The trial begins at 10.15am on Monday and has been set down to last for three days. Essendon and suspended coach James Hird have suggested it could last longer, Justice John Middleton has made it clear he thinks otherwise. Once evidence is heard, Justice Middleton could then take weeks to reach his decision, which could be announced in the middle of the AFL finals.

What is the key contention?

It’s about whether ASADA, an independent body, worked outside its scope last year in partnering with the AFL while investigating Essendon’s 2011-12 supplements program. As Hird and the Bombers say in their joint submission: ''Why did the CEO of ASADA decide to enter into an agreement with the AFL to conduct a joint investigation?'' It adds: ''Was it because the CEO (Aurora Andruska) at the time sought, as alleged, to take advantage of powers not available to her, or was it for some other reason?'' However, one section of the ASADA act grants it the power to do "all things necessary or convenient" to uphold the National Anti-Doping scheme.

What do Hird and the Bombers say?

They argue ASADA acted outside its jurisdiction by working closely with the AFL ''to take advantage of its [the AFL’s] compulsive powers''. They claim the show-cause notices issued to 34 current and former players are therefore void. They argue Hird and the players were not given the right to silence ''against self-incrimination'' during their interviews last year, having only been warned they had to be truthful under the AFL’s anti-doping guidelines. Hird also says ASADA wanted to ''obtain a benefit not otherwise available'' to it, but has denied claims he is alleging there was a conspiracy against him.

What evidence has been released in pointing to a ''joint'' probe?

In their joint submission regarding discovery, Hird and the Bombers have listed comments made by AFL chief medical officer Peter Harcourt in Zurich, an article by Harcourt and AFL investigator Brett Clothier in the British Journal of Sports Medicine and former AFL chief Andrew Demetriou’s statements in a July 27 article. They have also tabled documents seized during the discovery process from Andruska and ASADA investigators and lawyers, suggesting it was a joint investigation. They also point to lawyers such as Chris Pollard, representing Essendon staff, who challenged the AFL and ASADA's power to conduct a joint investigation. Andruska could be called to give evidence in person.

What does ASADA say?

The anti-doping body says its Act and legislation allows it to work with sporting bodies. It also says it can compel any sporting body to hand over information relevant to the case it is conducting. In its submission, ASADA says Hird "facilitated and actively co-operated with the investigation by ASADA and the AFL". ASADA says there was "no claim of privilege" by Hird at his April 16 interview. "On the contrary, having flagged a possible legal issue, Mr Hird and his legal representatives chose to take no action at that time and allowed the interview to proceed, thus acquiescing in that process."

What does the AFL say?

The AFL is not a party in the case but there is the possibility the likes of integrity chief Brett Clothier and even Demetriou and current chief Gillon McLachlan could be called to give evidence. McLachlan said on Saturday he ''thinks'' he was subpoenaed by the Hird and Essendon camps on Friday, presumably meaning he may have to appear in court. McLachlan also said he was comfortable with the AFL's role in the investigation. He has said many of the points noted in the Essendon/Hird submission lodged on Friday are ''mostly distraction and noise''.

Where do the 34 players issued with show-cause notices stand?

Having opted to not join Hird and Essendon, they now do not have to give evidence, ensuring they retain their privacy, and will only be heard in terms of the decision Justice Middleton reaches. David Grace, QC, says the players back the club’s claim that the investigation was illegal. The players, like Hird, argue they should have been given the right to silence during their interviews, having only been given the options to ''co-operate or face AFL disciplinary charges, and tell the truth throughout the interview or face criminal charges''. If Hird and the Bombers win, they, at least temporarily, will not have to respond to the show-cause notices. However, ASADA says it could yet reuse all the information to reissue show-cause issues.

What about the health of the players?

The Bombers maintain the players have nothing to worry about. The AFL’s charge sheet last year listed 16 substances (one was redacted) given to players, including the banned Thymosin beta 4. This is the drug listed on the show-cause notices.

Where are we at with the separate Dean Robinson case?

The former Essendon fitness chief is suing the Bombers for unfair dismissal and $2 million. He has subpoenaed 17 major figures at the AFL and Essendon, including McLachlan and Demetriou, to hand over documents relating to his suspension on February 5 last year when the Bombers self-reported to ASADA and the AFL.

COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PARTIES

Essendon: Neil Young QC, Dr Catherine Button

James Hird: Peter Hanks QC, Nick Harrington, Rachel Walsh

ASADA: Tom Howe QC, Daniel Star,  Dr Sue McNichol

The 34 Essendon players: David Grace QC, Ben Ihle

* ABC24 TV will provide a live feed of opening submissions on Monday which are expected to last about two hours from 10.15am.