The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Benotti69 said:UCI firing warning shots about not getting their 7million?
katkotom said:
According to New Scientist, the original manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline abandoned its development in 2006
Cyivel said:Gw1516
...
Dear Wiggo said:7 years ago.
When everyone in the USADA case stopped doping.
Where the flippin' 'eck does it come from?
Frosty said:How come there are apparently quite a few cases all of a sudden for this substance? Is there a new test or does it suggest that a doping ring has been cracked and targetted tests carried out? Maybe someone has been distributing it under the impression it was something else?
Catwhoorg said:From the structure, its not THAT difficult to synthesize.
Black market labs could make new stuff and sell it
Hematide said:Why black market? A chinese custom synth lab could make this pretty easily & legally (& discreetly) . I would guess it'd cost a few 1000 € per 100g (if an optimized synthetic route is available). Not so expensive, imo
as you can see in this OPRD paper, there is a nice optimized procedure, only a few steps, 78% total yield. IT will not be so easy to scale without adaptations because of all the chromatographic purifications I think.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/jo035140g#
Yes, I agree, real good yield!Catwhoorg said:Getting the active ingredient is one thing.
Cleaning enough so it doesn't kill your clients is another...
78% isn't a bad yield at all for that sort of synthesis.
Thanks for the link.
Catwhoorg said:From the structure, its not THAT difficult to synthesize.
Black market labs could make new stuff and sell it