Waiver Of Rights Sample 2012: Fill & Download for Free

I enjoyed reading this article by Thomas Hauser on some of the purported discrepancies that exist in some of the drug testing procedures implemented in the sport of boxing by some of the preeminent anti-doping agencies in the world.On December 30, 2009, Manny Pacquiao sued Floyd Mayweather Jr., Floyd Sr. (Floyd’s father), Roger Mayweather (Floyd’s uncle and trainer), Mayweather Promotions, Golden Boy Promotions CEO Richard Schaefer and Oscar De la Hoya for defamation. Pacquiao’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court of Nevada, alleged that each of the defendants had falsely accused him of using, and continuing to use, illegal performance-enhancing drugs.Mayweather has gone to great lengths to position himself in the public mind as a “clean” fighter. For his three most recent fights (against Shane Mosley, Victor Ortiz and Miguel Cotto), he has mandated that he and his opponent be subjected to what he calls “Olympic-style testing” by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).USADA is an independent non-governmental sports drug-testing agency whose services are utilized by the United States Olympic and Paralympic movement. It receives approximately $10,000,000 annually in public funding, more in years when the Olympics are held. USADA was paid a reported $100,000 per fight for the drug-testing services it performed in conjunction with Mayweather’s outings.Victor Conte is one of the most knowledgeable people in sports with regard to the use of, and testing for, performance-enhancing drugs. In 1984, Conte founded the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO), which was at the heart of several much-publicized PED scandals. In 2005, he pled guilty to charges of illegal steroid distribution and tax fraud and spent four months in prison. After being released from incarceration, Conte moved to the side of the angels and is now a formidable advocate for “clean” sport.“Mayweather is not doing Olympic-style testing,” Conte states. “I’ve never liked the use of that phrase. ‘Olympic’ means 24-7-365. To be effective, drug testing has to be 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The benefits that an athlete retains from using anabolic steroids and certain other PEDs carry over for months. That means athletes can develop their strength and speed base early and the benefits of PED use will last after that use has been discontinued. If you wait to start testing until eight to 10 weeks in advance of a fight, which is what Mayweather does, that’s not Olympic-style testing. Who knows what Mayweather or his opponent has been doing during the previous six months?”Tests for a Mayweather fight generally begin around the time of the kick-off press tour heralding Floyd’s annual ring appearance. Floyd and his opponent agree to keep USADA advised as to their whereabouts and submit to an unlimited number of unannounced blood and urine tests. Other details (such as what drugs are being tested for, how samples are analyzed and what happens in the event of a positive test) are murky.Mayweather and his promoter (Golden Boy Promotions) have gone to great lengths to propagate the notion that they’re in the forefront of PED testing to “clean up” boxing. In return, they’ve reaped a public relations bonanza. But some members of Team Mayweather haven’t been content to simply disseminate a positive message with regard to Floyd’s conduct. They’ve chosen instead to brand Pacquiao (Mayweather’s chief rival) as a PED user.Floyd Mayweather Sr. declared, “[Pacquiao] can’t beat Clottey without that sh*t in him. He couldn’t beat De la Hoya without that sh*t. He couldn’t beat Ricky Hatton without that sh*t. And he couldn’t beat Cotto without that sh*t. I don’t even think he could beat that kid from Chicago [David Diaz] without that sh*t. He wouldn’t be able to beat any of those guys without enhancement drugs.”Not to be outdone, Roger Mayweather proclaimed, “This mother**ker don’t want to take the test. That’s why the fight [Mayweather vs. Pacquiao] didn’t happen. He got that sh*t in him. That’s why he didn’t want to take the test.”References to Pacquiao’s alleged PED use by the other defendants in the defamation action were more subtle. But their message was similar.The court case moved slowly as litigation often does. Last year, the claims against Schaefer and De la Hoya were dismissed with the consent of Pacquiao’s attorneys after Richard and Oscar apologized and stated that they had never meant to suggest that Manny was using performance-enhancing drugs.The Mayweathers continued to fight the complaint. Floyd’s conduct in failing to appear for a scheduled deposition on several occasions displeased the court and infuriated Pacquiao’s attorneys. The case looked like it would be a long battle of attrition. Then things changed dramatically.Under standard sports drug-testing protocols, when blood or urine is taken from an athlete, it’s divided into an “A” and “B” sample. The “A” sample is tested first. If it tests negative, end of story. If the “A” sample tests positive, the athlete then has the right to demand that the “B” sample be tested. If the “B” sample tests negative, the athlete is presumed to be clean. But if the “B” sample also tests positive, the first positive finding is confirmed and the athlete has a problem.On May 20, 2012, a rumor filtered through the drug-testing community that Mayweather had tested positive on three occasions for an illegal performance-enhancing drug.More specifically, it was rumored that Mayweather’s “A” sample had tested positive on three occasions and, after each positive test, USADA had found exceptional circumstances in the form of inadvertent use and gave Floyd a waiver. This waiver, according to the rumor, negated the need for a test of Floyd’s “B” sample. And because the “B” sample was never tested, a loophole in USADA’s contract with Mayweather and Golden Boy allowed the testing to proceed without the positive “A” sample results being reported to Mayweather’s opponent or the Nevada State Athletic Commission (which had jurisdiction over the fights).In late-May, Pacquiao’s attorneys heard the rumor. On June 4, 2012, they served document demands and subpoenas on Mayweather, Mayweather Promotions, Golden Boy and USADA calling for the production of all documents that related to PED testing of Mayweather for the Shane Mosley, Victor Ortiz and Miguel Cotto fights.The documents were not produced. There was a delay in the proceedings while Floyd spent nine weeks in the Clark County Detention Center after pleading guilty to charges of domestic violence and harassment. Upon his release from jail on August 2nd, settlement talks heated up.On September 25, 2012, a stipulation of settlement ending the defamation case was filed with the court. The parties agreed that the terms of settlement would be kept confidential. Prior to the agreement being signed, two sources with detailed knowledge of the proceedings told this writer that Mayweather’s initial monetary settlement offer was “substantially more” than Pacquiao’s attorneys had expected it would be and an agreement in principle was reached soon afterward.As part of the settlement, the Mayweathers and Mayweather Promotions issued a statement that read: “Floyd Mayweather Jr., Floyd Mayweather Sr., Roger Mayweather and Mayweather Promotions wish to make it clear that they never intended to claim that Manny Pacquiao has used or is using any performance-enhancing drugs nor are they aware of any evidence that Manny Pacquiao has used performance-enhancing drugs. Manny Pacquiao is a great champion and no one should construe any of our prior remarks as claiming that Manny Pacquiao has used performance-enhancing drugs.”I don’t know if Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao has used performance-enhancing drugs or not.I do know that, if Mayweather’s “A” sample tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug on one or more occasions and he was given a waiver by USADA that concealed this fact from the Nevada State Athletic Commission, his opponent and the public, we have an ingredient that could contribute to the making of a scandal.Any analysis of PED use and boxing should start with the acknowledgement that chemistry is now part of sports.We know certain things about the use of illegal, performance-enhancing drugs:(1) PEDs offer more than a shortcut. They take an athlete to a place that he or she might not be able to get to without them. When undertaken in conjunction with proper exercise and training, the use of PEDs creates a better athlete.(2) PED use is often difficult to detect.Sophisticated users evade detection in the face of rigorous testing. The more money an athlete spends, the less detectible PED use is. Also, in many instances, the testing is erratic, inadequate and even corrupt. Three years ago, Victor Conte declared, “Boxing’s testing program is beyond a joke. It’s worthless. The loopholes are so big that you could drive a Mack truck through them. Many of the people who are supposed to be regulating this don’t want to know.” Now Conte says, “In some respects, things have gotten worse.”(3) PED use is more prevalent in boxing now than ever before, particularly at the elite level. For many fighters, the prevailing ethic seems to be, “If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying.”Fighters are reconfiguring their bodies and, in some instances, look like totally different physical beings. In a clean world, fighters don’t get older, heavier and faster at the same time, but that’s what’s happening in boxing. Improved performances at an advanced age are becoming common. Fighters at age 35 are outperforming what they could do when they were 30. In some instances, fighters are starting to perform at an elite level at an age when they would normally be expected to be on a downward slide.(4) The use of PEDs threatens the short term and long term health of the user. It’s illegal and gives an athlete who uses them an unfair competitive advantage. It also endangers fighters who are getting hit in the head harder than before by opponents.Earlier this year, a handful of high-profile cases became part of boxing’s PED dialogue.On May 4, 2012, WBA/IBF 140-pound champion Lamont Peterson learned that his “A” and “B” urine samples had tested positive for the presence of an anabolic steroid. Peterson had been scheduled to defend his titles in a rematch against Amir Khan. The fight was canceled.Two weeks later, the “A” and “B” urine samples of WBC 147-pound champion Andre Berto tested positive for Norandrosterone (an anabolic steroid). Berto was slated to defend his belt against Victor Ortiz. That fight was also canceled.On June 22nd, it was revealed that, subsequent to Antonio Tarver’s June 2nd fight in California against Lateef Kayode, Tarver’s pre-fight urine sample had tested positive for the anabolic steroid Drostanolone. On fight night, the bout had been declared a draw. The result was changed to “no contest.”Finally, on October 18th, two days before Erik Morales’s scheduled rematch against Danny Garcia for the latter’s WBA and WBC titles, word leaked to the media that Morales had tested positive for Clenbuterol. Initially, the public was led to believe by the promotion that only Morales’s “A” sample had tested positive and there was a need for his “B” sample to be tested (which couldn’t be done until after the fight). Then it was learned that Morales had been tested on two occasions earlier in the month and, each time, both his “A” and “B” samples had tested positive. Despite that revelation, Garcia vs. Morales II was allowed to take place.In seeking out the truth behind the aforementioned matters, this writer interviewed dozens of participants and observers. Two people of note declined to be interviewed.Richard Schaefer sent a November 1st email that read in part, “We are trying to do something positive and yet it seems that media and others are attacking us. It would be easy for us to do nothing just like all other promoters. But by trying to support the fighters’ desire for additional testing, we are getting criticized.”Beyond that, Schaefer chose not to discuss the issues involved. Instead, his email referenced my relationships with Dr. Margaret Goodman and Maxboxing’s own Gabriel Montoya and stated, “I consider you a friend and really don’t want this Margaret Goodman, Gabriel Montoya vs. Golden Boy witch hunt to affect our relationship. I have my opinion about Margaret and Gabriel, and you have yours. I respect your opinion, and I hope you respect mine.”Dr. Goodman was once chief ringside physician for the