Racers Track Club to Sue Suppliment Provider

[Pelpa]

Well guys it might not have reached you officially as yet through the papers, but Mr. Mills and his legal team have spoken and they (Racers Track Club) are seeking to sue the makers of the suppliment which was fed to Blake and Anderson.

Interviews with Mills indicate that the ingredients as advertised on the company's website are not what theposted post newsbreak, and have since removed all links to the make up and proposed use of the ingredient since WC.

The Club's pharmacuetical consultant is also stating that there is nor proof the substance is a stimulant, he's also stating that it could not be masking agent given the massive dosages of the substance required to be in one systems for it to be detectable (i'm just reporting here, so don't kill the messenger).

Some analysts are saying at best, the offenders, who accepted the verdict but never plead guilty to offending IAAF PED policies, should have gotten a public warning instead.

This was all over JA airwaves today, I expect there will be more juicy details in the press soon, Normally I would have wanted atleast one link for you guys to refer, I presume the JA posters here can confirm, but its so JUICY!!

P.S. The otherwise cool MILLS is a bit upset.

[Pelpa]

Can we call this a one-up for T&F sticking it to the man?

[t_monk]

http://www.trackalerts.com/?p=3646

There is an article about the whole thing.

Anyone here has done Chemistry/Biology in college, because I am wondering if I am the only one thinking that that doctor is either playing to the press or just really ignorant....

[Daisy]

Dr. Ruddock explained: “Tuaminoheptane if you look at it, is a straight compound with one branch. 4-Methyl-2-hexanamine is not a straight compound, it’s a little shorter and has two branches… they are made up of the same amount of carbons, the same amount of hydrogen and the same amount of nitrogen atoms but in chemistry that does mean anything about how the compound will behave.”

Sounds reasonable. But it may well be on the banned list as a known masking agent, not due to its biological properties?

[gh]

This is the biochem equivalent of defining "is"

If it's "almost" a banned substance, for what reason are they taking it? Acne?

[Daisy]

for what reason are they taking it? Acne?

Didn't they claim they did not know it was in the product? They might have a point if the article is accurate. It says that the product was labeled as being within the rules of WADA and the NCAA. Apparently the manufacturer has now removed that wording from the products label.

[gh]

So then sue the seller/manufacturer. It's clear (no pun intended) they took it for one—and only one—reason; they believed it would make them run faster. If you're gonna do that, you gotta have the brains to ask, "can something that will really do that be legal? If it is, how come everybody on the planet isn't taking it?"

Sorry, there is no "drug taking for dummies" excuse.

[Daisy]

"can something that will really do that be legal? If it is, how come everybody on the planet isn't taking it?"

Sorry, there is no "drug taking for dummies" excuse.

LOL, no dissent from me on this point. Clearly they were "playing" dumb.

[t_monk]

Dr. Ruddock explained: “Tuaminoheptane if you look at it, is a straight compound with one branch. 4-Methyl-2-hexanamine is not a straight compound, it’s a little shorter and has two branches… they are made up of the same amount of carbons, the same amount of hydrogen and the same amount of nitrogen atoms but in chemistry that does mean anything about how the compound will behave.”

Sounds reasonable. But it may well be on the banned list as a known masking agent, not due to its biological properties?

Ok.... didn't wanna explain this all but... to shed some light on why I said what I said....

For one as long as an organic compound has one branch in it it is not classified as a straight chain. I agree with him that they having the same molecular formula (have the same number of Hydrogens, Nitrogens and Carbons) that doesn't mean they react the same way, that being said however it cannot be firmly stated that it doesn't either... what is more critical is the arangement of the compound, its functional group and structure of the compound. As for the similarity between Tuaminoheptane and 4-Methyl-2-hexanamine (I just saw the need to actually look up/devise their structure)... the only difference in the two compounds is an extra methyl (CH3) group on the carbon adjacent to the functional amine (NH2) group... This is in fact not that significant a difference, they are very much alike structurally and should not affect the activity of the compound that much unless crowding of the amine (NH2) group is a problem (which in fact shouldn't be seeing that the compound should be able to rotate appropriately to leave the amine group vacant if need be.

