic cancer to any allocator doing due diligence.  Plus, he might be barred from securities trading for life as part of his sentence, I don't know that, but would guess he won't be allowed to get out and run another fund again.

I don't think he will find the employment arms open and welcoming to him once he's out.  Also bet he won't look so smug upon his release.  
Click to expand...
He can always get a job with Jacob Wohl's company.

 
matttyl said:
This had nothing to do with the jacking up of the drug prices, though.  Did he ever get into any "trouble" (legally speaking) for that?  I saw the "dirty money" episode about him on Netflix, really makes your blood boil. 
Click to expand...
I thought you'd like that.  Don't you like profit?  Dude was profiting like a mofo.

 
Sadly our media and big pharma are complicit in making this one individual the face of this horrible practice.   Please watch the episode of Dirty Money where they document the exact same thing at other companies but no one is being taken down because the corporations are ####### pure evil and are getting away with it.   

 
General Malaise said:
No, he was indicted for running a ponzi like scheme and defrauding investors, but the dumb little tw@t thought it wise to taunt the Eastern District on social media and run his mouth before the trial.  That combined with his drug jacking certainly didn't help him curry any favor with the judge or the prosecution, so while he wasn't in any trouble over the drug hike directly, it didn't help him.
Click to expand...
That and offering money for Hillary's hair...

 
General Malaise said:
Not anymore.  Apparently he leveraged his E-Trade account to make bail or something.  I think his net worth took a nose dive.
Click to expand...
I thought I read recently that some of the $7.3M was coming directly from the bail he posted, and that he still had a net worth north of $20M after the forfeiture.  I guess it could all be speculation.

I am guessing he'll need a bit of that money to fund his prison life-style...

 
TakiToki said:
Shame on Shrkeli for trying to run game on sufferers of Cystinuria.
Click to expand...
Just FYI: Martin Shkreli went to jail for defrauding investors and not for raising a life saving drug from $13 to over $700
You can prey on poor people but don't you dare #### with the rich investors

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Terminalxylem
Patient Satisfaction
2
Replies
77
Views
1K
Terminalxylem
Terminalxylem
kupcho1
Netflix ... time to cancel?
Replies
47
Views
2K
CletiusMaximus
CletiusMaximus
C
Wiping a Work Computer to be then used for personal use
Replies
6
Views
264
3C's
3C's

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top