Police & Prohormones

[B5150]

What you and many still fail to understand is that these legal OTC products that you guys continue to refer to as prohormones are not prohormones. They are STEROIDS. Their OTC legal status does in no way change the fact that they are steroids.

 

[bigwhiteguy29]

just dont pin yourself with test.

 

[liftsalot]

What you and many still fail to understand is that these legal OTC products that you guys continue to refer to as prohormones are not prohormones. They are STEROIDS. Their OTC legal status does in no way change the fact that they are steroids.

Well yes I agree, I saw the actual question today in the background packet for the interview and the exact wording is "have you ever used any type of anabolic steroid ie oral or injectable anabolic steroid/prohormones" so what do I say now lol I'm gonna stick with my initial plan and just be honest about it that's all I can do. If they don't accept me they don't accept me.

 

[roan4]

That's the vest way to go. They are not looking for angels they are lookong for credible honest people. If you are not truthful about something the that's all you will be dwelling on when the polygraph time comes and you will freak out during the whole test. Good luck

 

[bigwhiteguy29]

as long as you didnt inject oir bought Dbol like a year ago, you will be fine. JUST DONT LIE! Say yes, i have used OTC prohormones when I was younger.

 

[liftsalot]

as long as you didnt inject oir bought Dbol like a year ago, you will be fine. JUST DONT LIE! Say yes, i have used OTC prohormones when I was younger.

Ya when I was younger like a year ago and h-drol a few months ago ha ha ha

 

[jizmo]

I had a few questions maybe you guys can help me shed some light on. I have used two cycles of fairly mild ph's in the past maybe little over a year ago. One furza a and one h-drol cycle, I am currently testing with my local police department to become a police officer and am just about to the part where we talk about past drug use. One of the questions in my background interview is have you ever used any kind of oral or illegal anabolic steroid. Maybe some former police officers or current police officers can help me out here, do they consider a prohormone a steroid even though by definition it really isnt cause there not illegal even though they have steroid capabilities. I want to awnser truthfully but i also was planning on running another cycle in the future but if these are something a department is gonna frown upon obviously i cant. I of course dont want to hinder my chances with getting on with my career i have decided i want to be a part of. Any input would be appriciated.

As a retired cop I can say ADD. Admit nothing, Deny everything, and Demand proof! Its a legal supplement. You sure you wanna be a cop?Its kinda like enlisting in the Navy when you're drunk. Six weeks later you see a lot of options you missed. Be a cop and find five buds U can trust who work out hard. There is a brotherhood there at least there was when I was a cop. Good Luck Jizmo sez Peace Out

 

[StackedCop]

As a retired cop I can say ADD. Admit nothing, Deny everything, and Demand proof! Its a legal supplement. You sure you wanna be a cop?Its kinda like enlisting in the Navy when you're drunk. Six weeks later you see a lot of options you missed. Be a cop and find five buds U can trust who work out hard. There is a brotherhood there at least there was when I was a cop. Good Luck Jizmo sez Peace Out

Spoken like a true retired cop! The brotherhood is certainly dead. No one trusts you and the dept only cares about how many tickets you write and cars you tow.

 

[RoadBlocK]

If you purchased and used the products legally you did not break any law and therefore you have no reason for concern. The question is referencing "STERIOD " use why would you disclose LEGAL prohormone use when that was NOT the question. In my experience when someone gives me an answer to a different question when I asked a specific question, that is a sign of deception. Politicians do this all the time! If they didn't ask about prohormones don't answer about prohormones or prosteriods. If they wanted to know about prohormones they would ask specifically.

ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT IS ASKED PERIOD!

As a retired cop I can say ADD. Admit nothing, Deny everything, and Demand proof! Its a legal supplement. You sure you wanna be a cop?Its kinda like enlisting in the Navy when you're drunk. Six weeks later you see a lot of options you missed. Be a cop and find five buds U can trust who work out hard. There is a brotherhood there at least there was when I was a cop. Good Luck Jizmo sez Peace Out

These statements are the best advice in this thread. You are going to get yourself all jammed up over thinking how to answer this one question. If you bought it in/from a store, you did nothing illegal.

 

[B5150]

One of the questions in my background interview is have you ever used any kind of oral or illegal anabolic steroid. Maybe some former police officers or current police officers can help me out here, do they consider a prohormone a steroid even though by definition it really isnt cause there not illegal even though they have steroid capabilities.

