The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority re-affirmed that it must work closely with key sporting bodies after James Hird's appeal in the Federal Court failed on Friday.
Hird faces a mounting legal bill after his appeal against ASADA was unanimously dismissed. Bombers chairman Paul Little said Hird was "disappointed" by the decision and wanted his coach to continue focusing on the season ahead.
Justice Susan Kenny, also acting on behalf of fellow judges Richard White and Tony Besanko, endorsed the initial decision by Justice John Middleton that the 2013 joint investigation by the AFL and ASADA into the Bombers' 2012 supplements program was lawful.
The Essendon coach now has 28 days to decide whether to appeal to the High Court. It's understood that seemed highly unlikely on Friday night.
Hird, who was understood to be overseas on Friday, had broken ranks from the Bombers in November to appeal Middleton's decision, even though this angered the Bombers and almost cost him his job.
Legal sources said Middleton's initial ruling had been constructed in a way to make an appeal extremely difficult to win.
The appeal ruling means the infraction notices against 34 past and present Bombers, of which about 20 are still at the club, will stand. These notices are the subject of an on-going hearing before the AFL anti-doping tribunal, which has been adjourned until February 16 after written submissions by ASADA, the AFL and the players are given.
In a statement, ASADA said the "unanimous judgment by the Full Court upholds Justice John Middleton's earlier comprehensive ruling that ASADA lawfully conducted its doping investigation into the Essendon Football Club".
"The judgment reaffirms ASADA's strong view that ASADA and sports have a joint responsibility in upholding clean competition in Australia.
"ASADA and sports must partner if we are to have any chance in protecting the integrity of fair competition. This partnership allows ASADA, in harmony with sports, to run a holistic anti-doping program focused on prevention, education, testing, investigation and enforcement."
ASADA chief Ben McDevitt said it was important that the community understood the fight against doping was not a fight against sport.
"We remain vigilant in our work to protect the health of athletes and their right to compete against clean athletes," he said.
Justice Kenny was strong in her affirmation of Middleton's earlier decision.
"The primary judge found that the AFL and ASADA each conducted separate investigations in which they co-operated closely with one another and subsequently made separate decisions within their own areas of responsibility. We reject Mr Hird's contention that this finding involved any element of mischaracterisation," Justice Kenny said.
"The full court rejects Mr Hird's challenge essentially because it holds that the investigation conducted by ASADA, in co-operation with the AFL, was authorised by the ASADA Act, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Regulations and the NAD Scheme.
"This legislative scheme envisaged that there would be close co-operation between ASADA and sporting administration bodies, such as the AFL, in anti-doping investigations.
"The legislative scheme enabled ASADA to benefit lawfully from the AFL's use of its compulsory contractual powers, including by requiring Essendon players and personnel to attend interviews at which both AFL and ASADA representatives were present and to answer questions.
"The primary judge found that ASADA conducted its investigation for the lawful purpose of investigating the involvement of Essendon players and personnel in possible violations of anti-doping rules.
"It cannot be an improper purpose for the CEO of ASADA to intend to conduct an investigation by facilitating the acquisition of information in a lawful way."
Hird had also argued that he and the players were not given the right to silence, as would have been the case had the interviews in 2012 been conducted solely by ASADA. The anti-doping body used the coercive powers of the AFL, of which any contract states the interviewee must answer questions.
Kenny upheld Middleton's decision on this as well.
"The Full Court rejects Mr Hird's submissions about lack of 'free consent' and that there was no waiver of privilege," Justice Kenny said.
"The primary judge found, and it was not disputed, that, upon becoming a player or official, Mr Hird and the 34 players voluntarily accepted the obligations under the AFL's player rules and anti-doping code to attend interviews and answer questions fully and truthfully, or face possible sanction by the AFL. Mr Hird and the 34 players were all legally represented at their interviews.
"They also knew that the AFL was invoking the compulsory powers conferred by its player rules and its anti-doping code when it required answers to the interview questions.
"No one objected to answering any question, whether on the ground that its answer might incriminate him or expose him to a civil penalty, or otherwise."
Justice Kenny concluded her summary by awarding costs against Hird, who had been represented by Peter Hanks, QC. This decision added to an already expensive seven-month case Hird had taken through the courts against the anti-doping body.
Former ASADA chief Richard Ings said the anti-doping body had "dodged a legal and political bullet" in winning the case.
"James Hird got lots of legal advice .... most very expensive ... some gratuitous ... but all wrong. Now we can turn to the real issues," he wrote on Twitter.
