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

Open Letter To Washington Post and Ms. Amy Shipley

Author L. Rea

Board Sponsor
FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE

Dear Ms. Amy Shipley and AM Board Members,

Yesterday, a reporter from the Washington Post named Amy Shipley called looking for both of us to conduct interviews under the guise that she was looking for “information about "new prohormones" since the last legislation was made into law�. For obvious reasons it appears she was deliberately sent in our direction and to this very board/subsection of this board by another “prominent� person in the industry. Sadly at times he acts in a myopic and petty manner. Unfortunately he seems to fully grasp that by doing what he did, he hurts not just us but the entire supplement industry, once again.

Both of us have declined to give Ms. Shipley (who will surely be reading
this) a private, exclusive interview in person or on the telephone because
the media has a history of selectively editing quotes to make a “story
fit� the way they want to (this used to be called “yellow journalism� by
the way and these types of articles belong on the Editorial or Op Ed pages
of a newspaper…not presented as unbiased, objective news). We would like to believe that perhaps this is different.

Nonetheless, we both have decided to make a public statement/press release here on this board before Ms. Shipley writes her article for the
Washington Post.

Both of us have not, are not and will not violate any laws at the federal,
state or local level regarding the sale of controlled substances. It simply is unnecessary and not conducive to our goals of providing safe and health oriented products for the betterment of all whom opt to be at their best. None of
the compounds we have developed and currently market are in current
violation of any controlled substance act at either the federal or state
level. None of the compounds we are developing together or alone violate
any of the controlled substance acts at either the federal or state level
as they currently are written and enacted into law. Naturally we sought out the best legal council to validate our research.

Both of us believe strongly in freedom of choice – you as an adult have a
right to make an educated and intelligent choice as to what you personally
want to put into your body without interference or judgement passed down
on you by others so long as what you are putting into your body does not
violate any law.

The very few select products we make that are of a “controversial� nature –
prohormones, whatever – have very stern and unambiguous warnings printed clearly on the label. Our labels clearly read that one should “consult with their health care provider/physician BEFORE using the product�. Our labels clearly read that these products “should not be used by people under the age of 18/21, by women or by people with renal, hepatic, cardiovascular or psychiatric diseases�. Furthermore, our labels clearly read that users of these supplements should only use them for very brief periods of time.

It is our policy to STRONGLY dissuade the use of these products by people who are not of legal age. Consequently, we do not advertise in ANY media of any sort focused towards teenagers or children.

Additionally, we do not condone the use of any of these products by
professional or amateur athletes looking to circumvent testing for banned
substances whether the testing is conducted by the WADA, USADA, AAU, NCAA., etc.

We feel that our products are correctly (and legally) marketed to and for
educated, intelligent adult men between the ages of 18/21 to 60+ who want
to look better, feel better and perform better. We do not, will not and
have not marketed these few products to or for people not of legal age,
women or people who participate in any type of organized sporting events
be they professional or amateur.

If Ms. Shipley genuinely wishes to discuss the state of prohormones with
us after the passing of the recent legislation in an objective, unbiased
manner, we would be happy to entertain her questions AT OUR DISCRETION, here in this public forum. This way, there can be no “misunderstandings� or “accidental misquotes� attributed to any party. We only request that Ms. Shipley “come out� and admit she is reading this subsection of this board and post her questions openly, under her own name.

Sincerely,

Author L. Rea & Bruce Kneller
 
Author L. Rea said:
For obvious reasons it appears she was deliberately sent in our direction and to this very board/subsection of this board by another “prominent� person in the industry. Sadly at times he acts in a myopic and petty manner. Unfortunately he seems to fully grasp that by doing what he did, he hurts not just us but the entire supplement industry, once again.

I'll assume you're referring to PA, and if not I apologize in advance to you, him, and anyone else that my assumption may hurt. BUT...
Why would someone that just announced a return to the 'ph game' send a reporter to talk to you and BK about this very subject, knowing full well it might hurt his chances of making some serious money? This reporter was also sent to speak with this suspected prominent member of the industry, and said member suspects ANOTHER person in the industry actually unleashed the hounds. What do you say to that theory?
 