Also his final statement about 'stucture in similarity' and 'biological similarity' can be viewed as very much eroneous. His saving grace should in fact be that structure IS important in biological systems to a downright pinpoint exact state. Anyone who has done first year biology at college ( or rather beyond 5th form) should know that how enzymes (a major biological compound) works is by having a particular shape, allowing for that enzyme (molecule) to fit into a certain receptor site (lock and key theory if I remember well) and therefore if the structures of two compounds are similar, its possible that they can replace each other in terms of their activity.

[Daisy]

All depends on what is important at the level of physical interaction. Without knowing the specific enzymes or the structure of the active sites, how could we know? Certainly a methyl group in the wrong place could make it non functional from the perspective of being a performance enhance. It might even act as an inhibitor reducing the potential to enhance performance.

Also his final statement about 'stucture in similarity' and 'biological similarity' can be viewed as very much eroneous.

Maybe he is implying that it could act as an inhibitor?

[t_monk]

All depends on what is important at the level of physical interaction. Without knowing the specific enzymes or the structure of the active sites, how could we know? Certainly a methyl group in the wrong place could make it non functional from the perspective of being a performance enhance. It might even act as an inhibitor reducing the potential to enhance performance.

I agree completely....

However, according to the doctor though... structure isnt all that an important factor in the biological aspect.

“Structure in similarity has nothing to do with biological similarity.”

That is the DUMBEST comment I can recall a doctor saying.....
Thats why I am a bit cynical now when I read whatever else the doctor has to say

[t_monk]

All depends on what is important at the level of physical interaction. Without knowing the specific enzymes or the structure of the active sites, how could we know? Certainly a methyl group in the wrong place could make it non functional from the perspective of being a performance enhance. It might even act as an inhibitor reducing the potential to enhance performance.

Also his final statement about 'stucture in similarity' and 'biological similarity' can be viewed as very much eroneous.

Maybe he is implying that it could act as an inhibitor?

To me it seems like he isnt sure what he is trying to say. First he spends the first part of his speel talking about how different the molecules are.. when they are in fact very much similar....

same functional group in the same position

both branched structures

the chain is only elongated via one CH3 group in one compound while in the other that CH3 group is simply a branched member on the chain.

the only addition is the methyl group as you said, and with organic compounds like those, where there are no double bonds present in the structure, the compound can very easily twist and rotate in many a different orientations. That Methly group can easily orientate itself in a way that wouldn't impede the amine (NH2) functional group.

On a physical chemistry standpoint the bp's and mp's of the compounds should be similar, their reactivity should be similar with the Tuaminoheptane being a bit more reactive (only slightly though). Their stereochemistry though... thats where the cookie crumbles, unless we know the active site they are trying to get into.... we wont know the effectiveness of the compound to act in the stead of the stimulant.

[JROCK]

I been listening to Mr Mills on different radio stations about this, the man is really upset about it. Also they are suing the newspaper company who printed that bailey tested positive at WC and trying to get the papers source also.

[shearer39]

I been listening to Mr Mills on different radio stations about this, the man is really upset about it. Also they are suing the newspaper company who printed that bailey tested positive at WC and trying to get the papers source also.

He suggested yesterday that the paper had printed an apology and retracted the story but they were looking at the possibility of further legal action. He also suggested that legal action could also be taken against individuals who made disparaging remarks and insinuations publicly with regards to the adverse findings. The big question is who?

[Jon]

http://www.trackalerts.com/?p=3646

From that article:

Since then however, Stephen Francis, in a television interview suggested the substance taken could in fact be used, as a masking agent.

Interesting. But how come Stephen Francis knows such information?