Former World Anti-Doping Agency boss John Fahey believes the likelihood of Essendon footballers serving longer suspensions for banned drug use has increased due to "certain people with big egos and fat wallets".
While the former NSW premier, who left WADA last year, did not name names, he made his pointed comments to Fairfax Media after Essendon and James Hird failed in their joint Federal Court challenge of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority.
Fahey chided Essendon for behaving in a manner that, he implied, suggested the club thought it was above established international sports anti-doping regulations.
"I welcome the Federal Court's decision," Fahey said.
"The governments of 194 countries have accepted the code in support of clean and ethical athletes and officials. To me it was beyond belief that one club in one city of one of those countries would believe the rules should not apply to them.
"It is time certain people with big egos and fat wallets threw them both in the drawer and started focusing on 34 young men and their future in sport.
"Refusing to face reality only increases the likelihood of longer suspensions for the players. I sincerely hope that commonsense now comes into play."
By arguing in Federal Court that ASADA's investigation into Essendon was unlawful, club chairman Paul Little – under increased pressure given the events of the week – and Hird hoped the 34 show-cause notices issued to past and present Bomber players would be annulled.
The show-cause notices alleged the players – 20 of whom are believed to still be on Essendon's list – used prohibited drug Thymosin beta-4 when they were participants in the club's supplements program in 2012 and 2013.
When these show-cause notices were issued by ASADA in June, the agency's new CEO, Ben McDevitt, tabled an option that might have resulted in the players serving backdated bans and resume playing from round one next year, provided they accepted they took the banned drug.
This would have echoed the scenario at NRL club Cronulla, where players were found guilty of committing anti-doping rule violations but have served only brief suspensions – a result viewed as questionable in some quarters.
In the case of Essendon, McDevitt's midyear proposal was rejected almost instantly by the players' legal counsel. Essendon are paying for the players' lawyers, which include representatives of the AFL Players' Association and David Grace, QC, who is also the president of Athletics Australia.
While the AFL club is funding this support, however, it has stated repeatedly it is not seeking to direct the legal choices of the players.
It would appear the players, who have rejected throughout the assertion they took banned drugs and prepared to fight ASADA, remain united on their position.
After considering the submissions of Essendon, Hird and ASADA, Justice John Middleton ruled in favour of the taxpayer-funded anti-doping agency on Friday. This means that the 34 show-cause notices stand.
Within an hour of the verdict being delivered ASADA issued a statement saying it was determined to unearth the truth of what occurred at Essendon.
The club and Hird, who has already shelled an estimated $500,000 on his Federal Court case alone, have until October 1 to decide whether they will appeal Justice Middleton's decision.
The club has spent millions of dollars since the saga began and has committed to funding a medical monitoring program for each player involved in the supplements program for a minimum of five years.
Little, who is under mounting pressure over the direction he has led the club during the past 20 months, said on Friday the Bombers' nine-member board would decide next week whether to appeal the Federal Court finding.
Fahey said the AFL club should not have mounted the case in the first place.