Here is where, as I have stated many times before, you guys are naive and or missing a key factor in the question - oral (aka:OTC) steroids are indeed legal but are true active steroids. They are not prohormones with steroid capabilities - they are steroids. Their legality does not change this fact.

There are two questions here - have you used ANY kind - "oral anabolic steroids" or "illegal anabolic steroids." The question(s) is - did you use steroids? The answer is - YES, he did use steroids.

 

[bigwhiteguy29]

Here is where, as I have stated many times before, you guys are naive and or missing a key factor in the question - oral (aka:OTC) steroids are indeed legal but are true active steroids. They are not prohormones with steroid capabilities - they are steroids. Their legality does not change this fact.

There are two questions here - have you used ANY kind - "oral anabolic steroids" or "illegal anabolic steroids." The question(s) is - did you use steroids? The answer is - YES, he did use steroids.

yes this is true then instead of saying you hit up a dealer to buy dbol you bought them at a store legally. they care about legally and not injecting yourself. your answer should be like "yeah i took a legal steroid from a store"

 

[aj0538]

Spoken like a true retired cop! The brotherhood is certainly dead. No one trusts you and the dept only cares about how many tickets you write and cars you tow.

Amen to that. If I had to do it over again I would have taken the fire test instead.

 

[compudog]

Here is where, as I have stated many times before, you guys are naive and or missing a key factor in the question - oral (aka:OTC) steroids are indeed legal but are true active steroids. They are not prohormones with steroid capabilities - they are steroids. Their legality does not change this fact.

Depends on what kind of fact you're talking about. That novel substances are steroids may be a scientific fact, but not a recognised scientific fact, and therefore not a legal fact at all.

For the purpose of educating potential users as to what a substance is and does, calling a spade a spade and a steroid a steroid is a good idea. In terms of legal definitions though I don't think it's so clear. If the law says "steroids" are illegal, and then defines steroids according to a list of substances, then according to the law, those substances and only those substances are steroids. If your substance isn't on the list, then it's not a steroid, at least, not according to the law.

If you think about it, it has to work that way. In order to declare steroids illegal, the govt. needs to define what a steroid is, which is a matter of science. The substance in question has to be tested and studied by a lot of different means and people, right up to and including human trials. So of course the law cannot recognise a novel substance as a steroid.

This also brings up an important point: potential users need to carefully consider whether they want to use an unknown and untested (and therefore legal) substance, or one that is well known, has had a lot research done on it, and is therefore illegal.

 

[B5150]

Depends on what kind of fact you're talking about. That novel substances are steroids may be a scientific fact, but not a recognised scientific fact, and therefore not a legal fact at all.

For the purpose of educating potential users as to what a substance is and does, calling a spade a spade and a steroid a steroid is a good idea. In terms of legal definitions though I don't think it's so clear. If the law says "steroids" are illegal, and then defines steroids according to a list of substances, then according to the law, those substances and only those substances are steroids. If your substance isn't on the list, then it's not a steroid, at least, not according to the law.

If you think about it, it has to work that way. In order to declare steroids illegal, the govt. needs to define what a steroid is, which is a matter of science. The substance in question has to be tested and studied by a lot of different means and people, right up to and including human trials. So of course the law cannot recognise a novel substance as a steroid.

This also brings up an important point: potential users need to carefully consider whether they want to use an unknown and untested (and therefore legal) substance, or one that is well known, has had a lot research done on it, and is therefore illegal.

Invalid Link Removed

[TR]
[TD="class: text, colspan: 2"] 2. Mental masturbation

the act of engaging in intelligent and interesting conversation purely for the enjoyment of your own greatness and individuality. Subjects range from obscure lp's to cultural movements in preindustrial societies. Either delivered through grand monlogues or subtle conversation orientation, it links large words and random references resulting in nothing acually being communicated.

[/TD]

[/TR]

 

[liftsalot]

Well i had my oral background interview yesterday and polygraph, i awnsered that i have taken a few prohormones and listed the names and told them i purchased them legally. They asked how long ago i took them and how long i took them for and what the reason was for taking them. That was in the interview, when it came time for the polygraph they never even brought it up. I asked the interviewer after the test was over if he thought it would hinder my chances at all and he said the only thing that might is the h-drol cycle was so close like a month and a half ago. But he didnt think it was a big issue because they wernt illegal anabolic steroids.

