Designer steroids sold as supplements, 2004 to 2026: how the law chased the molecule, and what is on the shelf now

In October 2025 a Boca Raton supplement company that had pleaded guilty to selling designer steroids, and was still on federal probation for it,[1] sold a bottle called Metha-Quad Extreme. Its product page called it "the most powerful designer prohormone stack ever created".[2] In April 2026 a Georgia company whose prohormone tablets are the subject of untried federal steroid charges[3] sold a capsule as "Osta-Plex: legal gear (SARMs) for competitive athletes".[4] Congress had written the prohormones into the federal drug laws twenty-two years earlier.[5]

This article follows the law and the shelf side by side, from the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 to the 2026 catalogues. It draws on three dossiers this site has published on the companies involved, Blackstone Labs, Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals and IronMag Labs, and links to them for the detail. The stimulant side of the same shelf, DMAA and its successors, is in Ephedra, DMAA, DMBA, DMHA. Nothing here is a dose. Where this article describes a risk, it quotes the regulator that stated it.

Figure 1. Twenty-two years in one column, drawn by us from the statutes, the DEA's rules, the FDA's letters, the court records and the archived storefronts cited in this article. [6]

2004: Congress writes a list

The Anabolic Steroid Control Act was signed on 22 October 2004. Its long title says what it was for: "to clarify the definition of anabolic steroids and to provide for research and education activities relating to steroids and steroid precursors".[5]
The Act rewrote the definition in the Controlled Substances Act. An anabolic steroid "means any drug or hormonal substance, chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, corticosteroids, and dehydroepiandrosterone)". Then came a numbered list running to fifty entries, androstenedione and 1-testosterone among them.[5] The exclusion of dehydroepiandrosterone, DHEA, is by name.

The Act gave itself ninety days: "the amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this act".[5] The DEA later recorded the date it took effect, the 2004 law "which became effective on January 20, 2005".[7] At least one seller used the same date. In 2011 IronMag Labs placed its own product in history "since the pro hormone ban of 2005".[8]

Figure 2. The 2004 Act, first page. The definition names what it excludes, DHEA among them, and then lists compounds one by one. [5]

A list has one weakness, and the next eight years were spent on it. A compound is controlled if it is named, or if the DEA writes a rule finding that it is chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone. A steroid nobody had named was, until such a rule, outside the list.[7]

2005 to 2012: the steroids nobody had listed

Superdrol. One replacement was methasterone, sold as Superdrol. The DEA's own account of it begins with the FDA: "In March 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter in response to adverse health effects associated with the product Superdrol (methasterone)".[7] The DEA did not control methasterone for another six years.

One rule per compound. Each rule took the same shape. The DEA proposed a compound, ran or cited the castrated-rat assays that show anabolic and androgenic activity, took comments, and published a final rule.[7] Its December 2009 rule covered three steroids. "As of August 2008, DEA identified 61 dietary supplements promoted for building muscle and increasing strength that are purported to contain boldione, desoxymethyltestosterone, or 19-nor-4,9(10)-androstadienedione".[9] That rule took effect on 4 January 2010, twenty months after the proposal.[9]

Methasterone followed in July 2012, with prostanozol. The rule counted the market it was closing: "62 dietary supplements were purported to contain methasterone".[7] It said the FDA's letters had not worked: "These steroids have been the focus of warning letters issued by the FDA; however, products continue to be marketed despite these warnings."[7] It said where the raw material came from. Of the chemical suppliers the DEA had found, "most of these companies are located in China and sell a variety of other anabolic steroids".[7]

One public comment on the proposal argued that classifying these steroids "would force the public to procure other non-regulated and unsafe substitutes from illicit sources". The DEA disagreed: the substances "should neither be consumed nor should other unapproved substances ever be sought from any source, illicit or otherwise". It also said it had no choice in the matter: "once a substance is determined to be an anabolic steroid, DEA has no discretion regarding the placement of these substances into schedule III of the CSA". The rule took effect on 29 August 2012.[7]

