The lawyer for a sports scientist accused of selling illegal drugs to Australia's elite sportspeople says his client only learnt of the allegations through the media.

Barrister Greg Stanton says his client Stephen Dank has been unfairly portrayed as the villain after the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) released a report last Thursday confirming the widespread use of illegal drugs in Australian sport.

Dank, a co-owner of a Sydney anti-ageing clinic, has worked with NRL outfit Manly and Essendon, one of the AFL clubs being investigated for the possible use of performance-enhancing drugs.

A day before the ACC released its findings, Essendon threw itself at the mercy of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and the AFL's integrity unit after revealing concerns over supplements supplied to their players.

Dank worked with the Bombers in 2012, while he had previously been employed with a number of other sporting organisations including Manly between 2006 and 2010.

He is now launching a $10 million defamation claim against various media outlets, alleging he has been falsely accused of selling illegal drugs.

Related coverage:

Mr Stanton would not address the specifics of the defamation case when he spoke with AM this morning, but said he had concerns about the way the process had unfolded.

"We're completely in the dark as to where the authorities intend to take this matter, if they intend to take it anywhere," he said.

"Can I say this much - after a lengthy inquiry in which no doubt many resources, monetary and otherwise, have been expended, the Government claims through its commission to have information of a serious and significant nature in respect to doping in sport. We reached that point.

"We then reach the point where people are said to be named, as are institutions that are involved in illegal activity. There are no specificities.

"And then we get the curious situation arising over the weekend where both the Prime Minister and the Justice Minister come forward and say 'We have credible information, it's reliable, it's strong, it's significant, however we're not going to prosecute in the normal circumstances with that information; we would rather that the people who know they're named and who will be named come forward and incriminate themselves and others'.

"That to me seems to be an incredibly curious position."

Mr Stanton said his client had not been provided with any information whatsoever.

"What we do know is this: the Government, hand in hand with the commission, it would seem, is prepared to create a shadow and a cloud over people such as my client without any credible and reliable information being suggested, yet alone being made public.

"That is the gross injustice of what is occurring at this point in time.

"He [Dank] learned of "allegations", if I can put that word in inverted commas very clearly, of a spurious and tenuous nature, from journalists such as yourself - no disrespect to you or to your colleagues - and from the man in the street.

"That's how he learns what he's alleged to have done, if he's done anything."

Mr Stanton says Dank is not aware of any continuing or past investigation involving the allegations.

"With certainty he knows neither of those situations to subsist," Mr Stanton said.

"The supreme irony of this situation is this: had he been charged with any recognisable, indictable offence, he would know and anyone he retains to act on his behalf would know the specifics of that charge, the manner in which, the evidence rather which was available against him, and he would have a forum in which he could challenge and defend himself in respect of that allegation.

"But as it now stands, he is in the court of public scrutiny - no charge, no allegation, no manner really to defend himself because there is no tribunal hearing any matter against him.

"But daily he's bombarded, as are his co-directors and the group that they work with, bombarded with allegations which at this stage don't seem to take any form."

In an exclusive interview with ABC1's 7.30 program, which will go to air tonight, Dank said he did not have any "specific" reasons why he had been singled out.

Obviously because I manage the supplement program, obviously the finger was going to, I guess, be pointed in my direction," he said.

"I've got no specific reasons why.

"But, you know, obviously because of my involvement and that was obviously an area that I was managing, if they were going to point the finger they were going to point the finger towards me."