BloggingStocks http://www.bloggingstocks.com BloggingStocks http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/media/feedlogo.gif BloggingStocks http://www.bloggingstocks.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/<![CDATA[The NCAA bans some Vitaminwater flavors, will it hurt Coke's earnings?]]>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/02/10/the-ncaa-bans-some-vitaminwater-flavors-will-it-hurt-cokes-ear/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/02/10/the-ncaa-bans-some-vitaminwater-flavors-will-it-hurt-cokes-ear/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/02/10/the-ncaa-bans-some-vitaminwater-flavors-will-it-hurt-cokes-ear/#commentsFiled under:

I found a very interesting article while surfing one of the greatest sports blogs on the Web, Deadspin. According to The Brown Daily Herald, the NCAA has sent out an email to coaches and student-athletes informing them that some flavors of Vitaminwater are banned under the body's rules. According to an organization that conducts drug testing for some NCAA schools, six of the 15 flavors of Vitaminwater "contain common stimulates or other psychoactive chemicals that could be problematic for both the University and the student-athletes."

The article made me think back to some baseball players (not A-Roid or Baroid) who have blamed their positive tests on supplements and unknown ingredients (and for fairness, I think some football players used this "dog ate my homework" style defense as well). I just wonder if any of them sampled Vitaminwater ahead of their tests. However, back to the problem.

Continue reading The NCAA bans some Vitaminwater flavors, will it hurt Coke's earnings?

The NCAA bans some Vitaminwater flavors, will it hurt Coke's earnings? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>bannebannedcoca colacoca-colaCocaColacokeearningsvitaminwaterTue, 10 Feb 2009 09:45:00 EST<![CDATA[Target (TGT) receives EPA fine for mislabeled products]]>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/03/target-tgt-receives-epa-fine-for-mislabeled-products/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/03/target-tgt-receives-epa-fine-for-mislabeled-products/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/03/target-tgt-receives-epa-fine-for-mislabeled-products/#commentsFiled under: , ,

Target Corp. (NYSE: TGT) will be paying about $41,000 in fines to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shortly, as the federal agency determined that the nation's second-largest discount retailer incurred violations of federal rules on the labeling, distribution and sale of pesticide products. Sounds harsh, right? But, this was not just pesticide out in the lawn and garden area.

The fines stem from the marketing of anti-microbial toilet seats and mattress pads, along with pillows and household cleaner that claimed to be "germ-killing" products. That's a no-no unless there is pesticide involved, according to the FDA. Funny, since I see "kills germs" claims on so many household products these days it would make a normal shopper's head spin.

According to the FDA, Target sold and distributed unregistered pesticides from its stores and on its website based on the above-referenced products. Most likely, Target was just the retail distributor of these products and has very little (if any) oversight to the marketing tactics used on them. But, this brings up a larger point: at what point should a retailer be responsible for all the marketing claims used on all the products in its stores? Or, should it at all?

Although Target is removing the "germ-killing" claims from the products, who was to blame here? If these were Target private-label brands, we may have a problem. But, if the products in question were from other companies and brands not related specifically to Target, are those companies under the auspices of the EPA as well? This reminds me of the recent lead paint recall that affected many toy retailers. After the smoke cleared, the manufacturers were found liable -- not the distributing retailers.

Target (TGT) receives EPA fine for mislabeled products originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>bannedEPAinthenewsmislabelingpesticidesTargetTGTWed, 03 Oct 2007 15:20:00 EST<![CDATA[A pat on the back for eBay]]>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/11/a-pat-on-the-back-for-ebay/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/11/a-pat-on-the-back-for-ebay/http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/11/a-pat-on-the-back-for-ebay/#commentsFiled under: , ,

At long last I can give eBay Inc. (NASDAQ: EBAY) a pat on the back about something. Most of you know that's pretty hard for me, but this time eBay has gone the extra mile to prove to me that it at least recognizes there are some nasty pirates and profiteers operating on its site. With the direction of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office, eBay assisted in putting the clampdown on an unscrupulous jewelry seller that was ripping off eBay customers by placing price inflating bids on its own merchandise.

EMH Group, the company in question, is said to have placed nearly a quarter million fraudulent bids on nearly $5 million worth of merchandise within the period of one year. Of course, EMH claims no wrong doing, but it has agreed to pay $400,000 in fines and will be "banned" from the online auction industry for four years. As for its victims, it is said that there will be a buyback incentive program "for certain items." I'll bet those certain items are all gold and EMH expects to purchase them back at the previous sale price. Yeah, ain't that just peachy.

Yes, I'll give eBay a pat on the back for exposing just how easy it has been to make millions of dollars of fraudulent business on its site. As far as Attorney General Cuomo's part in this, until he sends someone to prison for stealing from the public like this, in my opinion he's just blowing smoke in our eyes to the tune of $400,000. Without even checking, I'll give you 15 to 1 odds he's a Harvard man.

And so it goes.

A pat on the back for eBay originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>Andrew CuomoauctionbannedbiddingebayEMH GroupEmhGroupfinefraudjewelryNew York Attorney GeneralNewYorkAttorneyGeneralonline auction fraudOnlineAuctionFraudshillMon, 11 Jun 2007 15:40:00 EST