UPDATE: FORMER Essendon players could form a breakaway group to launch a high-stakes appeal against their suspensions, with lawyers considering an injunction in a Swiss court.

Western Bulldogs president, lawyer Peter Gordon, is consulting lawyers in Switzerland about appealing the Court of Arbitration for Sport decision to the Swiss Federal Tribunal on behalf of Stewart Crameri and Brent Prismall.

The Herald Sun understands any appeal would be made on the grounds that:

WADA should not have been able to appeal the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal decision without proving a legal error or it was grossly unreasonable.

THE CAS decision didn’t ­ade­quately address the circumst­ances of each of the 34 players on a case-by-case basis; and

THE 12-month penalty was ­unreasonable.

Player manager Peter Jess, who has been speaking to lawyers for Nathan Lovett-Murray, backed Mr Gordon.

Camera Icon Player manager Peter Jess has backed a challenge. Credit: News Limited Camera Icon Lawyer and Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon. Credit: News Corp Australia

“There are still massive hurdles to overcome. An appeal won’t be heard for months, but if we can get an urgent injunction at least that will free up the players,” Mr Jess said.

“The CAS decision was factually incorrect in a number of ways, in particular taking facts from one player and applying it to the whole group.”

Mr Gordon, whose son Patrick is representing Crameri and Prismall, said they were considering an ­injunction to stay the CAS decision and let the pair play this season.

“History will show these young men have been subject to one of the gravest injustices in Australian sporting history,” he told ABC radio.

“There can’t be a full hearing before the start of the full season. (But there could be an) urgent injunction to stay the effect of the CAS ruling until a full hearing of the tribunal.

Camera Icon Former Essendon, now Bulldogs player Stewart Crameri. Credit: AAP, AAP Image/David Crosling

“This CAS judgment contains factual errors, unsupported propositions of law, it applies findings that may be pertinent to one player and ­extrapolates it to the other 33, often with no basis at all.”

Mr Gordon said under the 2010 AFL Anti-Doping Code, AFL Anti-Doping tribunal decisions could only be appealed if they contained a legal error or gross unreasonableness.

However, changes made to AFL anti-doping code in January last year — mandated by a World Anti-Doping Code change — allowed CAS to examine the case again.

“You can’t change the rules mid-course, as a cynic might see it, because you know you’re going to lose,” Mr Gordon said.

anthony.galloway@news.com.au