Figure 3. The DEA's methasterone rule, July 2012. It took effect six and a half years after the FDA's warning letter about Superdrol. [7]

The FDA, meanwhile. In July 2009 the FDA told consumers to stop using every body-building product that claimed to contain a steroid. "Products like these are frequently marketed as alternatives to anabolic steroids for increasing muscle mass and strength and are sold both online and in retail stores", it said, and they "are NOT dietary supplements, but instead are unapproved new drugs that have not been reviewed by the FDA for safety and effectiveness". The adverse event reports it had received "involve men (ages 22-55) and include cases of serious liver injury, stroke, kidney failure and pulmonary embolism".[10] An advisory is not a schedule. The products it described stayed outside the Controlled Substances Act until the DEA named each compound.

Figure 4. The FDA's advisory of July 2009, as archived that month. It names one company's eight products and tells consumers to stop using all of the kind. [10]

What the shelf sold. IronMag Labs, a Nevada brand,[11] is the clearest record of the period because its archived pages named the chemistry. Its December 2010 home page sold Super DMZ Rx as "the strongest legal compound available, period".[12] A sister product's page explained what was in it: "Dymethazine is essentially two Superdrol molecules that are bonded by an azine bridge."[13] The Super DMZ page invited buyers to "move beyond the pro hormones of yesterday and step into the future of designer steroids with dymethazine".[8] The IronMag Labs dossier has the product history.

Figure 5. December 2010: Super DMZ Rx, sold as "the strongest legal compound available, period". Methasterone was still unlisted. [12]

August 2012: one compound out, another in

The methasterone rule took effect on 29 August 2012. Blackstone Labs LLC was registered in Florida the same month.[14] Its own factual proffer, signed when it pleaded guilty nine years later, says why it existed: it was incorporated "for the specific purpose of obscuring the sale of products marketed as dietary supplements that were tainted with anabolic steroids and therefore could not lawfully be sold".[15]

Its first product was IronMag's. In the first week of September 2012, IronMag's forum told customers that "Blackstone Labs will be the LAST place you can EVER buy Super-DMZ Rx 2.0".[16] superdmz.com, Blackstone's first storefront, sold the bottle with IronMag's logo on it and called it "comparable to Dianabol or Anadrol".[17] Version 2.0 listed dimethazine and methylstenbolone.[17] Neither was on the 2004 list, and no DEA rule named either.[5][18] The Blackstone Labs dossier covers the company from this point.

Figure 6. superdmz.com, September 2012, a week after methasterone became a controlled substance. The site was Blackstone Labs'; the bottle was IronMag's. [17]

Figure 7. IronMag's own forum, September 2012: Blackstone Labs, formed the month before, is the "authorized reseller" for the last of Super DMZ Rx 2.0. [16]

IronMag kept going. Super DMZ Rx 3.0 appeared in December 2013 as "the most powerful triple stack designer on the market", three compounds named only by chemistry on the panel. The page said one of them converted to the "exceedingly strong but banned methyl-1-testosterone".[19] The word banned was the company's own.

Figure 8. December 2013, a year before the designer steroid law: three compounds, named only by their chemistry on the panel. [19]

2014: "substantially similar"

The Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act was signed on 18 December 2014. It did two things a list could not.

It added names. In the DEA's later count, "the statute lists 25 substances", of which twenty-two were new, because "methasterone and prostanozol were included in the statute but were already listed" under other chemical names.[6]

It added a clause for the compounds not yet named. A drug or hormonal substance that "is derived from, or has a chemical structure substantially similar to, 1 or more anabolic steroids listed in subparagraph (A) shall be considered to be an anabolic steroid", if it was made to promote muscle growth or testosterone-like effects, or if it "has been, or is intended to be, marketed or otherwise promoted in any manner suggesting that consuming it will promote muscle growth".[20] The second test turns on the marketing, not the chemistry.