Nevada State Athletic Commission. She is now president and board chairperson of a drug-testing organization known as VADA (Voluntary Anti-Doping Agency).The drug tests on Lamont Peterson and Andre Berto that came back positive were carried out under the supervision of VADA.Dr. Goodman is a friend. We’ve talked at length over the years about medical issues and boxing. She has been a valuable resource to me in my writing. We’ve also shared thoughts and offered advice to each other on a variety of subjects, both personal and professional.Gabriel Montoya has written a series of significant articles on the use of PEDs in boxing. Earlier this year, I spoke with Schaefer on Montoya’s behalf after Gabriel was denied access and credentials for certain Golden Boy events. I also spoke with Montoya about his problems with Golden Boy and what might be done to remedy the situation. Gabriel is a casual acquaintance.I should add that, although I sometimes disagree with things that Richard Schaefer has done (just as he sometimes disagrees with what I write), I admire his skills and we’ve maintained a cordial relationship over the years.USADA CEO Travis Tygart also declined to be interviewed for this article and instructed that questions be addressed to USADA’s media relations manager, Annie Skinner. On November 2nd, this writer sent a series of preliminary questions to Ms. Skinner. There was no response.At this point, it makes sense to take a closer look at the recent positive drug tests referenced earlier in this article.In March 2012, Lamont Peterson and Amir Khan submitted applications to VADA pursuant to which their blood and urine were tested in conjunction with their scheduled May 19th fight. The first samples were taken on March 19th, the only day on which the fighters knew in advance that they would be tested.On April 12th, VADA was advised by the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory that Peterson’s “A” sample had tested positive consistent with the administration of an anabolic steroid. On April 13th, the Peterson camp was notified of that fact by FedEx and email. In keeping with VADA’s protocols, Peterson was given one week to challenge the “A” test result and ask for his “B” sample to be tested with one of his representatives present.The Peterson team waited eight days (until April 21st) to respond. Then it chose to challenge the positive test result, asserted its right to be present when the “B” sample was tested, and asked that the “B” sample be tested on Friday, April 27th. The UCLA laboratory advised VADA that Friday was an inappropriate day to begin testing because four consecutive days were needed to complete the test.The testing of Peterson’s “B” sample began on Monday, April 30th. On May 3rd, VADA was advised by the laboratory that this sample had also tested positive. The Peterson camp was so notified by FedEx and email on May 4th. That same day, VADA also sent a letter by FedEx and fax to Keith Kizer (Executive Director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission) stating the facts of the matter.The Peterson-Khan rematch was canceled.Richard Schaefer was livid at the way in which drug testing for Peterson-Khan II unfolded. Golden Boy was to have promoted the fight, and he felt that VADA should have notified him as soon as Peterson’s “A” sample tested positive.Margaret Goodman says that, after Peterson’s “A” sample tested positive, she asked Lamont’s attorney (Jeff Fried) whether there was an agreement between Peterson and Golden Boy that authorized VADA to release the “A” test results to the promoter. Fried told her that no such authorization existed.Ryan Connolly is counsel for VADA. In the late 1990s, he was the business manager for the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory. He’s now an attorney in private practice with an expertise in PED testing in the context of competitive sports. In that role, he oversaw the process outlined in a May 10th document titled “Statement of VADA.”“When VADA became involved with the Peterson-Khan fight,” that statement reads, “the individual athletes signed up for the VADA program and executed the proper documentation. VADA was told that GBP [Golden Boy Promotions] also wanted a contract so that GBP would be authorized to receive the testing results, including the preliminary results from an ‘A’ sample analysis. In order for VADA to release the preliminary ‘A’ sample results to a third party such as GBP, VADA requires an executed authorization allowing us to do so. VADA sent GBP a draft contract for its signature which would have authorized the preliminary ‘A’ sample results to be released to GBP. This initial draft, which was never signed, contained a clause pursuant to which GBP would have represented that it had obtained the necessary authorization from the fighters. GBP’s legal team rejected this clause and instead suggested making the fighters signatories to the contract with their signatures being the necessary authorization. VADA’s counsel made it clear to GBP that, if GBP wanted to handle it this way, GBP must take responsibility for obtaining the athlete’s signatures. Unfortunately, GBP never obtained the signatures.The bottom line is that VADA had no contract with GBP. This is not a mere technicality. It involves issues of medical ethics. VADA needed a signed contract in order to deviate from its Results Management Policy (posted on our website) and release the preliminary and personal medical information to a third party.VADA would have been happy to inform GBP of the preliminary ‘A’ results. But we needed a signed authorization allowing us to do so, which we never received. VADA has complied in every way with all signed contracts that we had and will continue to do so.”Dr. Goodman elaborates on that theme, saying, “As per our contracts and protocols, VADA gives certain test results to the athletic commission in any jurisdiction where the fighter holds a license or a request for a license is pending. We also release certain results to FightFax, the Association of Boxing Commissions, and whomever else the athlete asks us to release them to. We’d be happy to release any and all results to a fighter’s promoter, but we need an authorization from the fighter to do so. That‘s the law and those are the terms in the Results Management Policy posted on the VADA website.”As a postscript, the Peterson camp later claimed that Lamont had tested positive because of the surgical implantation of “testosterone pellets” to correct a testosterone deficiency known as hypogonadism.That led Ryan Connolly to observe that more than a few elite athletes suffer from hypogonadism and note, “This may seem odd since these athletes are physical specimens. How can they be so muscular and fit but have natural testosterone production deficiencies at a higher rate than ordinary people? The dirty little secret is not necessarily that these athletes are lying about their hypogonadism. The dirty little secret is the likely cause of the hypogonadism in the first place - past anabolic steroid abuse.”Meanwhile, even before the Peterson controversy subsided, a new controversy was brewing. Andre Berto and Victor Ortiz had submitted applications for VADA testing in advance of their scheduled June 23, 2012 fight. On May 11th, Dr. Goodman was advised by the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory that an “A” sample urine specimen taken from Berto had tested positive for norandrosterone (an anabolic steroid) at a level above the permitted amount.On May 12th, following VADA protocols, Goodman notified the Berto camp. Berto was advised by FedEx. Tony Morgan (Berto’s trainer, who had been listed on notice forms as a designated recipient of information) was advised of the finding by email, as was Al Haymon (Berto’s manager).Dr. Goodman’s email to each recipient read in part, “VADA urges you to immediately notify Golden Boy Promotions [the lead promoter on the fight], DiBella Entertainment [Berto’s promoter], and the California State Athletic Commission of this positive “A” sample finding by forwarding each party a copy of this notification so that it is received by each party as quickly as possible but no later than 3:00 p.m. on Monday, May 14th. Please confirm to VADA in writing that you have forwarded a copy to each party by that time.”The requested confirmation was not forthcoming. Instead, on May 14th, Dr. Goodman received a letter from Howard Jacobs (an attorney retained by Berto), who warned that telling anyone other than Berto’s representatives about the “A” sample positive could result in “civil liability on the part of VADA.”On May 15th, Goodman sent an email to Al Haymon that read, “Dear Al, as you are aware, Mr. Berto has asserted a medical privilege insofar as VADA is concerned. I would think that you will be held personally accountable by Golden Boy Promotions and DiBella Entertainment for your failure to notify them of this issue in a timely manner. Please advise us with regard to whether or not you have notified GBP and DBE. Thank you, Margaret Goodman.”There was no response.That same day, Ryan Connolly sent an email to Howard Jacobs urging similar notification.On May 18th, Dr. Goodman was advised by the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory that Berto’s “B” sample urine specimen had tested positive. VADA then notified Berto, his designated representatives, and the California State Athletic Commission.Haymon, in turn, notified Richard Schaefer. Lou DiBella says that, despite the fact that he was Berto’s promoter, neither Schaefer nor Haymon advised him that Andre’s “A” and “B” samples had tested positive until plans were underway to replace Berto as an opponent for Victor Ortiz with Josesito Lopez (another Haymon fighter, who was promoted by Golden Boy in conjunction with Goossen Tutor).“How do you think that makes me feel?” DiBella asked rhetorically. “I raised the issue with Al afterward, and he didn’t say anything. That told me all I needed to know.”Haymon, like Richard Schaefer and Travis Tygart, declined to be interviewed for this article.Berto later told RingTvOnline, “To all of my fans who have been supportive, you know, everybody who knows me, they know that everything that I’ve always accomplished has just been through hard work. And when it comes to the positive test, that was just a situation that was unfortunate. It was a situation that didn’t get properly explained to the public on what it was and what caused it. I believe that’s what really made an uproar about everything. You know, like I’ve said, I’ve never been a cheater. Never have and never will. I’ve never injected anything in any type of situation at all. So when it comes up as a positive test, it didn’t have anything to do with any type of drug enhancement or any type of testosterone or EPO or none of that type of stuff that a lot of guys probably use. It was, after we got the positive test, we just needed to know what it was because we knew that everything that we were doing was straightforward. After they put the news out, that’s when we found out exactly what it was. Then I had to go through all of the right processes and the hiring of the lawyers and things like that. So it was basically just taking my sample test and just really proving the fact that it was a contamination of something. I couldn’t believe it happened the way it did with no explanation for it to the press or the public. The way it was put out there without explaining exactly what it was and how much upset me. Nothing was really explained to the public.”There’s a bit of hypocrisy there. Berto expressed unhappiness that news of his positive tests “was put out there without explaining exactly what it was…to the public.” But as previously noted, his own lawyer had made it clear to VADA that the dissemination of information to third parties should be kept to a minimum under threat of civil liability on the part of VADA.Given Golden Boy’s professed commitment to making boxing a clean sport, Richard Schaefer might have been expected to commend VADA for its findings with regard to Peterson and Berto. Instead, he seemed intent on attacking Dr. Goodman and VADA.On May 22nd, Arnold Joseph, counsel for Golden Boy, sent a letter to Goodman stating Golden Boy’s intention to sue VADA for not notifying the promoter that Peterson’s “A” sample had tested positive, a failure that Joseph claimed was magnified by VADA reporting the “B” sample positive to the Nevada State Athletic Commission and not to Golden Boy.To date, no lawsuit has been filed. But three days later, Golden Boy terminated a column on medical issues that Goodman had written monthly for The Ring magazine (now owned by Golden Boy) since 2004.