It was that lack of certainty, construed as governance failings, that led to the Bombers being barred from the 2013 finals series.

Paradoxically, that lack of certainty also helped the 34 players avoid punishment at the AFL anti-doping tribunal, given the way the "comfortable satisfaction" burden of proof was interpreted last March.

So what changed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport? In one respect, there was no smoking gun. Indeed Australian Sports Anti‑Doping Authority chief executive Ben McDevitt noted on Tuesday that CAS placed no reliance on new scientific evidence.

At both the AFL tribunal and CAS, ASADA and the World Anti-Doping Agency respectively had sought to show that biochemist Shane Charter sourced thymosin beta-4 for sports scientist Stephen Dank, and that it was compounded at Nima Alavi's South Yarra pharmacy and ultimately injected into players at Essendon. 

That two different conclusions were reached was to do with the way the fundamental issue was viewed.

The "comfortable satisfaction" standard of proof can be construed in various ways. The AFL anti-doping tribunal adopted a "links in the chain" approach. As such, it never considered whether the players were injected with thymosin beta-4, because they had insufficient evidence Dank had procured the substance.

Conversely, CAS used the "strands in a cable" approach preferred by WADA. ASADA had lost at the AFL tribunal because it was unable to connect the hoops; no single "missing link" was fatal to WADA's case.

The international body could rely on what it viewed to be overwhelming circumstantial evidence. That evidence included a trail of documents including text messages between Dank and fitness coach Dean Robinson, exchanges between Dank and coach James Hird, and club doctor Bruce Reid's letter of concerns from January 2012.

The judgment stated that once the "strands in the cable" analysis was adopted, "the force of the players' argument evaporates".

Many would say that so too did the Bombers' 2016 hopes.

Daniel Cherny

Current and former Essendon players have been found guilty of doping offences and will miss the entire 2016 season after the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld the World Anti-Doping Agency appeal.

In a stunning reversal of the AFL tribunal decision that cleared the 34 current and former Essendon players last March, CAS was comfortably satisfied that the 2012 players had taken the banned substance thymosin beta-4.

While the players were handed the mandatory two-year bans and were found to be significantly at fault, the CAS indicated most of the 34 would be suspended until November this year, depending on the backdating that applies in each case.

They did not receive the major discount for "no significant fault, no significant negligence" which can cut a sentence drastically.

Regrettably we can confirm the Court of Arbitration for Sport has found 34 past and present players guilty of committing an anti-doping rule violation.

As a result, the players - including 12 currently listed with Essendon - have been suspended for the 2016 season. The Club is currently digesting the decision and we will provide a further update later today.

Lindsay Tanner, Chairman

+ read the full Court of Arbitration decision here

_________________________________________

The ruling means that, barring any further legal appeals, that most players will miss all of 2016 season, in a judgement that is disastrous for both Essendon and the AFL and is precisely the outcome that both club and competition have striven to avoid since the drugs scandal erupted in February 2013.

The AFL, which had hoped the players would escape suspension, is set to confirm on Tuesday that Essendon will be given the opportunity to recruit "top up" players for the period of suspension - which is for the 2016 season.

The judgement, unprecedented in AFL and Australian sporting history, will have a number of consequences, with the players expected to consider legal action against Essendon and possibly the AFL.

 The AFL commission is also facing an imminent decision on whether to strip Bombers' skipper Jobe Watson of his 2012 Brownlow.

The players' legal representatives, the AFL and the doping bodies were informed on the CAS decision early on Tuesday. It is unclear whether there are legal avenues of appeal, though it possible to take the matter to a Swiss court or Australian courts.

Barring a successful legal challenge, Port Adelaide will be without their ex-Bombers Paddy Ryder and Angus Monfries for the relevant period, while the Bulldogs will lose Stewart Crameri and St Kilda and Melbourne will be deprived of recruits Jake Carlisle and Jake Melksham respectively.

Essendon will be without Watson and many of their premier players, such as Dyson Heppell, Michael Hurley, Cale Hooker, Michael Hibberd and Brent Stanton, along with Travis Colyer, David Myers, Tom Bellchambers, Heath Hocking, Ben Howlett and Tayte Pears. Exactly half of the 34 are no longer playing AFL football.  

The CAS decision, while significant and unwelcome for Essendon, the players and the competition, was not surprising to those with a knowledge of the CAS hearing in Sydney.

WADA's case involved bringing not only doping expert Richard Young and his offsider to Australia, but expert witnesses from the US and Germany. Sources with a knowledge of the CAS hearing had observed before the verdict that the panel, headed by London QC Michael Beloff, gave strong signs that they would set the bar lower for "comfortable satisfaction" - the standard of proof in doping cases - compared with the AFL anti-doping tribunal.

Beloff had also indicated at one point that he could not see why players were entitled to a "no significant fault, no signficant negligence" discount, which could cut a sentence from two years to one and might have seen the players avoid missing games altogether.

The players did not qualify for cooperation, either, which can reduce sentences by a further six months, but they will receive discounts for what is deemed to be a period they've already missed.

WADA's successful appeal of the AFL tribunal verdict - which had found decisively against the Australian Sport Anti-Doping Authority - was led by renowned doping lawyer Young, who had been among those who prosecuted disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong and had helped devise the WADA code.