It IS NOT explicitly mentioned as banned.
There is no trenbolone molecule on the list save for methyl-tren and tren itself.
There you go Milhouse.
We don't know. I would imagine that TRN isn't but it's got to be awfully close because ALRI pulled it from the market almost as soon as it was released. As to TST, there's a reason ALRI abandoned it before full-scale production.Originally Posted by dmilhouse
People tend to think of the law as absolute black and white, yes and no answers.....but there is a reason that every lawyer answers a question by saying "it depends." The law is all shades of gray....which is why there is a class of experts called lawyers whose job it is to navigate and interpret those shades of gray.
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that it is a reasonable judgment call as to whether these compounds break the law or just barely circumvent it. When the enforcement environment was lax, ALRI (their lawyers) were willing to take a liberal interpretation of that judgment call. When the enforcement environment turned harsh, they erred on the side of a conservative judgement call and decided to abandon these two products rather than face years of possible litigation.
Other companies appear to be willing to take a more liberal interpretation and thus are releasing limited runs of these products banking on the fact that they will be sold and out of distribution before any agency looks into what they are. If you cannot take the chance of consuming something which MAY be just over the line, then don't. 99% of the progress you're going to make building your body is exercise and nutrition anyway. Focus on those things rather than the extra little help that these supplements can provide. Those who can take the chance, should be thankful for these companies who are willing to put the compounds out. JUST MY OPINION.
Last edited by yeahright; 05-07-2006 at 01:28 PM.
It IS NOT explicitly mentioned as banned.
There is no trenbolone molecule on the list save for methyl-tren and tren itself.
There you go Milhouse.
Well, since we don't actually know exactly what M-TRN and M-TST are, I'd be hesitant to actually make this statement.Originally Posted by jmh80
If the compounds are close enough, a reasonable law enforcement argument could be made that they are functional equivalents of banned substances (the chemical differences merely being cosmetic changes).
For example, you couldn't simply attach an inert molecule to cocaine and suddenly sell it like it's legal (if cocaine wasn't specifically scheduled, it would probably fit the description of a "supplement" given the traditional food and medicinal uses of the coca plant).
Like I said, if this guy can't take the chance that one of these substances might trip him up with an employer/athletic governing body, he should just skip them IMO.
Last edited by yeahright; 02-03-2007 at 10:56 AM.
Assuming TRN is what it says on my bottle - it's not specifically mentioned.
Unless the gov. misspelled the name - which they've done before.
As a lawyer, I would love for any prosecutor to use this argument.... I'm not necessarily sure there are any possible "cosmetic chemical changes" as the placement of one additional carbon or hydrogen, or adding a double bond rather than a single, or adding a methyl groupd, methoxy, acetyl, or whatever group, will cause not a cosmetic change, but a functional change in the product's chemical makeup.Originally Posted by yeahright
I'm with you Pax.
A simple planar adjustment - without changing molecular formula - can change molecular properties.
You can't even go so far to say that a chemical with the same molecular formula is similar. Structure and arrangement play a huge role in the molecule's properties as a whole.
You might welcome this argument. I would not. I think that it's a winner if the compounds are close enough (illegal Substance A is altered to create Substance B which has a superficially different chemical structure while maintaining the same biochemical function in the body). Substance B is merely Substance A with an inert chemical change.....said inert chemical change being made for the explicit purpose of trying to make an illegal substance legal. The analogy I'd make to the trier of fact is that Substance B is merely Substance A in disguise....and try and put the burden on the defendant to explain the reason for the chemical changes to Substance A. If the defendant says anything about making it more effective in being anabolic, you've got them for distribution of an unapproved drug since by definition it is no longer a supplement. If they cannot explain why the change was made, it supports the inference that the change was made to disguise the true nature of Substance B.Originally Posted by Pax
In point of fact, the FDA is already using a version of this argument (whether it would hold up in the courts is a different matter). In the recent enforcement letters, the FDA has reversed the burden of proof by emphasizing the definition of a nutritional supplement, comparing these compounds to those definitions (superdrol, and M-1-P), declaring that they are not "nutritional supplements" as defined in the law, and thus are de facto drugs, and illegal to manufacture and sell (without prior FDA approval) REGARDLESS of whether they are on the banned list.
This new application of the existing legal scheme seems quite elegant to me. Assuming the courts would uphold it, this will allow the FDA to be much more nimble in moving against such compounds without having to wait for an act of congress to change the ban list.
