UPDATE: ESSENDON has formally refuted suggestions four of its players were the subject of case studies referred to in a patent application by the owner of AOD-9604.
The club said its doctors had conducted a review and believed the case studies were inconsistent with their own records.
“The Essendon Football Club wishes to refute the suggestion that four of its players were the subject of the case studies referred to in the patent application of AOD-9604 lodged by Metabolic Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd as reported in today’s media,” the club said in a statement released on Monday night.
“Both doctors at the club have reviewed all MRI reports of all players from August 2011 to the end of 2012.
“They are both of the opinion that the case studies in the application are inconsistent with the MRI reports in their possession and therefore do not relate to any of the players at Essendon Football Club.”
Earlier on Monday, Metabolic rejected allegations that Essendon players were used as "guinea pigs" in its pharmaceutical trials.
In a statement released to the Australian Stock Exchange on Monday, Metabolic's parent company Calzada Limited said it "categorically refutes" any suggestion it had been involved in secret drug trials involving Bombers players.
"Metabolic has not been involved in any human clinical trial activity since early 2007," the statement read.
"Metabolic has never commissioned third parties to use AOD9604 for the purpose of generating patient data or any other purpose.
"Furthermore, Metabolic does not manufacture, supply or sell AOD9604."
The company did confirm the existence of "four case notes" linked to professional football players using a topical cream.
"The four case notes relating to 'professional footballers' all involved use of a topical cream form of delivery, not injection."
The company said it became aware of a growing black market in the use of AOD9604 in 2010.
It insisted that while Dank agreed to document a number of historical case notes in September 2012, the treatments were not commissioned by Metabolic, which owns the Australian and international rights to the drug.
It said a report from Dank in November 2012 on 25 case notes assessing the biological function of AOD9604 only recorded historical anecdotal information.
"In no way do these notes constitute a clinical trial," the statement read.
Metabolic said it was "seeking urgent legal advice" in relation to last week's reports.
AFL.com.au has contacted Stephen Dank's representative but had received no comment at the time of publishing.
