This article explores why women's sport in Australia still struggles to attract sponsorship and mainstream media coverage despite evidence of high levels of participation and on-field successes. Data are drawn from the largest study of Australian print and television coverage of female athletes undertaken to date in Australia, as well as from a case study examining television coverage of the success of the Matildas, the Australian women's national football team, in winning the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) Women's Asian Cup in 2010. This win was not only the highest ever accolade for any Australian national football team (male or female), but also guaranteed the Matildas a place in the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup in Germany [where they reached the quarter-finals]. Given the close association between success on the field, sponsorship and television exposure, this article focuses specifically on television reporting. We present evidence of the starkly disproportionate amounts of coverage across this section of the news media, and explore the circular link between media coverage, sponsorship and the profile of women's sport.

The increased focus in recent years on the risks posed by conflicts of interest arising from financial relationships between physician-investigators and the pharmaceutical and medical device industries has led to a variety of measures that can broadly be described as "regulatory" interventions, including new federal and state laws, criminal prosecutions and private lawsuits, requirements attached to government funding, and institutional policies. Studies suggest, however, that physician-investigators have not internalized the message that financial conflicts of interest have the potential to influence their decision making. Simply informing physician-investigators of the content of relevant rules and the consequences of noncompliance - as appears to be the practice in many existing compliance training activities - is unlikely to lead to lasting changes in norms or behavior. Instead, we theorize that, for trainings to be maximally effective, they must appeal to the complex intrinsic and extrinsic motivations that contribute to individuals' willingness to comply with regulatory mandates. In addition, physician-investigators' beliefs that the risks posed by conflicts of interest do not apply to them need to be challenged. Rigorous evaluation of the newly-designed training programs will help determine whether these theories are borne out in fact.

No abstract

No abstract

Critics of the Food & Drug Administration's ban on off-label promotion often claim that it violates the First Amendment because it suppresses pharmaceutical manufacturers' truthful speech about their legal--and beneficial--products. Characterizing the ban on off-label promotion in this way has more than rhetorical significance. Bans on truthful, non-misleading speech elicit special skepticism because of the belief that they "usually rest solely on the offensive assumption that the public will respond 'irrationally' to the truth." The legislative history of the provisions of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act that underlie the ban on off-label promotion, however, reveals that Congress was concerned that physicians were responding rationally to false and misleading promotional claims. In this Article, I explore the doctrinal questions raised by conceiving of the ban on off-label promotion not as a ban on "truthful speech to physicians" but instead as a prophylaxis against false and misleading pharmaceutical promotion. I review the evidence that false and misleading claims were commonplace before the ban's adoption and persist today, along with the enforcement challenges the FDA confronted at that time and would confront were the ban lifted, and conclude the government likely could develop the factual record necessary to establish that Congress' rejection of an after-the-fact case-by-case approach to combating false and misleading prescription drug promotion is constitutional.