Compounds sold under the guise of PH’s typically contained c17-AA pro-steroids (metabolites/pro-drugs that when ingested convert into banned substances) or full on designer steroids that hadn’t made the cut during development and subsequent release to the public. Designer AAS were exempt from being listed as controlled substances as it wasn’t for-seeable that they’d be released to the masses.
An example of an active metabolite would be Chlorodehydromethylandrostenediol (halodrol). Intrinsically within itself the parent substance should have anabolic/androgenic activity. When taken the end goal (through a host of pathways, lotta forward/backward conversion and whatnot) is chlorodehydromethyltestosterone (turinabol). If I recall correctly (genetic discrepancies exist) the conversion rate to tbol was roughly only around 5%, taking 50mg hdrol/day was purportedly more effective than 5mg tbol/day. The parent compound itself was an active hormone, yet it’s still a prohormone.
Examples of fully active anabolic/androgenic steroids sold under the guise of pro-hormones include
M-1-T (methyldihydroboldenone, this is literally 5a-reduced dianabol)
Both c-17 alpha alkylated pro-hormones and non c-17 alpha alkylated “pro-hormones” were brought to market. Like all designer drugs, effective dose, recommended duration of use and toxicity profiles were based upon anecdote. Given the lack of clinical literature associated with designer AAS, it was rather irresponsible for companies to market them.
I don’t believe the personal use of anabolic androgenic steroids should’ve ever been criminalised in the first place BUT… Releasing untested derivitaves of otherwise clinically trialled, powerful drugs over the counter is just dodgy/immoral in my opinion.
At the very least I think the bottles had age restrictions on them (18-21+)