“I guess the only question I have is why it took so long for Richard to fire me,” Dr. Goodman said afterward. “Once Golden Boy bought the magazine, I was told I couldn’t cover certain topics like more insurance coverage for catastrophic injuries suffered by fighters. Michael Rosenthal [the editor who replaced Nigel Collins at The Ring] is a great guy. He’s been very supportive but I could see the writing on the wall. You know, the first column I wrote for Ring eight years ago was about Fernando Vargas testing positive for Winstrol. It was called ‘JUICED!’ How ironic is that?”At the same time Golden Boy was attacking Margaret Goodman, it also took aim at Gabriel Montoya.Montoya, as previously noted, has written a number of articles on the use of PEDs in boxing. On May 20, 2012, a source with extensive knowledge in the area of drug testing told him he believed Floyd Mayweather had tested positive on three occasions for performance-enhancing drugs and that, in each instance, the test results had been covered up by Golden Boy and USADA.Montoya did what a responsible journalist is supposed to do. He began to question people in boxing and the world of PED testing about the rumors. On May 23rd, he received a letter from Jeffrey Spitz (an attorney for Golden Boy).Montoya says that the Spitz letter mischaracterized the nature of his investigation. There was no mistaking the fact that the letter accused him of making false and defamatory statements with regard to Golden Boy and threatened legal action against him.“There was an earlier time when Golden Boy wouldn’t credential me for its fights because I sent out some tweets that Oscar didn’t like,” Montoya recounts. “But I spoke with Schaefer and we worked past that. Then I started looking into the issue of Floyd’s drug tests. I got the threatening letter from Spitz, which I posted on Maxboxing. And I was banned again from Golden Boy fights.”For example, Montoya was told he would be credentialed for the June 30th fight card headlined by Cornelius Bundrage vs. Cory Spinks at Fantasy Springs Resort Casino. Then, on June 29th, he received an email from Anndee Laskoe (public relations manager for the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians), who wrote, “I have been asked by Golden Boy Promotions to remove your name from the press credential list for the June 30th fights at Fantasy Springs. I am sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you.”Golden Boy publicists Monica Sears and Ramiro Gonzalez were copied on the email.Golden Boy did credential Montoya for at least one subsequent show.Meanwhile, other troubling incidents were brewing.In mid-May, Winky Wright was preparing to fight Peter Quillin in a June 2nd bout promoted by Golden Boy at the Home Depot Center in Carson, California.“Everybody kept popping up positive for all this stuff,” Wright told Montoya. “Boxing isn’t always a fair game. I figured I should get this [testing] too. So I called Golden Boy and said, ‘Why we ain’t doing it?’ They was like ‘Uh, etcetera, etcetera, this and this and that, and someone didn’t want to pay.’ I said ‘Okay; I’m going to pay for it. I just want to play on the same field.’”Wright and Quillin entered into a May 21, 2012 contract with Golden Boy and USADA pursuant to which USADA was to provide drug testing services in conjunction with their fight.“I didn’t know the difference between [USADA and VADA].” Wright says. “I just told Golden Boy I wanted to be tested and they came back with USADA.”On or about May 23rd, USADA collected blood and urine samples from Quillin. Wright gave samples on May 24th.“They came to my house at six in the morning,” Winky recalls. “They took urine, blood, everything.”Then, without warning, Wright was told that the testing was off.“I think it was like two days later,” Winky told Gabriel Montoya. “Golden Boy called and told Damian [Ramirez, Wright’s manager], and Damian told me. I don’t understand it. All I’m asking is, ‘How do you take urine and take blood and then, all of sudden, you say you aren’t going to test it?’ Then they tried to make up an excuse and say they wanted to teach us. There ain’t nothing to teach. They took blood. They told us we would take a test and either come up positive or negative. That’s it. All I want to know is, are we playing on the same field? So my lawyer called and asked for it to be tested and they told him they threw it out. They told my attorney they threw it out. That’s crazy. Why would they throw it out? They just finished [taking samples] and they’re going to throw it out already? Does this sound crazy? We gave samples. Let’s test that and let me see the result. They threw it out. I just don’t understand that.”Quillin-Wright went ahead as planned with Quillin winning a unanimous 10-round decision. Quillin, like Andre Berto and Floyd Mayweather, is managed by Al Haymon.The contract that Wright and Quillin entered into with Golden Boy and USADA specifically provided, “USADA will be responsible for storing the samples after collection and transporting them safely and securely to a laboratory for analysis…USADA will send all samples for analysis to a WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] accredited laboratory under contract to USADA…USADA shall maintain Sample Collection Documentation, including test results for testing conducted under this Master Agreement, for a period of six years.”“The destruction of samples isn’t supposed to happen,” Ryan Connolly states. “If that happened in an Olympic context, it would set off alarms in a lot of places. There would likely be a thorough investigation by the International Olympic Committee and WADA.”Victor Conte adds, “The trend in drug-testing now is to save samples longer than before, not pour them down the drain.”But the worst was yet to come.Scott Hale runs a small website called Halestorm Sports Network. On Thursday, October 18, 2012, at approximately 8:30 a.m. Pacific Coast Time, Hale got a telephone call from a source in New York who told him that Erik Morales (who was scheduled to fight Danny Garcia two days later on a Golden Boy Promotions card at Barclays Center in Brooklyn) had tested positive for a banned substance.“I knew they were about to start the [final pre-fight] press conference,” Hale recalls, “and I assumed the fight would be canceled. Four hours later, I went online and saw that the fight was still on and the story hadn’t broken. So I made some follow-up calls and a second source confirmed the story. Then a third source called me to confirm, but I still didn’t know what the drug was.”“At that point,” Hale continues, “I called USADA and Golden Boy. Neither of them would confirm the story. One of my partners called the New York State Athletic Commission. They said they didn’t know anything about it, but our sources were solid. All three of them are reliable. So we decided to go with the story.”The snowball rolled from there.Initially, Golden Boy and USADA engaged in damage control.Dan Rafael of ESPN.com spoke with two sources and wrote, “The reason the fight has not been called off, according to one of the sources, is because Morales’s ‘A’ sample tested positive but the results of the ‘B’ sample test likely won’t be available until after the fight. ‘[USADA] said it could be a false positive,’ one of the sources with knowledge of the disclosure said. ‘But from what I understand, they won’t know until the test on the ‘B’ sample comes back. That probably won’t be until after the fight.’”Richard Schaefer told Chris Mannix of SI.com, “USADA has now started the process. The process will play out. There is not going to be a rush to judgment. Morales is a legendary fighter. And really, nobody deserves a rush to judgment. You are innocent until proven guilty.”Also on Thursday, Schaefer told Rick Reeno of BoxingScene.com, “I think what is important here is that there is not going to be a witch hunt against Erik Morales. Let’s allow the process to play out.”The New York State Athletic Commission was blindsided on the Morales matter. The first notice it received came in a three-way telephone conversation with representatives of Golden Boy and USADA after the Thursday press conference. In that conversation, the commission was told there were “some questionable test results” for Morales but that testing of Morales’s “B” sample would not be available until after the fight.Then, on Friday (one day before the scheduled fight), Keith Idec revealed on BoxingScene.com that samples had been taken from Morales on at least three occasions. Final results from the samples taken on October 17th were not in yet. But both the “A” and “B” samples taken from Morales on October 3rd and October 10th had tested positive for Clenbuterol. In other words, Morales had tested positive for Clenbuterol four times.Clenbuterol is widely used by bodybuilders and athletes. It helps the body increase its metabolism and process the conversion of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats into useful energy. It also boosts muscle growth and eliminates excess fats caused by the use of certain steroids.Under the WADA code, no amount of Clenbuterol is allowed in a competitor’s body. The measure is qualitative, not quantitative. Either Clenbuterol is there or it’s not. If it’s there, the athlete has a problem.After the positive tests were revealed, Morales claimed that he’d inadvertently ingested Clebuterol by eating contaminated meat. No evidence was offered in support of that contention.Nor was any explanation forthcoming as to why USADA kept taking samples from Morales after four tests (two “A” samples and two “B” samples from separate collections) came back positive. Giving Morales those additional tests was like giving someone who has been arrested for driving while intoxicated a second and third blood test a week after the arrest. The whole idea behind “cycling” is that it enables an athlete to use illegal PEDs, stop using them at a predetermined point in time, and then test clean in the days leading up to an event. A fighter shouldn’t be given the opportunity to test again and again until he tests clean.Also, Richard Schaefer vigorously attacked Dr. Margaret Goodman and VADA for not advising him that Lamont Peterson’s “A” sample had come back positive. But not only did Schaefer fail to notify Lou DiBella (Andre Berto’s promoter) in a timely manner that Berto had tested positive for Norandrosterone, Schaefer didn’t tell the New York State Athletic Commission in a timely manner that Morales had tested positive for Clenbuterol. Rather, it appears as though the commission and the public were deliberately misled with regard to the testing and how many tests Morales had failed.The moment that the “B” sample from Morales’s first test came back positive, that information should have been forwarded to the New York State Athletic Commission. The fact that USADA had positive test results from two “A” and two “B” samples and didn’t transmit those results to the NYSAC raises serious questions regarding USADA’s credibility.WOULD USADA HANDLE THE TESTING OF AN OLYMPIC ATHLETE THE WAY IT HANDLED THE MORALES TESTING?“The Erik Morales case is a travesty,” says Victor Conte. “Golden Boy and USADA seem to have made up a new set of rules without telling anyone what they are. What are the rules? Explain yourself, please! In ‘Olympic-style testing,’ you don’t have an ‘A’ sample and a ‘B’ sample test positive, and then another ‘A’ sample and ‘B’ sample test positive, and keep testing until you get a negative. What happened with Erik Morales should put everything that USADA and Golden Boy have done in boxing under a microscope. This is more than suspicious to me. It’s outrageous.”Incredibly, Garcia-Morales II was allowed to proceed. This, in effect, amounted to a “Get out of Jail Free” card for Garcia. Morales, a heavy underdog, was knocked out in the fourth round. But had Erik won the fight, the positive drug tests (which had been concealed prior to the leak on Halestorm Sports) could have been used to overturn the result and give Garcia back his belts.Garcia is managed by Al Haymon and is considered by Golden Boy to be one of its future stars.Since the Morales incident, people in the PED-testing community have begun to question the curious role played in boxing by USADA. When someone hears “USADA testing,” the assumption is that it’s legitimate. In that light, the reports that Erik Morales’s “A” and “B” samples tested positive for Clenbuterol on two occasions without notification to the New York State Athletic Commission are extremely troubling.Don Catlin founded the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory in 1982 and is one of the founders of modern drug testing in sports.