# Avant Chat



## ZECH (Dec 3, 2004)

In case you missed the great chat last night, Sldge revieled what Superdrol was. It is 2a,17a-dimethyl-17b-hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-one, a Anadrol/Masteron hybrid, aka Methasteron. The androgenic profile is less than M1T so the side effects will not be as bad and it is still rather anabolic so it retains good muscle building properties. It has no estrogen/progesteron conversion. All the beta testers got great results, including the King of non responders, Twin Peak! Bad thing is the majority of people will never get any. I think Avant set a record for the chat session with 80 something on chat? 

But the most amazing moment though came when TP revieled that Monolith was actually a woman/tranny in disguise!


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 3, 2004)

Lol.


----------



## Jodi (Dec 3, 2004)

Yup, good chat and I think with this I'm actually taking my first true venture into PH's


----------



## sawastea (Dec 3, 2004)

Shoot, I missed it


----------



## ZECH (Dec 3, 2004)

Jodi said:
			
		

> Yup, good chat and I think with this I'm actually taking my first true venture into PH's


So you decided? Cool. Can you post your results here as well?
Not a PH either...........It's a steriod.


----------



## cappo5150 (Dec 3, 2004)

Will this be available to us before the ban?


----------



## Jodi (Dec 3, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> So you decided? Cool. Can you post your results here as well?
> Not a PH either...........It's a steriod.


No I haven't decided.  I want to but I freak myself out about PH's and then get too scared to try it   and everything I read it's a PH.


----------



## ZECH (Dec 3, 2004)

cappo5150 said:
			
		

> Will this be available to us before the ban?


If you can get it before it sells out.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 3, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> It's a steriod.


  That is a bad word. You might scare people from using it. Can't we call it something else, maybe a pseudoroid? I know! Let's just stick a "Pro" prefix on it. After all, it won't be the s word anymore.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 3, 2004)

cappo5150 said:
			
		

> Will this be available to us before the ban?


 The only reason I see to buy a legal steroid just before it becomes illegal is because you would be concerned about the buying/receiving process. Either way, Anadrol and and Superdrol will be just as illegal after the ban. I'd rather go with the less experimental one, personally.


----------



## ZECH (Dec 3, 2004)

Jodi said:
			
		

> No I haven't decided.  I want to but I freak myself out about PH's and then get too scared to try it   and everything I read it's a PH.


No................as you know it's a di-methylated version of a derivative of Drostanolon , (Masteron) and a form of DHT. Also, it is a saturated modified form of anadrol. So it is in no form a PH.


----------



## ZECH (Dec 3, 2004)

Sldge is waiting for lipid profiles on several subjects to see if it is better than M1T on HDL levels. That is the main concern along with liver protection.


----------



## Jodi (Dec 3, 2004)

I know this sounds stupid but _*IF *_ I do use it, I'll only do one 3-4 week cycle and then give it away due to legality issues and personal preference.

Hell, I didn't even make it that long with 19nor.  I tried 19nor for one week; I freaked out and then gave it to a friend


----------



## ZECH (Dec 3, 2004)

I think the main concern would be HDL levels. But that will come back once you stop use. And a couple weeks should not harm the liver. I would go for it. It's only 1 time, we aren't talking multiple cycles. But it's totally your decision.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 3, 2004)

How anabolic is it compared to M1T in terms of results?


----------



## ZECH (Dec 3, 2004)

From Shadowjack.....


2a,17a-dimethyl-17b-hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-one has an extremely favorable Q (anabolic/androgenic) ratio. Q ratio = 20 (m-1-t is between 5-16, depending on assay). 20% as androgenic as 17a-MT oral (the reference standard); (m-1-t is 100-220% as androgenic as 17a-MT, for comparison). Superdrol is 400-800% as anabolic as the reference standard (17a-MT); (m-1-t is 910-1600% comparatively). i.e. It looks very, very favorable on paper, and the initial tester reports (logs on AM) back this up so far.


----------



## topolo (Dec 3, 2004)

my understanding is that this is not on the banned list at this time


----------



## ZECH (Dec 3, 2004)

Nope, but you know it will be.


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 3, 2004)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> How anabolic is it compared to M1T in terms of results?



Equal, in my opinion.


