4-CH methyltrienolone

[Mr.50]

Klaus you are likely right from a strict legal perspective but I believe that what cetain companies are hoping is that the FDA is concentrating on getting these products off of the market rather then bringing action against the companies for mislabeling. Of course lets not give them any ideas! A mislabeling case is much harder to prove because they would have to be able to prove that the company mislabeled the product with the intention to mislead the buyers. Since the govt thinks that all people who use products like these are unitelligent meatheads it whould be hard for them to make a case that anyone who uses these products is even knowledgable enough about nomenclature to be mislead. Again, lets let them think we are all really stupid.


Mr.50

Nice Avatar.

I've often wondered if the incorrect nomenclature was deliberate to avoid attention. Still, when selling a supplement, I was under the impression that it was mandatory for the manufacturer to accurately list all ingredients in their product. I thought failing to do so would not only be illegal but highly punishable.

 

[goa1175]

Nice Avatar.

Thanks, it made me laugh so I thought I'd share.

I've often wondered if the incorrect nomenclature was deliberate to avoid attention. Still, when selling a supplement, I was under the impression that it was mandatory for the manufacturer to accurately list all ingredients in their product. I thought failing to do so would not only be illegal but highly punishable.

I believe that this is part of what is at the heart of the SD ban. The letter sent to the manufacturers mentions that the ingredient is mislabeled, and should be labeled as methasteron (or something like that).
Like it or not, the reg agencies have some pretty smart people working for them - albeit with agendas. It reminds me of the Al Capone case. Couldn't nail him on anything else, so let's put him away for tax evasion. Similar circumstance here - minus the multiple homicides. If they can't prove intentional steroid manufacture and distro, then they'll go after the mislabeling charges.

 

[Samson4]

take metribolone and make the same alteration that was made to closterbol or turinabol and you get this compound. It stops from being esterogenic but also 5-alpha reduced. But we all know that trenbolone can't be either so all you are doing is making it heavy and less potent.

 

[Samson4]

Methoxy trn is diff. It's what we all wanted trenbolone that is fast acting, oral, less toxic than metribolone, no progestin sides, and as potent as metribolone.

 

[jrkarp]

Klaus you are likely right from a strict legal perspective but I believe that what cetain companies are hoping is that the FDA is concentrating on getting these products off of the market rather then bringing action against the companies for mislabeling. Of course lets not give them any ideas! A mislabeling case is much harder to prove because they would have to be able to prove that the company mislabeled the product with the intention to mislead the buyers. Since the govt thinks that all people who use products like these are unitelligent meatheads it whould be hard for them to make a case that anyone who uses these products is even knowledgable enough about nomenclature to be mislead. Again, lets let them think we are all really stupid.


Mr.50

From my understanding, and I could be wrong, they could be charged with selling a misbranded drug, which occurs when you sell a drug labeled as a dietary supplement.

 

[MarcusG]

Nice Avatar.

I've often wondered if the incorrect nomenclature was deliberate to avoid attention. Still, when selling a supplement, I was under the impression that it was mandatory for the manufacturer to accurately list all ingredients in their product. I thought failing to do so would not only be illegal but highly punishable.

Another reason would be to throw would be imitators off-track.

 

[Mr.50]

ah jrkarp good point for an excellent legal mind. How is everything going?

Mr.50

From my understanding, and I could be wrong, they could be charged with selling a misbranded drug, which occurs when you sell a drug labeled as a dietary supplement.

 

[jrkarp]

ah jrkarp good point for an excellent legal mind. How is everything going?

Mr.50

Great, thanks. Just got sworn in a couple weeks ago, I've appeared before a few courts, and I'm still obviously learning a lot. I won my first trial (well, I didn't try all of it because I got sworn in during the middle of it), and it looks like it's also going to be my first appeal. It's sure as hell nice to be finally practicing law, almost a year after I graduated.

But to get somewhat back on topic, as I said at bb.com, I don't think these products have been a priority for the FDA until recently. They certainly knew about PP, EMax, SD, etc for a while, and it would have taken about two weeks to get a couple bottles, test them, determine that it is a drug (e.g. that they have steroidal structures with methyl groups, so not DSHEA compliant), and either issue a demand to cease and desist sale or maybe get an injunction preventing further sale (I don't know what procedure federal agencies use in these situations). The final resolution of the charges would take much longer, certainly, but they could have had the stuff off the shelves in a matter of weeks.

Then again, these are the feds we are talking about, and they have never been known for acting quickly.

They might even have been able to freeze assets under RICO, but I don't know if RICO would apply here (but it seems like the feds apply it to everything).

As for the nomenclature, I don't expect that the name of the compound is going to help much in figuring out what this stuff is.