It is understood the Giants were mindful during the trade period to not only secure sufficient points from early draft picks but also to safeguard those points with enough picks in the event of an AFL sanction over the Whitfield affair. Richmond traded the Giants their future first-round pick so, in the event of a shortfall of points needed for academy players in this year's draft, they could go into deficit until next year and still secure the academy players. Whitfield's barrister, Ben Ihle, who represented Essendon during their drugs case, was in negotiations with the AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-doping Authority on Friday in a bid to allow the former No.1-draft pick to be allowed to train with the Giants during a six-month ban he could receive for pleading guilty to an offence of conduct unbecoming. It was initially felt that, as a six-month ban was not under the AFL anti-doping code, he would be able to continue to train and attend the club throughout any suspension. ASADA boss Ben McDevitt intervened late on Thursday, insisting that the ban have similar restrictions to those imposed on the Essendon players and Whitfield be blocked from training or attending the club.

The parties were negotiating on Friday a compromise to allow Whitfield to resume training two months before he was eligible to recommence playing after round eight next season. The two club officials – Graeme Allan, who is now the Collingwood football director, and Craig Lambert, employed at Brisbane Lions – are negotiating one-year bans for also pleading guilty to conduct unbecoming. As early as this week, the AFL believed it had run out of time to penalise the Giants ahead of the 2016 national draft. However, ASADA's change of heart late on Tuesday, to be open to the idea of a plea bargain for the player and two officials, looks likely to expedite potential AFL sanctions for the Giants. But the AFL could be headed for a showdown with its youngest club, with the Giants indicating that they would vigorously defend any charges against the club, rather than individuals. Whitfield, Allan and Lambert all want assurances from ASADA and the World Anti-Doping Agency that they would not face separate charges under the anti-doping code if they pleaded guilty to the conduct unbecoming charge.

ASADA is understood to have given that undertaking. The AFL had always hoped to be able to deal with the matter by the November 15 commission hearing, but that prospect faded when ASADA last week sought the full brief of evidence from the AFL and shaped to be preparing to pursue the matter under the anti-doping code. Discussions between the player and officials' lawyers, the AFL and ASADA this week changed that position when the idea of a plea and a firm time frame was tabled that was acceptable to ASADA. The charges relate to an incident in May last year when Whitfield stayed at Lambert's house for three days, on the advice of Allan, to avoid drug testers. Whitfield had said he had taken illicit drugs and the former club officials were concerned the drugs could have been laced with performance-enhancing drugs, as had been the case with suspended Collingwood pair Lachlan Keeffe and Josh Thomas, and they wanted to avoid having him tested.

Because they allegedly acted to avoid a performance-enhancing drugs test that meant they also potentially breached the AFL anti-doping code, or WADA code, which would draw a mandatory minimum four-year suspension.