Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

jacked 3d damgerous?

djbombsquad

djbombsquad

Board Sponsor
Sprinter suing USPLabs for $1.8m in failed doping case
Categories: Featured Articles
An American track and field sprinter, Philippe DeRosier, is suing USPLabs for $1.8m, after having been suspended for six months, having failed a drug test after ingesting Jack3D. He’s asking for $1.8m (+ another $300k, in related claims).

He tested positive for the banned stimulant methylhexanaminet, thereby forfeiting his earnings from his last track meet in Turkey, and was suspended for six months as a result of the failed drug test.

He qualified for the Olympic trials, and he has/had a promising career as a sprinter, but at 26, he’s running over 10 seconds for the 100m, so while he’s blazing fast, he’s about half a second behind the (absolute) fastest American sprinters (best-ever-times) at the moment.

I realize that a lot of supplement consumers would like me to trash USPLabs right now, because of their over-the-top marketing and unlikable CEO, or perhaps even on the suspicion that certain products are ineffective - but those opinions are besides the point, and this case certainly won’t be decided on those types of considerations. In the end, this is a legal issue.

The truth of the matter is that DeRosier isn’t the fastest guy in the world (or even America), and if he were, I’m sure we’d have heard of the dude before now.

Still, this is a huge setback for his running career, and while I believe a lot of the fault lies with him, I also believe that there is a lot of confusing information on USPLabs’ website and labels concerning the product in question. It would be easy for the advanced supplement consumer to say “screw this guy, he should have checked his facts, looked into the ingredients, etc…” – I’m going to say that if you’re selling a banned substance, you ought to put that fact on the label. In my estimation, USPLabs is not 100% clear about the product facts either, with regards to it being banned by almost every federation in the world (WADA, MLB, etc…).

Still, the onus is on the athlete himself to know everything about every substance he’s putting in his body; at that level, a trip to GNC is not the same thing as it is when you or I buy our supplements. I don’t know how this is going to end up, and I’m certainly not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV). One thing is certain: this is bad for the entire industry. It’s also not too great for USPLabs, who are facing a huge lawsuit, related to a compound in their two best selling products.

And since this product is banned by most sporting organizations, an is now the subject of a huge lawsuit, I’m forced to wonder if Bodybuilding.com is going to continue carrying it – especially since it’s sitting at #1 on their best-seller’s list
 
Misleading thread title. So another idiot that's too lazy or inept to contact governing body to see if product is permissible. Instead of accepting the consequences of his irresponsibility he passes it off on someone else and brings litigation.
 
He should know what he's allowed to take and what he isn't. Stupid lawsuit IMO. This is about as stupid as someone suing McDonalds for making them fat.
 
Seconded on misleading title. If USP lose I'd be shocked. The only chance here is if he has a email from USP Labs staff saying he's ok to use it under the governing organization he's been banned by, which I doubt since every time I've seen a rep talks about it, it's a 'check for yourself'.

He has 6 months to get his **** together to compete again. If he's looking to pass the buck it's just a matter of time before he fails at something else and looks for someone to blame. Sad really...
 
I personally will still use jacked but I though I would share this information here.
 
jack3d in 3-D does sound dangerous ill stick to the regular 2 dimension one
 
3 for misleading title lol

This dude knew full well what was in there and geranamine has been on the banned list for 2010.

WADA doesn't make laws though, they make rules. And you mean to tell me this guy doesn't keep up with them and this is his profession, an athlete... lol @ him. And lol @ trying to make money out of it, weasel :popworm:
 
Thanks goodness they aren't coming out with a "4D" version. 4th vote for confusing thread title, then I saw who was the OP, and it suddenly became less confusing.
 
wow lol i use jacked and think its brilliant apart from the odd cold sweats i get on it from time to time its great would recommend it to anyone, but make sure you can use the stuff if you compete
 
yeah this athlete should know what he's taking, as a professional athlete i would think he has someone near him who could recommend and guide him on what hes allowed to take

however i must have missed something, don't get my wrong, i like jack3d and products like it but what kind of benefit are people receiving from the product...i mean comeon it's not celltech....i think governing boards are crazy with what they ban
 
I like Jack3d and will continue to use it. I've got an unopened container of it just waiting for me when I finish with my current supply of Anadraulic State GT!
 
If you are a "professional", I would suggest knowing what is permissible and what is not. This reminds me of the Dave Chappelle skit, "I'm sorry officer, I didn't know I couldn't do that."

