I did. It's very basic FDA page about CDER and its function to evaluate mandatory drug testing before a drug can be tested in humans and then subsequently brought to market. Honestly, not a lot there.
To be honest, I really don't think so and I think this is more likely why the drug wasn't pursued further. There is virtually no market for the drug. The real money making drugs that get popular are the things that people can take, make almost no additional effort and reap the outcome. Most of the general population are not nearly as interested in exercise as we are. So something like semaglutide (while unbelievably effective) is popular in very large part because people just inject (only once per week) and then just go about their week with a reduced appetite to garner most of its intended outcome. Exercise would obviously help and be very beneficial but it doesn't seem that most people (at least in the trials) are engaging in exercise. I'm basing that on the significant amount of lean mass lost on the subset of participants that underwent DEXA scans.
Cardarine by comparison, is a poor fat loss drug if taken in the same setting as a glp-1 agonist. It causes no appetite suppression, modestly biases fuel substrate to fatty acids instead of glucose. Cardarine has potential to help people exercise harder, which can yield better outcomes. But its actual base effect on fat loss is quite small. Its effect on insulin sensitivity (by all accounts) is dwarfed by cheap/basic drugs like metformin. Its effects on liver and HDL are also modest and significantly less than a statin. So it would likely be regarded as non-impactful as opposed to an aid.
All that leads me to believe cardarine would never be prescribed for much of anything since there are drugs that do a better job at literally everything it purports to do. It's cool that it does all of those things but IMO not to a significant degree to ever make a doctor want to use it on a patient.