The clause has an exception, and it is written for supplements. A substance is outside it if it is an herb or other botanical or a constituent of one, if it "is a dietary ingredient for purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act", and if it "is not anabolic or androgenic". All three conditions must hold, and whoever claims the exception has to bring the evidence.[20]

Figure 9. The 2014 Act's clause for the steroids nobody had listed yet, and its exception for botanical dietary ingredients that are not anabolic or androgenic. [20]

The Act also reached the label. It became unlawful to sell an anabolic steroid "unless the steroid or product bears a label clearly identifying an anabolic steroid or product containing an anabolic steroid by the nomenclature used by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry", with civil fines of up to $500,000 per violation for a maker or distributor and $1,000 per package at retail.[20] It let the Attorney General publish a list of mislabelled products, and added a sentence for anyone tempted to read that list as a clean bill: "The absence of a product from the list referred to in subsection (a) shall not constitute evidence that the product does not contain an anabolic steroid."[20]

It created a faster route for the next compound: a temporary order, effective thirty days after notice and lasting up to twenty-four months, without the formal hearing ordinary scheduling needs.[20] A search of the Federal Register for DEA documents containing "anabolic steroid" returns 51 documents from 1994 to 2026. None of those published after 2014 adds a substance to the definition, by temporary order or otherwise. The later rules exempt prescription products, revise import rules, or restate the statute.[18]

Figure 10. The compounds this article names, in the order federal law reached them. Drawn by us from the statutes, the DEA's rules, the Blackstone plea papers and the FDA's 2017 letter. [20]

Why Congress acted, in the DEA's words. The DEA set out the reasoning in 2023, when it wrote the Act into its own regulations. "Congress found that the prior statutory definition of an anabolic steroid was too narrow and that this narrowness was being exploited by some manufacturers and distributors."[6] It quoted Senator Whitehouse, one of the sponsors: "A loophole in current law allows for designer anabolic steroids to easily be found on the internet, in gyms, and even in retail stores." He went on: "Designer steroids are produced by reverse engineering existing illegal steroids and then slightly modifying the chemical composition so that the resulting product is not on" the DEA's list.[6]

That rule was published on 1 August 2023, eight years and seven months after the Act. It did not change the law. The DEA noted that the Act's changes "have already been in effect since December 18, 2014".[6]

Figure 11. August 2023: the DEA writes the 2014 Act into its own regulations, eight years and seven months after it became law. [6]

What Blackstone did next. Blackstone kept selling. The jury that convicted its director of sales in December 2021 heard that the conspirators "continued selling the products for more than 18 months" after the Act took effect.[21] In its proffer the company admitted selling products made to contain epistane, halodrol and trendione, three of the compounds the 2014 Act had just named, under the names Epismash, Halo Extreme and Super Trenabol.[15] Prosecutors put a figure on it in their sentencing memorandum: "from 2014 to 2016 the defendants sold more than $2.9 million in steroid products".[22]

Figure 12. Blackstone Labs' own admission, November 2021: it was formed to obscure the sale of steroid-tainted supplements. [15]

What IronMag's dimethazine and methylstenbolone products were under the new clause is a question no document we found answers. The statute does not list either compound by name. No court ruled on an IronMag steroid product, and this article makes no finding on the clause.

SARMs: the substitution no schedule reaches

The next product. Selective androgen receptor modulators, SARMs, were sold as the alternative to steroids. The FDA's description: "SARMs are chemical substances that mimic the effects of testosterone and anabolic steroids."[23] Neither the 2004 list nor the 2014 Act names ostarine or any other SARM.[5][20] As of October 2026, our search of the Federal Register found no DEA rule placing ostarine or any other SARM in a schedule.[18] This site's ostarine page covers the molecule.