Sigh @ media and politics never ceasing to keep the heck out of our personal lives :(

I just wish that they would attempt to educate themselves on unbiased "research material". Every damn politician on capitol hill would be on Test Replacement Therapy if he knew the benifits and just forgot about sports for a few minutes.
 
Last edited:
What if PA just announced his return as a cover for this. I mean really............that would be easy to do. "Hey I am making a new PH.....I would not narc off anyone". Sounds like a shady cover to me.
 
LOL. Ok, then, my friend: what if.. ALR made all this up, and HE'S the one that sent the reporter to talk to PA after he saw the announcement about PA returning to the ph/ps market? Good way to keep some heat on the scape goat of the industry, yeah?

We could go on for days with the 'what if's'. I'd rather hear from the reporter, Amy Shipley, or ALR himself. Thanks for your reply though.
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
The Washington Post, eh?

I was beginning to think that it was possible we could educate her and make her one of the few who understand how safe and benificial our supplements are (including illegal AAS), but then I repeated the words "Washington Post" in my head and threw that silly notion out the window. She/they don't care. Its all about a story and of course, the favorite among progressives, "equality"....:rolleyes: (By the grace of god we surely cannot let old men age slower or use sports supplements to increase athletic performance..no, no, no!)

Perhaps we can keep the insults to a minimum for tonight. Please? There's no better way to NOT get a response from this lady than to insult her, her job, and the profession in which she is gainfully employed. Thanks.
 
Well really what evidence do we have that PA was going to come out with a PH. None. Why would Author call anyone when he is making and selling them himself. It would just make NO sense. He would be screwing himself. I tend to lean on the side of PA fabricating things.
 
dodo_bigs said:
Well really what evidence do we have that PA was going to come out with a PH. None. Why would Author call anyone when he is making and selling them himself. It would just make NO sense. He would be screwing himself. I tend to lean on the side of PA fabricating things.

Point taken, my friend. Guess we'll just have to sit on our hands for the time being.
 
Can someone fill me in?

She came here or to ALR himself? And it appears to be directed from Pat Arnold?
 
ALR said:
it appears she was deliberately sent in our direction and to this very board/subsection of this board by another “prominent� person in the industry. Sadly at times he acts in a myopic and petty manner. Unfortunately he seems to fully grasp that by doing what he did, he hurts not just us but the entire supplement industry, once again.
See above. He does not exactally name him but....
 
You guys are getting WAY ahead of things. Please, remain calm and keep things in perspective here, let's not let this get out of hand. Thanks
 
dodo_bigs said:
Well really what evidence do we have that PA was going to come out with a PH. None. Why would Author call anyone when he is making and selling them himself. It would just make NO sense. He would be screwing himself. I tend to lean on the side of PA fabricating things.
...could you NOT talk about this here? Thanks.

PA was getting phone calls a few days ago about this. I see no motive.
 
That is what was referring to in my post above, about the prominent person(Pat) that was already contacted by this same reporter. I believe on the muscleguru forum is where Mr. Llewellyn is mentioned as the possible culprit. Thanks.
 
the only ones that i believe are truly to blame are these athletes failing drug tests and then claiming they dont know what they took or they took a supplement they "thought" was legal, which is a bunch of crap. the only reasons they make claims like these are to keep themselves out of the hot water they put themselves in. the result of the excuses made by these athletes is misdirected scrutiny of the supplement industry.
 
Bill Llewellyn is the most myopic person I know of in the industry. Anybody who doesn't agree should see the interview he did with (I think it was) ESPN the magazine or something a couple years back. All about ego and making himself look important.

/karp
 
in reply to a post that is no longer available:

Care to say who and what evidence you have?

