Others may have already posted similar, but....
1. I don't read it as evidence provided by a player. It says the delivery of all the illegal substances to the club on Jan11 was corroborated by the source. I don't see how any player would be in a position to corroborate the delivery of a number of substances. Sounds much more likely to be Robinson who would be in on the whole order/delivery process.
2. On the version I saw, there is no mention of the word "player" when referring to those the source claims were injected.
3. Depending on who the source was, it would be imperative that the defence lawyers would get the chance to cross examine him. I have no faith at all in Robinson as a reliable truthful witness, given that TV interview. If Robinson is the source, then the defence should go to town on challenging him as a truthful witness (ulterior motives, suing the club at the time, grudge against Hird and the club).
4. I am very concerned that the defence appears to have only gone for only about half a day. I hope that the defence got to challenge the ASADA evidence as it was presented, and that this is the reason that their "opening summary" of evidence went for so long. ("opening summary" turned out to be full presentation?)
Fully agree with all of the above. Well posted.