SuperDrol makes news..... :(
- 08-29-2005, 04:10 PM
- 5'10" lbs.
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
SuperDrol makes news..... :(
Cheating athletes know the tricks
In white coats, over bubbling beakers, they would toil in obscure laboratories, creating ever more complex molecules to mimic the muscle-building hormone testosterone.
Some nefarious boy geniuses cooking up the latest designer drug to enhance athletic performances?
They were pioneering chemists, working in the first fervour pitch of anabolic steroid science more than four decades ago.
Caught up in the initial thrall of the new steroid field, they created dozens of variations of the artificial male hormone. Unwittingly, they left an extensive menu for modern-day cheaters who are rummaging through their dusty, forgotten papers to find substances to beat an increasingly rigorous drug-testing system.
With accusations cropping up again last week that Tour de France king Lance Armstrong was using a banned blood booster, the ongoing race between cheaters and those trying to catch them has again come into focus. And today, 17 years after sprinter Ben Johnson brought a compendium of anabolic steroid references into the Canadian consciousness, the race is still afoot and the winner far from certain.
"But they are not that clever, " Christiane Ayotte, head of the International Olympic Committee's accredited testing lab in Montreal, says of the modern steroid makers. "It was easy if you think about it."
Ayotte says pharmaceutical researchers working in the 1950s and '60s "just made a race" to synthesize as many testosterone-mimicking molecules as possible.
"What we're observing right now is these (cheating) guys today just looking in that literature," she says, "and they're picking the interesting molecules that were not put on the market by the pharmaceutical industry and having them synthesized somewhere."
Just who these modern chemists are is far from clear. They inhabit a murky underground that largely serves the sweaty gyms and fitness boutiques that have proliferated across the continent. But Ayotte says it's pretty clear the drugs are being sent to China to manufacture in bulk.
While those on the policing side have the same, or better, access to the old steroid literature, Ayotte says they lack the time or funding to construct the drugs themselves and therefore come up with a test for them.
"If I had only that to do, voila," she says, "but there are hearings, testing, arbitrations. There's too many of them and not enough of us."
The modified steroids are often found in so-called nutritional supplements, sold at gyms and health food stores as part of the multibillion-dollar bodybuilding and strength-training businesses. Among the most famous of these goosed supplements is androstenedione, a natural testosterone builder that helped baseball hulk Mark McGwire shatter the single-season home run record in 1998.
Another designer "supplement" known as THG was discovered during last year's infamous Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO) investigation. The probe into the California steroid scandal has ensnared several prominent athletes, including baseball superstars Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi, in its widening net.
While androstenedione and THG are now detectable and banned from most sports, the supplement game is ongoing, says Ayotte, who is now hot on the trail of another "secret" steroid herself.
"They're playing cat-and-mouse games," she says. "They change the structure of a (steroid) molecule and put it on the market in a supplement until the (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration says this is not permitted and then they change the molecule again."
One such supplement on the market is Superdrol, which Ayotte describes as "a potent steroid that should never have been allowed to be distributed for human beings." Until such products are shown to contain steroids, however, they can be legally purchased.
What's more important to elite athletes, however, is that these throwback molecules are undetectable during frequent, mandatory urine tests.
To a large extent, drug tests can only see what they're looking for, and every new steroid Ñ often created simply by twisting inert molecules into different shapes Ñ requires a new test and its own place on a banned substance list. (The IOC's list is the banned substance Bible for most international sports.)
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has suggested freezing relevant portions of blood or urine samples until new tests come on line. The threat that athletes will be retroactively disqualified or shamed may act as a deterrent to taking designer drugs now, the agency argues.
Armstrong's purported positive test, reported last week in a French sports journal, suggested the seven-time Tour de France winner had elevated levels of the blood-building agent EPO (erythropoietin) in a urine sample he gave during his 1999 victory. That was before EPO could be properly detected in urine samples. Armstrong's urine Ñ the B sample from that originally negative test Ñ had been frozen until last year, when scientists outside Paris used it for EPO "research."
Dr. Andrew Pipe, former head of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and an acknowledged doping expert, says cycling has been an "incubator" for almost all of the banned substances now used in sports. But the new "designer drugs" are far from the most popular among athletes, no matter what their calibre, most experts say.
Pipe says athletes, whether elite or average, still gravitate most to the "tried and true" drugs that have shown results Ñ and are readily available. He says stanozolol, for which baseball star Rafael Palmeiro recently tested positive almost two decades after Johnson did the same, and blood builders such as EPO are still the substances of choice for those in the know. They just try to hide them better, Pipe says, and the methods used to hide these drugs rely both on masking ingenuity and a precision knowledge of testing schedules, experts say.
