And finally an article that contains facts instead of the rubbish that the Daily Telegraph Journalists have written for the past six months. This one is written by a factual journalist and explains the confusion surrounding the supplement AOD-9604. It appeared in the Advocate on Thursday the 29/08/2013.
Why did Dank use AOD on the Essendon players?
http://www.hepburnadvocate.com.au/story/1738233/why-did-dank-use-aod-on-the-essendon-players/?cs=12#
By Peter Brukner
Aug. 29, 2013, 3 a.m.
One of the many intriguing aspects of the Essendon supplements saga has been the status of the peptide AOD-9604 and why Stephen Dank was giving it to the players.
So what do we know about Essendon and AOD-9604?
1. Essendon (April statement) and its captain Jobe Watson (June TV interview) have admitted that AOD-9604 was administered to Essendon players and AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou said on Wednesday that this was not in doubt.
2. The ACC report released in February stated that AOD-9604 was ''not a banned substance''.
3. WADA contradicted this in April and stated that AOD-9604 was a banned substance.
4. The ACC subsequently added an addendum to its report stating that while ASADA had advised it that AOD-9604 was not banned under the S2 category, it was a banned substance under the S0 category.
5. Professor Gary Wittert from University of Adelaide who conducted five of the six trials of AOD-9604 concluded that it was not effective as an anti-obesity drug.
6.An Age article in July revealed that AOD-9604 was given to four ''professional footballers'', believed by ASADA to be Essendon players, as part of a drug trial for the treatment of injuries.
7. The AFL charge sheet states that 38 Essendon players were placed on a program of weekly AOD-9604 injections.
One of the unanswered questions is why Steven Dank, the chemist employed by Essendon and responsible for its ''supplements'' program, was using AOD-9604. Information has recently come to light that indicates that AOD-9604, which is closely related to Human Growth Hormone (HGH), may have an anabolic (muscle building) effect.
A patent application (No: 2012327167) from Metabolic Pharmaceuticals has recently become available on the Australian Patent Office website. It was initially filed on December 7, 2012.
This patent application was the basis of
The Age story concerning the four ''professional footballers'' used in a trial.
A previous patent No. 693478 by Monash University had been granted in 1994 for use of the drug in controlling obesity. In this use, AOD-9604 got to the human trials stage before being abandoned because it was not sufficiently effective to warrant further development.
One can assume by the fact that AOD-9604 previously got to stage three trials that it is regarded as a safe drug.
While reducing body fat can be helpful in elite athletes, it is unlikely Dank was using AOD-9604 for its anti-obesity effect especially as it has been shown not to be significantly effective.
In this latest patent application, the company states that AOD-9604 is a short fragment of HGH and has several biological activities, including repair of injured cartilage, tendons and bone. The title of the patent application is actually Use of Growth Hormone Fragments.
HGH can be used to treat a number of medical conditions, but one part of the protein stimulates a strong anabolic response, which is why it is banned by WADA under S2. AOD-9604 is a fragment of HGH that was thought not to contain ''the anabolic'' region. This same part of HGH is also responsible for many of the negative side effects of HGH use.
However, the patent application states that they have shown in their trials that while AOD-9604 has a significant effect on repair of soft tissues such as cartilage and tendon, it also surprisingly retains an anabolic effect on muscle, without the negative side effects of HGH use.
The AOD-9604 patent application also states that the substance is suitable for ''treating a condition in which growth hormone administration is helpful'' and for ''promoting or improving muscle, ligament or tendon mass, repair, form or function''.
If 38 Essendon players were administered the drug once a week, one wonders whether its intended use was just to treat injuries. It is unknown when the anabolic property was discovered, and whether Dank or anyone at Essendon was aware of this.
There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from the patent application. The first is that AOD-9604 is a drug that now appears to fall under both the S0 and S2 categories.
As it is not yet approved for use in this country (or any other), it should always have been considered banned under the S0 category, which states that any pharmacological substance that is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the Prohibited List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g. ElephantJuice under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer ElephantJuice, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.
If AOD-9604 has the anabolic effects of HGH, it is a performance-enhancing peptide and therefore comes under the S2 category on WADA's Prohibited List.
ASADA gave advice to the ACC, and perhaps Essendon, that AOD-9604 was not banned under the S2 category. Given the expectation that AOD-9604 would not be anabolic because it lacked the ''anabolic region'' of HGH, it is perhaps understandable that ASADA did not classify it under S2 in 2011 and 2012, although its close structural relationship to the banned HGH should have been sufficient to include it on the banned list.
In light of the above, however, ASADA needs to review the patent application and the drug's classification, and place it on the Prohibited List under S2.
Two things have saved the individual Essendon players from being charged with taking a banned drug. One is the alleged lack of detailed record keeping, which makes it impossible to know which players took which ElephantJuice.
The second is the initial confusion at ASADA about the status of AOD-9604, with conflicting advice given regarding whether it is a banned substance. The players have escaped punishment, but there is no excuse for those involved in administering a banned, non-approved drug to young men.
Dr Peter Brukner OAM is a sports physician and media commentator.
LINK
http://www.hepburnadvocate.com.au/story/1738233/why-did-dank-use-aod-on-the-essendon-players/?cs=12
