[quote]Professor X wrote:
kakugo wrote:
That website just seems like a crock. You have to pay to read damaging reports about supplements made by other companies, and complementary reports about supplements that they sell. That’s ridiculous. You can’t even puruse their reports, or check how their results were achieved without first paying.
“Information and verification of the SupplementPolice.com staff credentials” and this section of the website mysteriously doesn’t work…
If they were really a not-for profit or interested in exposing fraud in the supplement industry, they’d probably not be selling anything. It takes away all credibility, which makes it just look like a marketing scheme.
And saying “the Utah” whateverwhatever lab is well respected doesn’t make the place reputable. Especially not to the general public, who are the ones interested in the supplement fraud data.
This post is well respected, so you should believe everything in it. FACT!
I agree with what you wrote, but “not for profit” shouldn’t even have been written.
If a company is going to claim to be the authority on proving certain supplements to be under-dosed or tainted, their own credentials should be the easiest info to access.
Amazingly, you can’t click on that link…but they have no problem with the PayPal links that request payment to view what they have to say about “Guilty” products.[/quote]
I have a membership and don?t have that problem. I will see if I can post their credentials. Do you want to see the part where it says about us?
I have a membership and don?t have that problem. I will see if I can post their credentials. Do you want to see the part where it says about us?
[/quote]
Not really. I don’t spend that much time worrying about the latest supplement. Most of anything I do use is either from this web site or Labrada Nutrition, simply because I trust both companies more than most. Worrying about what they have to say about some supplement I don’t even use or care about is a waste of my time.
Because of that, in simply scanning their web site, if they want their credibility TO NOT NEED SOMEONE LIKE YOU ADVERTISING FOR THEM, they need to make their credentials a little more accessible.
If you have to buy a membership to read them, why should I care?
It sounds like a new version of a corporate shakedown tactic.
A company I worked for was in a headbutting contest with the BBB for a long time for similar tactics.
If you let your membership to the BBB lapse, they publish and unfavorable evaluation of your company, regardless of your companies volume of business, validity of, or handling of complaints.
They won’t remove it until you pay them some dues.
It’s a new version of the old “protection” racket that relies on the old addage that “You can’t please All of the people All of the time.”.
Unfortunately, when you do a high volume of business, you are going to have some unhappy customers.
Along comes a shakedown artist like these guys, looking to collect some complaints from some unhappy consumers. With complaints in hand, and published on the web, they are now fully equipped to either get on the payroll of just about every supp company that has an unhappy customer, or commit a very one sided character asassination.
[quote]rbpowerhouse wrote:
I don’t know…look at the SCI-FIT products,.some of them are “certified”, some are “fake”…so is this supplementpolice.com on the company’s payroll or not/
I personally feel (not that its worth anything) that the operation may be honest, but if they’re charging 150$ for a personalized test, I doubt if its really non-profit.[/quote]
Since some of the SCI-FIT products lab out and others do not, it is probably due to the fact that they have different suppliers of raw materials for each of their products. That is just a guess though; I wish CT would chime in as he knows so much about the supplement industry since he worked for so many companies.
I think $150 dollars to lab out a product is a good price, but I do not know for sure. I bet CT knows though, since Biotest products are checked out and stuff!
I remember when Bodybuilding.com and Bulk Nutrition tested various products and Biotest products were over the label claim which is the way it should be.
[quote]Dave2 wrote:
Wait, so supplementpolice is owned by supplenments direct, who happen to be the most ‘certified’ company on the list and they sell the products there.
How can you be an ‘independent watchdog group’ when you own the supplement company that gets the best rating on your site?
It should not matter, as it is San Rafael Chemical Services that does the lab assays. They are not owned by either company and would not falsify the lab assay due to the fact that they would be sued!
I have a membership and don?t have that problem. I will see if I can post their credentials. Do you want to see the part where it says about us?
Not really. I don’t spend that much time worrying about the latest supplement. Most of anything I do use is either from this web site or Labrada Nutrition, simply because I trust both companies more than most. Worrying about what they have to say about some supplement I don’t even use or care about is a waste of my time.
Because of that, in simply scanning their web site, if they want their credibility TO NOT NEED SOMEONE LIKE YOU ADVERTISING FOR THEM, they need to make their credentials a little more accessible.
If you have to buy a membership to read them, why should I care?[/quote]
When they test some Labrada stuff I will let you know. I was not advertising for them. I also advertised for other watch dog companies and have done so in the past. Just look at my previous posts, ther must be at least 5 or 6 differnet posts through the last 6 years that pertain to lab assays. It is just my thing.
[quote]daniel_lamon wrote:
Dave2 wrote:
Wait, so supplementpolice is owned by supplenments direct, who happen to be the most ‘certified’ company on the list and they sell the products there.
How can you be an ‘independent watchdog group’ when you own the supplement company that gets the best rating on your site?
It should not matter, as it is San Rafael Chemical Services that does the lab assays. They are not owned by either company and would not falsify the lab assay due to the fact that they would be sued![/quote]
They could be sued if the results were falsified, but what if they were just plain old wrong?
Not necessarily false, just not accurate?
You know, like within a margin of error, which could be pretty wide, and easily wide enough to make a label claim look bogus.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
daniel_lamon wrote:
Dave2 wrote:
Wait, so supplementpolice is owned by supplenments direct, who happen to be the most ‘certified’ company on the list and they sell the products there.
How can you be an ‘independent watchdog group’ when you own the supplement company that gets the best rating on your site?