Created in the kidneys to boost red blood cell production, EPO is found at predictable levels in healthy men and women. But for testing purposes, these normal levels have been jacked up to cover the elevated concentrations that may well occur naturally in some people.
Cyclists may also inject themselves with saline solution in the time between racing and testing to lower EPO concentrations even further, testimony from several Tour riders has revealed.
Meanwhile, Ayotte says testers are growing more sophisticated in their detection methods.
The problem is, athletes and their handlers are becoming commensurately cagey. For example, it's been found that protease enzymes, which can be easily purchased in powder form from laboratory suppliers, can break down EPO rapidly.
"So they have a powder of protease on their hand and put it in the urine sample, then it can start to digest the EPO," she says.
Some sunscreen and hair-growth creams, smeared on the inside of a sample beaker, can also mask certain substances, Ayotte says. As well, while testing today is supposed to be random and unannounced, and while an athlete's whereabouts is supposed to be known year-round, many elite competitors can predict when they'll be asked to give samples, or hide from any testers who may be looking for them. She says athletes can and often train in far-flung locales, where they know their national testers will not follow.
And cyclists often hide in plain sight, Ayotte says, honing their skills, both athletic and pharmaceutical, at smaller, less affluent events where EPO tests at $300 (all figures U.S.) a shot are not performed. (Comprehensive steroid tests go for $130.)
As for that troubled sport itself, both Ayotte and Pipe say cycling officials should implement pre-race blood-screening procedures, looking for elevated levels of hemoglobin, an oxygen-carrying component of blood.
So serious is the EPO crisis in cycling and other endurance sports that Pipe says international testing officials should largely forgo the policing of lesser offences, such as cold remedy use, and use their resources to fight the larger problem.
Indeed, Pipe says Olympic officials should consider dropping cycling from the Games until the sport has shown it can clean up its act.
Don't have the link, this was courtesy of Patrick Arnold at BB.com
- 08-29-2005, 04:24 PM
- 08-29-2005, 04:29 PM
Sunufabitch!!! I wonder if this is compliments of that pesky news lady that was here before? Looks like I'll have to buy a few more bottles of it now...already have one, but have yet to try it yet.
08-29-2005, 04:39 PM
Dont worry fellas. Every time they ban something, new stuff comes out. If superdrol is banned, you still have...
Testosterone E/C (which is, in my oppinion, almost too easy to get. My uncle got some from an online clinic with out ever getting examined. He got 250 mg a week too)
In the words of MC hammer, you cant touch this...
08-29-2005, 04:40 PM
Originally Posted by lifted
Nah she worked for the washington post
08-29-2005, 04:43 PM
Bye bye SD and most of the stuff we love! (Cries as he pops some SD)
08-29-2005, 04:47 PM
Gratituitous Media Hyperbole aside, do you think he's referring to the lipid damage?One such supplement on the market is Superdrol, which Ayotte describes as "a potent steroid that should never have been allowed to be distributed for human beings." Until such products are shown to contain steroids, however, they can be legally purchased.
Also, do you ever wonder what other kinds of unpublished literature the testing agencies might have access to? Such as human trials and data that is hidden by the pharmas for a reason?
08-29-2005, 04:47 PM
08-29-2005, 04:48 PM
the 2nd wave of the ban impending???
08-29-2005, 05:02 PM
Of course, this was exepcted...why do you think ALRI and Designer Supps rapidly "liquidated" (licensed) their hormonal products to the fringe subsidiaries? Ergo puts out ATD under the GIANT moniker?
Protecting brand identity in a volatile marketplace. They knew this going in. I'm glad they took the chance, though.
So...who thinks SD might really be as bad for you as we see in the bloodwork?
08-29-2005, 05:05 PM
i <3 you superdrol, i <3 you.......
Who cares if its bad for you, a compound that can put 15lbs of solid muscle on you in three weeks is worth it. (to me at least)
08-29-2005, 05:13 PM
Well...that's the difference between a lot of people. You can get 15lbs. without taking your HDL to single-digit numbers that make a doctor gasp. I'm positing that this is why it was never released.Who cares if its bad for you, a compound that can put 15lbs of solid muscle on you in three weeks is worth it. (to me at least)
I now think the only advantage to SD over M1T is the lack of lethargy.
And yes, I've done SD, and yes, I gained well, and yes, felt pretty good on it. But my aerobic capacity and endurance hasn't been the same since.
