- 12-21-2004, 02:25 AM
- 12-21-2004, 02:50 AM
Well, since the company that was bringing it to market doesn't want to run afoul of the law, it won't be around after the last sale, at 1fast400 in the first week of January. I am pretty sure it will get added to the list of steroids ASAP. So you won't be able to get it legally after January 20th, I strongly suspect. You might be able to buy a bottle or two from someone, but they will probably charge a mint.
- 12-21-2004, 09:45 AM
will be interesting too see if they do add it to the list ot not...if not there may be another loophole
12-21-2004, 03:48 PM
12-21-2004, 08:01 PM
Honestly, how do you know this?....it could escape for a couple months....Originally Posted by timogburn
12-21-2004, 08:14 PM
12-21-2004, 08:23 PM
What will happen, sooner or later, is that either the DEA will ask the Attorney General to schedule it, or the FDA will issue an order to cease and desist sales, but , in times past , the Feds have been slow to respond to new things, and what the future hold, no one really knows, other than the Departmental heads and their goons.Originally Posted by dmilhouse
My gut feeling is that supps will be targeted, including research chems, faster in the future than the past, but ??????????
12-21-2004, 10:12 PM
I'm going out on a limb and predicting that superdrol will never be added to the ban list nor will research chemicals be affected...unless some huge news story breaks.
They'll go after creatine and arginine and bitter orange before superdrol or research chemicals are affected...unless superdrol and research chemicals somehow get in the mainstream press.
That doesn't mean superdrol will continue to be sold after the ban...it would take balls of steel to try that, IMO. Then again, I don't know the law that well. Might not be all that much to gain from selling superdrol right after the ban, either...most of us are all stocked up on all kinds of items and probably won't want to keep spending when they've laid so much cash out to stock up. But a year or two after the ban goes into effect I think you'll see it again...
12-21-2004, 11:18 PM
12-21-2004, 11:24 PM
I doubt that the government has the time to review every new supplement soming out on the market and then subsequently banning them. Most likely they will update the list every year, but then again I'm basing this on general government ineptitude.
12-21-2004, 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by ersatz
I'm betting ph will be a thing of the past. Too much heat from all the recent scandals.
"This is probably redundant, but where can you order it???"
If you had to ask, you'd better stay away from it.
12-21-2004, 11:32 PM
Actually I'm over 12, and I know what PCT is...really I have heard, but just not where, thanksOriginally Posted by MarcusG
12-22-2004, 03:20 AM
I am no lawyer. But here is what happened in the gun industry when "assault weapons" were made illegal.Originally Posted by cpa5oh
They made the exact same thing but took the little bayonet lug off the tip. Or they reduced the magazine capacity from 15 to 10, or they made the stock unable to adjust. EXACT SAME RIFLE. They even called them "Post Ban" models.
Guns were sold like this freely and openly for 10 years and there were never any legal problems.
The supplement people just need to get some lawyers and figure out the loopholes.
If SuperD isn;t on the list...it isn't on the list so WTF?
And why could these knuckleheads have not just waited a couple months to begin selling the stuff after the ban and all the legal stuff was set in stone and difficult to add another item to? Call it "PowerSynergyBuffMaker" or something and the legislators would have never figured it out. But SuperDROl....that just SOUNDS like a anDRO.
12-22-2004, 03:35 AM
I also believe it would take the gov a while before this was banned unless it broke a big news story. Look how long it took them to ban prohormones.
12-22-2004, 06:44 AM
Andro sucked the first few years it was available. That's why they diddn't care. I remember when they actually did a studdy to see if it could increase musclemass. It diddn't. That's how it escaped being banned back then. Superdrol isn't even in the same universe as that. When they get wind of it, they'll pull it fast. Why would Sldge want to jepordize everything he's built over the last 2 yrs?Originally Posted by theamazing3000
12-22-2004, 07:27 AM
The problem is that the law has been modifed to remove the "promotes muscle growth" clause. THe government needed to prove a steroid promoted growth before they could declare it a steroid. They no longer need to do this. Any new compound can be scheduled very quickly now, and it could conceivably happen without the supplement company knowing. The first time you hear about it might be when the feds show up with guns pointed in your face.
William LlewellynCEO, Molecular NutritionPatented and developed Arachidonic Acid (X-FACTOR™) for Sports Nutrition
12-22-2004, 08:05 AM
Even though it may not make the banned list the problem is that this chemical compound (as far as I know) is not available in the US which means for a company to get their hands on it they would have to import it.
Given the high price tag of this compound I doubt there are many who would be willing to take the chance that customs seizes it. Regardless of whether it's on the banned list or not. Customs finds way to do things they should not :angry:
12-22-2004, 08:07 AM
"Very quickly" is a relative term here. It can be done more quickly than before, but the AG still has to do it. There's still red tape and paperwork, so they may still act practically and not bother to ban superdrol if no one is selling it anyway.Any new compound can be scheduled very quickly now,
12-22-2004, 09:01 AM
Originally Posted by w_llewellyn
Would they be "post ban" guns??
Modifying a mechanical thing such as a gun is quite different than modifying a chemical structure. One little change can significantly change the nature of a compound. I'm no chemist, but it doesn't seem that simple to me.They made the exact same thing but took the little bayonet lug off the tip. Or they reduced the magazine capacity from 15 to 10, or they made the stock unable to adjust. EXACT SAME RIFLE. They even called them "Post Ban" models.
12-22-2004, 11:01 AM
12-22-2004, 11:03 AM
12-22-2004, 01:45 PM
Sure I hear ya. What I mean is that if superdrol is not on the list, then if it is any different than what IS, then it SHOULD be ok. The supplement companies are starting down the same path the gun industry has been on for the last 15 years. They could learn a lot from the strategies they have adopted.Originally Posted by SJA
12-22-2004, 02:48 PM
The problem is that the ban talks about modified varieties, salts, esters, and derivatives. It sounds like the gun loophole is closed for PH/PS.
12-22-2004, 02:58 PM
12-22-2004, 03:28 PM
I personally feel that until some further law is put into place which is somehow even more all encompassing. The govt. and chemists are going to be playing a proverbial game of cat and mouse, with new compunds releasd to the market.
12-22-2004, 04:13 PM
"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--"
"xlx) any salt, ester, or ether of a drug or substance
described in this paragraph."
Both of these quotes are taking right from the bill. I think its going to be
hard to get around with loopholes...
12-22-2004, 04:44 PM
Superdrol isn't a salt, ether or ester of any of the listed compounds.
But yeah...I see where they've basically said "anything even close to testosterone is banned."
12-22-2004, 04:56 PM
Cpa, no one is saying superdrol is banned by the new law. It isn't.
The comment about esters was directed at goat's suggestion at using post-gun-ban tactics to develop post-ph-ban products. The gun-loophole tactic won't work in this case. The issue is that any modified PH/PS can easily be banned by the attorney general without having to go through Congress and without any kind of political impediment.
12-22-2004, 05:01 PM
I wonder if the vagueness of the above statement from the law would be enough for a court to strike it down?
12-22-2004, 05:02 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By Extreme1 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 24Last Post: 11-27-2004, 02:34 PM
- By Kachinsky in forum AnabolicsReplies: 17Last Post: 11-17-2004, 09:47 PM
- By David Dunn in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 47Last Post: 11-17-2004, 02:08 PM
- By Lean One in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 72Last Post: 11-17-2004, 10:15 AM
- By Brodus in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 19Last Post: 11-17-2004, 12:11 AM