The 34 players were 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 early on Tuesday. The next step: Jobe Watson and some members of the Essendon 34 last October. Credit:Getty Images 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 players had taken the banned substance thymosin beta-4 in 2012. While the players were handed mandatory two-year bans from March 31, 2015, and were found to be significantly at fault, CAS ruled that most of the 34 would be suspended until November 13 this year, depending on the backdating that applies in each case. Some players had slightly longer sentences, but in effect all the players were rubbed out for the season - a sentence that floored Essendon and the players and prompted the AFLPA to question whether the AFL should continue to support the WADA code.

The AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan said, however, that the AFL was committed to continuing with the WADA rules. In other developments: The AFL arranged for the Bombers to have 10 top up players to be added, with five rookies upgraded

Both the AFL and Essendon expressed confidence that the Dons would field a competitive team

James Hird called the decision "a miscarriage of justice" and is set to appear on ABC television this weekend

Essendon chairman Lindsay Tanner called the CAS verdict "manifestly unfair" but again admitted to systematic failings at the club and vowed to support the players

ASADA boss Ben McDevitt defended the agency's pursuit of the players, calling the verdict "the exposure of the worst case of team-based doping that this country has ever seen"

Players with contracts for 2012 were expected to be paid the bulk of their contracts, though it is unclear how that works for those with a base contract and match payments. Essendon and the AFLPA were particularly stung by the severity of the penalty, although the players' legal representatives had been pessimistic about their prospects before the CAS verdict was handed down early Tuesday. The players did not receive the major discount for "no significant fault, no significant negligence", which can cut a sentence drastically and were found to be at significant fault.

The ruling means that, barring any further legal appeals, most players will miss all of the 2016 season, in a judgment that is disastrous for both Essendon and the AFL. The judgment, unprecedented in AFL and Australian sporting history, will have a number of consequences, starting with the threat of legal action by players. The AFL Commission is also facing an imminent decision on whether to strip Bombers skipper Jobe Watson of his 2012 Brownlow - Tanner reiterated that Watson should retain the medal. It is unclear if there are legal avenues of appeal, though it is 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 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 significant negligence" discount, which could cut a sentence from two years to one and might have seen the players avoid missing games altogether. Loading