IronMag was early here too. In February 2012 it announced OSTA RX, "a compound, not an anabolic steroid, which has the ability to stimulate the androgen receptor".[24] By 2014 the page promised "no balding, no acne, no shutdown and no toxicity".[25] Blackstone followed. Its 2019 indictment named OstaPure, Ostapro and PCT IV as ostarine products,[14] and its proffer says it moved into SARMs when it could no longer sell its steroids openly.[15]

Figure 13. OSTA RX, October 2014: ostarine sold as a SARM, "not an anabolic steroid". [25]

Why a SARM cannot be a supplement. The FDA's answer is about timing. A dietary supplement may not contain an article first authorised for investigation as a new drug, unless it was sold as a food or supplement before that.[26] The FDA's letter cites ostarine trials going back to 2007.[26] On 31 October 2017 the FDA announced that it had "recently issued warning letters to Infantry Labs, LLC, IronMagLabs and Panther Sports Nutrition for distributing products that contain SARMs". "Although the products identified in the warning letters are marketed and labeled as dietary supplements, they are not dietary supplements."[27]

Figure 14. 31 October 2017: the FDA's first public warning about SARMs in supplements, with three letters behind it. [27]

The letter to IronMag is dated 22 October 2017 and concerns Super DMZ 4.0. The FDA wrote that the product's SARM, "otherwise known as ostarine, has been authorized for investigation and is the subject of substantial clinical investigations, which have been made public", which put it outside the definition of a dietary supplement. It added: "The long-term safety profile of SARMs remains unclear."[26] IronMag later told a federal court that it stopped selling OSTA RX and Super DMZ 4.0 "in 2016 and does not sell any product containing any SARM".[28] The letter does not say when the FDA saw the product on sale. Both documents are cited; the gap between them is not resolved by either.

Figure 15. The letter itself, 22 October 2017, cropped above the addressee. Ostarine had been in drug trials first, so it could not be a supplement. [26]

"Literally false." The case that tested the marketing was brought by a competitor. Nutrition Distribution, an Arizona supplement company that "filed over eighty false advertising lawsuits between 2015 and 2018", in the Ninth Circuit's count, sued IronMag in 2015 over the two ostarine products.[29] The district court found that "ostarine is a type of selective androgen receptor modulator".[11] It noted in November 2018 the founder's admission at deposition, and the FDA's position, "that ostarine does have side effects and the FDA has identified ostarine and other SARMs as" potentially dangerous.[30] In its findings of 13 December 2018 the court recorded that IronMag had advertised that OSTA RX did not "have the negative side effects of anabolic steroids and had" no toxicity, and that Super DMZ 4.0's side effects were "basically non-existent". It found those statements "literally false".[11] The remedy was a permanent injunction against false advertising of SARM products and no damages; the IronMag dossier has the rest of the case.

Figure 16. 13 December 2018, Los Angeles: the no-side-effect claims for both ostarine products were "literally false". [11]

What the FDA says now. The FDA's consumer page in 2023 is categorical: "SARMs cannot be legally marketed in the U.S. as a dietary supplement or drug at this time." It names the channel: "Social media posts by influencers and sellers of SARMs contribute to the availability and promotion of these dangerous products targeting teenagers and young adults."[31] Its December 2025 page lists what SARMs have the potential to cause, among them an increased risk of heart attack or stroke, and acute liver failure.[23]

The loop closes. The same page reports a test. An FDA laboratory analysed GE Labs Ykarine, a product sold as a SARM, and "the testing found the product contained undeclared trendione", which it identifies as a Schedule III anabolic steroid. "The agency testing was based on an adverse event report of a consumer who used the product and subsequently suffered a stroke."[23] Trendione is one of the compounds the 2014 Act named, and one of the three Blackstone admitted selling after it.[20][15] Eleven years on, a steroid the law had named was turning up inside the product sold as its legal replacement.

Figure 17. December 2025: a product sold as a SARM contained trendione, one of the steroids the 2014 Act named. [23]

The prosecutions

Two criminal cases connect the three companies, and they ended differently.

