Lawsuit against BSN for false CEE claims

g'em

I'm sure this isn't an isolated case either, makes you wonder eh?

http://supplementpolice.com/Complaint.pdf

Jimmy Bottlehead

Holy ****... if this is true, then the IMB will have MAJOR bragging rights.

Gillo

Interesting case, unfortunately as with most legal documents I found it very hard to follow, but is their much evidence to back up the case?

rubadub

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

then the IMB will have MAJOR bragging rights.

Why? did they suggest the same thing a while ago?

Could be all wrong, logical mistakes like this could happen. If I read it right they are claiming to have a "new creatine", but reports show it only contains "normal creatine". I dont know what methods they used to detect "new creatine", but I imagine if they added chemical indicators then the indicator could well show up both as the same thing, as they would be chemically similar. Now if they add an indicator for "normal creatine" and it shows up somebody could use faulty logic and say, it shows up e.g. 4% "normal creatine", yet says it has 4% "new creatine", therefore conclude it has no "new creatine".

e.g. a chemical could be added to water containing mdma or amphetamine (similar enough compounds). Now if it turns blue it means it contains mdma OR amphetamine, but does not distinguish between them. So if you have a pill that looks like E and tests positive it could well be just amphetamine (class while you could be charged with having mdma (class A) due to faulty logic.

The paper says the "new creatine" is a "non-existent substance", if that is the case how can they test for it!
Or is it that they claim to have patents for it and have no such patents?

Jimmy Bottlehead

rubadub wrote: »

Why? did they suggest the same thing a while ago?

Well the IMB were claiming that the ingredients listed on supplements might not be the ones in the supplements, weren't they? Because they weren't verified?