The "evidence" should be treated as a claim because the product being tested and the results can be easily manipulated. Representing fraudulent data as legitimate is just as harmful as suppressing valid data, for both the vendor and consumer. I'm in favor of testing but there are limitations to tests results.
It seems largely an issue of semantics. The argument you are making for using the term "claim" rather than "evidence" clearly benefits sources. When an individual(s) has "evidence" that a source has quality control issues, it sure does sound a lot worse than when the individual is only making a "claim".
There are unsubstantiated claims and claims substantiated by evidence. Sometimes the quality of the evidence may be low. But it is still evidence and it should be called evidence; it should not be dismissed as only a "claim".
When an experienced steroid user tries a product and the product does not "feel" like the AAS in question, his testimony is indeed evidence. It may be low quality evidence but it is evidence nonentheless. It is a claim backed by that person's experience.
A labmax report on the specific product is also evidence. It is clearly not as strong as analytical analyses by accredited and/or independent labs. But it is a significant improvement over an individual's subjective experience that it feels like the product. It should easily be verifiable and repeatable.
A DDL/ecstasydata qualitative report -- not on the product in question but -- on the powder used to make the product is also evidence. The quality of this evidence is debatable since it didn't even involve the specific product in question.
Any efforts to dismiss evidence as being something other than evidence only benefits the source.
Having said that, I pretty much agree entirely with the criticisms you have made about the other problems associated with the reported evidence in this thread. With the skill of a defense attorney - and I say this with the utmost respect - you laid out all the reasons a skeptic -- and we should all be skeptics -- should question these type of reports.
Contact K and wait for a reply. If you can't work it out with him, contact me or another member of the staff
...
When I go to a restaurant for dinner and order a steak, if my steak isn't cooked as I ordered it, I politely ask the waitress to bring me a steak that is prepared the way I intended it to be. In response, I typically I receive an apology, a new steak, and sometimes a free desert. I do not immediately jump to the conclusion that the waitress, chef, frequent patrons, and management staff are all involved in a conspiracy to rip me off because there was a problem with my order. I do not take it upon myself to stand up on a chair in the center of the restaurant and shout to everyone who will listen to me that my order was bad and the restaurant is a scam that everyone is in on. Utilizing professional courtesy has served me well.
It an individual goes to a restaurant and there is a cockroach in their meal, they are under no reasonable obligation to do anything other than get up and leave. Surely, you would not fault the patron for refusing to accept a replacement product from the same kitchen that produced the original unacceptable meal? The consumer may justifiably have no interest in any replacement the restaurant has to offer. Surely, you would not fault the customer for their desire to alert as many other potential customers of this restaurant to the problems they experienced with this meal?
Why is there any expectation of "professional courtesy" to allow the restaurant an alternative to the public reviews of the bad experience?
Now if the restaurant customer with the cockroach meal is acting solely out of self-interest, they may alert management, demand a refund, a free meal and perhaps coupons for additional free meals. And of course, if they return to the restaurant again and again in the future, they certainly don't want to antagonize management by repeatedly posting online public reviews of the incident.
I think most people will have the most respect for the individual who does not act out of self-interest (or at least not out of self-interest alone) and vocally share the negative restaurant experience with the larger community. The reason is that this type of incident is something that the community as a whole wants to know.
As a small business owner, I completely understand the management position. And I would prefer consumers take the approach that you recommend because it benefits ME as a small business owner. But I can be honest and admit that it is not in the best interest of consumers as group.