----------



## ZECH (Dec 3, 2004)

Where is Mono??


----------



## gococksDJS (Dec 3, 2004)

topolo said:
			
		

> my understanding is that this is not on the banned list at this time


 The way the ban is worded gives them the power to change it as they see fit


----------



## DOMS (Dec 3, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Where is Mono??


 Look down.


----------



## Monolith (Dec 3, 2004)

dg806 said:
			
		

> In case you missed the great chat last night, Sldge revieled what Superdrol was. It is 2a,17a-dimethyl-17b-hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-one, a Anadrol/Masteron hybrid, aka Methasteron. The androgenic profile is less than M1T so the side effects will not be as bad and it is still rather anabolic so it retains good muscle building properties. It has no estrogen/progesteron conversion. All the beta testers got great results, including the King of non responders, Twin Peak! Bad thing is the majority of people will never get any. I think Avant set a record for the chat session with 80 something on chat?
> 
> But the most amazing moment though came when TP revieled that Monolith was actually a woman/tranny in disguise!


 I won't sink to TP's level.  I thought we had agreed to end this relationship on good terms, but i see he wants to drag all our sexual history out into the open.

 I know he's really just mad that all he has left is that _woman_ he's married to.  Once youve had sexually-ambiguous, you never go back.


----------



## topolo (Dec 3, 2004)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> The way the ban is worded gives them the power to change it as they see fit



That is why I said at this time


----------



## rrgg (Dec 4, 2004)

> The way the ban is worded gives them the power to change it as they see fit



Precisely who are "they?"  The FDA?

Maybe I don't understand legal-ese, but could someone show me the wording in the new bill that gives the FDA this new power?  I've seen this claim many times on different boards, but no one's explained why they believe this is true.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 4, 2004)

I thought it was the Attorney General that adds to the list. I don't much about it, though.


----------



## rrgg (Dec 4, 2004)

Oh, then are you referring to this part of the bill? 



> The substances excluded under this subparagraph may at any time be scheduled by the Attorney General in accordance with the authority and requirements of subsections (a) through (c) of section 201.';



I think you're interpretting the word "excluded" to mean "anything not on the list."  In fact, this word has a specific meaning in the Controlled Substances Act.  I believe this is an example of an exclusion:



> (B)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), such term does not include an anabolic steroid which is expressly intended for administration through implants to cattle or other nonhuman species and which has been approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for such administration.



In other words, the AG is empowered to remove this exclusion at will without going through Congress.  It does not mean a brand new prohormone invented this month can be banned by the AG.  Congress still has to do it.  I'm not an attorney reading this law.  I'm open to any counterarguments, but I hope you guys can please show me precisely what leads you to a different conclusion.  Thanks.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 4, 2004)

Well the AG can exclude any steroid from the regulation:





> Authorizes the Attorney General, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to exempt from regulation any compound, mixture, or preparation that contains any anabolic steroid, that is intended for administration to a human being or an animal, and that does not present any significant potential for abuse because of its concentration, preparation, formulation, or delivery system.



The subsection with the list begins by stating what it *included* or subject to this regulation: 





> `(A) The term `anabolic steroid' means any drug or hormonal substance, chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, corticosteroids, and dehydroepiandrosterone), and includes--



And it ends with reference to what is *excluded*: 





> The substances excluded under this subparagraph may at any time be scheduled by the Attorney General in accordance with the authority and requirements of subsections (a) through (c) of section 201.';



This comment applies to section A (the list), not section B--which concerns the drugs for use with animals. I interpret this last quote as applying to what is not included on the list. So the AG can shedule a substance at anytime.


----------



## rrgg (Dec 4, 2004)

I'm not sure why you mentioned the first quote.  Yes, the AG can exclude anything.  That's a good thing from my point of view.

I used that quote about drugs on animals as an example of an exclusion, but maybe it was a bad choice.  Still, the implication of your statement is that "excluded" has different meanings throughout the bill.  That seems odd for legal documents that should be precisely worded, but I guess it's possible.