 

[compudog]

Invalid Link Removed

[TD="class: text, colspan: 2"] 2. Mental masturbation

the act of engaging in intelligent and interesting conversation purely for the enjoyment of your own greatness and individuality. Subjects range from obscure lp's to cultural movements in preindustrial societies. Either delivered through grand monlogues or subtle conversation orientation, it links large words and random references resulting in nothing acually being communicated.
[/TD]

If you didn't understand what I wrote you could have just asked. No need to make an ass of yourself.

 

[B5150]

If you didn't understand what I wrote you could have just asked. No need to make an ass of yourself.

I understood very well what you said.

Depends on what kind of fact you're talking about. That novel substances are steroids may be a scientific fact, but not a recognized scientific fact, and therefore not a legal fact at all.

The molecular structure of a substance makes it a steroid. That is a fact, a scientific fact. The fact that legislation does not recognize this scientific fact does not change the molecular structure nor the fact of it being a steroid. The argument is silly and does not change anything aside from your perception and differentiation between legal fact and scientific fact. When you place it in your body your body knows its a steroid regardless of what the law has to say about it.

Your follow up paragraphs only further elaborate your point with legal semantics and is still irrelevant to the question of whether or not he ingested a chemical of the molecular structure of a steroid.

For the purpose of educating potential users as to what a substance is and does, calling a spade a spade and a steroid a steroid is a good idea.

Agreed

This also brings up an important point: potential users need to carefully consider whether they want to use an unknown and untested (and therefore legal) substance, or one that is well known, has had a lot research done on it, and is therefore illegal.

For the most part the molecular structure of these steroids have all been listed and documented (I believe its Vida) and have a carbon shift and other minor alterations and "ethylation" and are still known to be steroid derivatives that are only derivatives to place them in the loophole that you attempted to elaborate to make them both unknown/untested and legal. They are still steroids.

The comment of making an ass of myself - as stated, I understood very well your point - I stand on the mental masturbation comment, as all you are stating is legal semantics

 

[soontobbeast]

i mentally masturbate sometimes 3 times a day.

 

[B5150]

Lightweight.

 

[MDiocre]

[/URL]

[TR]
[TD="class: text, colspan: 2"] 2. Mental masturbation

the act of engaging in intelligent and interesting conversation purely for the enjoyment of your own greatness and individuality. Subjects range from obscure lp's to cultural movements in preindustrial societies. Either delivered through grand monlogues or subtle conversation orientation, it links large words and random references resulting in nothing acually being communicated.

[/TD]

[/TR]

:icon_lol:

 

[bigwhiteguy29]

I understood very well what you said.

The molecular structure of a substance makes it a steroid. That is a fact, a scientific fact. The fact that legislation does not recognize this scientific fact does not change the molecular structure nor the fact of it being a steroid. The argument is silly and does not change anything aside from your perception and differentiation between legal fact and scientific fact. When you place it in your body your body knows its a steroid regardless of what the law has to say about it.

Your follow up paragraphs only further elaborate your point with legal semantics and is still irrelevant to the question of whether or not he ingested a chemical of the molecular structure of a steroid.

Agreed

For the most part the molecular structure of these steroids have all been listed and documented (I believe its Vida) and have a carbon shift and other minor alterations and "ethylation" and are still known to be steroid derivatives that are only derivatives to place them in the loophole that you attempted to elaborate to make them both unknown/untested and legal. They are still steroids.

The comment of making an ass of myself - as stated, I understood very well your point - I stand on the mental masturbation comment, as all you are stating is legal semantics

i agree mostly with what you are saying, that would maybe be the case for the olympics or something. we have told him many times say you took prohormones legally over the counter. YEs we know they contain steroids, yes we know they know what they contain. they allow you to smoke weed and drink underage and stuff all you have do to is disclose it. this test is about not lying. so just say yes. also they think its a huge deal to use needles because its like a gateway drug, buying it from a store = not your problem. so i get your argument but its not even really completely reverent to what they want/ are looking for.

 

[B5150]

they allow you to smoke weed and drink underage and stuff all you have do to is disclose it.

See, now, here is my point. Not all agencies just accept that. So will they disqualify him for his "background" check?

As much as he wanted to be honest, a friend of my did disclose all of his background experimentation. They actually had a check list of substance uses or abuses and frequency etc. I know him very well and it was indeed very experimental a long time prior yet the simple disclosure disqualified him. Never needed a polygraph.

So the point I have been making all along and maybe not directly enough, is that if the question was steroid use, he did do steroids, regardless of whether he wanted to call it a prohormone or not. They know this as well. Now, either tell the whole truth, living and dieing by it or be prepared to LIE about it very well, well enough to be able to pass a LIE detector test...not knowing one way or the other what the LIE detector test questions will be...