“USADA should not enter into a contract that doesn’t call for it to report positive test results to the appropriate governing body.” Catlin states. “If it’s true that USADA reported the results [in the Morales case] to Golden Boy and not to the governing state athletic commission, that’s a recipe for deception.”When asked about the possibility of withholding notification because of inadvertent use (such as eating contaminated meat), Catlin declares, “No! The International Olympic Committee allowed for those waivers 25 years ago, and it didn’t work. An athlete takes a steroid, tests positive, and then claims it was inadvertent. No one says, ‘I was cheating. You caught me.’”But more importantly, Catlin says, “USADA is a testing organization. USADA should not be making decisions regarding waivers and exemptions. That would make USADA judge and jury.”Ryan Connolly is in accord and adds, “There is no such thing in the Olympic world as an inadvertent use waiver. Athletes are strictly liable for what they put in their bodies. Inadvertent use might affect the length of an athlete’s suspension, but the athlete would still be disqualified from the competition that he, or she, was being tested for.”“I’m not sure what rules USADA is following,” Connolly continues, “but under WADA protocols, you wouldn’t see samples being destroyed and you wouldn’t see retests for Clenbuterol positives.”In other words, USADA seems to have one set of rules for testing Olympic athletes and another set of rules when it tests fighters for Golden Boy.“It looks to me like USADA and Golden Boy are making up the rules as they go along,” says Victor Conte. “One of the things that enables them to do it is that there’s no transparency to USADA’s testing for any of the fighters. What drugs are they testing for? What tests have been performed? What were the results? Why is Travis Tygart doing this?”One might also ask why Golden Boy and Richard Schaefer are doing this.“I think that Richard really wanted to be in the forefront on drug testing when he first got involved,” one Golden Boy employee (who, for obvious reasons, wishes to remain anonymous) says. “He knew it would ingratiate him with Floyd. It would get him some good PR. And it was a way to stick it in [Bob] Arum’s ear. But talking with him, I also felt that he thought it was the right thing to do. Then he realized that things were a lot more complicated and, probably, a lot dirtier than he’d thought. And at that point, his priorities changed.”It would be a stretch to say that Schaefer is trying to install himself as boxing’s drug czar. But he certainly doesn’t want drug testing to interfere with Golden Boy’s fights. That’s evident from his assault on VADA and Margaret Goodman after Lamont Peterson and Andre Berto tested positive.“Richard Schaefer saw what happened when somebody tests impartially with sophisticated testing methods,” HBO commentator Jim Lampley observes. “I haven’t spoken with him about these issues, but it would certainly appear as though he has decided to stay away from Margaret Goodman.”Stripped of its rhetoric, Schaefer’s main objection to VADA and Dr. Goodman appears to have been that they wouldn’t empower him in the testing process. He talks about VADA failing to notify him of Peterson’s positive “A” test in a timely manner. But if early notification is so important, why didn’t Golden Boy advise the New York State Athletic Commission that Erik Morales’s “A” and “B” samples had tested positive for Clenbuterol - twice?In fairness to Golden Boy, no other promoter has made a serious effort to rid boxing of PEDs, or even pretended to. And Schaefer himself acknowledged recently, “I think that ultimately it should be up to the athletic commissions to adopt a more updated drug-testing protocol and really not up to a promoter.”That latter point is particularly well-taken. The problem is that the state athletic commissions, as presently constituted, are woefully unsuited to the task. In many instances, boxing is barely governed at the state level. Everything has a loophole. Illegal PED users vs. the state athletic commissions is one of the biggest mismatches of all time.Most state athletic commissions don’t have the resources, the technical expertise, or the will to deal effectively with the PED problem. People go along to get along. No one wants to make waves.There’s no uniformity with regard to standards, degree of testing, or punishment from state to state. Testing on the day of a competition is notoriously ineffective in the face of sophisticated drug use. But that’s the only testing that most states utilize. Some states don’t drug test at all.The Nevada State Athletic Commission has long been considered to have one of the best drug-testing programs in the country. Two years ago, Travis Tygart was asked, “How easy is it to beat a testing program like Nevada’s?”“As simple as walking across the street,” Tygart answered. “It’s good for PR, to give the appearance that you’re testing, but nothing more.”After Lamont Peterson tested positive with VADA, Zach Arnold of Your Global Connection to the Fight Industry. spoke with Keith Kizer (Executive Director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission).“Kizer admits that a standard Nevada State Athletic Commission drug test would not have caught Peterson using synthetic testosterone,” Arnold reported afterward. “He admits that the reason the VADA test caught Peterson is because they use the Carbon Isotope Ratio standard for urine testing, which does in fact catch synthetic testosterone usage.”The Peterson camp, as earlier noted, says Lamont tested positive because of the surgical implantation of testosterone pellets to correct a testosterone deficiency known as hypogonadism. Jeff Fried (Peterson’s attorney) says the implantation occurred on November 12, 2011.Four weeks later, on December 10, 2011, Peterson fought Amir Khan in Washington D.C. The tests administered by the local commission failed to detect the testosterone. That’s a pretty good indication that PED testing in Washington D.C. is deficient.California hosts more fight cards than any other state in the country. On October 9, 2012, the California State Athletic Commission upheld a one-year suspension imposed on Antonio Tarver in the wake of his testing positive for Drostanolone.“The commission heard both sides of the issue and upheld Mr. Tarver’s suspension,” Kathi Burns (interim executive officer of the CSAC, told ESPN.com). “I think the commission’s actions speak for itself. It’s well-known that the commission has among the toughest anti-doping standards in the world, and that we have zero tolerance for doping.”Not true.California then turned 180 degrees and, without a full hearing, licensed Andre Berto for a November 24th fight (to be promoted by Golden Boy) against Robert Guerrero, despite the fact that Berto tested positive for Norandrosterone in May of this year. The explanation given by commission personnel was that Berto’s positive drug tests were administered by VADA and not by the commission itself.“How can they not recognize VADA?” Margaret Goodman asks. “Our program is in accord with WADA protocols. Our scientific director was recommended to us by WADA’s medical chief. We use internationally-recognized sample collectors. We even use the same laboratory [the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory] that the California commission uses.”Then there’s the case of Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. Following his November 14, 2009 fight against Troy Rowland in Las Vegas, Chavez tested positive for Furosemide (a diuretic and steroid-masking agent). He was fined $10,000 by the Nevada State Athletic Commission and suspended for seven months. Four of his next six bouts were in Texas, one in California, and one in Mexico. Texas has a reputation for being lax in the area of drug-testing. Mexico is Mexico.On September 15, 2012, Chavez returned to Las Vegas to fight Sergio Martinez. After the bout, it was revealed that Julio had tested positive for marijuana.Marijuana is illegal, but it’s not a performance-enhancing drug. Chavez’s explanation for the positive test was as follows: “I have never smoked marijuana. For years, I have had insomnia, so I went to the doctor and he prescribed some drops for me that contained cannabis. I stopped taking them before the fight with Martinez, and I didn’t think I was going to test positive.”That explanation strains credibility. Chavez might have been better off claiming he ate tainted beef from a cow that ate a marijuana plant. Still, before the NSAC rules harshly on Julio, it should consider testing all commission personnel (including the five commissioners) for recreational drugs. Boxing has a drug problem, but the drug isn’t marijuana.As for Erik Morales and New York, on the day of Garcia-Morales II, the New York State Athletic Commission issued the following statement: “The New York Athletic Commission has taken into consideration the testing of Erick [sic] Morales conducted by USADA, an independent non-governmental organization contracted by Golden Boy Promotions to conduct testing on its boxers. Based upon currently available information and the representations made by Mr. Morales that he unintentionally ingested contaminated food, it is the Commission’s opinion that at this time there is inconclusive data to make a final determination regarding the suspension of Mr. Morales’s boxing license. The Commission will continue investigating the allegations and will wait until official laboratory results are available before making a final decision.”Let’s give the NYSAC the benefit of the doubt and assume that enormous political pressure from above was brought to bear on well-intentioned administrators. Garcia-Morales II was the main event on the first fight card at the new billion-dollar Barclays Center, an anchor for economic redevelopment in Brooklyn.Still, Kieran Mulvaney summed up nicely when he wrote on ESPN.com, “The way in which the situation was handled was borderline farcical. Morales failed tests twice, yet was allowed to take a third, which he passed, and faced no real consequences. Why have a drug-testing program if testing positive means nothing? If commissions are going to stand on the sideline, will failing a drug test become like missing weight: an inconvenience that can be smoothed over with some extra money changing hands?”It should also be noted that the world sanctioning organizations are part of the problem, not part of the solution.Four days after Garcia-Morales II, World Boxing Council President Jose Sulaiman declared, “The time of getting urine samples for the anti-doping tests is absolutely none other than in the dressing rooms before going into the ring or after the fights. The WBC only wants to test how a fighter is at the time of his performance and no other time unless it is a special circumstance. The tests are done by the local boxing commissions, most with which we have excellent relations and amicable agreements of mutual cooperation. We are, and have been, testing against drugs in boxing since 1975 and we have had only 15 positives in 37 years and about 1,600 fights. Boxing is a clean sport, as our data proves.”If Sulaiman weren’t so adept at gobbling up sanctioning fees and crushing reform movements within the WBC, one would be inclined to dismiss him as a buffoon.As for what comes next, the signs aren’t promising. This Saturday (November 24th), Andre Berto will fight Robert Guerrero in Ontario, California, on a card promoted by Golden Boy.Guerrero asked that the fighters be tested for PEDs by VADA. Walter Kane (Guerrero’s attorney) says that Richard Schaefer and Al Haymon (Berto’s manager) refused and would only allow testing by the California State Athletic Commission and USADA.In other words, Berto said he’d do drug testing, but not with the people who caught him earlier this year.Guerrero had two options. He could accept USADA and a career-high payday or lose the payday.