Testimony from former Cronulla Sharks trainer Trent Elkin forms the basis of ASADA's case against Sharks players
ASADA's case against the majority of Cronulla players rests on testimony from ex-Sharks trainer Trent Elkin, who has allegedly told the agency that peptides were used at the club in 2011.
Allegations about Elkin's evidence were made during Monday's first player interview with Cronulla forward Wade Graham.
Sharks sources have confirmed Graham was confronted with Elkin's claim while ASADA lawyers and investigators grilled him for some four hours at a CBD office.
It's understood ASADA presented no other evidence that pointed toward the use of peptides or any banned substance that might warrant a two-year ban.
The Daily Telegraph can also reveal the tense interview, which was recorded, ended when ASADA discovered that one of Graham's lawyers was also acting for the other nine Sharks players on the hit-list.
ASADA interviewers became frustrated when Graham could not detail the use of peptides at the club, or by his teammates.
The 22-year-old gave limited responses to certain questions but otherwise co-operated fully.
But it's clear ASADA were unhappy with that approach, and at one stage threatened him with an infraction notice.
Graham's advisers quickly pointed out that the NRL are the only organisation that can issue first grade players with infraction notices.
There was suggestion yesterday that the NRL had given some consideration to doing so, to bypass the interview stalemate and escalate the case to an arena where all evidence must be presented in full.
But CEO Dave Smith last night denied those conversations had reached his desk, and has previously stated that no player will be handed a notice without proper evidence.
However, Smith did confirm that he would review the transcript of Graham's interview before considering the NRL's next move.
From the Graham interview at least, it appears Elkin's allegations are the biggest ace up ASADA's sleeve when it comes to the question of systematic doping at Cronulla between March and May 2011.
And Elkin has not endeared himself to Cronulla players and coaching staff by talking to ASADA, with three paying him a "please explain" visit a month ago.
Two plain-clothed security guards also shadowed Elkin, who now works at Parramatta, to protect him from disgruntled fans when he came face-to-face with his old club in round five.
Elkin has previously denied the provision of any banned substances.
His lawyer, Michael Malley, last night declined to directly respond to the claim that Elkin had told ASADA peptides were used at Sharks in 2011.
"This firm and Trent Elkin are under an obligation of confidentiality in relation to his interview with ASADA and we are both unable to comment in relation to your query," Malley said.
"However, we reiterate what our client stated in our firm's media release issued on 19/03/2013; "On the advice of my legal team, I have provided ASADA officials with a statement as part of their investigation and gave an honest account of the period in question. I have never condoned the use of performance enhancing drugs and I have not ever knowingly worked with anyone who did."
Sports scientist Stephen Dank - the investigation's central figure who oversaw the supplement program - confirmed last week that players were offered peptides.
It's understood most of the 10 Sharks players wanted for interview have only been implicated thanks to their participation in Dank's program. Dank vigorously denies any wrongdoing and maintains that the supplement program was above board. ASADA is abreast of intelligence that suggests a minority of players sourced their own supplements.
It's understood the agency planned to interview those players last, in a bid to build a stronger case by extracting further information from their teammates.
But the interviews have once again been delayed, leaving ASADA to try to convince the NRL to revoke the players' right against self-incrimination.
Should the NRL stand firm, there now appears little ASADA can do to compel any player to answer critical questions in the absence of overwhelming evidence.
