McDevitt said on Friday that while the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority would prefer that biochemist Shane Charter and compound pharmacist Nima Alavi appeared at the December 15 hearing, authorities still had a strong case against the 34 current and former Essendon players charged with being administered the banned drug, thymosin beta 4.

"By placing the names on the Register of Findings, the [anti-doping rule violation] panel confirmed my view that possible doping violations had occurred at Essendon in 2012," McDevitt said. "It should be noted the tribunal is not a court and is not bound by the rules of evidence.

"Despite media reports to the contrary, while it is my preference for potential witnesses to front the tribunal in person, I do not believe it is essential. It's now time to test this evidence in a tribunal and we are ready."

ASADA and the AFL will resume their push in the Supreme Court on Wednesday to have subpoenas issued against Charter and Alavi, forcing the pair to appear in person at the anti-doping tribunal.

Charter and Alavi have so far refused, having declared they had not agreed to do so during their extensive interview process with anti-doping investigators. Charter has alleged ASADA had attempted to tinker with his evidence. The pair also have defamation concerns should they appear in person.

Charter has confirmed he sourced thymosin beta 4 from China for Stephen Dank, the man at the centre of the Essendon program. These raw ingredients were given to Alavi to compound. However, neither man – publicly at least – can confirm whether the drugs were given to the players, as has been alleged in the infraction notices the players received.

Dank maintains the drugs were damaged by sunlight and were thrown out. He says the players were given thymomodulin, which is not banned, as part of his injecting program.

"I am pleased that these matters are finally before the AFL anti-doping tribunal," McDevitt said. "We have overcome a number of challenges but finally the case is where it should be – before the tribunal. I believe the 34 former and current Essendon players have a case to answer and the tribunal is the appropriate place for this to be done.

"My decision to issue the show-cause notices was not done lightly. Justification to issue these notices was reinforced when the independent anti-doping rule violation panel reached the same conclusion."

Dank has said he is prepared to appear before the anti-doping tribunal, should he be asked.

As the various legal parties prepare for another week of tribunal and court hearings, a former Essendon adviser has cast doubt on whether thymosin beta 4 is banned in Australia.

Legal academic Martin Hardie has claimed there are provisions under the Therapeutic Goods Act that would allow the drug to be used.

"More importantly, when we say there are two types of thymosin, the good thymosin and the bad thymosin, the substance thymosin beta 4, there has never been a decision of any sporting tribunal in the world, or the Court of Arbitration for Sport,  that has found that that substance is banned," Hardie said.

"What we have had is the media for the last year saying it is banned. But ASADA actually have to prove that, on a standard very close to beyond reasonable doubt, it is banned. They haven't put up any evidence to support that."

ASADA says the drug falls under the banned S2 category but Hardie says the anti-doping body needs to prove why.

It has emerged the 34 players can accept that the drug is banned, or they have the surprise option of challenging this.

If the players were to launch a challenge, ASADA would be asked to demonstrate why it is banned, as it is not specifically listed on the WADA list.

The players, however, would need to find an expert witness to prove what observers believe would be an unlikely case to prosecute.

However, Hardie, a confidant of Dank's, says ASADA could have a tough job arguing its case.

"I have been called an Essendon fan, a footy fan; I am neither of those things. I had no interest in defending Essendon, but when I looked at the substances that were being used, I came to the pretty quick conclusion that none of them were banned under the WADA code," he said on Radio Sport National.

Hardie maintains there could be more to the case than just analysing the WADA code.

"If it was argued that TB4 did not fall under S2 but fell under the catch-all SO, there could be more to the case," Hardie said.

"But if you look at the system in Australia for approval of human use, you have the Therapeutic Goods Administration who have the Therapeutic Goods Act.

"They have a system where things are given approval for manufacture by pharmaceutical companies. That's for manufacture. In that system, they also have a system where hospitals and compounding chemists can prepare substances that haven't been given approval for manufacture for human use.

"As I advised Essendon last June, I believe that these things are available for human use under the law of Australia. The people that have been running this line haven't distinguished between manufacture and use."