T Nation

6-OXO and 6-OXO Extreme


#1

"In his lawsuit, Romero states that the positive test resulted from his use of over-the-counter supplements 6-OXO and 6-OXO Extreme. The products are manufactured by ErgoPharm, Inc., a Champaign, Ill.-based company run by Patrick Arnold."


#2

This is old news. I read something where Pat Arnold said that 6-OXO/6-OXO Extreme share a common metabolite with Andro, which could cause a false positive. I haven’t seen comments by him/ErgoPharm about the testing which showed 6-OXO/6-OXO Extreme was contaminated with Andro (and I still haven’t seen anything which shows the level of contamination). I feel bad for Pat Arnold, the goverment has a vendetta against him and his company and they just won’t leave him alone because they need “to protect the innocent children”, and now JC Romero is suing him.


#3

Here’s an online quote from Pat in January -

"we have never seen any androstenedione in our 6-oxo. we have never been shown any test results that demonstrate androstenedione in our 6-oxo. we have had a sophisticated lab (working in conjunction with the University of Illinois) undergo testing on some batches and thus far the results have been negative. these tests are ongoing. if its in there it is probably in parts per billion

anyone that would think we would spike 6-oxo with parts per billion of andro should have their head examined. frighteningly enough though, that is exactly what we are being accused of"


#4

Trash and Trash Extreme IMO.


#5

4-Androstene-3,6,17-trione thats the chemical name.

DAMNIT THIS IS PISSING ME OFF…

WHY DID THE PART I POSTED WITH THE FDA QOUTES NOT GO THROUGH!!!

someone hiding something here???


#6

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. A lawsuit don’t mean jack. Often, it means someone is trying to cover something up.

It looks like a doper is trying to blame someone else as part of a PR campaign. So he’s filing a lawsuit hoping that people will think there is something to it.

Fortunately Americans are jaded enough to realize that frivolous lawsuits are all too common. Unfortunately for the person being sued, you still have to pay lawyers big bucks to defend yourself from a frivolous lawsuit.


#7

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. A lawsuit don’t mean jack. Often, it means someone is trying to cover something up.

It looks like a doper is trying to blame someone else as part of a PR campaign. So he’s filing a lawsuit hoping that people will think there is something to it.

Fortunately Americans are jaded enough to realize that frivolous lawsuits are all too common. Unfortunately for the person being sued, you still have to pay lawyers big bucks to defend yourself from a frivolous lawsuit.[/quote]

If he is a doper isn’t volunteering to go to court a pretty stupid idea ?


#8

I don’t see where the defendant can order the plaintiff to produce drug tests of himself and so forth.


#9

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t see where the defendant can order the plaintiff to produce drug tests of himself and so forth.[/quote]

Really ? Wouldn’t the defense just take the attitude that CLAW laid out above , that he’s a doper and already had this stuff in his system etc. , and go from there ? And if the defense can’t order it wouldn’t the plaintiff need to volunteer it to be taken seriously ?

I really have no idea so take my questions @ face value.


#10

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that that would not be so. Without a person having already consented, the law has stood against invasive drug testing. For example if you are arrested the police cannot go do a blood test on you. When you are not even a defendant it would seem even more impossible.

On whether the plaintiff would need to volunteer it to be taken seriously: I suppose it’s possible the jury might think so, but I would think any suggestion in court by the defense that they do would be objected to and sustained.

Anyway, I’ve never heard of a case where a plaintiff wound up being made to take a drug test or lost as a result of failing to do so. (Not that never hearing of something means it never happened anywhere anytime, but I never heard of it.)

As for the test that he failed which Romero himself is citing: for sure the defense is entitled to the full results of that test, and if they can demonstrate that THOSE results actually prove other drug use, then that would be a different story.

It would be nice if it worked out that way.


#11

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that that would not be so. Without a person having already consented, the law has stood against invasive drug testing. For example if you are arrested the police cannot go do a blood test on you. When you are not even a defendant it would seem even more impossible.

On whether the plaintiff would need to volunteer it to be taken seriously: I suppose it’s possible the jury might think so, but I would think any suggestion in court by the defense that they do would be objected to and sustained.

Anyway, I’ve never heard of a case where a plaintiff wound up being made to take a drug test or lost as a result of failing to do so. (Not that never hearing of something means it never happened anywhere anytime, but I never heard of it.)