From a very quick search, I found this though:

Invalid Link Removed

"Patrick has appeared in many publications including major newspapers such as the Washington Post, popular magazines such as ESPN magazine, as well as countless fitness and bodybuilding magazines such as Muscle And Fitness. Patrick is considered the world’s foremost expert in hormonal male enhancement and muscle building and his opinions and knowledge in these fields are sought after by thousands."
 
hyoogeness said:
in reply to a post that is no longer available:

Care to say who and what evidence you have?

The instructions to find your culprit were in my post. Not exactly hard to follow, if you indeed saw the post.
 
I know but we might have to present the board in the best light that we can... that was the reason for the reminder
 
Are they really all gone??:think: Or were they ever there to begin with? (MATRIX) j/k but seriously all the threads are gone?
 
This is crazy. I hope there are no plans to introduce new anti-andro bills to "save us from our selves". I hope this reporter lady truly gives us a fair shake, we deserve it. We are just people trying to improve our physiques trough disciplined hard work, not just the use of hormonal compounds.
 
Iron Warrior said:
This is crazy. I hope there are no plans to introduce new anti-andro bills to "save us from our selves". I hope this reporter lady truly gives us a fair shake, we deserve it. We are just people trying to improve our physiques trough disciplined hard work, not just the use of hormonal compounds.
Deserve it yes, but forgive me for being less than optimistic regarding the situation. Of all of the cliques of people in the world, the one that gives the least problems would have to be the fitness crowd. We just want to live our lives, look and feel good. I don't see why we are subject to so much harassment. Its absolutely asinine.

And, remember guys, this isnt' the first time a 'reporter' has hopped on the forums in search of 'answers'.
 
Kris4153 said:
Are they really all gone??:think: Or were they ever there to begin with? (MATRIX) j/k but seriously all the threads are gone?
no, they are still retreivable at the moment (not by you though). They may never return though, depending how this situation pans out.
 
Iron Warrior said:
This is crazy. I hope there are no plans to introduce new anti-andro bills to "save us from our selves". I hope this reporter lady truly gives us a fair shake, we deserve it. We are just people trying to improve our physiques trough disciplined hard work, not just the use of hormonal compounds.

A fair shake? :rofl: This reporter is trying to get herself a Pulitzer prize. She trying to make it to the higher echolons of journalism. So her and her edittor are going to skew the truth, just for the big story.
 
tell them to take a look at the exercise/training and nutrition parts of the board. thats what bodybuilding is all about.
why just look at ALR's section?
 
I think the end is near folks. She had plenty of ammo to make a cut-throat article which will end up bringing new legislation to pass. Glad I got enough info here to make educated use of supps while they last. I feel sorry for the people who didnt get to read the informative posts on this board, if truly it is shut down for good.
 
Maybe I'm missing something here but doesn't removing all the threads kinda make it look like somebody might be trying to hide something.
And I had just started looking at these products and reading in this forum. :sad:
 
jmh80 said:
Matt/Ryan/other mods - is there no longer posting in ALR's forum? What is the deal?


Isn't it obvious? ALRI wants to minimize their visibility at this point. No good can come out of an investigation if they are subjected to one.
 
The facts are what they are. The gov't still has a hard-on for the supp industry. Recent baseball developments fuel the fire even more. Even though things died down post-ban, the big hitters have gone into overdrive with new "replacement" products, and full force, no holds barred advertising. I'm not against this. I'm pro-supp. But I don't need a crystal ball to see that when the hype mounts and spreads from BB.com to Vitamin World, eventually eyebrows will be raised, and the supp industry is again in the crosshairs. This female reporter is only one of many who will come knocking. Just the way it is.

On the other hand, the aforementioned "big hitters" have some responsibility. Since the get-go (post-ban) it has been an all out race with "new and grey". Again, I love that. Buy all of it myself. But it's a far cry from careful, cautious, slow and steady--keeping the blood-sniffing hounds at bay. This time was imminent. What is disgraceful, however, is when the sniping and bickering between the producers gets so ugly that the industry itself is compromised. With as much $$ as there is to share, I think it's truly a tragedy when competition becomes actual fuel on the fire which could again rip the supp game apart.
 
