Hal Hunter, who was rookie-listed by the Bombers from December 2011 until September 2013, has taken action in the Supreme Court, and has also listed the AFL as a defendant.

After his application for a pseudonym was rejected by the Victorian Supreme Court last Wednesday, court documents were released late on Friday, outlining his case.

Hunter has particularly focused on the role played by Stephen Dank, the architect of the injection program from late 2011 and through 2012.

Hunter's lawyer Jim Constantinou, partner of Melbourne-based firm Schetzer Constantinou, wants "any documents between the Essendon Football Club and Mr Stephen Dank or any entity related to Mr Stephen Dank concerning the administering of AOD-9604 to employees of the Essendon Football Club" and "any documents between the Essendon Football Club and Mr Stephen Dank or any entity related to Mr Stephen Dank concerning the administering of thymosin beta-4 [also known as TB4] to employees of the Essendon Football Club."

Lawyers also want a copy of James Hird's interview with the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and the AFL on April 16, 2013.

Hunter has taken legal action despite avoiding an infraction notice, one of 12 players from the 2012 list to have escaped this. However, he still has health and safety fears.

Lawyers also want any records relating to supplements administered by anti-ageing clinics, HyperMED and Skinovate.

The 34 past and present players given infraction notices, where they have been charged with being administered thymosin beta-4, will learn their fate on Tuesday at Etihad Stadium from 2pm when AFL anti-doping tribunal chairman David Jones presents his verdict.

The status of the anti-obesity drug AOD-9604 was called into question once the saga broke in February 2013, for there were mixed reports about its legality from the Australian Crime Commission, the ASADA and the World Anti-Doping Agency. The drug was last year given food and supplement approval in the US, and ASADA did not pursue the Bombers over the use of it.

Hunter's lawyers began their "reasonable cause to believe the plaintiff may have right to obtain relief" on October 7 last year when they wrote to AFL chief Gillon McLachlan and Essendon chief executive Xavier Campbell, seeking certain documents. The Bombers have not responded since October 7.

Hunter argues that relief "including for negligence" could be sought from the Bombers for implementing "a scientifically pioneering program relating to the administration of supplements to players".

"This program exposed players, including the plaintiff, to significant risks to their health, safety and general wellbeing as well as the risk of using prohibited substances," Constantinou's affidavit says.

"Senior members of the Essendon Football Club may have been involved in or should have been aware of the supplements program.

"Medical staff employed or retained by the Essendon Football Club may have been involved in or should have been aware of the supplements program."

While Tuesday's announcement - in camera and without any players present - is a key day, player agents have warned the saga could drag on for several months, for there could yet be more legal action against the Bombers and the AFL by disgruntled players.

Jones almost certainly will not immediately determine the length of any bans - should a guilty verdict be delivered.

Peter Gordon, the Western Bulldogs president and a prominent lawyer whose son has been involved in defending two Bulldogs players, has said "possibly the most likely outcome [is] that the case is not proven against the players".

Other sources close to the case admit it remains a line-ball call, with doubts over whether ASADA has done enough to prove the "comfortable satisfaction" criterion that the players were given an illegal form of thymosin.

Gordon has two players facing bans - key forward Stewart Crameri, and the VFL-listed Brent Prismall.

Jones will also rule on Dank, who was also handed an infraction notice. Dank has maintained he did not inject banned drugs and will launch legal action against several parties, including the AFL, once the case was over.

Regardless of the result, it seems almost certain there will be an appeal by either ASADA or lawyers representing the players, 17 of whom remain at Essendon.

ASADA could appeal to the AFL appeals tribunal while WADA could also appeal to the AFL and to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. It's believed the two parties have already spoken about a possible appeal.

If the players are found not guilty, they will be free to play in the season opener against the Sydney Swans on Saturday.

ASADA chief Ben McDevitt attended the annual WADA symposium in Switzerland last week, but ASADA and WADA would not elaborate on what his role there was, nor whether there was any mention of the Essendon case.