Of course, the specific crimes that someone would be charged with would be different (instead of distribution of a scheduled substance they would be distribution of unapproved drugs).....but the penalties are still quite severe.
It's a version of this legal logic that Patrick Arnold just plead out on (conspiracy to distribute illegal steroids) even though the substances weren't on the ban list at the time he engaged in this conspiracy. Now PA is looking at additional charges for distribution of the amphetamine-like substance contained in AMP.
The feds are taking a new approach which I personally believe is going to resonate with judges and juries (even if it's not the exact chemcial on a banned list, if it is the functional equivalent, then something illegal is going on even if it is just distribution of unapproved or misbranded drugs). One's prison term might be predicated upon a different statute, but that's not going to matter if your cellmate still wants you to toss his salad.
BTW, you've got to change that avatar before I file a class-action tort suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Last edited by yeahright; 05-09-2006 at 10:17 PM.
M-TRN is a progestin. Progestins are not covered in the bill from '04.
Wrong. The preamble asserts an exclusion of progestins but then lists the following progestins:Originally Posted by thesinner
Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004
(xxxii) mibolerone (7a,17a-dimethyl-17b-hydroxyestr-4-en-3-one)
(xxxiv) nandrolone (17b-hydroxyestr-4-en-3-one)
(xlix) trenbolone (17b-hydroxyestr-4,9,11-trien-3-one)
And, following up on my point above about the FDA using a new enforcement scheme of the existing laws, they've gone after M-1-P which purported to be one of these new "legal" progestins.
Last edited by yeahright; 05-08-2006 at 11:40 PM.
YR - I thought the Wash. Post had merely tested Amp??
Are they now going after him for selling Amp?
I need to know - so that I can stock up on Amp like there is no tomorrow!
(And probably Venom and StimX too.)
I'd stock up if this product works for you:Originally Posted by jmh80
"Patrick Arnold, who in a recent plea deal admitted providing steroids to the drug ring that ensnared Barry Bonds and a number of other famous athletes, runs a company that has been selling the amphetamine-like compound over the Internet in a dietary supplement that describes the substance with the invented trademark name Geranamine.
It is illegal to sell dietary supplements without listing the ingredients by their common or usual names, according to Robert Moore, the Food and Drug Administration's Team Leader in the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs.
Companies that wish to market ingredients that have never before been sold in dietary supplements are required to notify the FDA before doing so and to provide information about the product's safety. The FDA has received no notification about methylhexaneamine from Ergopharm, an FDA spokesperson said."
Hamilton Spectator article even has a pic of PA.
Guess we will all be flying and living abroad on our vacations for our steroid needs and taking our tax revenue with us. Time to declare war on the US government and hit em where it hurts, the pocket book.
So yes, it does look like PA is going to be hit with a charge for AMP. What's going on now is more of an issue of improper labeling, and to bypass drug-tests, at that. So, I don't know if stocking up is necessary, yet.Originally Posted by jmh80
It would probably take some time, and media sensationalization, for it to be controlled. Then buy it up. Right now I only see minor discounts being offered on the web, no real blowouts as seen recently w/ superdrol and it's generics.
Ahh - the gamblin' game.
As a cheap ass, I love it!
"When will the price drop to the lowest point before supply/demand/black market effects take over?"
That's just made up.Originally Posted by bigSMokey
MY EDUCATED GUESS ABOUT THIS COMPOUND IS THAT IT'S METHOXY-TRENBOLONE WITH A METHYL GROUP(CH3) AT THE 19 POSITION. NANDROLONE AND TREN ARE 19-NOR COMPOUNDS MEANING THEY LACK THE CH3 METHYL GROUP IN THAT POSITION. I FIGURE IT IS MEGA TRN WITH THIS METHYL ADDED TO IT. THAT IS WHY THEY'RE CALLING IT TRIENOSTERONE BECAUSE IT IS SIMILAR TO TEST IN THIS REGARD BUT STILL HAVING THE 3 DOUBLE BONDS(TRIENE) LIKE TREN.Originally Posted by dmilhouse
IF I AM CORRECT, THIS DOSE IT WAY LOW. I CANT REALLY FEEL MUCH AT ALL AT THE RECOMENDED DOSE TAKEN BY ITSELF. COMPARE DECA TO TEST IN DOSAGE.THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE COMPOUNDS IS THE MISSING METHYL GROUP WITH SIMILAR DOSES BEING NECESSESARY, UP TO 1 GRAM A WEEK. I'VE USED TREN AT 150MG PER DAY. THE TST'S ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE ADDED METHYL AND OF COURSE THE METOXY ESTER AT TH 17 POSITION WHICH I BELIEVE HAS MORE TO DO WITH BIOAVAILABILITY THAN POTENCY OF THE MOLECULE. SO ONE COULD POSSIBLY NEED 50 - 150MG PER DAY?
