Essendon’s decision to pursue a court injunction against the supplements investigation last week was popularly viewed as an attempt to wriggle out of a tight spot on a technicality. But should that still be the case?

Given the events of the past few days, isn’t this now about an organisation showing understandable reticence to deal with a process flawed from the beginning in terms of evidence, procedure and, it now emerges, ethics as well?

Because what has transpired since last Thursday makes it increasingly apparent the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority - the body set to deliver judgement on 34 Essendon players - is in no position to be running a school cake stall, let alone determining the careers and livelihoods of professional athletes.

The prevailing view was that Essendon’s players should, regardless of their belief in their innocence, take the ''candy'' of the six-month suspensions offered to them by new ASADA chief executive Ben McDevitt.

Surely that can’t be on the basis they’ll be treated fairly, of which there’s been precious little evidence.