Theranos' Sunny Balwani gets longer sentence than Elizabeth Holmes Former Theranos COO Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani was sentenced to 12 years and 11 months in federal prison and three years' probation on Wednesday over a July conviction on 12 counts of fraud. Restitution will be decided at a later date. "Ramesh Balwani, in a desire to become a Silicon Valley titan, valued business success and …
Why is this statement (actually a perfectly reasonable statement in a quite conventional press release) described as "canned"? Does this imply the author at El reg disagrees with or disapproves of it? If so, we'd really like to know why.
> Why is this statement described as "canned"? Does this imply the author at El reg disagrees with or disapproves of it?
Neither. It's journo speak for a statement that is prepared in advance, in anticipation that a certain question will be asked or certain information sought.
As I understand it, "canned" means that the subject was not directly interviewed by the reporter. It's good journalism to point this out. It's about the journalistic process and does not reflect on the content of the statement. It's an Americanism. Here's a discussion about such statements (from politicians) from a Canadian journalist.
https://j-source.ca/should-journalists-refuse-emailed-statements-as-substitute-interviews-with-politicians/
> As I understand it, "canned" means that the subject was not directly interviewed by the reporter.
Not quite. Canned statements are also common during press conferences. If you watch the EU Commission press briefings, they consist almost entirely of prepared statements.
Of course, a good spokesman should arrive with his homework done, but they should also be able to give good answers on the spot. The problem with EC briefings is that when they're caught off guard they avoid answering the question altogether.
> Why is this statement
It was a perfectly reasonable question (and I already answered it). I don't get why people vote you down. Are they reading whatever it is they want to read into your post rather than what you actually wrote? Bizarre.
Failure to apply "principle of most favouravle interpretation" perhaps.
If you don't understand something, to follow the principle; presume the best possible interpretation and then ask for clarity with that in mind.
If you ask and presume the worst the responder naturally is on the defensive, thus conflict.
Or doubling down with additional bigotry, the way what I assume was the original AC did!
Imagine being such a coward that you would make a comment like that without even being willing to put a pseudonym to it. Posting it as AC is a clear indication that the AC knew it was a garbage comment and was not even willing to stand provisionally behind it.
Downvoted for drawing inference from a post being done as AC. There are more reasons to post as AC than just the ones you name.
Also, AC isn't really, at least not to El Reg as it still needs an account behind it (read: it's not a means to be a complete moron as El Reg will sensibly act if you're going over the line).
As for the rest, sigh. I'm looking forward to the day when sexual orientation and skin colour will have about the same value as the colour of one's hair (if still available): a way to distingiush one person from another, but with otherwise no further significance.
Unless you're ginger.
(sorry, couldn't help myself).
> The only thing worse than a bad racist comment is the inevitable justification once it starts receiving downvotes.
If you're referring to this comment:
> Don't be male and brown.
Then that is mine and it is very much *not* racist. It comments on what the article already strongly implies: that the coloured gentleman who joined the company a few years after its founding, quit before its demise, invested (and lost) some of his own money in it, and had a position of less responsibility than the CEO, was given a harsher sentence than the blonde all-American Steve Jobs wannabe.
Of course, if he's guilty then he'll have to take responsibility for it, but I find it difficult to believe that his gender and appearance were not a factor in his longer sentence. I may of course be wrong, maybe the jury were privy to details that I'm not aware of, or his lawyers were crap, but hey.
My further comment comments on you Americans needing everything spelled out. As this follow-up demonstrates.
He was also the president and in charge of day to day operation of the lab, which may be why he was charged with defrauding patients while Holmes wasn't - I believe that was the reason for their difference in sentence.
“When employees questioned the accuracy of the company’s blood-testing technology, it was Balwani who would chastise them in emails (or in person),” wrote Nick Bilton in a Vanity Fair investigative report, adding in part, “He ensured that scientists and engineers at Theranos did not talk to one another about their work.”
Given he has been sentenced to just under 13 years, what’s the soonest he could make probation?
Assuming that, given his ability to fake medical results, he doesn’t pull an “Earnest Saunders” and gets let out early on account of a terminal illness that he miraculously gets better from. [“Earnest Saunders” is a British man convicted of significant fraud who developed Alzheimer's disease and had his sentence reduced. Mysteriously he seemed to get better from it.]
There's no probation in the federal system. You serve the whole sentence, or the vast majority of it, or you know someone who knows someone who can get a senior politician, usually the Prez, to pardon you. Some get out very early because of this. Others never get out.
You could get very sick, but the Feds generally require you to be _very_ sick, and check closely. Famously Al Capone got out early, because he had tertiary syphilis.
Many of those who suffered from the Theranos fraud lost something far more important than money: their health. The fraudsters machines didn't work. That meant some people got told they were sick when they weren't. Others were told they were healthy when they weren't.
Rot in hell Holmes and Balwani. They're worse than scum.
As in, what did they think was going to happen? I mean they must have known their technology did not work, and that people were making literally life or death decisions based on their flawed tech and that soon the fact it did not work would come to light and there would be horrendous and very public medical negligence lawsuits (remember the Sackler - Oxycontin scandal). I simply do not understand how people can be so, well, stupid.
There's a confidence that seems to go with high drive & ambition, and I think that confidence goes hyper and blinds people. It's not that they don't think that it could all go wrong, but they are confident that they can make it work before things go south. That mindset seems to stay in place right up until things fall to bits. Kind of like driving off a cliff.
"Balwani's counsel and the prosecution also differed on whether Balwani or Holmes were really leading the conspiracy."
The Wikipedia pages are pretty telling though:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_Balwani
"In the 1990s, Balwani worked for Lotus Software and Microsoft. During Balwani's tenure at Microsoft he worked in sales. He claims to have written thousands of lines of code; however, independent investigations could not verify this, and numerous Microsoft managers who were asked about him could not remember him."
"In July 2000, Balwani sold his shares in Commerce One, netting nearly $40 million shortly before the company went out of business, just before the dot com bubble burst."
"Holmes met Balwani in 2002 during a trip to Beijing as part of Stanford University's Mandarin program. Holmes was 18 at the time, and had just graduated from high school; Balwani was 19 years older than she was and was married to another woman at the time."
"On November 29, 2021, Holmes testified that she had been raped while she was a student at Stanford and that she sought solace from Balwani in the aftermath of the incident. She also said Balwani was very controlling during their romantic relationship, which lasted more than a decade, and at times he berated and sexually abused her. In her testimony, she stated he also wanted to "kill the person" she was and create a "new Elizabeth"."
"On November 29, 2021, Holmes testified that she had been raped while she was a student at Stanford and that she sought solace from Balwani in the aftermath of the incident. She also said Balwani was very controlling during their romantic relationship, which lasted more than a decade, and at times he berated and sexually abused her. In her testimony, she stated he also wanted to "kill the person" she was and create a "new Elizabeth"."
Give a dog a bad name and hang him.
Unless there's any proof or witness?
== Bring us Dabbsy back! ==
In the end, being a reasonably attractive white woman who got herself knocked up DID have some impact on the sentencing. Clearly not as much as Mrs. Holmes would have preferred, but the Indian man who she accused of being an abusive partner got the objectively harsher sentence, even though Holmes was grifting before he came along.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
