TST and TRN Metabolites
- 04-20-2006, 01:40 PM
- 04-21-2006, 08:52 AM
- 04-21-2006, 09:03 AM
I don't think anyone (who's talking) even knows (definitively) what TST and TRN are, let alone their metabolites.
05-01-2006, 01:08 PM
05-01-2006, 01:08 PM
I would be interested in running these but want to make sure they are not on the Steriod Act of 2004
05-01-2006, 01:22 PM
05-01-2006, 01:49 PM
05-01-2006, 02:54 PM
All I know is that I handle any AAS well. Do not ever have gyno problems, hair loss problems, prostatic hypertrophy problems, and no acne problems. I do get agression.
After 7 days on TST, my body broke out like I have never in all my life seen. It literally looked like I had the chicken pox. Small bumps EVERYWHERE on my back, sides, arms, etc. Yes, it was acne. It still has not completely gone away after a little over a week.
I am VERY curious to know what exactly TST is..... and why it had such a profound effect on me..
05-01-2006, 06:55 PM
One has to wonder why, since most if not all of these products will be discontinued, no one who knows is willing to give up the active. It's not like it's going to be a money maker, I think there was one run only of TST with no others planned. So what's the big deal and why will no one (manufacturers) give the active? I think I've seen copycats of TRN already, so the active is apparently out. I know people want to protect their profit potential for as long as possible, but I think these two are at the point where someone should let us know just what the hell is in them. At this point more information probably wouldn't hurt sales. Hell, might help sales if people knew what the hell it was.
05-02-2006, 11:20 AM
05-02-2006, 01:43 PM
05-02-2006, 03:54 PM
05-02-2006, 06:03 PM
where is yeahright at? he's got the know how on this stuff... also, could someone, say, sue one of these companies for selling "steroids". just wondering?
05-02-2006, 07:02 PM
It is.Originally Posted by dmilhouse
The Anabolic Steroid Control Act now states, in part...
"(A) The term 'anabolic steroid' means any drug or hormonal substance, chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, corticosteroids, and dehydroepiandrosterone), and includes... “
If I read this TRN/TST is toeing the line of the gray area and of course since supp companies aren't as big as Big Tobacco they don't have the Lobbist dollars to through around and thus I think they (supp companies) they're folding under pressure of the FDA.
So I don't think it is, but yes it could be if they don't stop selling it per the FDA. They could sue yes, but you would be safe as long as they are not found Illegal.
05-02-2006, 10:33 PM
05-02-2006, 11:43 PM
Well you could run it and get tested and see
But more than likely, no one will say anything so their ass is covered, and rightfully so. If your in doubt, then don't use it.
05-04-2006, 09:24 PM
M-trn is a progestin so therefore it is excluded from the ban substances list as of right now,as for tst most people are up in the air as to what is in it.
05-05-2006, 01:29 PM
05-05-2006, 11:30 PM
LOL, my ears were burning. What's the question I'm supposed to be able to answer?Originally Posted by 400runner
As to someone filing suit against a company for selling "steroids", that depends.
One wouldn't likely have a private cause of action to enforce a controlled substance law (however, there might be some obscure state statute somewhere I'm unaware of). There are some weird circumstance where private citizens can enforce laws but I don't think any are applicable here.
Nonetheless, filing a private tort suit would be easy. If one suffered measurable harm due to the ingestion of one of these substances, then a suit against the manufacturer, distributer and retail agent for distribution of an inherantly dangerous product would be pretty easy to make.....especially if one could show the jury that the manufacturer was deliberately flouting the law by distributing a product that was (1) a molecule or two away from an already illegal substance; (2) untested for safety or efficacy; and (3) sold without reasonable safety warnings to the end user. My hunch is that it would be easy for a grieving parent to convince a jury that the evil company killed little Johnny by selling him a dietary supplement that was really just a disguised evil steroid.
05-07-2006, 11:36 AM
05-07-2006, 02:13 PM
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 02:28 PM.
05-07-2006, 08:42 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.
05-07-2006, 08:51 PM
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 11:56 AM.
05-07-2006, 09:32 PM
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.
05-08-2006, 11:35 AM
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
05-08-2006, 02:49 PM
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.
05-08-2006, 11:51 PM
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 11:17 PM.
05-08-2006, 11:56 PM
05-09-2006, 12:18 AM
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; 05-09-2006 at 12:40 AM.
05-09-2006, 04:55 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.)
Similar Forum Threads
- By burymestanding in forum Training ForumReplies: 9Last Post: 03-15-2009, 11:08 AM
- By PlateStacker in forum AnabolicsReplies: 3Last Post: 07-14-2007, 12:41 PM
- By anabolicandre in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 80Last Post: 07-07-2006, 07:30 PM
- By hamper19 in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 10Last Post: 05-27-2006, 11:13 PM