 
Ok this has been said before multiple times, but what the hell is with the title?

Nothing about the lawsuit is about the dangers of the supplement. This guy is an idiot. I can't wait to sue the **** out of every PH company, because I didn't know that steroids would not allow me to compete naturally.
 
HereToStudy said:
Ok this has been said before multiple times, but what the hell is with the title?

Nothing about the lawsuit is about the dangers of the supplement. This guy is an idiot. I can't wait to sue the **** out of every PH company, because I didn't know that steroids would not allow me to compete naturally.
Click to expand...

Take some false accusations, mix in some sensationalism bake for 30 minutes and you get this thread.
 
I completely agree that its own fault and i would of been more carefull, however some of the labels are confusing.
1,3, Dimethylamyaline (Most common)

Dimethylamphetamine

Dimethylamylamine (DMAA)

Dimethylpentylamine (common)

Geranamine (common)

Geranium Oil (common)

Geranium Extract (common)

Methylhexaneamine

2-Amino-4-methylhexane

1,3-Dimethylamylamine

4-Methyl-2-hexylamine

1,3-Dimethylpentylamine

Forthane (not to be confused with the anesthetic)

Forthan

Pentylamine, 1,3-dimethyl-
2-Amino-5-methylhexane
2-Hexanamine, 5-methyl-
5-Methyl-2-hexylamine
Pentylamine, 1,4-dimethyl


It would be easier if there was a standard for companys to label. Im not familiar with the list of substances banned but do they list each ofthese names or just Geranium extract and ur expected to figure out the rest. Again,if i was said athlete i would of madesure, but can see how it could be confusing.
 
mikaveli06 said:
I completely agree that its own fault and i would of been more carefull, however some of the labels are confusing.
1,3, Dimethylamyaline (Most common)

Dimethylamphetamine

Dimethylamylamine (DMAA)

Dimethylpentylamine (common)

Geranamine (common)

Geranium Oil (common)

Geranium Extract (common)

Methylhexaneamine

2-Amino-4-methylhexane

1,3-Dimethylamylamine

4-Methyl-2-hexylamine

1,3-Dimethylpentylamine

Forthane (not to be confused with the anesthetic)

Forthan

Pentylamine, 1,3-dimethyl-
2-Amino-5-methylhexane
2-Hexanamine, 5-methyl-
5-Methyl-2-hexylamine
Pentylamine, 1,4-dimethyl


It would be easier if there was a standard for companys to label. Im not familiar with the list of substances banned but do they list each ofthese names or just Geranium extract and ur expected to figure out the rest. Again,if i was said athlete i would of madesure, but can see how it could be confusing.
Click to expand...

If someone were to say sodium hydrochloride, as opposed to "bleach," would you be similarly troubled? Or sodium bicarbonate, as opposed to "baking soda"?
 
This isn't aimed at USP by any means but he does have a good point. Some companies get numerous threads asking to explain ingredients and are accused of making the label deliberately difficult to read by 'sexing up' the ingredients they have put in it.
 
mikaveli06 said:
It would be easier if there was a standard for companys to label. Im not familiar with the list of substances banned but do they list each ofthese names or just Geranium extract and ur expected to figure out the rest. Again,if i was said athlete i would of madesure, but can see how it could be confusing.
Click to expand...

You are right, and I agree on the lack of standards when naming compounds, but that still overlooks that the guy is an idiot. If you are a serious athlete, if it isnt food, you need to make sure it is not banned.

Simple example:

I took "1,3-Dimethylpentylamine" and searched it in google.
First result was Invalid Link Removed
Which states it is Geranamine.
Under the Doping in sports section, it states it is banned.
This guy clearly didnt value his professional athletic career if he didn't bother to do a simple google search.

But this is besides the point, the label on Jack3d, clearly states:

"1,3-Dimethylamylamine" which is pretty much the most standard way of describing the compound, with the exception of calling it "Geranium," which is also clearly labeled on Jack3d.

I really hope USP walks away from this laughing. It will be a mockery of the courts if they spend a cent.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
If someone were to say sodium hydrochloride, as opposed to "bleach," would you be similarly troubled? Or sodium bicarbonate, as opposed to "baking soda"?
Click to expand...

sodium hydrochloride , no thats fine.BUT sodium bicarbonate gets me a bit hot under the collar , and I will respectfully request that you refrain from its mention again. GOOD DAY!:drillsergeant:
 
HereToStudy said:
You are right, and I agree on the lack of standards when naming compounds, but that still overlooks that the guy is an idiot. If you are a serious athlete, if it isnt food, you need to make sure it is not banned.

