Ahead of Tuesday's verdict by the AFL anti-doping tribunal, Stephen Dank, the architect of the Bombers' 2012 supplements program, maintains the players were given nothing wrong and said the banned drug thymosin beta 4 (TB4) was not on the World Anti-Doping Agency's list of banned drugs.

Thirty-four past and present players are set to find out on Tuesday whether they are guilty of being administered the synthetic peptide.

"There was no substance labelled unfit for human use so anyone that tries to bandy that comment around apart from the fact the comment is totally false, we are now starting to accrue our legal case against people that have suggested as such. Under no circumstances was anything ever injected or given to a player which was unfit for human consumption," Dank told ABC News Radio on Sunday.

Dank gave sworn evidence to the ACC that he administered thymomodulin, an immunity booster safely given to infants, and not TB4.

He said TB4 "modulates the immune system" and "the reality is it has never appeared on a WADA bannedlist".

"The nonsense that is actually brought out in terms of its relationship to other items on 'schedule 2' is a complete nonsense because in terms of chemical structure, of biological activity, cellular biochemistry or pharmocology, it is in no way related to any substance ... to anything that appears on the WADA-banned list.

"In saying that, I am not putting a defence forward because we used it but with all due respect ... I have found it quite laughable that they have tried to establish it in a relationship that is on schedule 2. That in itself I find ridiculous."

It is not listed by name, but TB4 is a peptide that falls under WADA's S2 category for performance enhancing drugs.

In the interview with the ABC, Dank said "nothing had ever been established in terms of its [TB4] performance-enhancing activity".

He said it was "ridiculous" to suggest the protocols used for giving thymomodulin were the same as TB4.

Essendon believes its players were given thymomodulin, also a form of thymosin.

Dank said he had chosen not to release detailed information of what was given "but that will become a lot clearer over the next couple of weeks".

"To say that we have not offered the information is not correct," he said.

"We certainly weren't prepared to offer it either to ASADA or the AFL because to be really blunt, for the bastardisation of this process. We want to leave this to a forum which is fit and proper and certainly ... we would not waste our time in the 'kangaroo court'."

Dank, who initially was interviewed by the Australian Crime Commission, was handed an infraction notice by ASADA, but has refused to be interviewed by the anti-doping body.

Dank said he was considering legal action against the Bombers' 2013 internal report conducted by former Telstra boss, Ziggy Switkowski.

"It is really laughable to suggest we conducted anything in a pharmacologically experimental manner. It was well known what was used at Essendon Football Club so the furphy that has been portrayed by the AFL, ASADA and the Essendon Football Club, that they don't know, is completely wrong," he said.

"There were very tightly governed records in relation to what was administered to those players. They are aware of what was administered to those players. The absolute balderdash that has been served out there that no one knew is completely false.

"Just that it is completely false that these particular substances and the program wasn't discussed through the highest levels of the club. We have been very firm in terms of our belief in what ASADA, the AFL and Essendon know and for them to remotely suggest that no one knew, to be really blunt, is completely wrong and in some ways offending the process we set up at Essendon Football Club. We were very strict in the protocols we set up."

Former ASADA chief Richard Ings said the whole ordeal had highlighted ASADA's lack of experience in dealing with a "fairly complex, professional sport matter".

He told ABC News Radio there were "learnings" in terms of the ASADA legislation and said it was "just crazy" there were up to five levels of tribunal hearings available to the parties.

"I have long held the view that what is needed is a complete root-and-branch review of Australia's anti-doping framework," he said.

"This is a review of ASADA and its processes, this is a huge review of the ASADA Act and the processes under which ASADA must operate by law."

"While it's been a protracted ordeal, Ings said Essendon "certainly put itself in a position through 2011 and 2012 to invite this level of scrutiny".