Home Gaming Pharmaceutical price gouger could face eSports repercussions

Pharmaceutical price gouger could face eSports repercussions

3 min read
25

Would you trust this face

Perhaps you know about Martin Shkreli, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals. His awful price gouging story has gone viral in the past day or so, with most people shaking their heads at his abysmal behaviour. However, now it turns out that he also owns an eSports team, and we might see some fallout as a result.

In case you aren’t aware of what his company did, Turing Pharmaceuticals bought a 62-year-old drug called Daraprim in August, immediately raising the price of one pill from $13.50 to $750. Obviously, many patients won’t be able to afford treatment. The drug is a treatment for toxoplasmosis, and infection caused by a parasite. It comes from eating under-cooked meat or drinking contaminated water and affects primarily those with weakened immune systems, like cancer and AIDS patients. Speaking to CBS News, Shkreli claimed the 5 000% price hike was “Not excessive at all”.

eSports Observer highlights Shkreli’s entrance into the eSports industry:

When Martin Shkreli, an outspoken and highly controversial personality in the healthcare sector, entered the esports industry via League of Legends this year, the community reacted warily. After some miscarried approaches—a $1.2 million offer to buy Enemy Esports was rejected and the team founded on his own failed to qualify—the former hedge fund manager and pharmaceutical entrepreneur Shkreli finally merged his team with pro-gaming organization Imagine. Team Imagine managed to advance into the semifinals of the NACS Summer Playoffs, were they lost to eventual tournament winner Renegades, but secured a spot in the 2016 LCS Promotion Tournament.

The article goes on to point out that his questionable conduct in general business practices might carry over into his eSports behavior; if he can hope to make huge profits by exploiting sick people, how will he treat players who already suffer from job insecurity and lack of clear employment policies?

However, there might actually be some way for him to be forced to face some consequences. The official rules of the League of Legends Championship Series have a whole section (10.2) which deals with unprofessional behavior. Most of this is about harassment, criminal activity, bribery and other eSports concerns. In amongst the clauses, there is a “Moral Turpitude” clause. This is commonly seen in professional sports of all kinds, where players are held to a higher standard of behavior because they are seen as role models – sports teams need this clause to fire players or coaches who are revealed to have engaged in some sort of scandalous activity that might not lead to criminal charges. In this way, they can distance themselves from cheaters, spousal abusers or addicts if they see fit. The wording of the clause is incredibly vague:

A Team Member may not engage in any activity which is deemed by the LCS to be immoral, disgraceful, or contrary to conventional standards of proper ethical behavior.

“Conventional standards of proper ethical behaviour”? Are there even conventional standards on this? Still, I think we can all agree that Turing Pharmaceuticals’ price gouging is morally reprehensible, and Shkreli’s defense of it makes him just as abhorrent. However, will Riot actually use this rule to ban Shkreli’s team from the LCS? Could we see actions taken outside of eSports leading to an eSports ban? It certainly is a tough decision for the Chinese company to make, and would set a specific precedent. However, if eSports is to be taken seriously, this might be a compelling step to take.

Following all the public shaming, Shkreli has now announced that they will lower the drug price to a more affordable level. This is obviously good news, but I’m still curious about the eSports precedent and if Riot and the LCS will want to be associated with companies and team owners who might not follow ethical standards outside of the eSports arena.

Like esports?
Check out esports central

Last Updated: September 23, 2015

25 Comments

  1. Sageville

    September 23, 2015 at 09:45

    The term “poesklap” was designed especially for people like this wanker.

    Reply

  2. Ottokie "Yahtzee"

    September 23, 2015 at 09:45

    I have never seen a more punchable face in a header before.

    Reply

  3. Gavin Mannion

    September 23, 2015 at 09:58

    This Morality clause does not sit well with me at all, no one group or person should be able to claim morality over anyone else.

    The idea of a hardworking group of eSports people being banned because the owner of the team did something that we deem immoral feels absolutely wrong to me.

    The guys a purebread asshole and I hope he loses all his money but I wouldn’t for a second support his team being punished because of it.

    As I said to Zoe earlier, this sounds like some Grade A American imperialist bullshit to me. You can’t ban people from a sporting league because you don’t like their moral compass.

    Reply

    • HvR

      September 23, 2015 at 10:11

      I’m with you on this, these days “morality clause” depends to which political-orientated US media group the organizers listens too.

      30 years ago the same clause would have blocked homosexuals competitors from be open about their sexuality while being part of a team and these days it probably stops competitors from being open about their religious views.

      Reply

    • Lardus-For the Emperor!

      September 23, 2015 at 10:25

      The vagueness of the clause bothers me more. It is ok in my opinion if the clause is specific and well written, then you know what you are getting yourself into. With such a general rule, I could suddenly decide tobacco is immoral and kick out a smoker. I am all for drug addicts (excluding pot) and spousal abusers to get banned, but darnit make the rule clear in those regards!