TINYTOAD said:
Here is one of Amy's articles:

Invalid Link Removed



New Steroids Sold Over Counter
Law From 1990 Doesn't Bar Then-Unknown Substances



By Amy Shipley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 6, 2002; Page A01



Two new steroids that are not readily detectable by current drug-testing methods have angered sports and government officials, who say the companies marketing them are skirting the law to sell dangerous drugs over the counter as dietary supplements.

Congress banned all known steroids in 1990 after hearing testimony about their health effects and rampant abuse in sport. However, the two new steroids -- called 1-testosterone and 4-hydroxy-testosterone -- escaped mention in the legislation because they were virtually unknown. Because their manufacturers can claim they are natural substances, the steroids have been marketed as dietary supplements that increase strength and build muscle.

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed William Llewellyn of Molecular Nutrition: "Our goal is . . . making the most effective products we can make within the constraints of the law." (Helayne Seidman For The Washington Post)


Free E-mail Newsletters

  • Washington Nationals
    See a Sample | Sign Up Now
  • Redskins
    See a Sample | Sign Up Now



Dozens of products containing these full-blown steroids, which have been dubbed "pro-steroids" by their manufacturers, have proliferated on nutrition store shelves and the Internet in recent months. They are sold in a variety of forms but not as injectable steroids (considered the most potent means of administering steroids).

"People just do not know what is going on in the dietary supplement market," said James Tolliver, a pharmacologist in the drug and chemical evaluation section of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Office of Diversion Control. The new drugs "are anabolic steroids that can produce very significant adverse effects in humans. On top of that, they are available to anyone."

Because tests have not been developed to detect these drugs, even athletes in sports that ban steroids might be able to use them without getting caught. The International Olympic Committee, National Football League and National Collegiate Athletic Association ban steroids and test their athletes. The National Hockey League and Major League Baseball do not.

Since the mid-1990s, supplement manufacturers have exploited a legal loophole to sell another type of over-the-counter steroid product known as "steroid precursors." Steroid precursors convert to illegal steroids only after they are ingested. The two new steroids are considered more potent than precursors because they do not require such a conversion in the body. They were recently discovered by two U.S. scientists who are considered leaders in the dietary supplement industry.

Don Catlin, head of the IOC-accredited laboratory at UCLA in Los Angeles, said he has recently become aware of 1-testosterone and 4-hydroxy-testosterone and considers them the equivalent of "designer steroids." There are no tests for either substance, although Catlin and U.S. Anti-Doping Agency Senior Manager Director Larry Bowers said 1-testosterone may share metabolites with some known steroids, which could aid in its identification. Catlin said he has begun the process of trying to develop formal tests for both.

Invalid Link Removed
The first of the new steroids was discovered and dubbed 1-testosterone -- its chemical name is 1delta-dihydrostestosterone -- by Patrick Arnold of LPJ Research and ErgoPharm in Seymour, Ill., just over a year ago. Arnold marketed the steroid only in its precursor form in a product called 1-AD. It is claimed to be seven times more anabolic -- in other words, more potent -- than testosterone, and has since been sold as a pro-steroid by many other companies. The other new steroid, 4-hydroxy-testosterone, was discovered by William Llewellyn of Molecular Nutrition in Jupiter, Fla. It will be released in a few weeks by Llewellyn in a product called Hydroxytest; the company Promatrix already is selling it in a slightly modified form in a supplement named Testabol Ether.

"There's a multitude of products; you can't keep track of all of them," Arnold said. "It's an industry full of people trying to get an edge on everyone else."

Though pro-steroids didn't exist a year ago, there are now more than a dozen such products sold under names such as 1-Test, 1-Test Ether, Atomic T-Bol, One, T-100, TestXtreme, Androgen-1, Test-100, Test-250, Testosterol XP, TestXtreme and Mag10. While most manufacturers shy away from references to anabolic steroids in their advertising, other companies are more bold.

