Thanks for this. There is some thought among some of my colleagues that creatine works well when it is laced with nandrolone and that it is the nandrolone that causes the body changes and performance alterations, not so much the creatine. That could explain why the results of creatine effects on muscle development and performance are equivocal -- it is whether or not the creatine used in the study is "fortified" with nandrolone.

There also is some opinion among nutritionists that creatine manufacturers laced their products with nandrolone to show it worked "better" than other brands (but, of course, did not put nandrolone on the label). A pure marketing ploy that has now been exposed.

Does that marketing ploy sound familiar? Almost a parallel to the marketing of bodysuits -- "our suit is better than theirs because we have a better fabric."