Simple example:

I took "1,3-Dimethylpentylamine" and searched it in google.
First result was Invalid Link Removed
Which states it is Geranamine.
Under the Doping in sports section, it states it is banned.
This guy clearly didnt value his professional athletic career if he didn't bother to do a simple google search.

But this is besides the point, the label on Jack3d, clearly states:

"1,3-Dimethylamylamine" which is pretty much the most standard way of describing the compound, with the exception of calling it "Geranium," which is also clearly labeled on Jack3d.

I really hope USP walks away from this laughing. It will be a mockery of the courts if they spend a cent.
Click to expand...

Completely agree its his own fault, no argument about that.

Mulletsoldier said:
If someone were to say sodium hydrochloride, as opposed to "bleach," would you be similarly troubled? Or sodium bicarbonate, as opposed to "baking soda"?
Click to expand...
I honestly do wish all companys should label it bleach, or all call it sodium chloride, not saying its gonna happen, just saying it would be nice is all. And i mean under the ingredient list, on the label call it whatever u want of coarse
 
I wish I could go back to the first time I took Geranium in the form of the old Ergopharm amp v2. It was amazing euphoria and energy. Too bad I get nothing like that now from geranium.
 
mikaveli06 said:
Completely agree its his own fault, no argument about that.


I honestly do wish all companys should label it bleach, or all call it sodium chloride, not saying its gonna happen, just saying it would be nice is all. And i mean under the ingredient list, on the label call it whatever u want of coarse
Click to expand...

My point was that '1,3-dimethylamylamine' is the most standard nomenclature that exists for this compound. "Geranamine" is a trade name, not a compound name, and Geranium oil is more misdirecting than '1,3-dimethyamylamine.'
 
Mulletsoldier said:
My point was that '1,3-dimethylamylamine' is the most standard nomenclature that exists for this compound. "Geranamine" is a trade name, not a compound name, and Geranium oil is more misdirecting than '1,3-dimethyamylamine.'
Click to expand...

Im not disagreeing with you at all,and im not implying that the jack3d label is misleading as that is the most common name, i meant that the industry has a whole uses different names and a standard would just be less confusing is all.
 
HereToStudy said:
You are right, and I agree on the lack of standards when naming compounds, but that still overlooks that the guy is an idiot. If you are a serious athlete, if it isnt food, you need to make sure it is not banned.

Simple example:

I took "1,3-Dimethylpentylamine" and searched it in google.
First result was Invalid Link Removed
Which states it is Geranamine.
Under the Doping in sports section, it states it is banned.
This guy clearly didnt value his professional athletic career if he didn't bother to do a simple google search.

But this is besides the point, the label on Jack3d, clearly states:

"1,3-Dimethylamylamine" which is pretty much the most standard way of describing the compound, with the exception of calling it "Geranium," which is also clearly labeled on Jack3d.

I really hope USP walks away from this laughing. It will be a mockery of the courts if they spend a cent.
Click to expand...

LOL @ athlete losing everything over a Google search
 
This has been covered before a few times. I was under the impression that testing positive for it was impossible? Here is a response posted a while ago;

Mulletsoldier said:
Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
Incorrect. Allow me to explain:

In terms of JACK3D and amphetamines, some basic chemistry may significantly clarify this issue. Methamphetamine is simply the N-methyl derivative of alpha-methylphenethylamine (amphetamine). In both of these compounds, we can notice several functional groups, owing to the parent homologue of phenethylamine. These are the phenyl group, the ethyl group, and the amine group.

The first functional group, the phenyl, constitutes the base ring of all amphetamine derivatives, and is a six carbon benzene ring where each carbon serves as a point for an additional functional group to bond to. In this case, the carbon at position one is bonded to the second functional group, the ethyl, and the other five are saturated with hydrogen atoms. Therefore, we read the chemical structure of the phenyl group in phenethylamine as (C6 [six carbons] H5 [five hydrogen atoms])

The second functional group, the ethyl, is a structural unit where two carbons atoms are fused together by a single bond, and each carbon atom then shares a single bond with three hydrogen atoms. In the case of phenethylamine, the ethyl group is bound to the phenyl group at the first carbon, in the position where the third hydrogen atom would normally be. Ethyl groups will always share this bond with another functional group, which is why we read ethyl as (C2 [two carbons] H5 [five hydrogen atoms – as the functional bond takes the place of the sixth hydrogen atom]).

