Open the certificate page at Sports Technology Labs and the first impression is a good one. Two laboratories are named, MZ Biolabs in Tucson, Arizona and Colmaric Analyticals LLC, and the reports open without an account or a purchase, which is more than many research suppliers manage. Look a little longer and the impression changes. Each product has a single “most recent” certificate, none of them carries a lot number, at least one is dated “09./11/2026”, and a RAD-150 certificate is dated 2023. The company has built the front half of a transparency program and left the back half undone.
Sports Technology Labs is a Connecticut company founded in 2019 whose main business is liquid and powdered SARMs, with peptides such as BPC-157, TB-500, Ipamorelin, Sermorelin, SS-31 and Semax as a second line. For this report we read the about page, the certificate page, the BPC-157 product page and the policy pages, then checked the public record for warning letters, review-site history and independent testing. Everything below comes from those sources.
The certificate page, and what the storefront says about it
The storefront’s testing claim rests on the two named labs and on stated minimum purity levels for each product. The about page describes the laboratories’ own credentials, MZ Biolabs’ DEA Schedule III license and GLP status and Colmaric’s ISO-accredited methods, and the certificates themselves document HPLC and mass spectrometry. The company claims no certification for itself, which is the honest position, although a hurried reader could take the labs’ credentials for the vendor’s.
The business claims are plainer. The site promises same-day shipping with express options inside the United States, free shipping on orders over $149, payment by card or Zelle and a 60-day money-back guarantee. BPC-157 is listed at $54.99 for a 5 mg vial. A research-use-only disclaimer is present on the site.
What checked out
Identification is complete, and it took no digging. The about page gives the founding year, 2019, and the site publishes a street address at 494 Bridgeport Avenue Suite 101-222, Shelton, CT 06484, a phone number, 959-333-0983, and an email, [email protected]. That is cheap for a real business to publish and awkward for a pop-up store, and it puts the company ahead of the many suppliers that offer a contact form and nothing else.
The guarantee is genuine in the sense that it has a window, 60 days, and a process, by email. In practice the guarantee is the buyer’s real protection here, and we would say so plainly: when a certificate cannot be matched to a vial, a long refund window is what stands between a buyer and a bad lot. The labs are real and named, and the reports are open. That last point deserves credit even with the flaws we come to next, because a visible certificate with problems is still better than no certificate at all.
Where the documents and the claims part ways
The first gap is structural. A certificate program exists to let a researcher confirm that the vial in hand came from a tested lot. Showing one report per product with no lot number removes that link entirely; the certificate describes some batch, at some time, and nothing on the page ties it to the order a buyer receives. We cannot say whether the company tests every lot, because the page gives no way to tell, and we record per-lot testing as unknown. The malformed and stale dates make the problem worse. A report dated “09./11/2026” is a typo or a formatting error, but it is a typo on the one document a buyer is asked to trust, and a RAD-150 report from 2023 presented as “most recent” suggests the page is not kept current. Small errors on a certificate page are not evidence of bad material, but they are evidence that nobody is checking the page, and that is the page the whole testing claim rests on.
The second gap is numerical. The company states minimum purity levels, and several of the certificates it publishes fall below them: DSIP at 90.2 percent, Ligandrol at 97.29 percent and RAD-140 at 97.4 percent. Publishing a result that contradicts your own specification is at least candid, and we prefer it to a scrubbed page. It also means the specification is not a guarantee, and a buyer should read the number on the certificate rather than the number in the product description.
Several things remain outside our reach. Endotoxin and sterility testing are not documented. The product count is not published, and neither is whether the company ships internationally or sells GLP-class products. The Trustpilot profile returned HTTP 451 to our fetcher, so no review data could be examined. Finnrick, an independent testing aggregator, lists the vendor but reports zero independent tests, which means there is no outside check on any of the published purities. No FDA warning letter naming Sports Technology Labs was found as of October 19, 2026. The SARMs-first catalog is a business fact worth knowing in jurisdictions where those items are regulated, and a peptide buyer should understand that peptides are the company’s second line rather than its focus.
Our read
Sports Technology Labs is a real company at a real address that has done the first half of the testing job, naming its labs and posting results in the open, and skipped the second half, tying each result to a lot and meeting its own minimums. At $54.99 for 5 mg of BPC-157, above most of the suppliers we track, a researcher is paying a premium for paperwork that cannot be matched to the vial. The 60-day guarantee is the practical safeguard, and it is a good one. We would call the identity verified and the testing program incomplete, and we would want lot numbers on the certificate page before calling it anything more.
