Ok, so I used Albions research. I only used their studies since they are one of the worlds largest most respected research laboratories. I dont know if you actually read the report regarding their findings on creatine mono or not but what was in their report, and all others, is that mono by itself is not the most effective formula. Whether or not Albion has their own creatine product is not what I was trying to relay in my referrance. The report was done showing the ineffeciancey of straight mono. Quote:

"Although creatine [as a monohydrate] has been shown to be a very effective substance, it is important to note that creatine is susceptible to cyclicaztion. It may be that the molecular configuration of creatine with the amino group [NH] gamma to the carboxylic acid, makes it prey to acid hydrolysis. Whatever the rationale, it have been clealy shown that creatine has a propensity to from creatinine, under acidic conditions. In fact, in acidic aqueous solutions, the formation of creatinine from creatine is nearly total and irreversible. From this, one can see that a great deal of creatine can be transformend irreversibly into creatinine, when exposed to the stomach's acidic conditions. Once creatinine is formed, its is no longer of any physiological benefit" [Albion research December, 1999, Vol. 8 No. 2]

What this study, and all others done with a Chelate or Malate formula whether using magnesium or malic acid, found is that with the attachment of other molecules to the creatine monohydrate has been proven to be substantially more absorbed into the muscle through the small intestines [in powder form] void the acidic conditions of the stomach, thus, the eliminating the creatinine process ie; intestinal discomfort, loading periods, mass amounts of fluids etc.

Like I mentioned to Ross, I enjoy the debate and am always willing to learn more. Thank you for your concern regarding you not being able to find what I was referring to on a site quoted. I will go back to the site and find the quotes I was trying to relay.