"We have entered the final leg to making supplements equally effective to steroids," states an Internet advertisement for 1-Test Ether, made by Higher Power Nutrition. "Let's not kid ourselves, some may wish to deny it, but 1-Test is an actual steroid."

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]A Search for Strength
[/size][/font]
In the 1930s, scientists synthesized the first anabolic steroids for medical purposes. Steroids were originally used to treat males whose testes failed to produce sufficient natural testosterone for normal growth, and later for cancer, AIDS, organ transplantation and impotence. In early tests, scientists found that anabolic steroids, when given to laboratory animals, produced significant muscle development. That discovery led to their widespread use by bodybuilders and athletes in a variety of sports by the 1960s.

Studies have shown that anabolic steroids, when taken for muscle-enhancing effects, may have harmful side effects that include aggressive behavior, liver damage, hair loss, testicular atrophy and stunted growth if taken by adolescents.

When steroids were banned in the United States, some athletes turned to the black market. Others sought out legal strength-building products. To meet the growing demand, some chemists began searching through old research papers and textbooks to find age-old steroid recipes that were not on the banned list in 1990 and thus, by virtue of their obscurity, remained legal.

In his promotion of the product 1-AD, the 1-testosterone precursor that was later sold as a pro-steroid, Arnold cited research from the pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle from the 1960s. Llewellyn, too, said he relied upon decades-old research to find 4-hydroxy-testosterone.

Elm Valle, a 29-year-old bodybuilder and certified personal trainer in Cleveland, Tenn., said the legal steroid products are an invaluable piece of his training regimen. He said he takes protein supplements daily along with a "stack" of supplements from Molecular Nutrition: 1-T Ethergels (1-testosterone pro-steroid), Boldione (boldenone precursor) and 3-Alpha (dihydrotestosterone precursor). Valle said the only side effect he has experienced while using the products has been occasional grumpiness. Valle, who is not paid to promote any company's supplements, said he put on 12 pounds of muscle in four weeks using the stack -- in tandem with a strict diet and an intense workout plan. He finished third in the most recent Mr. Tennessee championships.

"In a matter of months, my strength exploded," said Valle, who stands 5 feet 3 and went from 128 to 140 pounds. The products "polish you. They help you gain the extra muscle. There is only so much you can gain by eating the right foods. The rest you have to supplement. Any competitive bodybuilder will tell you that."

Valle said he believes only those who recklessly consume too much of the substances are in danger of becoming sick or experiencing serious side effects. He did, however, acknowledge that pro-steroids and precursors can be risky when adolescents get their hands on them. "That is a problem," he said. "They're making choices without being educated about it -- teens, especially. They are easily swayed to take these and, unfortunately, they don't make mature decisions."

DEA officials are outraged over the emergence of these products and the blatancy of some of the advertising, but they say they are powerless to prevent their distribution unless the steroids they contain are added to the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990. Because of the relative anonymity of the new steroids and the lack of medical data on their effects, DEA officials say it could take months, or even years, for that to happen.

The Food and Drug Administration says its hands are similarly tied. Under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA), it must prove a supplement is a health hazard before removing it from the market. Though extensive research shows that anabolic steroids can have a multitude of troubling side effects, because the new steroids have not specifically been studied, the same body of evidence does not exist for them.

"What we don't have is a lot of science to help us understand if there is a safety issue," said Christine Taylor, director of the FDA's Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements. "We are concerned and monitoring the situation."

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Precursors Came First
[/size][/font]
Pro-steroids are the latest bane to government officials and Olympic drug-testing administrators, but all say they also remain troubled by steroid precursors, which came into the existence soon after the passage of the DSHEA. In 1996, Arnold, the chemist considered responsible for the most revolutionary developments in the industry, developed the first and most famous of the precursors: androstenedione. "Andro," which gained fame after baseball slugger Mark McGwire admitted using it, metabolizes into the illegal steroid testosterone.

