The Roar
The Roar

AFL
Advertisement

Stephen Dank dismisses allegations of prescribed doping

With the WADA hack, drugs in sport just got murkier. (Image: Organised Crime And Drugs In Sport Report)
12th February, 2013
3

The man at the centre of the AFL’s doping scandal, Stephen Dank, has sternly defended his actions in an exclusive interview with 7.30’s Caro Meldrum-Hanna on the ABC Network.

A biochemist by trade, Dank oversaw the supplement program at Essendon during his tenure.

When questioned about allegations of players and coaches not understanding the supplements that were prescribed, he responded firmly and named others who were knowingly involved in the program.

“There was a very significant involvement from Dean (Robinson) as the high performance manager. But in saying that, you know, there was always detailed discussion with the head coach, James Hird,” Dank said.

The player who started the controversy, ex-Bomber Kyle Reimers, sent shockwaves through the AFL when he declared players were asked to sign consent forms regarding the supplements they were taking. Reimers also denied players had knowledge of the supplements they were taking, often intravenously.

Dank dismissed Reimers’ accusations.

“Oftentimes, particularly in the early stages, we would actually get them to reaffirm that they knew what they were taking and what they were doing,” Dank said.

“So there was a lot of discussion with the players on that.”

Advertisement

The contents of intravenous fluids injected into players have been queried throughout the past week with a strong account from ex-Bomber Mark McVeigh contradicting Reimers’ initial comments.

McVeigh claimed he fully understood that he received nothing beyond vitamin injections and players were taken away from the training facilities to a sterile environment for safety purposes.

“They had intravenous injections for vitamin B and vitamin C, which are quite compliant with the WADA code,” Dank said.

“There was no intravenous application of peptides whatsoever.”

Peptides have been the drug in question throughout the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) enquiry but when questioned about the specific application of peptides to Essendon players, Dank denied any breaching of WADA policies.

“By definition a peptide is anything that strings more than two amino acids together, so, certainly a lot of these formulations would’ve had various amount of peptides within their formulation.”

“But again, all very, very legal and certainly all within the constraints of WADA.”

Advertisement

Dank raised new concerns when discussing the use of banned substances amongst coaches.

“To be perfectly honest, there were a couple of coaches that were using some of supplements, if you like, that were a little bit outside the WADA code. But again, they were entitled to it and certainly nothing illegal there.”

Beyond Dank’s elite sport consulting, he operates two medical rejuvenation clinics which are registered in Victoria and New South Wales his businesses selling a range of peptide compounds online.

On compound, GHRP-6, is a supplement banned by the Australian Anti-Doping Authority but regulators are yet to devise a method of detecting it but would be subject to retrospective testing.

GHRP-6 could be purchased online via Dank’s businesses and is the specific drug being investigated at Essendon.

“Well it’s probably only a curious link because I happen to be working at Essendon and of course my other business interests happen to be selling it,” Dank responded.

“But, to be honest, that’s no different to a situation where a club doctor in his medical bag will carry certain things which of course would be prohibited in a sporting setting, but they can obviously use it in a therapeutic setting.”

Advertisement

“So of course it’s a fairly easy association to be made, but, you know, under no circumstances was GHRP-6 ever used at Essendon.”

Dank’s contract with the Essendon Football Club was not renewed following the 2012 season.

Since the commencement of the peptide controversy, Dank has launched a $10million defamation lawsuit against various media outlets.

close