*In fact, if the law really meant what you said, it would use the word "omitted" not "excluded." *

Thanks for the help.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 4, 2004)

I agree that excluded doesn't seem like the best word, but in the context it is juxtaposed to include. Omitted wouldn't be the right word, because that suggests that something is being taken out. Excluded would suggest something not included because it is an exception to the rule. I understand the bill to say that the AG decides what is an exception, and he/she isn't limited to that list. Therefore any compound meeting the specifications previously listed concerning a drug's effects on the body, can be scheduled at the discretion of the AG, or the AG can consider it an exception.  Not having the bill in front of me now, I remember the wording saying "any" compound--therefore not limited to the list. The bill clearly gives the AG the authority to schedule drugs that meet these conditions. If everything on the list is being scheduled already, and the AG can't add to the list, then there is no reason to give the AG power to schedule additional compounds. I don't see how this could be interpreted as not allowing for newly developed steroids to be added when the AG can schedule these drugs. What is the AG being allowed to schedule here if not drugs that are not already scheduled or are being scheduled by this bill?


----------



## rrgg (Dec 4, 2004)

> Omitted wouldn't be the right word, because that suggests that something is being taken out.


You have it backwards.  

Excluded means something was actively taken out.  Omitted is the more passive term indicating something that was left out, perhaps by mistake:

o·mit   
tr.v. o·mit·ted, o·mit·ting, o·mits

   1. To fail to include or mention; leave out: omit a word.
   2.
         1. To pass over; neglect.
         2. To desist or fail in doing; forbear.

omitted

Omit \O*mit"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Omitted; p. pr. & vb. n. Omitting.] [L. omittere, omissum; ob (see Ob- + mittere to cause to go, let go, send. See Mission.] 

1. To let go; to leave unmentioned; not to insert or name; to drop.

2. To pass by; to forbear or fail to perform or to make use of; to leave undone; to neglect.



> Excluded would suggest something not included because it is an exception to the rule. I understand the bill to say that the AG decides what is an exception, and he/she isn't limited to that list.



I think you've misunderstood the wording, "exempt from regulation."  This phrase means "legal to produce."  When the AG is empowered to exempt a product, it means he can make it legal despite a previous ban or any other reasons it should be banned according to the law.

Re-read your first quote from 2 messages back. It says the AG can exempt steroids that pose no significant risk of abuse.  That particular quote does NOT say the AG can ban additional products.




> The bill clearly gives the AG the authority to schedule drugs that meet these conditions.


If "excluded" really means "omitted," then I'd agree with your statement.  Otherwise the AG does not have this power.



> What is the AG being allowed to schedule here if not drugs that are not already scheduled or are being scheduled by this bill?


He's allowed to ban something that is only half-banned.  I hate to go back to this (poor) example, but if the AG thinks bovine steroids are showing potential for human abuse, he can ban them completely for all uses everywhere.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 5, 2004)

Yeah, I suppose you are right about the wording. 

The new definition of anabolic steroids is: 





> any drug or hormonal substance, chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, corticosteroids, and dehydroepiandrosterone)



Just because it lists some compounds that are included, doesn't mean that every compound known or unknown that could meet this definition are on that list. The list can't be expanded without another amendment to the bill, but any new or old drugs that meet the definition can be scheduled without amending the bill. If I designed a new narcotic tomorrow, it could be scheduled without a bill much the same way many new designer street drugs are always being scheduled. I haven't seen the whole bill, just the amendment from the link in your sig. Reading the whole bill might shed some light on this issue. Why would you think that new anabolic steroids couldn't be scheduled? Why else did they change the definition, if not for this very purpose? You said: 





> He's allowed to ban something that is only half-banned.


 I believe you are right. The definition half-bans drugs that are later considered to be "anabolic steroids". Hence, the power to schedule drugs. Without looking at the whole bill, it is obvious that there are other drugs, like weed, that are involved in the bill. Surely, there is much more than what appears on the amendment.


----------



## rrgg (Dec 5, 2004)

> If I designed a new narcotic tomorrow, it could be scheduled without a bill much the same way many new designer street drugs are always being scheduled... Why would you think that new anabolic steroids couldn't be scheduled? Why else did they change the definition, if not for this very purpose?


You may be right about the intent of the legislature, but that doesn't mean the bill was correct.

I don't understand the street drug comment though, maybe out of ignorance.  If the AG is federally scheduling new street drugs, I'm not sure why Congress even bothered passing an ammendment to ban GHB and ketamine.  



