Are SARMs illegal?
- Thread starter R_Alan1
- Start date
booneman77
Legend
They're still legal but everyone pretty much expects them to be banned sooner rather than later. As of now they're just "grey market". Legal but borderline.
booneman77
Legend
It depends. Tests don't test for a particular substance, they usually test for hormonal levels (test v estrogen). If a product will suppress natural levels of one or both, or raise one or both, then it would raise the flag.
smith_69
Well-known member
RC companies sell them for experimental use and scientific research, not for human consumption- Sarms regardless of where they are being sold, are not for human consumption.
So to answer the question in a blunt way, you should not be taken any sarms, they should be used for research purposes
EasyEJL
Never enough
no, there isn't a law against consuming them, at least not federally. Some states may have their own laws though. It's unlikely. Like as an example, there are laws in some states against stores being able to sell raw unpasteurized milk for human consumption. so they stores mark it as "for pet use only", damn well knowing you're going to drink it yourself
EasyEJL
Never enough
just like with marijuana, heroin, etc. At most having possession is criminal (not with sarms yet) but once it's in your body the only kind of crime you can be charged with would be violating probation or driving while impaired
Most of the sarms + research chemicals won't trigger anything in a normal job type drug test either, unless they are accidentally tainted with something
R_Alan1
Member
My job regularly drug tests but doesn't regularly test for steroids, only on suspicion but if I popped hot for steroids I'm getting **** canned that's why I'm asking so many questions. And if Google has the answer it's effin buried cuz I've been looking for a week and can't get a straight answer lmao.
smith_69
Well-known member
possibly- dont know for sure but i would check
smith_69
Well-known member
its a valid ?, but i dont know how that testing is
Alan1
Member
From one Alan1 to another I've gotta' ask.... your employer will do suspicion based steroid testing? If so then I'd be mighty curious to hear what constitutes reasonable suspicion in such a case. Like, raging out on the incompetent secretary while hitting most-muscular poses and threatening to hog tie he/she with some lifting straps??
muscleupcrohn
Legend
This. Unless you suddenly look like Ronnie Coleman, I don't see why an employer would run a "suspicion based" steroid test, and why would they care if it doesn't effect your work? I can think of literally hundreds of reasons why an employee would be angry/aggressive that are more likely than roid rage, so that angle doesn't really make sense either.
EasyEJL
Never enough
from all I can tell, testing that would show positive for sarms would have to be specifically testing for sarms.
There are 3 kinds of drug tests basically - tests that directly test for the substance, tests that test for metabolites left in your body from the substance and tests that look at ratios of your normally occurring hormones/chemicals for an unnatural imbalance.
So the first 2 more or less are easy, for the last its like the way the Olympics defines a woman - partially based on testosterone to estrogen ratios (this is from their most recent transgender rules)
The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women's competition).
Invalid Link Removed
EasyEJL
Never enough
not really. they'd have their own metabolites, as they directly target the androgen receptor vs being a direct hormone.
EasyEJL
Never enough
That's why WADA and other agencies spend so much money, they have to test for all sorts of different things. Some things can clump together as having similar metabolites (like ephedrine + meth) but others are so different they have to test for them individually.
EasyEJL
Never enough
They might, but most states require a prescription to get blood drawn for a test anyhow. And of course, they wouldn't be able to tell you what tests your company may choose to run.
Woody
Well-known member
Like working through lunch.
Tiocfaidh
Active member
as a research chemical they are legal for research purposes unless under patent.
as a supplement, hell no. you can't sell experimental drugs as a supplement.
NewAgeMayan
Well-known member
Man, based on the little info youve given and all the vagueries and potential variables involved, its nigh on impossible to give you the 100% guaranteed solution you seem to be seeking.
Without further specifics to eliminate the myriad "what if..." as it stands, Id say flag the SARMs.
Without further specifics to eliminate the myriad "what if..." as it stands, Id say flag the SARMs.
