"They (the AFL) are running this agenda about these dangerous substances that are being administered to the players," Watson said. "So if they know what they are, why can’t they come clean and tell the players and tell the parents so that we can all get on with our lives and stop being fearful about what they may have been administered?" Fairfax Media revealed last week that Essendon was unable to clarify what was in a drug purchased in Mexico by a Melbourne man suffering from muscular dystrophy which was injected into several Essendon players and later prompted health concerns among those players and their relatives. On Tuesday night, former AFL anti-doping tribunal jury member Andrew Garnham, who has confirmed that he is a paid consultant for the Bombers, told Fox Footy’s AFL 360 program that he had been told by ASADA in February (when he was a tribunal member) that AOD-9604 was not prohibited. Watson's son Jobe, the Essendon captain, admitted in a television interview he took what he believed to be AOD-9604.

Watson said the media had to be held responsible for its reporting. "Of all the substances that were known to have been administered to the players they’re satisfied that none of them have long term health issues for the players which is a great fear to have been allayed ... some of the reporting has just been hysterical," Watson said. "I’m in a privileged position where I can ring people and I can find out for myself what is the true regarding the substances but a lot of other parents have been disadvantaged, some of them are interstate and are picking up the paper and reading these reports and the fear and the worry in all of that is extreme so people have to be a little but mindful of that in this as well. "I’m not head in the sand over this. What I’m wanting and I’ve said this from day one is the truth, the actual truth about what took place not somebody’s version of the truth, not some wild speculative writing that fits some sort of narrative that somebody’s got going at the moment - just the truth, the actual truth about what took place." Garnham told SEN on Wednesday morning that he had left the AFL anti-doping tribunal earlier this year in order to advise Essendon.

"I was approached by Essendon early in the piece to offer advice to them about some of the supplements that may have been used, what were the safety issues and other concerns around them. So it was cleared at AFL level that I step across from my role with the AFL tribunal jury and then provide advice to Essendon as a consultant," Garnham said. Garnham says the information he has about the mystery Mexican drug "point to the fact that we are talking about safe and innocuous substances". Garnham said he also believed AOD-9604 was safe. "It’s a drug that has been through clinical trials. It did not progress through clinical trials (because) it proved ineffective," Garnham said. "Like all drugs there were side effects observed ... but they were thought to be minor and as a consequence the clinical trials were allowed to progress through a series of stages because it was essentially regarded as being a safe medication."

Laws of the Game committe member and broadcaster Kevin Bartlett used his program on Wednesday morning to call upon the AFL to clarify the issue of AOD-6904 and whether it was considered a banned substance. He said Essendon's internal Switkowski report into its supplements regime had also seemingly not addressed the drug and what the club, ASADA and the AFL knew about its status. Garnham said he was told by ASADA that AOD-9604 was not prohibited under S2 so the S0 provision was not relevant. The Australian Crime Commission sought advice from ASADA when investigating the Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport report and was correctly advised that AOD-9604 is not prohibited under schedule S2 of the WADA prohibited list. However, it was not told that AOD-9604 is prohibited by WADA due under its S0 category on because it is not approved for human therapeutic use. Former WADA president Dick Pound told RSN Radio Wednesday morning that such advice would not save Essendon players from penalties.

"To say it’s not banned under S2 is an incomplete and misleading answer." Pound said incorrect advice would not be used as a defence against the culpability of those charged, but it could mitigate the penalty. "I don’t think it’s a defence at all," Pound said. Loading "If it’s a banned substance and you have taken it you have committed an anti-doping rule violation and there are consequences for that. The fact that you may have been told by (ASADA) that it’s not banned might go to the the issue of whatever sentence is (imposed) but not to the existence of the rule violation."

Pound said WADA had the power of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport over any penalties imposed by a national anti-doping body that it did not feel were sufficient.