> Just because it lists some compounds that are included, doesn't mean that every compound known or unknown that could meet this definition are on that list.


I agree. It is an explicit list of banned substances that meet the legal definition of "anabolic steroid."  Omissions from the list are not banned by the ammendment despite meeting that definition.



> The list can't be expanded without another amendment to the bill, but any new or old drugs that meet the [anabolic steroid] definition can be scheduled without amending the bill.


The second phrase is only true if you believe "excluded" means "omitted."  Since we've already gone over that disagreement, I will leave it at that.  Maybe I'm getting carried away, but legal disputes can come down to nitpicking language which is why I think it's important to the bill.


----------



## topolo (Dec 5, 2004)

Where is Twin Peak when you need him?


----------



## Monolith (Dec 5, 2004)

Yeah seriously, wheres our damn supplement attorney when we need him?


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 5, 2004)

You guys look to be butchering the language, and interpretation.  I haven't read it in a while, andyone have a link to the full text?


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 5, 2004)

Not the full text, but rrgg's sig has the amendment info. I'd like to see the orginal bill, now.


----------



## Pirate! (Dec 5, 2004)

This is from the sticky (I added the bold print):

An Update from Rick Collins, J.D.


On October 22, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, scheduled to take effect 90 days later. The law adds 26 compounds to the existing 1990 list of steroids that are classified as Schedule III controlled substances. Possession of a single andro or other prohormone tablet, for example, will be a federal crime punishable by up to one year in jail; distributing will be a felony punishable by up to five years in prison for a first offense. 

The 26 newly added compounds are androstanediol; androstanedione; androstenediol; androstenedione; bolasterone; calusterone; *1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a. ???1-testosterone???); furazabol; 13b-ethyl-17a-hydroxygon-4-en-3-one; 4-hydroxytestosterone; 4-hydroxy-19-nortestosterone; mestanolone; 17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; 17a-methyl-3a,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; 17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxyandrost-4-ene; 17a-methyl-4-hydroxynandrolone; methyldienolone; methyltrienolone; 17a-methyl-*1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a. ???17-a-methyl-1-testosterone???); norandrostenediol; norandrostenedione; norbolethone; norclostebol; normethandrolone; stenbolone; and tetrahydrogestrinone. Some of these substances have been marketed as dietary supplements. Others are actually old pharmaceutical steroids that were missed in the original federal law. The law permits the continued sale of DHEA as a dietary supplement.

*The law changes the required elements of an anabolic steroid. The ???promotes muscle growth??? language is now removed from the statute, simplifying the process by which a newly created ???designer??? steroidal compound may be scheduled by the Attorney General under 21 U.S.C. § 811. No longer must the Attorney General prove that the compound is anabolic. The law also fixes some of the mistakes in the 1990 law (although at least one new typographical error appears). Among other quirks in the new law, the word ???isomer??? has been removed from the catch-all provision, replaced by ???ether.??? Instead, the law includes specific isomers of selected compounds. * 
What can we expect from the new law? The politicians behind it apparently believe that it will curtail steroid use in athletics. While their hopes are well-intentioned, if past experience serves, such hopes seem doubtful. The original 1990 law was pitched to the public as a solution to steroids in sports. However, not only has steroid use by athletes continued, but judging from the unprecedented frenzy over the issue this past year the problem appears much bigger than ever.

Here???s what we can expect: the law will put an end to most legal steroidal dietary supplements, leaving black market steroids as the predominant option. Don???t be surprised if we see a dramatic rise in the use of illegal steroids. In response, expect a newly invigorated anti-steroid enforcement crusade by the DEA. [Even before the President signed the new law, DEA was sounding a war cry. ???We are now focused on steroid trafficking and abuse as never before,??? warned Michele Leonhart, deputy administrator with DEA, at an October steroids summit in Los Angeles]. Expect individual states to review their own codes in an effort to harmonize their steroid laws with the new federal statute. Once new state laws are enacted, expect state and local police to boost their enforcement efforts against steroid users. As steroid usage is driven further underground, expect the health risks to be compounded as fewer users than ever seek physician monitoring. Finally, expect confusion by consumers and law enforcement authorities alike, because not all prohormone products fall under the new law, nor do all conceivable anabolic steroids. 