“I’m not happy about it,” Kane says, “but in the end, we really didn’t have a choice. Golden Boy controls the purse strings, and they’re calling the shots.”Would the National Football League let Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones dictate drug-testing terms for games the Cowboys play? Of course not. But in essence, Golden Boy (which has a vested interest in the outcome of the fights it promotes) is doing just that.Once again, the playing field has been tilted. There are times when it appears as though, not only does Golden Boy dictate which drug-testing organization is utilized, it can also influence whether or not there is random blood and urine testing for a fight.Indeed, Golden Boy might even be able to use its influence over the drug-testing process as a bargaining chip in signing fighters. Andre Berto tested positive and, soon after, was licensed to fight in California in a big-money fight. Erik Morales tested positive and New York said, “No problem. He can fight here right now.”Meanwhile, Golden Boy is refusing to use a drug-testing agency that plays by the reporting rules (VADA) and is giving its business to an agency (USADA) that appears to have ceded a certain amount of reporting authority to the promoter.The problems are overwhelming and there are no easy answers. Even state-of-the-art tests often fail to uncover PED use.Olympic gold medalist Marion Jones was tested more than 160 times during her track-and-field career and none of the tests came back as a confirmed positive. As the BALCO investigation widened, she admitted she’d used steroids prior to the 2000 Olympics and lied to federal investigations about it. She pled guilty to federal charges and spent six months in prison. The tests have gotten more sophisticated since then, but so have the cheaters.Should boxing even try to curtail PED use?“Yes,” says Victor Conte. “There will always be athletes who escape detection, but when there’s a desperate need, half a loaf of bread is better than none.”One might look to Major League Baseball for parallels. No sport wants to tarnish its image, let alone its major stars. But as baseball discovered, if a sport looks the other way, the use of PEDs can come back to haunt it.Baseball got a huge bounce when Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa rewrote its record book. Now an entire era has been disgraced, and baseball’s most hallowed records (which link fans from one generation to the next) are in limbo.Baseball made significant strides when it decided, finally, to crack down on PED use. Home run statistics are evidence of that. For eight consecutive seasons (between 1995 and 2002), the MLB home run leader hit at least 50 home runs. In the past five years, that mark has been reached only once. In the past two seasons, the four league leaders hit 44, 41, 43, and 39 home runs. Compare that with 1998, when Mark McGwire hit 70, Sammy Sosa hit 66, and Ken Griffey Jr. hit 56.In boxing at present, the users are way ahead of the testers and the distance between them is growing. The only thing that can possibly close the gap is a national approach with uniform national standards and a uniform national enforcement mechanism. If additional federal legislation is necessary to achieve that end, so be it. The notion that boxing can clean itself up one state athletic commission at a time is frivolous.To make real headway, it should be a condition for granting a license in any state that a fighter can be tested for PEDs at any time. Logistics and cost would make mandatory testing on a broad scale impractical, but unannounced spot testing could be implemented.All contracts for drug testing (such as Golden Boy’s contracts with USADA) should be filed immediately with the Association of Boxing Commissions and the supervising state athletic commission for the fight at issue. The ABC and supervising commission should be notified when each test is performed and also of each test result.For a state athletic commission to say (as is the case in some jurisdictions) that it won’t recognize any tests but its own is ridiculous. It shouldn’t matter who does the testing as long as the tests are reliable. Whether it’s a police officer or a private security guard who sees a bank being robbed, the offense is prosecuted.The implementation of sophisticated, unannounced, impartially-administered, random drug testing is the only way to turn the tide.That said, one has to acknowledge that we live in the real world. If a mega-fight is canceled two days before its scheduled date because one of the combatants has tested positive for PEDs, it isn’t like saying, “Number 94 won’t be playing defensive tackle on Sunday.” In boxing, if a fighter is suspended, the fight doesn’t go on.Big events are the economic engine that drives boxing. Canceling a mega-fight, particularly at the last minute, will result in tens of millions of dollars in lost income.For that reason, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that, in certain instances, if a fighter tests positive for PEDs before a fight: (1) his opponent should have the choice of proceeding with the fight or not; (2) if the fight takes place, the fighter who has tested positive should forfeit 50 percent of his purse; and (3) the fighter who has tested positive should be suspended for a minimum of one year after the fight with the suspension being recognized by every jurisdiction in the United States.Meanwhile, one has to ask: How many positive test results similar to those for Erik Morales (and possibly Floyd Mayweather) are there that we don’t know about? How many other samples have been destroyed in the manner of the samples taken from Peter Quillin and Winky Wright? What would happen if federal investigators put key players in boxing’s ongoing PED drama under oath?Victor Conte says flatly, “I think the relationship between USADA and Golden Boy needs to be investigated.”An Internet website isn’t the place to make judgments as to whether or not USADA has acted properly. Congress is. There’s an open issue as to whether USADA has become an instrument of accommodation. For an agency that tests United States Olympic athletes and receives in excess of $10,000,000 a year from the federal government, that’s a significant issue.If USADA has violated appropriate protocols, the consequences could be enormous. If, in fact, USADA has made special accommodations for Golden Boy, one has to wonder how many times it has made similar accommodations for other athletes in the past.This isn’t about a handful of athletes. It’s about the integrity of boxing and the well-being of all fighters.Someday, if it hasn’t happened already, a fighter who has been using PEDs will kill his opponent in the ring. Thus, in closing, it’s worth remembering the thoughts of Emanuel Steward.“Boxing isn’t like other sports,” Steward said several months before his death. “In boxing, a human being is getting hit in the head. None of us like to talk about it, but there’s a very real risk of brain damage. So to my way of thinking, anyone in boxing who’s part of using performance-enhancing drugs – I don’t care if it’s the fighter, the trainer, the strength coach, the conditioner, the manager, the promoter – that person is ruining the sport and doing something criminal.”Source: Max Boxing - Home

First, there are resources available that you may find helpful (see below). No source is totally fee of bias, but these will provide you with some basic comparisons. Also, please check out my blog Hot Air ('Why is US Healthcare So Expensive?'), where I go into greater detail on this question.To answer your question, there are some reasons why the free market approach is preferable. People prefer the free market because the free market provides competition, and competition promotes both lower prices and improved quality.There are some areas of medicine that could benefit from the expanded introduction of free market principles. However, a totally free market approach is unworkable, and even helpful free market reforms have substantial limitations.There are concrete examples of free market forces accomplishing these desirable goals in health care. They are mostly confined to "lifestyle" procedures and care. For example, LASIK is a purely elective, non-urgent procedure. In this market physicians do compete on both quality and price. In Dallas there is a popular LASIK surgeon who can even schedule on Saturdays, so you don't miss a day of work. And if one cannot afford LASIK, then the worst that happens is you just have to continue wearing glasses. There is little harm in denying someone LASIK, or breast augmentation, or any surgery that can be considered a "lifestyle" enhancement.And that is because we do not *need* these procedures the way one truly needs most medical care. Patients who select these surgeries are generally pretty healthy, and of sound mind. They have cash to pay upfront all costs, and the costs are clearly defined and publicly advertised. The payments are made directly without a third party intervening. And even the ancillary costs--such as the surgery center or the anesthesia service, are paid upfront. There might even be room for negotiation.Many dentists also work this way, preferring cash or credit card instead of a delayed payment from an insurance company. Lastly, there is no insurance provider that can deny a service after the service has been performed. Patients have the time and ability to research the procedure, and the technology is pretty easy to understand--a simple understanding of the laws of gravity suffices for anyone shopping for breast augmentation. It also helps that these are done in distinct outpatient settings and these decisions are not made under duress. If these statements sound familiar, it is because they are all the opposite of how our health economy works.As I had stated initially, there are some areas of medicine in need of free market reform. One key area is in price transparency. Most health care products--be it an office visit, a surgery, or an overnight stay in-hospital--have no publicly available list of costs. Patients, however, must sign a waiver holding them fully responsible for any and all costs not covered by insurance. The patient has no idea what they are being charged while they are being charged, and likely will not see these charges until the bill is sent some time after discharge. Often the providers themselves have no idea what the costs will be, and insurance companies will tell you to wait until all charges have been received. And…even if you were to do your due diligence and select only providers "in-network," it is not uncommon for out-of-network providers and services to be included in total charges.This could be as simple as an an out of network pathology lab. For example, a patient could visit their doctor for a routine test, and not realize that the send-out pathology lab is out-of-network. The patient would be responsible for the full cost, though. This happens all the time. And all charges (be they in or out-of-network) are listed on a hospital's "charge master," which are typically not publicly available. See Time Magazine's 'Bitter Pill' for more.So one way this is being addressed is by forcing the hospitals to publish their most common charges. Ironically, this "free market" solution is only coming about due to the federal government's initiative, but this should at least allow for more honesty in pricing. Another approach to greater transparency is for websites to publish average costs for common procedures, by region.It does remain to be seen what effect greater price transparency will have. My feeling is that greater price transparency will have its primary effect in the outpatient setting, and largely for cash-paying patients (self-pay and HSA holders). A major caveat, though, is that so many health interactions occur under some degree of duress, or even without a patient's ability to consent. If one is under anesthesia or in the ICU, or in an acute health crisis, then one has little to no ability to make any rational decisions. We trust doctors to do this for us, which brings us to knowledge asymmetry.There is a reason physicians spend many years training in their specialty. It requires a great deal of study and experience to make sound medical judgments, to develop appropriate clinical skills. Purchasing "health products" is not like buying an iPhone case. Before buying a phone case one can perform thorough research, compare reviews, etc. to find just the right one. In my practice (anesthesia), I am often surprised at how little people understand their own medical history; this can be true even for otherwise educated and intelligent patients.This knowledge asymmetry is the reason why patients entrust us so fully with their lives. It is also why it can be near impossible for a patient to make a truly informed medical decision, and instead they defer to our clinical expertise. Occasionally I will have a patient suggest an approach that turns out to be clinically impossible. Or if there is a billing dispute they may refuse to pay for a portion of what they consider to be unnecessary, when it was in fact indispensable for their care. While