James Hird's appeal against ASADA in Federal Court enters day two James Hird arrives for another day at the Federal Court. JAMES Hird has resumed his one-man war on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority at the Federal Court this morning. The Essendon coach is mounting a solo appeal against a Federal Court judge's ruling in September that the joint ASADA-AFL investigation of the supplements scandal at the club was lawful. All parties have been told the hearing must be completed by 1pm AEDT. James Hird arrives with wife Tania for day two of his Federal Court appeal. Day 1 report by Grant Baker JAMES Hird, wife Tania on his arm, returned to the legal fray on Monday as the Bombers coach resumed his one-man war on the anti-doping agency. The couple sat in the front row of the Federal Court public gallery as Hird's lawyers castigated the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. Essendon decided not to appeal a Federal Court judge's ruling in September that the joint ASADA-AFL investigation of the supplements scandal at the club was lawful. But Hird is fighting on, accusing the judge, Justice John Middleton, of denying the reality of how the supplements investigation unfolded. He says ASADA should have to start its investigation all over again - without the "infected information" collected in the joint probe. This is despite the continuation of ASADA's pursuit of 34 current and former Essendon players, whose cases are expected to reach an AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal before the end of the year. Peter Hanks, QC, for Hird, argued that ASADA had unlawfully "walked around" its lack of coercive powers, allowing confidential information to be disclosed to the AFL. He said the law prescribed "an independent investigation - not one in harness with a sporting administration body." James Hird departs his Toorak home for the Federal Court. But ASADA had used the AFL to force Essendon players and officials to submit to what were effectively ASADA interviews, he said. The AFL had only been "brought in for the purpose of providing compulsion." "The real vice is not in calling it a joint investigation; the real vice is seeking to step around the absence of power," Mr Hanks said. That was very convenient and efficient - but it was unlawful. But Tom Howe, QC, for ASADA, said there was "no prohibition against ASADA's obtaining a benefit" from the AFL's powers. "This case is ultimately only about the lawfulness of the acquisition of information by ASADA," Mr Howe said. He said players and officials had chosen to answer questions in the full knowledge of how the investigation had been set up - though he acknowledged that had they not done so, they faced punishment from the AFL. He said Hird had been represented by Senior Counsel but had "just decided to get on with the interview (because) he had nailed his colours to the mast from the get-go," in that Essendon had vowed to co-operate. Mr Howe continues his submissions on Tuesday. It is hoped Justices Susan Kenny, Tony Besanko and Richard White will rule before the Full Federal Court breaks for Christmas until February.