The issue I had was never about the if he did use or not. The issue has always been if you are telling the truth. You can call it prohormones or whatever you like. They are not stupid. Believe it or know the anonymous egurus on everything steroid are not the only knowledgeable people on the matter. So whether you want to call them steroids or not he needs to know they are steroids, because they are, and any other intellignet people will know this too.

So tell them the truth, but know very well what you are fessing up to. He may want to believe what he wants about the substance he took. Its what they think about it is what matters. So if he is prepared to tell that truth he needs to be prepared to know that just because some e-guru-ex-cop-current-cop-message-board-body-builder-want-to-be-or-other thinks something about what he took doesn't mean they will think the same thing.

They'll "appreciate" and "admire" your character and integrity in full disclosure and still disqualify you if they feel what you have told them about your background is derogatory.

So when telling the truth know very well the facts about the truth that you are telling. Know that what you think about it isn't in consideration.

...or lie 'til the very end.

Good luck with that. LE is a good career choice if it's really you.

 

[bigwhiteguy29]

See, now, here is my point. Not all agencies just accept that. So will they disqualify him for his "background" check?

As much as he wanted to be honest, a friend of my did disclose all of his background experimentation. They actually had a check list of substance uses or abuses and frequency etc. I know him very well and it was indeed very experimental a long time prior yet the simple disclosure disqualified him. Never needed a polygraph.

So the point I have been making all along and maybe not directly enough, is that if the question was steroid use, he did do steroids, regardless of whether he wanted to call it a prohormone or not. They know this as well. Now, either tell the whole truth, living and dieing by it or be prepared to LIE about it very well, well enough to be able to pass a LIE detector test...not knowing one way or the other what the LIE detector test questions will be...

The issue I had was never about the if he did use or not. The issue has always been if you are telling the truth. You can call it prohormones or whatever you like. They are not stupid. Believe it or know the anonymous egurus on everything steroid are not the only knowledgeable people on the matter. So whether you want to call them steroids or not he needs to know they are steroids, because they are, and any other intellignet people will know this too.

So tell them the truth, but know very well what you are fessing up to. He may want to believe what he wants about the substance he took. Its what they think about it is what matters. So if he is prepared to tell that truth he needs to be prepared to know that just because some e-guru-ex-cop-current-cop-message-board-body-builder-want-to-be-or-other thinks something about what he took doesn't mean they will think the same thing.

They'll "appreciate" and "admire" your character and integrity in full disclosure and still disqualify you if they feel what you have told them about your background is derogatory.

So when telling the truth know very well the facts about the truth that you are telling. Know that what you think about it isn't in consideration.

...or lie 'til the very end.

Good luck with that. LE is a good career choice if it's really you.

I agree. All agencies are different. I personally think he has a better chance disclosing it as well as if he did buy them legally state that. If he bought oral Dbol, winny or injected I would just say forget it man and move on.

 

[jizmo]

yes this is true then instead of saying you hit up a dealer to buy dbol you bought them at a store legally. they care about legally and not injecting yourself. your answer should be like "yeah i took a legal steroid from a store"

The answer to the question is I have used legal prohormones! Let them figure it out whether or not its a steroid. Look at it this way,,,,, If Dbol was legal would they even ask if you used it. You're missing the point. They are looking for illegal behavior on your part. Mostly because that type of behavior may have to be disclosed in a court type case and U don't want to be on a stand being grilled by a greasy defense lawyer( apologies to greasy defense lawyers on this board). Just remember!!!!!!! The polygraph is a tool they use to open up a dialogue. U can not change your story one little bit. I learned a little during my eight years in homicide. Good Luck! Jizmo sez Peace Out

 

[PITBULL915]

Two words.... Ronnie.....Coleman

 

[bigwhiteguy29]

The answer to the question is I have used legal prohormones! Let them figure it out whether or not its a steroid. Look at it this way,,,,, If Dbol was legal would they even ask if you used it. You're missing the point. They are looking for illegal behavior on your part. Mostly because that type of behavior may have to be disclosed in a court type case and U don't want to be on a stand being grilled by a greasy defense lawyer( apologies to greasy defense lawyers on this board). Just remember!!!!!!! The polygraph is a tool they use to open up a dialogue. U can not change your story one little bit. I learned a little during my eight years in homicide. Good Luck! Jizmo sez Peace Out

wow.....DUH!