this knowledge asymmetry is not unique to medicine, it plays such a key role that it makes free market choice quite difficult. There are many other aspects of medical care that are simply indispensable to be done "right," and hence cannot be easily negotiated.An additional approach to the free market is to "allow insurance companies to compete across state lines." The idea is that insurance companies are hindered in their ability to offer the least expensive/highest quality product because they are not allowed to take their product nationwide. You may hear this often from free-market champions, but usually it is couched with the requirement that the federal government does not interfere. Because, after all, how can it be a free market solution if the heavy hand of the federal government is involved?But bypassing state regulatory oversight to then bypass federal oversight has its problems. State insurance regulatory boards have a duty to protect their states' citizens from the fraud of outside parties. For example, it is more difficult for Texas to ensure it's residents are protected from, say, a less regulated provider from Nevada. It could quickly become a race to the bottom if in-state providers are having to compete with unscrupulous out-of-state providers. We have seen samples of this in the hazardous/catastrophic insurance market, and the quasi-health/catastrophic insurance markets that many large employers use for their low-wage workers. Consumer Reports has written in greater detail about the pitfalls of the largely unregulated hazardous health insurance providers.For the free market to operate optimally then, the factors mentioned above have to be in place. Concepts such as price elasticity, transparency, and knowledge symmetry are crucial. Unfortunately, much of this does not apply to US health care. That is because patients typically have several layers of control that separate their decision-making from the ultimate end-product. Most Americans receive health insurance via their employers, who typically select one insurance provider for all. There may be a range of plans offered, but employees have little recourse if they are dissatisfied with their insurance provider. And contrary to what some politicians claim, simply changing jobs is not an option.One solution to this lack of direct patient control is to pay cash, or preferibly to set up a Health Savings Account. Cash does not protect against major unforeseen medical events, (hence the reason why we have insurance in the first place), and HSA's have their limitations. Personally, I use a high deductible HSA plan, and while I do have some greater degree of control, the HSA's promises are limited by the factors mentioned above (i.e., it won't be of much use in the inpatient setting if I am not able to make sound decisions, or if I am not in a position to question a physician's judgment). I will expand more on the trials and tribulations of HSA's in a future post.In sum: In trying my hardest to answer your question I kept hitting the usual roadblocks that free market thinking puts on proper health decision making. While free market solutions can and should play a greater role, it is important to understand the limitations.Helpful Resources:OECD Health at a Glance 2012: Why is Health Spending in the United States so High?Commonwealth Fund: Internatinal Profiles of Health Care Systems, 2011Uwe Reinhardt's Economix Blog in The New York Times: this is a great primer for common health economics concepts

Thanks for A2A but I think institute has provided answer in detail ,Pls go through the same!The Institute of Cost Accountants of India(Statutory body under an Act of Parliament)Career ProspectsProfessional Avenues In this globalised world, organizations require professionals such as Cost Accountants (CMAs) who have specialized knowledge on business strategy and value creation. The Cost Accountant being the foundation on which the enterprises are built, the specialized education and training by the Institute make the Cost Accountant a multi-faceted professional. CMAs are driving force in all economic activities, as they are the value creator, value enabler, value preserver and value reporter.Cost Accountants are in great demand in government sector, private sector, banking & finance sector, developmental agencies, education, training & research sector as well as in service and public utility sector. Further, in view of their specialized knowledge and training, CMAs may hold top management position in public and private sectors’ enterprises like Chairman cum Managing Directors, Managing Director, Finance Director, Financial Controller, Chief Financial Officer, Cost Controller, Marketing Manager and Chief Internal Auditor and other important positions.Those CMAs managing their own businesses have found themselves as a Manager and as an Accountant can control and thereby flourish their businesses. There is no doubt that a Cost Accountant can attain the highest ladder of professional career.There is a sustained demand for qualified, trained and experienced cost accountants in India and abroad in different industries and Government Departments. Many members of the Institute are also engaged in providing professional and cost consultancy services and in teaching cost and management accountancy in Universities and Colleges.Cost accountancy edges over financial accounting. Cost accounting promotes study and adoption of scientific methods to secure maximum efficiency in industrial, commercial and other spheres, as compared to financial accounting. Financial accounting mainly draws conclusions on the basis of post facto data long after the operations are put through and expenditure were incurred enabling score keeping or at best statistical analysis. Therefore, role of cost accountants go beyond a financial accountant and they help the management in regulating production operations and processes of production.The members of the Institute are the driving force in the team of management while in employment, and as Cost Auditors, Internal Auditors, Auditors in case of VAT, Excise, SEBI, NSDL and under other statutes/ Regulatory requirements, Advisors and Consultants in practice. There are several areas of practice available for Cost Accountants, a list of which is given below:Independent practiceThere is vast scope for practice by a Cost Accountant for which he has to obtain Practice Certificate from the Institute. Details in this regard are available in the “Membership Section” of the Institute website: http://www.cmaicmai.in/external/Home.aspx. A Cost Accountant may set up the practice at his own as Proprietor or set up a new partnership firm with like-minded Cost Accountants in practice or may be admitted as new partner in the existing firm of Cost Accountants in practice. His clientele include private and public companies, large, medium and small scale undertakings, partnership and proprietary concerns, industrial, commercial and service undertakings etc. For practicing Cost Accountants the Institute issued suggested fees guidelines, which may be seen athttp://icmai.in/upload/pd/Cost_Audit_Fee_of_ICWAI.pdfThere are several areas of practice available for Cost Accountants, which are as follows:Professional Avenues for CMAs in PracticeS. No.Statute/AuthorityDescriptionAAudit Assignments(i)Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017Audit of Accounts & Records under Section 35(5) of Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.Special Audit under Section 66(1) of Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.Access to business premises under Section 71.(ii)Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC)Special Audit under Section 14A & 14AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 of Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC).Special Audit in certain cases under Section 11 of Customs Act, 1962, as authorized by Central Board Excise and Customs.(iii)Companies Act, 2013 Section 148 (2)Vide Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014, G.S.R. No. 425 (E) dated 1st July, 2014 under section 148(2), ibid Cost Accountants are exclusively authorized to appoint as Cost Auditor and conduct Cost Audit as per the provisions of the Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014.(iv)Companies Act, 2013 Section 138 (1)Section 138(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 empowers the Cost Accountants/Firms of Cost Accountant to conduct the Internal Audit of the Class of Companies. Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014 issued by the Government vide GSR 239 (E) dated 31st March, 2014 defines the class of companies in which the Cost Accountants/Firms of Cost Accountant can be appointed/empanelled as Internal Auditor.(v)Ministry of FinanceSpecial Audit under Customes Act, 1962 vide Circular no. 88/98-Customs., Dated 02/12/1998 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue for Liberalisation of bonding procedures in respect of 100% EOUs;(vi)Ministry of Health & Family WelfareInternal Audit/Concurrent Audit under National Health Mission (NHM) as empowered by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi.(vii)Ministry of Road Transport and HighwaysModel Concession Agreement (MCA) on infrastructure for PPP Projects in Highways empowered by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.(viii)National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD)Stock audit for Working Capital Finance as prescribed by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD).(ix)National Securities Depository Limited (NSDL)Internal and Concurrent Audit for depository operations under National Securities Depository Ltd (NSDL).(x)Respective Bank CircularsStock Audit, Concurrent Audit, Forensic Audit and other professional services of various Public Sector and Private Sector Banks in India. Please referAnnexure – I.(xi)State Co-operative Societies ActFinancial Audit of Cooperative Societies in states Maharashtra, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh and West Bengal.(xii)State Co-operative Societies ActSpecial Audit i.e. Cost Audit and Performance Audit of co-operative societies under the respective Co-operative Societies Act of West Bengal, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, and Delhi.(xiii)Respective State Govt. CircularsInternal Audit in various State Public Sector Enterprises in Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh & Odisha.(xiv)Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI)Half-yearly Internal Audit of Stock Brokers and Credit Rating Agencies as prescribed by Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI).(xv)Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI)Stock Brokers and Credit Rating Agencies as prescribed by Securities Exchange Board of India.(xvi)Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI)Internal audit of Registrars to an Issue / Share Transfer Agents (RTAs) .(xvii)Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)Audit for Metering and Billing Accuracy – authorised to conduct audit for Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).(xviii)Various State VAT Act/ RulesStatutory Auditors under Value Added Tax Act of States. Please referAnnexure – II.BCertification Areas(i)Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and PromotionCertificate for verification of Local content in case of procurement for a value in excess of Rs. 10 Crores. ( Order No. P-45021/2/2017-B.E.-II dated 15th June, 2017 on Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India), Order, 2017).(ii)Companies Act, 2013Certifying e-forms which are to be filled by companies under Companies Act and Rules.(iii)Central Excise Act, 1944Certificate of Cost of production of captively consumed goods as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Act, 1944 in accordance with Cost Accounting Standard CAS – 4 issued by the Institute.(iv)Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000Certificate for Average Cost of Transportation as per Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000.(v)Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC)Certification of various forms prescribed under the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC).(vi)Customs Act, 1962Certificate towards the amount of duty paid on the materials used for the manufacture of exported goods as indicated in Forms DBK-I,II, IIA,III, IIIA under Customs Act, 1962.(vii)Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP)Certificate towards the authenticated figures of circulation, as per the Annexure XII of the DAVP guidelines representing a statement signed by the both publisher and Cost Accountant with their officials seals giving the details of newsprint and ink stored and consumed during the period.