The saga surrounding Essendon FC will inevitably claim the scalp of either one of Australia's most powerful sports administrators or one of the AFL's favourite sons, writes Tracey Holmes.

The AFL versus Essendon is not a war. To describe it as so ignores the reality of what's happening in Syria and what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. But most definitely this is a sport in crisis.

Two of the code's biggest personalities, AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou and Essendon coach James Hird, are battling each other, with Hird's legal team expected to lodge a claim with the Victorian Supreme Court today suing the AFL for the denial of natural justice.

The CEO needs a culprit in the fight against doping that we have been told is tearing at the fabric of our proud sporting nation. In releasing the charge sheet against Essendon yesterday, Demetriou struck what seemed to be a killer blow - against the club, and particularly against Hird.

The coach, in no mood to be an authority's scapegoat, struck straight back: denying all charges, calling for a transparent, public hearing with all cards on the table, and for good measure throwing in the lawsuit.

What is taking place in AFL right now is an expose of the inner workings of sports politics and power. Shortly after 3pm today we will know whether Essendon FC will be cut adrift from the mothership or whether the 17 other clubs will adopt an attitude of 'but for the Grace of God, there go I' and back the Bombers in a face-off with the governing body.

The presidents of all AFL teams have been called to a 3pm meeting by the AFL Commission where there will no doubt be some attempt to stop the game from haemorrhaging as it heads towards an overshadowed finals series. The question is, do the clubs back the governing body or one of their own?

The damning charge sheet released yesterday arguing that Essendon had brought the sport into disrepute did more than expose the holes in procedure and governance at the club during the 2011/12 season.

Although it had previously been stated there was not enough evidence from ASADA's interim report to lay a single doping charge, a lengthy section of the document titled 'relevant conduct' painted the Windy Hill headquarters as a chemical factory with athletes filling in as test-mice.

How could there not be enough evidence in those pages to lay several charges? Anyone reading the claims could not be blamed for thinking coach James Hird was the mastermind of an evil drug-fuelled attempt to cheat his way to a premiership. 'Guilty as charged' is ringing through sporting circles today without any form of defence being heard from either Essendon or its coach.

Much of the reporting predictably focussed on the 'exotic', 'mysterious' and 'unfamiliar compounds' of the supplement program and the frequency of their injection. They may be exotic and unfamiliar to those who aren't elite athletes, but needles and supplements are standard fair at the top end of professional sport these days.

Even the Australian Institute of Sport boasts on its website a "cutting edge supplement program" described as "state of the art". So claims that Hird was "warned" by the AFL not to travel down a peptide path as far back as 2011 is somewhat questionable. Why would he be warned against doing something that is both legal and expected in 21st century sport?

More worrying is the fact that by asking an ASADA official whether other clubs were using peptides, Hird found himself being interviewed by the anti-doping agency and an AFL integrity officer where the "warning" was allegedly given. So much for any athlete who is encouraged to contact the agency to ask what is/isn't approved. Asking a question could render you part of an investigation asking you to prove your innocence.

The dominant overtones and suggestions that Essendon players were injected with banned substances are being met with the unified chant from the board, players and officials in rejecting those claims.

Yesterday's release of a letter from club doctor Bruce Reid caused most damage as he describes how uncomfortable he was with the program.

"I am very frustrated by this and now feel I am letting the club down by not automatically approving of these things. I need to collect my thoughts as these drugs have been given without my knowledge," he wrote.

The letter raises valid concerns from a voice of experience. There is no detailed follow-up though on how the doctor then came to approve the injection of the controversial AOD-9604 nor any of the follow-up discussions and decisions taken regarding the program.

Releasing such evidence, from an interim report, may also be illegal but it clearly achieved its purposes. Mud sticks.

Until yesterday Essendon had been negotiating with the AFL on revising the charges to more adequately reflect the actual events and relevant evidence. The AFL's latest example is posted on the Essendon website; it reads somewhat differently to the original charge sheet released yesterday.

Club chairman Paul Little declared a total lack of confidence in a "belligerent" AFL when he and Hird fronted the media yesterday afternoon.

"We maintain our belief that no player was administered either harmful or prohibited substances and assert there is insufficient evidence upon which any such allegation should have been made," he said.

"I call on (AFL) Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick to step in and take over this process as I, along with a certain percentage of the football public, have lost total confidence in the AFL executive to handle this matter."

Hird denies all charges and described yesterday's document release as an "ambush".

"These charges are denied, and will be vigorously contested ... today's announcement by ambush continues to confirm the AFL is running an agenda which continues to call into question its impartiality," he said.

"My position is the same today as it was yesterday and previous weeks, that is, I will contest these charges.

"Mr Demetriou and the AFL should recuse themselves from any hearing of this case because of the conflict of interest that has been created by the AFL's involvement in the process. And it should be a public hearing conducted transparently by an independent arbiter."

The chairman of the independent AFL Commission, Mike Fitzpatrick, has no doubt had a restless night. It's up to his panel today to navigate through this mess and find a way to heal a fractured sport.

There is at least one certainty: one man will fall. Will it be one of Australia's most powerful sports administrators or one of the sport's favourite sons who is yet to have his version of events heard?

Tracey Holmes has focused her career in journalism on sport and its wider implications. View her full profile here.