Blackstone Labs, Southern District of Florida. FDA criminal agents searched the company in February 2017.[32] A grand jury indicted it, its manufacturer and six people in March 2019.[14] In November 2021 the company and the two co-founders who ran it pleaded guilty. The Justice Department said "the defendants admitted that they falsely characterized their products as safe and legal dietary supplements".[33] Each co-founder was sentenced to 54 months. The company got five years of probation and $1.2 million in forfeiture.[1][34] "In total, eight individuals and three companies were convicted in connection with the activities of Blackstone Labs."[34] Prosecutors quoted an August 2016 email in which one co-founder told a consumer that "Super DMZ Rx 2.0 and Alpha-1 Max are crude and toxic compounds that I would not bother taking", "even as he continued to sell the products wholesale".[22] The Blackstone Labs dossier has the case in full.

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Northern District of Georgia. Hi-Tech, a supplement manufacturer in Norcross, Georgia,[35] is connected to Blackstone through ownership. Blackstone's own sentencing filing of January 2022 says Hi-Tech's founder "purchased a one-third interest in Blackstone in 2017", later took a second third, and that his company "is now the sole manufacturer of Blackstone products".[36] Hi-Tech was indicted in Atlanta on 28 September 2017.[37] The case reached a jury eight years later, on charges about forged manufacturing certificates rather than steroids. In November 2025 "the jury also convicted Hi-Tech of wire fraud conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering conspiracy, and money laundering". The scheme turned on an independent audit whose report "listed 75 categories that were not compliant with GMP".[35] The Hi-Tech dossier covers that case and the company's DMAA history.

Figure 18. How long each step took. Drawn by us from the dates in the DEA's rules, the FDA's letters and the court records. [7]

The steroid counts, as an allegation. A superseding indictment filed in December 2024 charges Hi-Tech with making and distributing "Superdrol, Equivolin, 1-AD, 1-Testosterone, and Androdiol, all of which the government contends contain Schedule III controlled anabolic steroids".[3] Who says it: federal prosecutors. The other side: the defence has argued that "the analysis of Hi-Tech products demonstrated that the illegal anabolic steroids existed only in trace amounts not sufficient to render the products illegal".[38] What we could check: the counts were not among the verdicts the Justice Department announced in November 2025, and we found no ruling on them.[35] Nothing in this article rests on them.

What is on sale in 2026

Figure 19. Metha-Quad Extreme, October 2025: "the most powerful designer prohormone stack ever created", from a company still on federal probation after its 2021 guilty plea. [2]

Metha-Quad Extreme. Blackstone's probation runs to February 2027.[1] Its October 2025 product page sold "the most powerful designer prohormone stack ever created", with androsterone, 1-andro, 4-andro and arimistane on the label.[2] In August 2026 the company's Reddit account advertised "buy one get one free all prohormones".[39] We found no document that rules on the legal status of these four ingredients. The Blackstone dossier makes no claim about them, and neither does this article. The words "designer" and "prohormone" are the company's.

Superdrol, again. The name of the steroid the DEA controlled in 2012 is back on a shelf. Hi-Tech's Superdrol is a different formula, "formulated with anabolic androgenic agents including legal pro hormone esters".[40] Its 1-Testosterone tablet's page says the prohormone in it "is still legally available and converts to 1-testosterone in a two step process".[41] The 2004 Act lists 1-testosterone itself among controlled steroids.[5] The two texts are set side by side; this article makes no finding about the tablet. In August 2026 Hi-Tech's home page listed Deca-DuraBolin, sold as the "best anabolic prohormone", among its top sellers.[42]

Figure 20. Superdrol in 2025: the trade name of a steroid controlled since 2012, now on a different prohormone formula from another company. [40]

Buyers notice the name. In a 2024 thread in r/prohormones, one wrote that "Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals seems to be the main supplier of legal andros now". Another, on the Superdrol name: "I thought Superdrol was banned a long time ago." A third answered that "this is another formula using 1 and 4 andro, androsterone and turk".[43] These are buyers' accounts, not evidence of what is in the tablets.