Andro, though, is old news to Arnold and other industry insiders, who say newer products are more potent and have fewer negative side effects. Arnold and Llewellyn say there is a limit on the number of natural steroids available that can be sold legally as dietary supplements. Because of that apparent ceiling, many supplement producers are attempting to maximize the effects of the current pro-steroids and precursors by tinkering with modes of administration. Even giants in the dietary supplement industry -- which is filled with copycats and fierce competition -- are divided over some of the advances.

Some industry leaders believe their rivals have gone too far with over-the-top advertising or products that too closely resemble illegal drugs. But they are united on this front: All want to stay in business. They claim their products promote no major, harmful side effects if taken in recommended doses. They say government and anti-doping officials have used inappropriate scare tactics to try to convince the public that over-the-counter steroids are filled with danger.

"Where is the societal damage?" said Syntrax Innovations' Derek Cornelius, who discovered the first nandrolone precursor. "If there was a health problem, the FDA has plenty of recourse it could take in the market. We're all up in arms about something that causes acne and maybe 10,000 people use it? . . . They would have a point if people were having bad side effects, if people were dying in hospitals, but it's not happening. It's like making an issue out of something that's not."

Llewellyn, credited with discovering the first boldenone and dihydrotestosterone precursors, says athletes who wish to use steroids to enhance their physiques should not face legal barriers that are not present for those who have plastic surgery or breast enhancement. He says that athletes and bodybuilders who want to build muscle will turn to the black market if pro-steroids and precursors are banned. Furthermore, he says, despite the increasing potency of the products, supplement manufacturers cannot mimic the actions of illegal drugs that are taken by injection.

"You take 18-year-old kids [who want to bulk up], they're going to go to the steroids . . . you're not going to avoid it," said Llewellyn, the author of "Anabolics 2002: Anabolic Steroid Reference Manual." "At least now they have a legal option, a safer option. . . . Our goal is not holding back in making the most effective products we can make within the constraints of the law."

Government officials say they are wrangling with a mushrooming problem, adding that the absence of documentation on obscure drugs does not prove they are safe or fit to be sold over-the-counter. U.S. Anti-Doping Agency Chief Terry Madden says leaders in the supplement industry are preying upon young people who want to succeed in athletics. Madden and others say pro-steroids and precursors are essentially targeted to minors given their easy availability, the desire of teen athletes to muscle up and the lack of regulation over the industry.

"What 16-year-old doesn't want to knock the ball out of the park?" said Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.). "The marketing of these drugs to young athletes is obvious. What is equally horrifying is their availability. These drugs are obtained too easily by youngsters."

Tolliver said recommended dosage levels on many of the supplements have increased such that they far exceed what would be considered "ethical" in legitimate medical studies of the products. He also condemned the plethora of advertisements in which supplement companies pitch "stacks" of pro-steroids and steroid precursors, such as used by the bodybuilder Valle, or individual products that contain a host of steroid precursors and pro-steroids.

"Stacking steroids is not something that would typically be done in legitimate medicine," Tolliver said. "They are mimicking the steroid-abusing population."

The issue likely will be a hot topic in the coming months. On Oct. 9, Sweeney and Rep. Tom Osborne (R-Neb.) introduced a bill that would amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow steroid precursors to be listed as controlled substances and vowed to address the issue in congressional hearings.

Rick Collins, an expert in steroid law and the author of "Legal Muscle: Anabolics in America," said the increasingly sophisticated products in the industry should be judged individually, not lumped into one law and banned across the board.

"You need to be distinguishing between products that are anabolic steroids," he said. "You need to draw the line somewhere. The question is, where are you going to draw the line? Which side of 1-testosterone are you going to draw it?"
 
hmm, this article has me thinking. Who has to gain from a ban on the new products? Certainly not anyone who is currently or plans in the near future to release some. It would have to be a company owner who doesn't have any PH/prosteroid products. One who is mentioned in the article spings to mind.
 
The article is okay, some things were obviously either researched or the info was borrowed from the like of LLelwyn, and some was obviously just regurgitated misinformation.

Still not impressed. I've seen very few good article regarding steroids and only one documentary (the now famous HBO documentary).

I wonder where she is????
 
Back
Top