It should not matter, as it is San Rafael Chemical Services that does the lab assays. They are not owned by either company and would not falsify the lab assay due to the fact that they would be sued!
They could be sued if the results were falsified, but what if they were just plain old wrong?
Not necessarily false, just not accurate?
You know, like within a margin of error, which could be pretty wide, and easily wide enough to make a label claim look bogus.
How about that?
[/quote]
That is a good question, I will call San Rafael Chemical Services on Monday and see what their margin of error is. If you look at the items that are certified or approved, they were with 10-15% of the lable claim so they were consider ok and Supplement Police Certified them.
The only products that filed had anywhere from 25% of the label to zero. One product also had 4.5 times more of the ingredient so it also failed and was not certified.
[quote]daniel_lamon wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
Johnny Cotta wrote:
Glad to see that Supplement Police has made itself available for viewing, its been a project in the making and finally has taken off.
We hope to get Supplement Companies who test their products, each and every batch regularly, to submit and supply the lab assays so they can prove the label claims, if not they will be questioned one day by the police, the SUPPLEMENT POLICE. Its been tough getting any company to provide such material, but they can provide the excuses why they don’t have one!!
Any Supplement Company who have lab assays are welcome to submit them to supplementpolice.com
So, Johnny Cotta, longtime T-Nation lurker and just a coincidence that you registered the day someone posted about your company?
(I’m taking the bad cop angle.)
It sounds like he works for the company in his post. I do not have a problem with him posting and becoming a member. Maybe he can shed some light onto what are the next products they are going to test.
[/quote]
It’s always suspicious when someone posts about a great new company. It’s even more suspicious when an employee from that company just happens to be a lurker that registers the same day and makes his first post on that same thread. The Interweb is a very, very large place. Coincidence?
A lot of folks out there Google their names and/or the names of their companies on a regular basis to see what people are saying about them. I can’t see anything wrong with someone getting word of a discussion on a message board and then registering to join in and present their perspective.
[quote]industrialplaid wrote:
A lot of folks out there Google their names and/or the names of their companies on a regular basis to see what people are saying about them. I can’t see anything wrong with someone getting word of a discussion on a message board and then registering to join in and present their perspective.[/quote]
It was 2 1/2 hours later. Search engines don’t work that way. But maybe someone called or emailed him and it’s completely innocent.
I’m just saying the whole thing looks shady. The web site looks shady and a company employee registering and posting just hours later is suspicious. Not wrong, just suspicious.
Maybe it’s just an odd coincidence. Like the fact that the original poster resides in the central coast of California. Supplement Direct’s three stores are located in three central coast towns (SLO, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria). Probably just a coincidence but there’s lots of red flags popping up on my bullshit meter.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
industrialplaid wrote:
A lot of folks out there Google their names and/or the names of their companies on a regular basis to see what people are saying about them. I can’t see anything wrong with someone getting word of a discussion on a message board and then registering to join in and present their perspective.
It was 2 1/2 hours later. Search engines don’t work that way. But maybe someone called or emailed him and it’s completely innocent.
I’m just saying the whole thing looks shady. The web site looks shady and a company employee registering and posting just hours later is suspicious. Not wrong, just suspicious.
Maybe it’s just an odd coincidence. Like the fact that the original poster resides in the central coast of California. Supplement Direct’s three stores are located in three central coast towns (SLO, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria). Probably just a coincidence but there’s lots of red flags popping up on my bullshit meter. [/quote]
It is definitely better to be cautious than foolish and you are definitely cautious! I understand where you are coming from. I hope you are wrong and it is not a scam, because I really think Supplement Police is a good idea.
If the website closes by the 07 Ironman or within a few months then I guess you are right in calling it a scam, as the other supplement companies will be all over them with their lawyers. If the company stays around for a year or so and continues to publish more third party lab assays then I guess I am right.
This will probably be my last post for a while as the second week of school is just about to start at Fresno State and I won’t have much time to post.
Then came back to the thread and found that Michael570 was already on op of things. The website for the watchdog was registered by the company with the most approved products? That’s a little suspect.
Hi guys. Thanks for checking us out. I to am working on the project so I can answer any questions you may have… which there appear to be a few.
Let me clear a few things up. We are non-profit and have thus far extended ourselves quite handsomely to get things going. We have no underlying reasons for starting this project other than informing our customers and those within the industry that some house cleaning needs to be done.
Supplement Direct, since day one, has tested each and every batch of raw materials that comes through. If you would like to see some of their lab assays, click here: supplementdirect.com/?content=202
Its a simple and necessary process to ensure quality and potency. Now, let me ask you, why wouldnt every company do this? Is it too expensive? Not at all. When you pay that fee for testing with www.SupplementPolice.com, you’re paying for the cost of the test. The membership fee you pay for only covers the cost to continue to do more testing of items WE select. You pay when YOU select a product you’d like tested.
San Rafael is a commonly used lab by a whole plethora of industries. They do not doctor lab assays.
Whomever your freind talked to was being asked how he would like the lab assay printed. How he would like it to look. They are commonly used for a lot of people to see. So they commonly require some formating. They stand by their methods strongly and are willing to validify any finding if required to do so. There are margins of error in any chemical procedure, which is always noted. However, when many of these products are tests are showing NON DETECTABLE amounts of primary ingredients, who should you be questioning?
Hello T-Nation, I haven’t been able to reply being out of town for this past weekend, away for business, ya know first things first!! Anyways I see Sean has cleared up a few concerns from some post(s), and assure you that the Supplement Police are here to help keep the industry honesty and keep the consumers safe and happy knowing what their paying for, is what they’re getting.