"Legal gear." Osta-Plex is Hi-Tech's SARM. Its April 2026 page sells "Osta-Plex: legal gear (SARMs) for competitive athletes", says that "until now there are no lawful dietary SARM products", and calls its compound "the only known completely legal and extremely effective SARM on the market today".[4] The compound the page names is a 19-nor androstene, not ostarine,[4] and the Hi-Tech dossier found no ruling on it. The FDA's general statement is the one quoted above: SARMs "cannot be legally marketed in the U.S. as a dietary supplement or drug at this time".[31]

Figure 21. Osta-Plex, April 2026, sold as "legal gear". [4]

The creams. IronMag moved its prohormones into creams. In 2021 its Gear Cream page said "Gear contains 6 potent prohormone compounds".[44] By late 2025 a buyer reported "IML is not coming back with their creams, I emailed them and asked".[45] The September 2026 home page lists none. Its andro product is now a capsule, "powered by R-DHEA & Epi-DHEA".[46] The same footer now says "our products are not to be used as dietary supplements".[47] We found no rule in the Federal Register that explains the end of the creams.

Figure 22. Gear Cream, January 2021: six prohormones in a rub-on cream. The creams were gone from IronMag's shop by 2026. [44]

References

1. United States v. Braun et al., Dkt 724, amended judgment in a criminal case, Blackstone Labs LLC, judgment 2022-02-17 (scanned) — CourtListener (RECAP)
2. blackstonelabs.com, Metha-Quad Extreme, archived 2025-10-13 — Wayback Machine
3. United States v. Wheat, No. 1:17-cr-229-AT (N.D. Ga.), Dkt 660, order on expert testimony, 2025-09-12 — GovInfo (US Courts opinions)
4. hitechpharma.com, Osta-Plex, archived 2026-04-07 — Wayback Machine
5. Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, Public Law 108-358, 118 Stat. 1661 — US Government Publishing Office
6. Implementation of the Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2014, final rule, 88 FR 50036, 2023-08-01 — Federal Register (Drug Enforcement Administration)
7. Classification of Two Steroids, Prostanozol and Methasterone, as Schedule III Anabolic Steroids Under the Controlled Substances Act, final rule, 77 FR 44456, 2012-07-30 — Federal Register (Drug Enforcement Administration)
8. IronMag Labs, Super DMZ Rx product page, archived 2011-06-02 — Wayback Machine
9. Classification of Three Steroids as Schedule III Anabolic Steroids Under the Controlled Substances Act, final rule, 74 FR 63603, 2009-12-04 — Federal Register (Drug Enforcement Administration)
10. Public Health Advisory: The FDA recommends that consumers should not use body building products marketed as containing steroids or steroid-like substances, 2009-07-28 (archived 2009-07-31) — US Food and Drug Administration (Wayback Machine)
11. Nutrition Distribution v. IronMag Labs, Dkt 135, findings of fact and conclusions of law, 2018-12-13 — CourtListener (RECAP)
12. ironmaglabs.com home page, archived 2010-12-12 — Wayback Machine
13. IronMag Labs, Metha-Drol Extreme product page, archived 2011-06-02 — Wayback Machine
14. United States v. Braun et al., No. 9:19-cr-80030-WPD (S.D. Fla.), Dkt 1, indictment, filed 2019-03-07 (scanned) — CourtListener (RECAP)
15. United States v. Braun et al., No. 9:19-cr-80030-WPD (S.D. Fla.), Dkt 545, factual proffer in support of guilty plea, Blackstone Labs LLC, 2021-11-19 (scanned) — CourtListener (RECAP)
16. IronMagLabs forum thread 'Blackstone Labs - Super DMZ 2.0 Discounts!!!', posts of 2012-09-04 and 2012-09-05, archived 2012-11-30 — Wayback Machine
17. superdmz.com, Super DMZ Rx 2.0 page, archived 2012-09-04 — Wayback Machine
18. Federal Register search: documents of the Drug Enforcement Administration containing "anabolic steroid", 1994 to 2026 (51 results, searched 2026-10-12) — Federal Register