As for the test that he failed which Romero himself is citing: for sure the defense is entitled to the full results of that test, and if they can demonstrate that THOSE results actually prove other drug use, then that would be a different story.

It would be nice if it worked out that way.[/quote]

You mean because you think the suit is BS or because Romero winning would show that a supplement was spiked ?


#12

The scenario I described would have Romero losing by the very evidence he was basing his claim on.

To my personal taste, that would be a pleasing turn of events. Completely regardless of any other particulars of the case: it would just be a sort of thing I like. However there are other aspects of the case that cause me to want him to lose as well.


#13

And no, I don’t think Romero winning would show a supplement was spiked, as I define the term spiked.

I actually do not know the details of this case. While with GC/MS or HPLC/MS it’s possible to distinguish supplemental androstenedione from that naturally produced in the body – the carbon isotope ratio is subtly different – I tend to think this would be possible only if done within say hours of a dosing. I don’t know if that was the case. I don’t know that mass spectroscopy (MS) was done at all.

As for spiking with androstenedione, AD is not an effective performance enhancer and Ergopharm would have had no reason to do this.

Frankly I doubt there was any substantial – by which I mean even say 1% – content of androstenedione in the product. Ergopharm does do analysis on its products and I just cannot see them letting that through. I also don’t see how 1% could cause a drug test failure, as the subtle different in isotopic ratio would be made far subtler yet by the synthetic material being such a small percentage of the total material in the body.

Is it conceivable that the manufacturing process results in some tiny trace of AD such as a few parts per million that escaped the analysis done by the manufacturer? I suppose so – though I do not know their synthetic method, and not knowing that, it instead could be the case that it’s impossible to wind up with any AD at all in it – but tiny traces of AD could not cause a resulting drug test failure.

The whole thing sounds like crap to me.


#14

My professional assessment is that he has no hopes of winning the lawsuit. This was done as a PR move only. There is a major problem with his lawsuit.

Imagine you sue me, saying that I sold you an adulterated product. Is there any chance that, before you took the product, you had a lab store and seal that product for you?

So let’s say you claim that the supplement I sold you was spiked. How do you prove it? As the defendant, I’d say that you may have spiked the product after you failed the drug test. You did this to help cover up your rule breaking/misdeeds/whatever.

Most people would think, “Yeah. They found something in a pill. But how did it get in there?”

Moreover, any pill that you’d use against me would have come from a lot. I’d be able to produce independent lab results proving that there were no contaminates in the lot that you - an exposed CHEATER! - obtained your pill from.

Still, look at this from a PR perspective. Many lawsuits are filed for free publicity. This jack off is trying to get the media on his side. “I was a victim!” Is it worth laying down a $50,000 retainer to get this kind of publicity? Ask a PR agent to see how much it’d cost to get the coverage Romero is getting.

So the lawsuit is frivolous. It will settle for some nuisance value. (“Nuisance values” means it’s cheaper to pay the plaintiff $25 grand to go away rather than pay large legal bills - often much more than $25,000 a MONTH).

Also, let’s stop being logical. Most people who want to file lawsuits are bat-shit crazy. Fortunately, most of these crazy people are too poor to hire lawyers. So their cases usually don’t get filed. (Sometimes these nut jobs file lawsuits pro se; which is a nightmare to discuss another day.)

Maybe Romero really is in a serious state of denial. He might refuse to believe he acted wrongly. When you can write big checks, lawyers are more than willing to let you fight out your psychological issues in a court of law.


#15

Very interesting…until now I assumed it took balls to go to court…you’re definetely onto to something with the denial theory. I never realized how powerful denial could be until I saw Clemens embarrass himself on 60 minutes.


#16

[quote]MaddyD wrote:

WHY DID THE PART I POSTED WITH THE FDA QOUTES NOT GO THROUGH!!!

someone hiding something here???
[/quote]

Sometimes if I make several edits in a short timespan the last edit gets lost. That happens pretty regularly actually, no matter what i write. So I think it’s some synchronization problem between the editing and the moderation queue.


#17

Tip: Look to see if your post in fact appears in the thread with the new edit. If it does not, click the edit button again. Most times what comes up in this window WILL be your previous edit. If so, then submit it as is and the resubmission usually results in the thread now showing your final version.

If not, then edit again and resubmit.

I say this not from the slightest knowledge of how the software works, but just practical experience.