(viii)Fertilizer Industry Coordination Committee (FICC)Certificate of product wise position of production dispatches stock etc. for the year (Annexure III–A) under FICC.(ix)Fertilizer Industry Coordination Committee (FICC)Issuance of various certificates as prescribed by Fertilizer Industry Coordination Committee (FICC) in respect of certifying Cost Data for Subsidy Scheme, Transportation Claims, Escalation Claims and Equalize Freight Claims.(x)Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999Valuation Certificate under Notification No. FEMA.298/2014-RB: Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer of Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2014 dated 13th March, 2014.(xi)Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA)Certification of Application for License and renewal thereof to act as Surveyor and Loss Assessor under Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA)(xii)Ministry of Commerce and IndustryIssuance of various certificates under Foreign Trade Policy & Procedures 2015-20 and Aayat Niryat (Import and Export) Forms (ANF). Vide http://F.No.01/94/180/468-Appendices/AM12/PC4 dated 11th October 2012, Cost Accountants are authorized to authenticate various forms and statements, under Foreign Trade Policy & Procedures 2015-20 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Please referAnnexure – III.(xiii)Ministry of Commerce and IndustryCertifying Performa CI & C2 under Anti–Dumping as prescribed by Ministry of Commerce & Industry.(xiv)Ministry of Commerce and IndustryCertifying Statement of cost of production for Anti-dumping petition to Government of India.(xv)Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public DistributionAnnual utilization certificate under Incentive Scheme for New Sugar Factories and Expansion Projects vide Notification No. F.3 (4)/89-PC/Vol.IV of Ministry of Food Dated 28th February, 1997.(xvii)Ministry of TextileCertificate of fulfillment of Hank Yarn obligation for Textile Industry and Textile Committee Cess – Monthly Return in Form – A.(xviii)National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)Certification of various Forms as mentioned in SECOND SCHEDULE of Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995;(xix)Reserve Bank of India (RBI)Compliance Certificate of Reserve Bank of India for Scheduled Banks/ Urban Development Banks/ Urban Co-operative Banks in respect of Consortium Arrangement / Multiple Banking Arrangements.(xx)Reserve Bank of India (RBI)Valuation Certificate as per RBI Circular No.2006-2007/224 DBOD.BP.BC No. 50 / 21.04.018/ 2006-07 dated January 4, 2007 for valuation of different classes of assets (e.g. land and building, plant and machinery, agricultural land, etc.)(xxi)Rubber Board Rubber Rules, 1955Certifying half yearly return in Form ‘N’ for Quantity of Rubber purchased & consumed by manufacturers under rule 33 (f) of the Rubber Rules, 1955.(xxii)Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)Reporting and Audit for System on Accounting Separation- Certification Work Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).(xxiii)e-MudhraJoin us as a Partner for issuing e-Mudhra Digital Certificates. http://e-mudhra.com/portal/Partner.aspx(xxiv)Ministry of Finance, Department of ExpenditureCertification regarding average annual financial turnover of bidder :Annexure 9 Sample Prequalification Criteria of Manual for Procurement of Goods 2017CCompanies Act, 2013(i)Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014As per Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014, the class of companies which also include foreign companies, are required to maintain “Cost Records”. Cost accountant in practice may assist the company to maintain the Cost Records as per the Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014.(ii)Section 2(38)An expert who has the power or authority to issue a certificate in pursuance of any law for the time being in force.(iii)Section 7(1)(b)Declaration in the prescribed form no. INC.8. form no.INC 14 that the memorandum and articles have been drawn as per the provisions and in conformity.(iv)Form DIR – 12Sections 7(1)(c), 168 & 170(2) and rule 17 of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules 2014 and 8, 15 & 18 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 – Particulars of appointment of Directors and the Key Managerial Personnel and the changes among them in form no. DIR 12.(v)Form INC – 14Declaration that the draft memorandum and articles of association have been drawn up in conformity with the provisions of section 8 in form No. INC.14.(vi)Form INC – 21Section 11(1)(a) read with Rule 24 of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014- Declaration prior to commencement of business or exercising borrowing powers in form No. INC 21.(vii)Form INC – 22Section 12(2) & (4) and Rule 25 and 27 of The Companies (Incorporation) Rules 2014- Notice of situation or change of situation of registered office in form no. INC 22.(viii)Form – PAS 3Section 39(4) and 42 (9) and Rule 12 and 14 Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014- Return of Allotment in form no. PAS 3.(ix)Form – SH7Section 64(1) and pursuant to Rule 15 of the Companies (Share Capital & Debentures) Rules, 2014 - Notice to Registrar of any alteration of share capital in form no. SH 7.(x)Form – CHG 9Sections 71(3), 77, 78 & 79 and pursuant to Section 384 read with 71(3), 77, 78 and 79 and Rule 3 of The Companies (Registration of charges) Rules 2014 Application for registration of creation or modification of charge for debentures or rectification of particulars filed in respect of creation or modification of charge for debentures in form no. CHG 9.(xi)Form – CHG 1Sections 77, 78 and 79 and pursuant to Section 384 read with 77, 78 and 79 andRule 3(1) of the Companies (Registration of Charges) Rules 2014- Registration of creation, modification of charge (other than those related to debentures) including particulars of modification of charge by Asset Reconstruction Company in terms of Securitization and Reconstruction of Finance Assets and Enforcement of Securities Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) in form no. CHG 1.(xii)Form – CHG 4Section 82(1) and Rule 8(1) of the Companies (Registration of charges) Rules 2014- Particulars of satisfaction of charges thereof in form no. CHG 4.(xiii)Form – MGT 14Section 94(1), 117(1) and section 192 – The Companies Act, 1956- Filing of resolutions and agreements to the Registrar in form no. MGT 14.(xiv)Section 137Under form no. AOC – 4 disclosures of related party transactions.(xv)Section 143Report to the Central Government if a fraud is being or has been committed against the company by officers or employees of the company.(xvi)Section 149(4)Section 149 (4) read with Rule 5 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014: Independent Director Possess skills, experience and knowledge in one or more fields inter alia finance to be an Independent Director.(xvii)Section 153Section 153 and & Rule 9(1) of The Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 & Rule 10 of Limited Liability Partnership Rules, 2009: Digital verification of the Form DIR-3: Application for allotment of Director Identification Number(xviii)Section 196Section 196 read with Section 197 and Schedule V of the Companies Act, 2013 and pursuant to Rule 3 of the Companies (Appointment and Remuneration of Managerial Personnel) Rules 2014- Return of appointment of key managerial personnel in form no. MR 1(xix)Section 196, 197, 200, 201(1), 203(1)Section 196, 197, 200, 201(1), 203(1) and Schedule V & Rule 7 of the Companies (Appointment and Remuneration of Managerial Personnel) Rules 2014- Form of application to the Central Government for approval of appointment and remuneration or increase in remuneration or waiver for excess or over payment to Managing Director or Whole Time Director or Manager and commission or remuneration to Directors in form no. MR 2.(xx)Section 232(7)Declaration of compliance alongwith Statement to be filed with Registrar of Companies.(xxi)Section 247(1)Eligible to apply for being registered as a valuer.(xxii)Section 259(1)Appointment as Company Administrator by the tribunal.(xxiii)Section 275(1)Appointment as Company liquidator for winding up of the Company.(xxiv)Section 366Application by a company for registration in Form No. URC–1.(xxv)Section 409(3)Appointment as Technical person of Tribunal (15 years of experience is required)(xxvi)Section 432Appearance in the Tribunal for public examination of promoters/directors.(xxvii)Section 455(1)Section 455(1) read with Rule 3 of The Companies (Miscellaneous) Rules, 2014 – Application to Registrar for obtaining the status of dormant company in form no. MSC 1(xxviii)Section 455(5)Section 455(5) and Rule 7 and 8 of the Companies (Miscellaneous) Rules, 2014- Return of dormant companies in form no. MSC 3.(xxix)Rule 5(2)Nidhi Rules, 2014- Return of statutory compliances in form no. NDH 1.(xxx)Rule 5(3)Nidhi Rules, 2014- Application for extension of time in form no. NDH 2.(xxxi)Rule 21Nidhi Rules, 2014- Half yearly return in form no. NDH 3.(xxxii)Rule 8(8)As per Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014, documents or form or application filed may contain a power of attorney issued to Cost Accountant.(xxxiii)Form GNL – 1Rule 12(2) of the companies (Registration offices and Fees) Rules, 2014- Form for filing an application with Registrar of Companies in form no. GNL 1.(xxxiv)Form GNL – 3Rule 12(3) of the Companies (Registration offices and Fees) Rules, 2014 – Particulars of person(s) or key managerial personnel charged or specified for the purpose of sub-clause (iii) or (iv) of clause 60 of Section 2 in form no. GNL 3.(xxxv)Rule 20(3)(ix)Rule 20(3)(ix) of the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014: Scrutinizer for supervising the Voting through electronic means (e-voting) process.(xxxvi)Form INC – 28Rule 31 of Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 – Notice of the order of the Court or any other competent authority in form no. INC – 28.DOther Statutory Work(i)Calcutta High CourtValuer: Members can now apply directly as ‘Valuer’ for empanelment of Calcutta High Court.(ii)Securities and Exchange Board of India Infrastructure Investment Trusts Regulations, 2014Authorized to act as “Valuer” in respect of financial valuation under section 2(zzf) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Infrastructure Investment Trusts Regulations, 2014 as amended on 30.11.2016.(iii)Securities and Exchange Board of India (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014Authorized to act as “Valuer” in respect of financial valuation under section 2(zz) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014 as amended on 30.11.2016.(iv)Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT): CBDT vide their Notification no. S.O. 2670(E) recognized Cost Accountants as e-return intermediaries;(v)Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC)Accepting of services of the Cost Accountant’s may also be considered by the respective Commissionrates depending upon the extent of complexity of the cases as provided under Circular No.04/2006 dated 12th January, 2006 modified and its inclusion in the assessed value as extended cost of transportation;(vi)Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC)Audit of accounts of SEZ developer as directed by the Commissioner of Customs/Central Excise [refer Circular No. 52/2002-Customs dated 14th August, 2002];(vii)Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC)Certified Facilitation Centers (CFCs) – under ACES-CBEC Scheme: As per MOU with CBEC, Ministry of Finance, Cost Accountants in whole-time practice are authorized to set up Certified Facilitation Centers (CFCs) under Certified Facilitation Centre Scheme in filing various Excise and Service Tax Returns under the provisions of Central Excise Act and Service Tax Act;(viii)Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC)Computation of freight of time chartered/daughter vessel and its inclusion in the assessed value as extended cost of transportation [refer Circular No.04/2006 dated 12th January, 2006].