The backers of this bill say it???s about ???values.??? But neither the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution says anything at all about preserving the ???purity??? of athletes??? urine. There were alternative means to protect our teens and to prevent sports doping without criminalizing mature, health-conscious American consumers and bringing the War on (Some) Drugs into health food stores. Freedom of choice and personal liberty are the values this nation was founded upon, and don???t let them tell you otherwise. 


© 2004, Rick Collins, J.D.


----------



## rrgg (Dec 5, 2004)

I added a link to the Controlled Substances Act.

I figure I'm wrong since I'm not an attorney, but my literal reading of the bill doesn't support what I've been hearing about the ammendment.

EDIT:  In case you're confused, I was still typing this message before Pirate's latest response appeared.  It looks like that author clearly believes the AG has this power I was disputing.

Today some talking heads on TV were going on about banning steroids because of the baseball scandal and so on.  I'm thinking, why don't the athletic leagues get tougher if that's the problem?  Making it a federal issue seems like overkill for this.  I realize I'm preaching to the choir here...


----------



## topolo (Dec 7, 2004)

bump for TP


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 7, 2004)

Those links are too confusing, which is the version that was passed into law?


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 7, 2004)

Excluded here means the same thing as "not included", in my opinion.


----------



## topolo (Dec 7, 2004)

I have no idea what that means tp


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 8, 2004)

Read the previous posts.


----------



## rrgg (Dec 8, 2004)

> Those links are too confusing, which is the version that was passed into law?



I'm kind of surprised you asked.  If you go to the thomas.loc.gov link, the last link on the page is the ammendment that was passed.  The website even says "enrolled" next to the correct version.  I cannot post a more direct link because of the way that website works (the link would expire).  Since it's an ammendment to the CSA, I posted a link to that as well. 




> Excluded here means the same thing as "not included", in my opinion.


Well, that is the crux of the dispute.  In a literal sense, "excluded" does not simply mean "not included," as you say.  It means to actively prevent from inclusion, and that's distinctly different from "omitted."

I think the bill is just poorly written and does not express the intent of the legislature.  Literally, it does not give the AG the power people are suggesting, but practically, he will act as if it does.


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 8, 2004)

rrgg said:
			
		

> Well, that is the crux of the dispute.


 
I understand.  I was giving my opinion on my interpretation, since I was asked.



			
				rrgg said:
			
		

> In a literal sense, "excluded" does not simply mean "not included," as you say.  It means to actively prevent from inclusion, and that's distinctly different from "omitted."



Agreed.  Again, I am going by my interpretation of the intent of the language.  Intent is what is controlling (by a court of law).




			
				rrgg said:
			
		

> I think the bill is just poorly written and does not express the intent of the legislature.  Literally, it does not give the AG the power people are suggesting, but practically, he will act as if it does.



I agree it is poorly written, as are most statutes.  I disagree with your second sentence, and do believe that a literal meaning of the entire statute, as amended by this bill, gives the AG the power to add such substances.

This was based on a quick reading however.

Let me ask you this, based on your definition of the word "excluded", can you find any compounds that were affirmatively excluded?  During my brief review, I could not.


----------



## rrgg (Dec 8, 2004)

> I ...do believe that a literal meaning of the entire statute, as amended by this bill, gives the AG the power to add such substances.



I think you didn't mean to write "literal" in your quote above.  

I already agreed that the intent of the law gives the AG this power, despite the precise meaning of the written document.  I'm saying that if the strict definition of the word "excluded" is used, then the AG does not have the power discussed here.

ex·clude tr.v. 2. To prevent from being included, considered, or accepted; reject: "The court excluded the improperly obtained evidence." 




> can you find any compounds that were affirmatively excluded?


It doesn't matter.  The answer to this question does not change the strict definition of "excluded."  This is why I say the law was poorly written.  

Nevertheless, there are exclusions written into the law.  In several places the law refers to substances by using the qualifying phrase, "unless excepted."

The following are explicitly excluded:

"Dextromethorphan shall not be deemed to be included in any schedule by reason of enactment of this title unless controlled after the date of such enactment ... pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this section."

