Spikykite
Senior Member
- Feb 14, 2011
- 183
- 14
People in the caring professions mean well and therefore tend to be irritatingly arrogant. Care workers know what’s good for you, and by definition they also know better than you. And they know what you are allowed to know – and what not.
This arrogance becomes painfully obvious on reading the study that British analysts carried out for the WADA, which was published in Drug Testing & Analysis. The researchers analysed 19 orals and 38 injectables, which they got hold of through bodybuilders. The bodybuilders had bought the substances on the British black market.
So let’s come straight to the point. The orals come out of the tests better than the injectables. The only bad tabs the Brits could find were products that were supposed to contain stanozolol, but that an unreliable workshop had added other things to: either nothing at all, DHT or a cocktail of methyltestosterone and caffeine.
The only information the researchers provide is the list above. There are no batch numbers, and the researchers don’t even say anything about the producers. As far as they are concerned, this is not information that you should have.
In fact, the researchers are not out just to inform you, their mission is to educate you. They want you to learn that you shouldn’t be using anabolic steroids. Steroids are dangerous, is their message. The researchers are worried that if they give you too much precise information, all you’ll do is avoid that particular product. And that’s not what they want. And because the researchers know what’s good for you, they have the right to withhold information from you. That’s why you don’t know whether the maker of that stanozolol product, for example, is a reliable one or not.
OK, but maybe there’s still something to be gained.
The list below shows 18 test results for injectables that do indeed contain the ingredients listed on the label. This means that fifty percent of the tested injectable substances are what they say they are.
The researchers found eight products that contained other ingredients than those listed on the labels. Boldenona 50 contains ordinary testosterone propionate, a nandrolone decanoate only contained testosterone enanthate, a primo contained nandrolone, a fake Sustanon had a slightly different ester mix than it should have – that kind of thing. The sachets are a false alarm. These are made to get round customs. The buyers will obviously know that they don’t contain aromatic oil. Somewhat more suspicious is the faulty growth hormone component. The right stuff gives a peak at 22.1 kDa.
And then there are still the injectables that contain nothing at all. With Boldabol, Boldebal-h, Testabol depot, Trenbol 75-r, Youth gh and Norditropin you’re being duped.
The researchers analysed the injectable preparations for microorganisms. They looked to see if they could find bacteria in them, and if so which ones. And in some products they actually found bacteria, but they just don’t think you should know which ones. "Microbiological culture of the vials revealed the presence of contaminants, identified as skin commensals," is all the researchers are willing to say.
Source:
Int Urol Nephrol. 2009;41(3):717-23.
This arrogance becomes painfully obvious on reading the study that British analysts carried out for the WADA, which was published in Drug Testing & Analysis. The researchers analysed 19 orals and 38 injectables, which they got hold of through bodybuilders. The bodybuilders had bought the substances on the British black market.
So let’s come straight to the point. The orals come out of the tests better than the injectables. The only bad tabs the Brits could find were products that were supposed to contain stanozolol, but that an unreliable workshop had added other things to: either nothing at all, DHT or a cocktail of methyltestosterone and caffeine.
The only information the researchers provide is the list above. There are no batch numbers, and the researchers don’t even say anything about the producers. As far as they are concerned, this is not information that you should have.
In fact, the researchers are not out just to inform you, their mission is to educate you. They want you to learn that you shouldn’t be using anabolic steroids. Steroids are dangerous, is their message. The researchers are worried that if they give you too much precise information, all you’ll do is avoid that particular product. And that’s not what they want. And because the researchers know what’s good for you, they have the right to withhold information from you. That’s why you don’t know whether the maker of that stanozolol product, for example, is a reliable one or not.
OK, but maybe there’s still something to be gained.
The list below shows 18 test results for injectables that do indeed contain the ingredients listed on the label. This means that fifty percent of the tested injectable substances are what they say they are.
The researchers found eight products that contained other ingredients than those listed on the labels. Boldenona 50 contains ordinary testosterone propionate, a nandrolone decanoate only contained testosterone enanthate, a primo contained nandrolone, a fake Sustanon had a slightly different ester mix than it should have – that kind of thing. The sachets are a false alarm. These are made to get round customs. The buyers will obviously know that they don’t contain aromatic oil. Somewhat more suspicious is the faulty growth hormone component. The right stuff gives a peak at 22.1 kDa.
And then there are still the injectables that contain nothing at all. With Boldabol, Boldebal-h, Testabol depot, Trenbol 75-r, Youth gh and Norditropin you’re being duped.
The researchers analysed the injectable preparations for microorganisms. They looked to see if they could find bacteria in them, and if so which ones. And in some products they actually found bacteria, but they just don’t think you should know which ones. "Microbiological culture of the vials revealed the presence of contaminants, identified as skin commensals," is all the researchers are willing to say.
Source:
Int Urol Nephrol. 2009;41(3):717-23.