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.