(ix)Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC)Custom Broker: Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) Amended Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 and included the Cost Accountant qualification for Customs Brokers Examination to be held from the year 2017 onwards;(x)Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC)Ministry of Finance amended Circular No.18/2010 Customs dated 08.07.2010 vide Circular No 01/ 2012-Customs dated 5th January 2012 to authorize inter alia Cost Accountants to issue a certificate, certifying that burden of 4% CVD has not been passed on by the importers to any other person;(xi)Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC)The Commissioner of Customs/Central Excise may direct the concerned developer to get his accounts audited by a Cost Accountant nominated by him in this behalf. The expenses of and incidental to such audit shall be borne by the concerned developer, vide Circular No. 52/2002-Customs dated 14th August, 2002;(xii)Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC)Under Rules 6 and 7 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, the exporters may be asked to furnish the purchase invoice as to the procurement of the raw hides/wet blue leather. They should also furnish a certificate inter alia from the Cost Accountant as to the consumption and cost of processing chemicals used for its processing and other incidental overhead charges incurred;(xiii)Customs Act, 1962Certification of refund of additional duty of Customs on the goods imported for subsequent sale under Indian Customs Act;(xiv)Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000Valuation Certificate for Cost of goods produced for Captive Consumption, in accordance with Cost Accounting Standard CAS – 4 issued by the Institute, under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000;(xv)Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000Certificate for Average Cost of Transportation, in accordance with Cost Accounting Standard CAS – 5 issued by the Institute, under Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000;(xvi)Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007Under Rule 5 of Customs valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007, the proper officer shall give due consideration to the cost-certificate issued by a Cost Accountant;(xvii)Customs Act, 1962Under the Fixation of brand rate of Drawback without pre-verification – Simplified procedure Scheme, unless there are any special reasons, drawback rates are to be fixed without pre-verification of the date filed, (which should be duly verified by the applicant and Cost Accountant or Chartered Accountant or Chartered Engineers) and the exporter would be authorised by provisional brand rate letters issued by the Ministry to claim the drawback rate considered admissible from the concerned Customs House(s);(xviii)Indian Council of ArbitrationAs Arbitrator: The Indian Council of Arbitration authorizes Cost Accountants and Cost Accounting Firms for empanelment in the panel of arbitrators under the category of financial experts;(xix)Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016Regulation 5 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016authorized to act as an Insolvency Professional as per the section 206 and 207 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016;(xx)Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2017Regulation 11 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2017 authorises Cost Accountant in practice for valuation of capital instruments of an Indian company and also under Schedule 2 - Purchase/ Sale of capital instruments of a listed Indian company on a recognised stock exchange in India by Foreign Portfolio Investors and Schedule 6 - Investment in a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) for valuation on an arm’s length basis as per pricing methodology.(xxi)Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017Under Annexure IV of the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017, the Member of the Institute of Cost Accountants of India are recognised as Registered Valuer for valuation of Securities or Financial Assets.(xxii)Indian Banks Association (IBA)Recognized Firms of Cost Accountants for Empanelment as Forensic Auditor for frauds.Reserve Bank of India mandated that in respect of all borrowing arrangement exceeding Rs. 500 crores, an Independent Evaluation Committee (IEC) would carry out an evaluation of the Techno-Economic Viability (TEV) and the proposed restructuring package. Number of Cost Accountants are members of “Independent Evaluation Committees (IEC) “.Advised all members Banks to engage Cost Accountants/Firms of Cost Accountants for Stock Audit and Risk Based Internal Audit and other Banking operations.(xxiii)Maharashtra unaided Private Professional Educational ( Regulation of Admissions and Fees ) Act,2015Member of Fee Regulating Authority under Maharashtra unaided Private Professional Educational ( Regulation of Admissions and Fees ) Act,2015EAppearance as an Authorized Representative(i)Companies Act, 2013(a) Right to legal representation: Section 432 of the Companies Act 2013;(b) Rights of a party to appear before the Bench: Regulation 19(2) of Company Law Board Regulations, 1991;(ii)Competition Commission of India (CCI)(a) Appearance before Commission:Section 35 of the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007;(b) Right to legal representation: Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal: Section 53(1) of the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007;(iii)Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC)(a) Appearance by Authorized Representative: Section 35Q of the Central Excises Act, 1944;(b) Appearance by Authorized Representative: Section 146A of the Customs Act, 1962;(c) Appearance by Authorized Representative: Rule 2(c) of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982;(iv)Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC)Authority to represent before the Commission: vide Notification No. 8/ (1)/99/CERC dated 27th August, 1999;(v)Depositories Act, 1996Right to Legal Representations: Section 23C, Explanation (c) of Depositories Act, 1996;(vi)Income Tax Act, 1961Appearance by Authorized Representative:Section 288 of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with Rule 50 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962;(vii)Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016Right to legal representation: Section 56 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016;(viii)Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI)Right to Legal Representations: Clause 22C under Conditions for listing: Chapter IV of Listing of Securities;(ix)Service TaxAppearance by Authorized Representative:Section 96D (5) of the Service Tax Act 1994;(x)Special Economic Zone (SEZ)Rights of appellant to appear before the Board: Rule 61 of the Special Economic Zone Rules 2006;(xi)Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)Right to Legal Representation before Appellate Tribunal as per Section 17 of TRAI Act, 1997;(xii)Value Added Tax Acts/ RulesCost Accountants are authorized to appear before authorities under VAT Acts/ Rules of various State Government(s).(xiii)Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.Appearance by authorized representative under Section 116 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.FReserve Bank of India(a)For Valuation of Properties - Empanelment of Valuers. (Circular no. RBI No.2006-2007/224 DBOD.BP.BC No. 50/21.04.018/ 2006-07 January 4, 2007).(b)For certification of borrowal companies in respect of Lending under Consortium Arrangement/ Multiple Banking Arrangements. (Circular No. RBI/2008-2009/379 DBOD. No. BP.BC.110/08.12.001/2008-09 dated 10thFebruary, 2009).(c)For certification of borrowal companies in respect of Lending under Consortium Arrangement / Multiple Banking Arrangements. (Circular No. RBI/2008-2009/382 UBD. PCB.No. 49 /13.05.000/2008-09 dated 12thFebruary, 2009)(d)In respect of the Forensic Scrutiny – Guidelines for prevention of frauds (Circular no. RBI/2010-11/555 DBS. CO.FrMC.BC.No.10/ 23.04.001/2010-11 dated 31stMay, 2011 read with Circular no. RBI/2008-09/508 DBS.CO.FrMC.Bc.No.8 /23.04.001/2008-09 dated June 24, 2009 on Frauds in borrowal accounts having multiple banking arrangements and Circular no. RBI/2008-2009/183 DBOD No BP BC 46 / 08.12.001/2008-09 dated September 19, 2008 on Lending under Consortium Arrangement/ Multi Banking Arrangements).(e)For Certificate indicating fair price of capital contribution/profit share of an LLP and a valuation certificate- Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) (Circular no. RBI/201314/566 A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 123 dated April 16, 2014).(f)For Certificate in respect of Foreign Investment in India (Circular no. RBI/2014-15/6 Master Circular No.15/2014-15 July 01, 2014 (Amended upto February 09, 2015).(g)For certification in respect of Loans and Advances – Statutory and Other Restrictions for Lending under Consortium Arrangement/Multiple Banking Arrangement (Circular no. RBI/2014-15/64 DBOD.No.Dir.BC. 16/13.03.00/2014-15 July 1, 2014).(h)For Certification in respect of Guarantees, Co-Acceptances & Letters of Credit – UCBs (Circular no. RBI/2013-14/19 UBD.BPD.(PCB) MC No.4/09.27.000/2013-14 July 1, 2013).(i)For Certification in respect of Management of Advances – UCBs for Exchange of information–Lending under Consortium Arrangement/Multiple Banking Arrangements (Circular No.RBI/2014-15/21 UBD.BPD.(PCB) MC No.5/13.05.000/2014-15 July 1, 2014).(j)Valuation Certificate in respect of Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer of Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2014 (Notification No. FEMA.298/2014-RB: dated 13th March, 2014).(k)Valuation Certificate for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) under Master Circular No. 15/2014-15 dated 1st July, 2014.Cost Accountants in Employment:As mentioned in the beginning, the Cost Accountants are most sought in the business world. There services are deemed vital in investment planning, profit planning, project management and overall managerial decision making process. Many members of the Institute are occupying the top positions in the organizations, as Chairman & Managing Director, Managing Director, Finance Director, Financial Controller, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Cost Controller, Marketing Manager and Chief Internal Auditor etc.Cost Accountants in Government Department:Realising the importance of the profession of the Cost and Management Accountancy in the economic development of the nation, the Central Government has constituted an all-India cadre known as Indian Cost Accounts Service (ICoAS) at par with other Class-I services such as IAS, IFS etc. to advise the government in cost pricing and in framing the appropriate fiscal and tax policies.Cost Accountants in Education:University Grants Commission (UGC) has notified “UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 vide its Circular No. F.3-1/2009 dated 30th June 2010.The Regulations prescribe the minimum qualification for appointment of teaching faculty in universities and colleges in the area of Management/ Business Administration. The qualifications specified for appointment of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in the above area and Principal/Director/Head of the Institution include First Class Graduate and professionally qualified Cost Accountant among other qualifications and subject to other requirements including qualifying NET/SLET/SET as the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors.Further Academic pursuits:A member of the Institute can get enrolled as a member of IMA USA.Recognised by the Academic Councils of many Universities in India for the purpose of admission to the Ph.D. courses in Commerce. Various Universities have recognized CMA qualification for registration as M.Phil. and Ph.D. candidates in commerce and allied disciplines.The MoU between CIMA (The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants), UK and The Institute of Cost Accountants of India introduces a new CIMA Professional Gateway examination (available from May 2009) for the students who have successfully completed the whole of the Institute’s professional examination, enabling a ‘fast track’ route into CIMA’s Strategic level examinations, final tests of professional competence and ultimately CIMA Membership.MOU between Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU): As per MOU dated 11th July, 2008, IGNOU offers specialized http://B.Com and http://M.Com Programs for the students. The Students can simultaneously study the specialized http://B.Com (Financial & Cost Accounting) programme with the Institute’s Intermediate Course and specialized http://M.Com (Management Accounting & Financial Strategies) with the Institute’s final course.