Under the AFL's Anti-Doping Code, WADA has untrammelled appeal rights. WADA can appeal simply because it disagrees with the tribunal's decision that it wasn't "comfortably satisfied" any of the 34 players "used" a prohibited substance, namely thymosin beta-4. The reality is WADA could appeal to the AFL's Appeals Board, the CAS, or both in sequence. But if WADA appeals it will do so to the CAS. Any appeal proceeds "de novo": lawyer speak for the whole shebang recommencing from the start. And any appeal hearing isn't confined to the issues argued or evidence rolled out first time around. The affected athletes can't escape from this dilemma. Not yet anyway. ASADA's task proved fiendishly difficult; WADA's is no easier. McDevitt made one further observation last Monday: that for transparency, he'd welcome the fullest possible release of the AFL tribunal's findings. Which is reasonable: absent open justice, understanding core issues is ridiculously difficult. As matters stand, the judgment is locked away. Well, kind of. For my sins, I've spent an inordinate amount of time reviewing the lengthy reasons on which the decision to exculpate all 34 athletes is based. ASADA didn't lose a line-ball decision, or on a technicality. Rather, the inescapable conclusion is that ASADA received a proper hosing. Put simply, absent a fundamental reinvigoration of the evidence, and of certain witnesses in terms of their motivation to testify, it's inconceivable that WADA will fare better. In a sense, ASADA's case was simple – that each player was injected with TB4, prohibited at the time under AFL and WADA rules. Regarding this second limb, the tribunal was forced to consider whether TB4 was banned, because it's a "growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament vascularisation and regenerative capacity" in humans, or because it is a "pharmacological substance" with no worldwide governmental approvals for human therapeutic use.

After fierce debate, the tribunal decided it was comfortably satisfied TB4 offended on each basis, despite it being the case that no studies have been undertaken into the benefits of TB4 to humans. The only published literature relates to studies on animals. This then left the residual task of proving each defendant player was injected with TB4. An assignment that the tribunal identified from the outset as "formidable". So challenging because ASADA didn't rely on any direct evidence of witnesses either administered TB4, or who saw that happen. No smoking gun, no whistle-blower. Rather, ASADA's case was founded on a dumpster full of circumstantial evidence such as emails, intercepted text messages, possibly bogus invoices, transcripts and newspaper scrapbooks. ASADA's submission was that the cumulative weight of the facts proved by that circumstantial evidence demonstrated to the standard of "comfortable satisfaction" that doping occurred. Contrastingly, the US Anti-Doping Agency's prosecution of Lance Armstrong was based on sworn evidence, given by more than two dozen witnesses, including 11 of Armstrong's former teammates. Those athletes testified not only about Mellow Johnny's nefarious activities, but also their own. At the hearing's commencement, ASADA and the affected players agreed that three "indispensable" elements must be proven for ASADA to succeed. First, that TB4 was procured from Chinese sources; second, that the compounding pharmacist Nima Alavi-Moghadam compounded that TB4, and thereafter provided it to Stephen Dank in his capacity as the Essendon sports scientist; and thirdly, that Dank administered that TB4 to each of the 34 players. Regarding the first element, ASADA asserted two shipments of TB4: one-quarter gram, delivered to Alavi first on December 28, 2011; and a second delivery of one gram, delivered on February 18, 2012. Through a paucity of any evidence, combined with the tribunal's "grave doubts" concerning the authenticity of other documents, ASADA failed to prove the second shipment ever happened. As to the first shipment, the tribunal was comfortably satisfied that biochemist Shane Charter purchased, from Shanghai firm GL Biochem, a substance "purported to be" TB4. But as to what was actually in the delivery, GL Biochem supplied no certificate of analysis demonstrating it, in fact, supplied TB4. The tribunal decided it "possible" the substance was TB4, however the threshold of comfortable satisfaction wasn't approached.

At this juncture, ASADA's case was doomed, despite a finding that Alavi "believed" he was beavering away, compounding TB4. But for completeness sake, the tribunal thoroughly analysed the second element: that Alavi compounded what was delivered to him, and then gave the product to Dank. For the sake of the exercise the tribunal "assumed and accepted" the fruit of Alavi's labour was TB4. Regarding the second element, there was no evidence before the tribunal of Essendon's receipt of, or payment for the "TB4". Alavi himself was of exiguous assistance: he produced no compounding or dispensing records. Alavi's entire contribution was just two tax invoices, and quite possibly even they were pretend – Alavi received no payment. The tribunal concluded that the sheer inconsistency and uncertainty of the narrative – and lack of proper evidence – rendered it impossible to conclude Alavi actually compounded TB4. Further, ASADA couldn't convince the tribunal Dank received anything from Alavi in Dank's capacity as an Essendon person. At this fork in the road, ASADA's case self-destructed. The tribunal's judgment doesn't descend, at all, into analysing anything that happened inside the Essendon organisation. The tribunal's judgment contains damning findings concerning the truthfulness of witnesses relied on by ASADA through their versions of events, and the selectivity with which some witnesses disclosed documents to ASADA. The tribunal made other findings about the "low ebb" of credibility and reliability of other characters who, in the words of the tribunal, presented with a chameleon-like "innate ability to concoct" stories at will. But this misses the real point: ASADA's case fell so horrendously short of the mark. Unless a visit from the magical evidence genie is impending, it is impossible to understand how WADA will do any better. To borrow the words of Tony Soprano, what's the use of an unloaded gun?

Darren Kane is a Sydney sports lawyer Twitter: @sportslawyer7