08-29-2005, 05:51 PM
Anyone who didn't see this coming was ignorant. SD- get it while you can.
08-29-2005, 05:55 PM
Yeah...once I saw the full page ads in the fitness mags I knew time was limited before the critics started to notice...its a shame. My stash will have to last until the next things come around.
08-29-2005, 06:07 PM
- 6'0" 220 lbs.
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
They can illegalize this and every other steroidal supplement on the shelves, but there will always be the black market.
08-29-2005, 06:27 PM
That's what Im saying. Yes, the legality issues are important as Im sure none of us would want to be caught with a scheduled compound. But Im thinking of safety first...anyone who is even slightly industrious can figure out how to get themselves some test. Id trust my body with slightly increased levels of my own natural hormones over a desginer steroid that has very little in the way of actual human testing.They can illegalize this and every other steroidal supplement on the shelves, but there will always be the black market.
15lbs of muscle? Is it really worth taking a risk, an *unknown* amount of risk with your health?
That aside, I think this reporter is an idiot. Ive never used SD, but it obviously built a lot of muscle for a lot of people.
08-29-2005, 06:49 PM
CATTLE IMPLANTS FOR EVERYONE!
This seriously sucks. *BUT* will they make a 2nd round ban just for SD? I know there are a couple others, but really not that many. I think they let this run a little before they play war on us again. Because, if they make a 2nd round ban now, 6 months after the 1st, it kinda means they will be making the semi-annual supplement-banning festival for a LONG time.
And in the meantine, there will be a little war with Iran keeping the government real busy.
08-29-2005, 06:55 PM
- 6'0" 265 lbs.
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
We shouldn't really be surprised if they ban post-ban PH's. This was just a matter of time. At least we know it might be wise to stock up though.
08-29-2005, 08:04 PM
- 5'8" 197 lbs.
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Rep Power
- Lv. Percent
I don't care if they go after Olympic athletes over SD or anything else. The bitch Ayotte needs to keep her nose on her side of the fence and leave us non-athletes alone
08-29-2005, 08:23 PM
Real men just take an implant gun and glute-shot their finaOriginally Posted by ss01
08-29-2005, 08:49 PM
Well, I think their major concern is not for the users that are over 21y/o but they are concern with the teenagers. If I’m not mistaken, I think that was one or the main variables for banning steroids and some prohormones. They also want to keep the playing field fair among the different athletic teams and the Olympic athletes.
This will be an ongoing struggle with the authorities that is trying to keep steroids/prohormones out of the hands of teenagers. I was in the mall last week and I stopped in GNC to kill some time, while my lady friend tried on dozens of shoes at the shoe store and I seen the Superdrol locked in the GNC glass case, behind their sales counter. So, I know the teenagers that are working at that GNC, are not screening the people that are purchasing the Superdrol. If this situation is happening in a mall in Chicago, you can bet it’s happening everywhere.
Originally Posted by LCSULLA
08-29-2005, 09:11 PM
definately get some while you can, hopefully we will get a heads up if they decide to ban our post ban alternative. they will come out with something diff though, they always do
08-29-2005, 09:12 PM
i'm pretty sure you get a x amt of days once it is made illegal?
08-29-2005, 11:42 PM
This news sucks.
08-30-2005, 02:20 AM
why cant they just leave us bb'ers alone?
08-30-2005, 02:49 AM
They pretty much do. The only time steroids come up is when athletes lie and cheat after entering into sporting organizations that ban performance enhancers. If these high-profile hypocrites didn't do that, you'd never have to worry. Remember, you can thank baseball for the andro ban.Originally Posted by Seven11
08-30-2005, 08:49 AM
He's right - the government really doesnt start getting involved until the media starts sensationalizing something.They pretty much do. The only time steroids come up is when athletes lie and cheat after entering into sporting organizations that ban performance enhancers. If these high-profile hypocrites didn't do that, you'd never have to worry. Remember, you can thank baseball for the andro ban.
08-30-2005, 11:17 AM
AHHH **** !!! This is some Bull **** !!!! I swear of all the things to go after, the IOC sux balls, ok may I pose a question? is it not true, you can naturally without exegonous hormones, make your body more anabolic with the help of EFA's and increased protein !!!And with that, would that provide an unfair advantage? WTF? Next they will be regulating diets.
08-30-2005, 02:27 PM
i knew this was gonna happen from the beginning... thats why i already have:
5 bottles SD
4 bottles Phera
2 bottles Ergo
HEHE im for the next 3 yrs....