"does not include an anabolic steroid which is expressly intended for administration through implants to cattle or other nonhuman species;"

"distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco;" 

"A mixture, or preparation containing a nonnarcotic controlled substance, which mixture or preparation is approved for prescription use, and which contains one or more other active ingredients which are not listed in any schedule and which are included therein in such combinations, quantity, proportion, or concentration as to vitiate the potential for abuse."

"Non-narcotic substances sold over the counter without a prescription; dextromethorphan.  (1) The Attorney General shall by regulation exclude any nonnarcotic substance from a schedule if such substance may...be lawfully sold over the counter without a prescription."

"coca leaves, except coca leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of ecgonine or their salts have been removed;"


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 8, 2004)

rrgg said:
			
		

> I think you didn't meant to write "literal" in your quote above.



Actually, I did.  You are making the mistake at looking at a literal meaning of a single word, that is not how a statute is interpreted.  You must look at the statute as a whole.


----------



## rrgg (Dec 8, 2004)

> Actually, I did.


Then you misused the word "literal."  You said to look "at the statute as a whole," but that's not a literal meaning.  You're talking about an inferred meaning.



> You are making the mistake at looking at a literal meaning of a single word, that is not how a statute is interpreted. You must look at the statute as a whole.



Like I said... "I already agreed that the intent of the law gives the AG this power, despite the precise meaning of the written document."


----------



## topolo (Dec 8, 2004)

Twin Peak said:
			
		

> Read the previous posts.




I did...........remember I am publicly educated.


----------



## topolo (Dec 8, 2004)

I disagree with your second sentence, and do believe that a literal meaning of the entire statute, as amended by this bill, gives the AG the power to add such substances.


Thank you. this is what I was looking for.


----------



## rrgg (Dec 8, 2004)

I don't mean to sound like a grade school teacher, but please don't misuse the word "literal."  I'm talking about a precise definition in the strictest sense.  If a document bends the meaning of a word or redefines a word, as legal documents sometimes do, then you are not talking about literal meaning.  It is an inferred meaning.

literal, _Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words._



> remember I am publicly educated.



What's up with the attitude?  I don't agree with TP on everything, but his postings are intelligible.


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 8, 2004)

Topolo just has a weird sense of humor; he was poking fun at himself, and his public education.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, he isn't funny.


----------



## rrgg (Dec 8, 2004)

Oh, sorry.


----------



## topolo (Dec 8, 2004)

Twin Peak said:
			
		

> Topolo just has a weird sense of humor; he was poking fun at himself, and his public education.
> 
> Unfortunately, as is often the case, he isn't funny.


----------



## ZECH (Dec 8, 2004)

topolo said:
			
		

> I disagree with your second sentence, and do believe that a literal meaning of the entire statute, as amended by this bill, gives the AG the power to add such substances.
> 
> 
> Thank you. this is what I was looking for.


I agree. From what I have read on other boards from different people in the know, they seem to feel the same, that the AG can add a substance at any time if need be. Lets hope that is not the case.


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 8, 2004)

In practice, I do not expect that it will be as quick as you might think, unless it is a public scandal with baseball players, or kids, etc.


----------



## rrgg (Dec 8, 2004)

> I agree. From what I have read on other boards from different people in the know, they seem to feel the same, that the AG can add a substance at any time if need be. Lets hope that is not the case.


That was actually my original point.  That many people on many boards claimed the AG could do this at will, but they never explained where this is documented in the law.  I felt they were jumping to conclusions.  I didn't see it from my literal reading of the law, but it turns out that the legal interpretation will not be a literal one.  The law should be read as if excluded means omitted.


----------



## Twin Peak (Dec 8, 2004)

rrgg, you are correct.  I will withdraw my use of the word "literal meaning" (of the entire statute) and replace it with the phrase "plain meaning of the entire statute".

I stand corrected.


----------



## topolo (Dec 9, 2004)

noted for the record TP!


----------



## ZECH (Dec 9, 2004)

rrgg said:
			
		

> That was actually my original point.  That many people on many boards claimed the AG could do this at will, but they never explained where this is documented in the law.  I felt they were jumping to conclusions.  I didn't see it from my literal reading of the law, but it turns out that the legal interpretation will not be a literal one.  The law should be read as if excluded means omitted.


Some good info...............www.usfa.biz


----------

