Essendon coach James Hird may have to wait until next year to learn the result of his appeal against the legality of the joint ASADA-AFL investigation into the supplements program.
Hird appealed against a decision made in September by Justice John Middleton upholding the legality of the investigation into the club's 2012 supplements saga.
The hearing concluded on Tuesday afternoon.
The Essendon coach's legal team argued to the Federal Court that the information gained during the investigation could not be used because ASADA deployed the league's coercive powers to compel players to answer questions.
"There's an absence of legislation in the coercive powers (of ASADA), and that represents a deliberate decision by the parliament to withhold that power," Hird's lawyer Peter Hanks QC told the court.
"ASADA had no power to involve the AFL in the interviews, as it asked the questions."
But the legal counsel for ASADA Tom Howe QC told the court the anti-doping authority did not operate beyond its powers in joint interviews because it was the AFL, rather than ASADA, that compelled players to answer questions in joint interviews.
He said the anti-doping agency did not go beyond its powers by participating in the joint interviews because it was "permitted to gain the benefits" of the AFL's powers of coercion.
"It was the AFL that had contractual powers (of compulsion), and it was the AFL that exercised these," Mr Howe told the court.
"The AFL's powers of compulsion were a choice by the league to fulfil its obligations within the anti-doping scheme, they were at the robust end, but the players signed contracts with the league."
Outside court, Hird said he was pleased he went ahead with the appeal.
"We're very happy we've had the chance to put our case forward, we now look forward to the decision and go from there," he said.