08-30-2005, 02:29 PM
ya know i bet they dont' ban it for a while yet... i bet its still around for xmas... its just me but i don't think the gov is gonna ban a list of **** so quickly just yet... maybe SD but i don't think they'll take everything away just yet.
There's not enough of them and there's not enough companies producing it... Just my 2 cents
08-30-2005, 02:29 PM
Look, I agree with everyone here, AAS/PH/GF take a bum rap. But there is a huge difference between modifying your diet and shooting test. The 'slippery slope' argument is flawed, at best.Originally Posted by Apowerz6
08-30-2005, 03:22 PM
Originally Posted by noctorum
yeah that was the worst analogy ever. Food is anabolic period. Maybe athletes shouldn't be allowed to eat.
08-30-2005, 03:42 PM
Indeed my analogy might have been flawed, all i am saying is that when will the playing field be level? And if diet is not regulated,and types of training what is the defining line of enhancing ones self to win?
08-30-2005, 04:08 PM
We dont need a level playing field !!! I am just pointing out how ridiculous that sounds, when it comes to athleticism !!!
08-30-2005, 07:13 PM
The playing field will never be level, that's the nature of competition. If someone didn't have some edge in learned skill or inherent talent, etc., no one would ever win really. When politicians and athletes who bitch about roids talk about a level playing field, what they mean is some other athlete is taking a possible risk to gain a competitive advantage that they themselves don't want to take. It probably won't be long before teams with less resources availabile start bitching that 'rich' teams get better facilities and trainers, and have an unfair advantage.
Things to keep in mind when talking about this issue:
1) The children (teenagers) have nothing to do with it. You can prohibit the use of a substance by children while leaving adults alone with some reasonable amount of legislation. People who rave about 'protecting the children' are either stupid or full of it.
2) The government thinks it's your mother, and will go to any extent possible to protect you from your poor misguided self.
3) Most people are frighteningly ignorant on the subject of steroids, and a lot of other topics too. While this is technically their own fault, they've been caught in a barrage of BS for decades and most people don't really ever have a reason to do their own research to see if what they've been hearing is true or not.
4) The government will not stop, period. As long as the people they are pissing off are a small minority, and the majority agrees with the action or doesn't really care, the government will not stop. They get to pull in more money and 'create' more jobs for people because they have more rules to administer and more power to exercise.
The current situation is simple. If you want SuperDrol, stock up. It will be gone fairly soon. Something will likely come along to replace it. The grey and black markets will always provide options if you're willing to take the risk. That pretty much sums it up. Unfortunately the only way things will change is if enough people oppose the encroachments, which is why geezer miracle pills stay legal whether they're hormonal or not, or dangerous or not, and AAS get prohibited.
08-31-2005, 12:17 AM
What in your opinion would be reasonable legislation?Originally Posted by CDB
08-31-2005, 12:55 AM
Do it like they do with other drugs. It's obviously not as effective as people like to think it is, but putting an age restriction on steroids and forcing licensing is one option. Make them only available at hospitals to anyone who can prove their age, etc.Originally Posted by MarcusG
FYI, I am not talking about perscriptions. Hospitals just seem like the logical place.
08-31-2005, 06:20 AM
I do aggree we should be fine for now. How bad will it seem if they go and ban more now? It will have looked like they failed. And unless it had changed. I remember it being said that SD would most likely be detectable.
08-31-2005, 08:08 AM
Or worthless piece of crap parents who dont want to protect there own kids. Everyone wants to blame stuff on other people. Hell, even I had a mother accuse me because her son got messed up on roids (and no im not on roids, but the kid started to lift, and when he wasnt as big as me in a month he got desperate). The next time I hear a mother blame it on me, barry bonds, anyone... I'm gonna flipOriginally Posted by CDB
08-31-2005, 09:37 AM
One such supplement on the market is Superdrol, which Ayotte describes as "a potent steroid that should never have been allowed to be distributed for human beings."
Where are the clinical trials to back up this highly subjective statement?
Similar Forum Threads
- By RDXg0d in forum AnabolicsReplies: 31Last Post: 06-28-2006, 12:23 PM
- By d00fy in forum AnabolicsReplies: 15Last Post: 03-24-2006, 02:29 PM
- By 64bit in forum AnabolicsReplies: 7Last Post: 12-18-2005, 02:26 PM
- By Squats in forum AnabolicsReplies: 21Last Post: 09-06-2005, 01:31 AM
- By CEDeoudes59 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 14Last Post: 01-21-2005, 02:53 PM