ASADA's decision to supply the players' lawyers on Friday with so much information is an admission from its boss Ben McDevitt that the body should have provided evidence in the first place. That was when it first issued show-cause letters back in June and tried to strike a deal that would have seen those players back playing by round one of 2015.

The expected decision from the majority or all of the players not to respond to the show-causes would fast-track their collective fates. An AFL anti-doping tribunal would convene by December and as soon as late November, although given the individually tailored case against each player the misgiving on Friday night remained just how long those hearings would take.

That move would equally prove an admission that these cases should have been heard months ago before Essendon took ASADA to the Federal Court. Instead the Bombers drugs saga will extend at least into its 23rd messy month.

Player representatives told Fairfax Media on Friday night that they had not in the preliminary examination unearthed any smoking gun in the show-cause letters, which averaged 350 pages per player and were delivered via computer disc to the legal team assembled by the players' union.

Evidence included testimony from the convicted biochemist Shane Charter and compounding pharmacist Nima Alavi concerning the banned thymosin beta-4 sourced cheaply in Shanghai – central to the ASADA investigation along with the players' version of events.

McDevitt is expected to offer deals to players seeking to further hasten their fates in the coming days, but no player has yet moved to negotiate despite two – Western Bulldog Stewart Crameri and Brent Prismall, now playing in the VFL – seeking independent advice. ASADA has suggested any deal would involve at least a short suspension.

The AFL said on Friday it fully expected Essendon either way to boast sufficient numbers to field a team at the start of 2015. Of the 34 players an estimated 18 remain on Essendon's list. Also adversely affected would be a 2015 flag favourite Port Adelaide, which recruited Angus Monfries two years ago and more recently disenchanted Paddy Ryder.

Neither AFL boss Gillon McLachlan nor Essendon chairman Paul Little would comment on Friday night, with spokesmen for both suggesting the next move was in the hands of the players and their lawyers, who are being funded by the Bombers.

Under the expected fast-tracking, the players would bypass the anti-doping rules violation panel by not fully responding to the show-cause letters and instead face infraction notices from the AFL. Their cases would be heard by the AFL anti-doping tribunal. Should they escape penalty the World Anti-Doping Authority could appeal the finding.

James Hird's move to act against the wishes of Essendon and the players, in appealing the August findings of the Federal Court, remains an impediment to a speedy resolution for the players. In the unlikely event Hird's appeal is successful and his wish is granted that the players' evidence is rendered inadmissible then ASADA would most likely be forced to reissue its evidence.

Should Hird's latest legal manoeuvre fail a further appeal to the High Court remains available to him. More likely is that the players will move forward and have their cases heard by the AFL anti-doping tribunal before Christmas, cases that could have been heard in July had Essendon not unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence against its players by demonstrating it was unlawfully gained.

In Canberra on Friday the AFL Players Association's executive Ian Prendergast – a lawyer who has worked closely on this ugly saga from the outset – likened those players to construction workers exposed to asbestos who deserved compensation, not harsh anti-doping bans.

Whatever the ultimate result from the estimated 12,000 pages of evidence delivered to 34 past and present Essendon players on Friday, those players will be subjected to medical tests for years to come as a result of the 2012 drugs program. One, Paddy Ryder, has walked out on the club as a result of what took place.

Whatever the result, the Bombers still cannot tell those players what drugs they were given. Whether or not they are banned from playing football they remain the victims of a program sanctioned by their football department that experimented with their health and disregarded their welfare.

A program allowed by their coach and not prevented by their trusted club doctor – both of whom remain at the club.