NewAgeMayan
Well-known member
Okay then, its illegal for you to take.
NewAgeMayan
Well-known member
Any decent lawyer could argue its a synthetic steroid. If you went to court over an unfair dismissal due to suspected use, you will lose.
R_Alan1
Member
Nobody got fired for prohormones before they were banned and they're more of a steroid than SARMs. You can't get in trouble for something that isn't illegal just cuz it should be illegal or one day will be illegal. It's either illegal with statutes and administrative code or it's not illegal, albeit it may be soon.
NewAgeMayan
Well-known member
But, I am saying it is illegal.
What possible defense are you going to give in court? Your employer has dismissed you, fairly it would seem, for steroid use. What is your defence, such that a judge would rule in your favour?
What possible defense are you going to give in court? Your employer has dismissed you, fairly it would seem, for steroid use. What is your defence, such that a judge would rule in your favour?
R_Alan1
Member
So you're saying SARMs are classified as steroids and have supporting statutory proof? Cuz that's what I'm looking for. I haven't taken any SARMs. And as far as I can tell they aren't illegal because no bill or statue has been passed making them illegal. Nothing is illegal until it's written down and made illegal via official channels.
Tiocfaidh
Active member
They are classified as experimental drugs. This isn't that difficult.
Experimental drugs can't be sold as supplements nor used by the general public for human use without clearance of the FDA.
NewAgeMayan
Well-known member
Does this all have some practical motivation OP, or we playing semantics?
R_Alan1
Member
What you're referring to is the legality of marketing and/or selling it for human consumption, I agree that that is 100% illegal and not in dispute. But just cuz something is undergoing research doesn't make it illegal. You can't legally buy the raws to make xanax, viagra or gear because there are laws dictating same. SARMs are a lot newer and I don't believe there are laws specifying their legality. The law isn't written in a vague way, it's quite specific, if there's a law against taking SARMs than it would explicitly be scheduled and say something like: "any chemical or compound with a chemical structure of "xyz" or something with a chemical structure substantially similar to or fundamentally the same as" but to my knowledge no such record of law exists. Please if you have proof I'd love to see it. And I apologize if it seems like I'm beating a dead horse or being argumentative but I'm simply trying to be thorough and I haven't gotten concrete proof one way or another.
Tiocfaidh
Active member
wrong. sarms are classified like any other drug. i don't understand why you don't believe such an easy concept. they are by definition, DRUGS. you can't sell DRUGS unless vetted and approved by the FDA. there isn't some magical property in sarms that evades this.
"According to section 201(ff)(3)(B)(ii) of the FDCA [21 U.S.C. § 321 (ff)(3)(B)(ii)], a dietary supplement also may not include an article authorized for investigation as a new drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and made public, unless the article was marketed as a dietary supplement or food before its authorization as a new drug. (2S)-3-(4-cyanophenoxy)-N-[4-cyano-3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-2-hydroxy-2-methylpropanamide) is the subject of substantial clinical investigations, which have been made public (see note 1, infra). Based on the information available to FDA, ostarine was not marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food until after it was under substantial clinical investigation. "
bighulksmash
Legend
In b4 tits up locks it
R_Alan1
Member
I'm not saying I know SARMs are legal but all you're proving is its illegal to market and sell it as a dietary substance, read what you just quoted me "a dietary substance may not include...unless the article was marketed as a dietary supplement or food before its authorization as a new drug." Again, nowhere does it say it's illegal to sell it or take it. There's an unlimited amount of rules for what dietary supplements can and can't do but it all comes down to what the company purports it to be. A benign supp can't even be marketed to seem like it will give you steroid like effects, that's how's specific the fda is with this stuff. When k2 and bath salts came out they were sold as incense and bath salt but everyone used them to get high. It wasn't until years later that using them for an off label purpose became illegal. That's where SARMs are. Is there legislation specific to lgd 4033 or Mk 2866 or gw 501516 that specifies it is illegal to take?