JUST MY 2 CENTS
Dude I dont know whats in them But Im so f****** jacked from them 6mg AD /M-TST 6mg AD / Tren. 2weeks in. No problems so far. Hey if you find something bad in them Holla !!!!!:dl:
Yes, this is the correct structure for TRN. As for TST, it is probably methoxytestosterone. We have not been told this for sure, however. The bottle gives a chemically meaningless (well, at least very ambiguous) 'trienosterone' designation.Originally Posted by rebelhead
As for legal reasons preventing the release of TST's formula, I cannot see why. This is because TRN is widely known, and admitted to be, methoxytrenbolone. So why should the methoxy derivative of testosterone be any scarrier (leagally, this is)? Testosterone and trenbolone are both equally illegal, am I right?
And I can 110% guarantee that the gov't. knows whats in TST (hell, Catlin probably has the f***** structure on the wall of his lab in poster form ) so again where are the legal fears coming from?
People at least have the right to know that this stuff is NOT a triene (tren isomer), as the bottle's nomenclature implies. Such a coumpound would be much riskier, as to unknown long-term effects, than methoxytestosterone.
And who needs another progestin when the whole point of you working out is this:chick:
bigSMokey:Originally Posted by bigSMokey
Good points Lad. I hope that you will be patient with me while I discuss some points of view for everyone to consider here and I will try to give you the answers you need at the end. (Yes, I am going to babble...sorry)
Interesting points of view I can agree with in part, and I am certain that most will not like the answers any more than when we opted to not market these items back in 2005...and still don't.
MTRN and MTST were designed by ALRI and are not listed in any prior research that I am aware of, or for that matter Vida. We worked with them for several years feeling rather proud to be able to present to OTC supplement users, what we felt at the time, were far superior products with safety profiles not matched by any other like-compounds of the time.
Problem was that anything of the PH nature became a serious media mania and political issue that has seriously harmed the entire supplement industry in the US and Europe. Just because no one here would agree with it does not make it go away.
Odd, seems that if the issue were that such items will harm our children that age limits that allow cigarettes and alcohol to assumed used responsibly would somehow not do so for a supplement.
Worse is that the media up-roar was based upon pro-athletes (whom are banned from using the products) were the basis for political intervention. Hmmm, assuming this ideal is correct, all males should be concerned about mandated castration due to the desire to prevent teen premarital sex.
Point is that the issue has nothing to do with those who are simply seeking better potential for results and are NOT among the few pro-athletes.
We never released MTST but did have a some units of MTRN make their way to the US market which we recalled for the above reasons. Sucks, but true.
The terms used to define structure are no less ambiguous than the generic terms androstenedione or Cissus.
There are two sides to the issue giving the type of structural info being discussed and it was the final reason ALRI removed itself from that part of the industry last year.
1) Giving the type of nomenclature that is being discussed would allow the knock offs to begin. I am sure most do not work for free or buy a house and let someone else sell it and keep the money after paying all the bills and do all the work to get it. But if so, please LMK as I would like to get all of the free houses others willingness to work for free allows.
As an example, there is a newer attempt at knocking off the old MTRN product by KS that is no where near correct. Hard to knock off what you do not know how to create yourself. Qualified people like Patrick Arnold and Dr. D "could" easily do so, but would not due to the mutual passion for innovation such minds share. As to Catlin, no doubt he does have the structures, there was no effort to protect anything from detection. Nothing illegal to consider.
2) if you create it, you get to name it. But not sure it really matters any more, at least to ALRI, as we are out of that area of the market totally to avoid all of the negative such issues brings. We are busy developing products that work and do not include the need to deal with Balco type issues. Innovation has not died, but the knock offs will need to go elsewhere.
Of course there will be one idiot who will jump into this forum sooner or later and either post "something shady" or argue something they know nothing about as usual, but for the really great people here at AM I hope this was of some help:
There is a valid point that should be answered here, no, TST had no progestin structural relationships. It also has no testosterone metabolites and is totally detectable.
TRN was not methoxy trenbolone. Real TRN made most horny, methoxy trenbolone would be a liver killer and libido death.