19. IronMag Labs, Super DMZ Rx 3.0 product page, archived 2013-12-25 — Wayback Machine
20. Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2014, Public Law 113-260, 128 Stat. 2929 — US Congress
21. Federal Jury Convicts Florida Man for Role in Defrauding FDA and Distributing Designer Anabolic Steroids, 2021-12-10 (archived) — US Department of Justice (Wayback Machine)
22. United States v. Braun et al., Dkt 653, United States' sentencing memorandum, 2022-01-26 — CourtListener (RECAP)
23. Certain bodybuilding products put consumers at risk for heart attack, stroke, serious liver damage and more (current as of 2025-12-02) — US Food and Drug Administration
24. IronMag Labs, OSTA RX product page, archived 2012-02-10 — Wayback Machine
25. IronMag Labs, OSTA RX product page, archived 2014-10-21 — Wayback Machine
26. Warning letter, Ironmag Labs, MARCS-CMS 494623, 2017-10-22 (Super DMZ 4.0) — US Food and Drug Administration
27. FDA In Brief: FDA warns against using SARMs in body-building products, 2017-10-31 (archived 2017-11-01) — US Food and Drug Administration (Wayback Machine)
28. Nutrition Distribution LLC v. IronMag Labs, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-08233 (C.D. Cal.), Dkt 73, defendants' memorandum of contentions of fact and law, 2018-10-15 — CourtListener (RECAP)
29. Nutrition Distribution LLC v. IronMag Labs, LLC, No. 19-55251 (9th Cir.), order and amended opinion, 2020-10-29 — CourtListener (RECAP)
30. Nutrition Distribution v. IronMag Labs, Dkt 117, order on cross-motions for summary judgment, 2018-11-16 — CourtListener (RECAP)
31. FDA Warns of Use of Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs) Among Teens, Young Adults (consumer update, current as of 2023-04-26) — US Food and Drug Administration
32. Blackstone Labs, LLC v. United States, No. 9:18-cv-81352 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt 1, petition for return of seized property, filed 2018-10-08 — CourtListener (RECAP)
33. Florida Corporation and Executives Plead Guilty to Conspiracy to Sell Anabolic Steroids and Unlawful Dietary Supplements, 2021-11-19 (archived) — US Department of Justice (Wayback Machine)
34. Blackstone Labs Founder Sentenced for Conspiracy to Sell Anabolic Steroids and Unlawful Dietary Supplements, 2022-02-17 (archived) — US Department of Justice (Wayback Machine)
35. Two-Time Convicted Felon CEO and His Dietary Supplement Company Convicted of $4.7 Million Fraud Scheme, 2025-11-24 (archived) — US Attorney's Office, Northern District of Georgia (Wayback Machine)
36. United States v. Braun et al., Dkt 654, Blackstone Labs' sentencing memorandum, 2022-01-26 — CourtListener (RECAP)
37. United States v. Wheat, No. 1:17-cr-229-AT-CMS (N.D. Ga.), Dkt 314, report and recommendation, 2020-05-28 — GovInfo (US Courts opinions)
38. United States v. Wheat, No. 1:17-cr-229-AT-CMS (N.D. Ga.), Dkt 431, supplement to report and recommendation, 2021-08-11 — GovInfo (US Courts opinions)
39. Buy One Get One FREE: ALL Prohormones ! (u/BLACKSTONE-LABS, 2026-08-17) — r/prohormones — anecdotal report, not evidence
40. hitechpharma.com, Superdrol, archived 2025-01-12 — Wayback Machine
41. hitechpharma.com, 1-Testosterone, archived 2025-01-12 — Wayback Machine
42. hitechpharma.com home page, archived 2026-08-30 — Wayback Machine
43. Power lifter here, almost went to jail for buying steroids, having to stay on the legal side and stick with andros (2024-04-03) — r/prohormones — anecdotal report, not evidence
44. IronMag Labs, Gear Cream product page, archived 2021-01-08 — Wayback Machine
45. Any topical PH's still around? (2025-10-29) — r/prohormones — anecdotal report, not evidence
46. IronMag Labs, Andro Hard product page, archived 2026-05-21 — Wayback Machine
47. ironmaglabs.com home page, archived 2026-09-05 — Wayback Machine