I personally like the name "LegalGearSux" for a compound.
I would buy 100$ worth just for the name.
God I hate those guys.
Just make sure that the actual name of the compound is on the front of the bottle, too, with the corny nameOriginally Posted by Designer Supps
You could have GET-U-HUGE-X (m4ohn) or something. Personally, I've always, even as bbing newb, hated looking at MuscleTech like products in which no matter how hard you look you cant find out what their active ingredients are. Grrr. I hate that.
exactly.Originally Posted by Designer Supps
So is Superbol not coming to market? As for the other methyl compound and its name it should be a bastardization of whatever steroid(s) it mimics. I assume it's a bulking compound so you could call it Superbol if we won't be seeing the original compound.
I think the new Methyl should be called "BASTARD". Good idea bro.Originally Posted by ersatz
With the new info on the ban, i dooubt ill get superbol done, although superbol is not on any banned list, i may be able to squeak it in for a little while.
i supposse the new one could be superbol, ill think of something. it is suppossed to ship to me today, as soon as i know it is shipped ill give you guys a littel info.
That's what I was thinking. The bill isn't broad enough to scratch out PH/PS for good.although superbol is not on any banned list
Plus, when it comes to the Senate getting something done on time, believe it when you see it. It sounds like the ban will happen in a matter of days or weeks... or not.
you are 100% correct in my eyes. i will believe it when i see it but i still need to prepare for it slightly. i dont want to give them a heads up either, so the more i do before hand the easier it is to add them first. my guess is once it goes through it hopefully will take a little while longer to add new ones.
Even though Superbol isn't on the ban list isn't there a provision that would allow them to add any chemicals at will? Balco got in trouble for designer steroids and I'm sure they were on any ban list so I think same thing would apply to phs and anyone who brings them to market. Of course I could and probably am completely wrong. I agree with the sentiments about the Senate so I guess it's just wait and see.Originally Posted by rrgg
As for the new methyl I personally like buying raw powder or even a beta solution as opposed to tabs. I'm sure others feel the same and this would allow you to bring the product to market sooner as I'm guessing the tabbing would take at least 1 week.
Maybe I'm not reading the bill correctly, but I think the answer is "no."Even though Superbol isn't on the ban list isn't there a provision that would allow them to add any chemicals at will?
Balco got into trouble for supplying designer steriods to professional athletes not for making it.Originally Posted by ersatz
Damn I hope you have time to get Superbol out.
Originally Posted by lancelot
yeah that is how i read it as well, although I am far from a lawyer. it is really going to come down to how the final bill is written and passed.
remember Balco was selling a designer "compound" for the purpose of performance enhancement to drug tested athletes, as well as providing a drug to cover or clean them out when being tested. i dont know how far they will be able to go with it, but i am sure when in doubt they can always go for income tax problems. i dount he was claiming unapproved drugs sales in his income tax report.
"Balco got into trouble for supplying designer steriods to professional athletes not for making it."
"i dount he was claiming unapproved drugs sales in his income tax report."
True, the classic Fed approach.
It's just a twist on:
"So Mr. Capone, you're saying this $5,000,000 amount in your bank is proceeds from your laundrymat?"
"So Mr. Conte, you're saying that you sold Barry Bonds $400,000 worth of ZINC supplements in 2002?"
That's what the ZMA sales are for. Money laundering! It should be very easy for Balco to pad their billing to professional athletes.
Is there a law somewhere that says you can't sell things to professional athletes? As if you could make it, possess it, and sell it to "normal" people but as soon as you supply a professional athlete you've committed a crime?
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you guys.
You can research whatever you want, if you're a chemist. I think when you start selling substances that clearly aren't naturally occuring, and cross the line into drug jurisdiction, and you aren't selling them as research chems, then you have a different game going on...especially once the $ is involved.
Re: Balco, The crime was committed in the supplying of performance enhancing/cloaking substances to athletes who compete in ostensibly drug-free sports with the intention of undermining the testing procedures.
The crime was selling an unapproved drug for human use. If he sold them to the athletes as research chemicals and had a big "DO NOT INJECT" sign on them, and said they are strictly for injecting in lab animals, then they'd have a bitch of a time prosecuting him. But he's stupid.
He's too busy ratting out all the ball players and Olympians to think of that, lol.
What I don't get is why it matters if the buyers were athletes, their sport was "drug-free," or whether the intention of the drug was to get around testing.Originally Posted by Brodus
Either what he was selling was against the law or not (I would think.) Shouldn't make any difference if the buyer is an athlete (breaking the rules of a sports organization shouldn't be a crime...and even if it were, that's on the player that uses them.)