      Reply

      • Gavin Mannion

        September 23, 2015 at 10:40

        Why would we kick out drug addicts? That is exactly my problem with these rules.

        It’s got nothing to do with you, or the league, if the guy enjoys a bit of cocaine on the side.

        Now banning drug cheats is a different thing and doesn’t need to be covered in a morality clause

        Reply

        • Her Highness the Hipster

          September 23, 2015 at 10:42

          in traditional sports it’s because they hold up players and everyone involved as role models for kids. It’s not necessarily right, but it’s the justification.

          But i agree – there is no consensus on morality – everyone will have different expectations for players, team owners, coaches, etc.

          Reply

          • HvR

            September 23, 2015 at 10:53

            In reality less to do with role models more to do with harder to cash in on the image of drug addict.

          • Her Highness the Hipster

            September 23, 2015 at 10:53

            indeed. it boils down to ways for sponsors to be able to drop people who turn out to not be great for selling the brand.

        • Lardus-For the Emperor!

          September 23, 2015 at 10:43

          Perhaps because drugs are officially against the law (some places pot isn’t)…anycase that would actually not be covered by a morality clause so it was not the best example perhaps. Fact remains it is too vague to call it “morality” and should in such cases be explicitly stipulated in the rules rather than come down to who decides what “morality” is.

          Reply

        • Brady miaau

          September 23, 2015 at 12:08

          I think Cocaine can be used to cheat, faster reflexes (if not taken too much)

          Reply

    • RinceThis

      September 23, 2015 at 10:39

      YES.

      Reply

    • Brady miaau

      September 23, 2015 at 12:01

      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

      Who guards the guardians, roughly speaking.

      Clever people, the ancient Romans

      Reply

  4. Lardus-For the Emperor!

    September 23, 2015 at 10:21

    “A Team Member” – is he technically a team member or merely and owner? Does this apply to owners as well then?

    Reply

  5. Alien Emperor Trevor

    September 23, 2015 at 10:26

    As much as he’s a complete tool I don’t see why the team would be banned. At worst they could ban him from attending official events. I can’t recall a team being banned from competition because of shitty behaviour by a coach or team owner.

    Reply

    • Lardus-For the Emperor!

      September 23, 2015 at 10:39

      The closest event I can remember is in the NBA earlier this year or late last year with the owner of one of the teams being caught in a racist rant (recorded by is non-white girlfriend haha). He was banned and in the end had to sell the team, but the team itself was left to play as they were obviously not involved. So yeah, ban him without affecting the team.

      Reply

      • Gavin Mannion

        September 23, 2015 at 10:41

        Which I also strongly disagreed with.. if the guy wants to be a racist that’s his cross to bear. To force him to sell because you don’t like his morals is entirely wrong

        Reply

        • Alien Emperor Trevor

          September 23, 2015 at 10:46

          Right of admission reserved. The sports league gets to decide who it associates with and participates in it – and I’m guessing they’ve published pretty strict rules against racial discrimination.

          Reply

  6. RinceThis

    September 23, 2015 at 10:38

    Guy is a chop.

    Reply

  7. RinceThis

    September 23, 2015 at 10:39

    Sorry. I thought the whole concept of the ‘sins of the father’ was dropped when the age of reason came about…

    Reply

    • Kromas untamed

      September 23, 2015 at 11:07

      Religion still causes most wars and a person can sue a company cause the coffee (a warm beverage by design) was hot.

      Where is this age of reason you are talking about.

      Also Justin Bieber.

      Reply

      • Brady miaau

        September 23, 2015 at 12:21

        “Religion still causes most wars”.

        Not really, I would venture to say. Religion is sometimes used as a motivational factor or a nation (team) building exercise, but it is not the most common cause of wars in history. Wars, historically, were typically fought for control.

        The biggest wars in the last 100 or so year, the highest death tolls ever, were not religious wars. Vietnam, WW1 and WW2 and so forth. Even the conflicts in the middle east, such as Yom Kippur attack of 1973, was about control of the land (Sinai penisula and Golan Heights). Also, the Suez canal was not open and Egypt needed that open.

        Reply

  8. Kromas untamed

    September 23, 2015 at 11:04

    new price $749.99 per pill.

    Price drop a massive success!

    Reply

  9. Michael Matusowsky

    September 23, 2015 at 12:07

    Yes

    Reply

  10. Gareth L (That eXCheez Guy)

    September 23, 2015 at 12:35

    I’m all for the players being affected by his actions. The more people that are affected by his assholery, the greater a chance of some degree of consequences being felt by him.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

Sony has bought the EVO fighting game tournament series

Sony is betting big on esports entertainment, and it's taking that first step forward with…