The final functional group, the amine, is a simple nitrogen atom which shares two single bonds to hydrogen atoms. We thus read it as (N [1 nitrogen atom] H2 [two hydrogen atoms]). We describe amphetamine and phenethylamine as homologues, as the only structural difference between the two is that, with phenethylamine, the amine is bound to ethyl group where the third hydrogen would normally be.

Dimethylamylamine, then, is clearly different from amphetamine, and this is easily recognized as it does not share our key functional groups. It lacks the benzene ring, first and foremost, which is present in all phenethylamine substitutions, possesses a pentyl as opposed to an ethyl as the second alkyl group, and in reality shares only the amine functional group. (Being a sympathomimetic amine, however, is not sufficient enough to call these compounds “structurally similar” by any means.)

Most importantly, though, is that phenyl groups cannot be developed in metabolism, essentially meaning that all substances that have phenyl ring-containing compounds already had the phenyl ring in their structure prior to ingestion. As dimethylamylamine clearly does not, and is not produced from any compounds which possess such a ring, it is quite literally chemically impossible for the 1,3-dimethylamylamine in JACK3D to result as a false positive for methamphetamine.

What you are claiming is not so dissimilar to saying that you have turned water into gold, or vice versa. It is simply chemically impossible for 1,3-dimethylamylamine, or any other compound, for that matter, to spontaneously generate a phenyl ring.
Click to expand...
 
bdcc said:
This has been covered before a few times. I was under the impression that testing positive for it was impossible? Here is a response posted a while ago;
Click to expand...

Testing positive on a narcotics test is impossible.

NCAA and other sports organizations test for a whole host of crap out there, if you have to much protein in your urine you test positive on a NCAA test.
 
I don't know anything about governing bodies in the USA so please bear with me. I assume this is going to sound like a silly question to those of you more familiar with USP Labs products and drug testing.

I have looked over this before when I first heard about someone failing a drug test for amphetamines and blaming Jacked/Jack3D.

From Mulletsoldier:
A few notes.

"There have only been two ingredient changes since JACK3D was released to the market. The first was an increase in the total amount of Beta Alanine, Creatine Monohydrate and Arginine alphaketoglutarate. The second was the removal of Theophylline from the formula, and this move came associated with a proportionate increase in the amount of total xanathines, such that the total stimulant blend for the remained a similar mass. Throughout both of these changes, the amounts of all other ingredients remained precisely the same."

Also from Mulletsoldier;
"Exactly what Boro said! No USP Labs product will cause an NCAA Div 1 false positive."

The second quote was from 2008 when someone asked about NCAA testing and Jacked. If those are the only formulation changes Jack3D shouldn't cause a false positive with this governing body either?

I am obviously missing something, confusing governing bodies from the first post maybe. Could someone clarify this for me please?
 
bdcc said:
I don't know anything about governing bodies in the USA so please bear with me. I assume this is going to sound like a silly question to those of you more familiar with USP Labs products and drug testing.

I have looked over this before when I first heard about someone failing a drug test for amphetamines and blaming Jacked/Jack3D.

From Mulletsoldier:
A few notes.

"There have only been two ingredient changes since JACK3D was released to the market. The first was an increase in the total amount of Beta Alanine, Creatine Monohydrate and Arginine alphaketoglutarate. The second was the removal of Theophylline from the formula, and this move came associated with a proportionate increase in the amount of total xanathines, such that the total stimulant blend for the remained a similar mass. Throughout both of these changes, the amounts of all other ingredients remained precisely the same."

Also from Mulletsoldier;
"Exactly what Boro said! No USP Labs product will cause an NCAA Div 1 false positive."

The second quote was from 2008 when someone asked about NCAA testing and Jacked. If those are the only formulation changes Jack3D shouldn't cause a false positive with this governing body either?

I am obviously missing something, confusing governing bodies from the first post maybe. Could someone clarify this for me please?
Click to expand...

If that was written in 2008, then he wasn't mistaken. 1,3 was not added to the NCAA doping list till 2009.
 
Hence my confusion, thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top