WADA must approve any sanctions less than the standard two-year ban for athletes found guilty of taking prohibited substances.

The global anti-doping body, while endorsing the backdated one-year ban given to 12 past and present Cronulla players, was critical of the time delays in bringing the case to a conclusion.

However, neither the Cronulla players, nor the NRL club, took legal action against ASADA, while Essendon launched a Federal Court case against ASADA in June, the day after the anti-doping body issued show-cause notices to 34 past and present Essendon players.

WADA places great importance on admissions of guilt and co-operation with a national anti-doping body when deciding to endorse mitigated bans. While the Essendon players were not a party to the Federal Court action, they were represented by prominent barrister David Grace QC and have persistently maintained they have done nothing wrong.

McDevitt's mission to Montreal is partly to repair relations with WADA, which departed from its usual protocol to criticise Australia and make strident commentary on the Cronulla case.

It issued a statement on September 30 claiming the "number of delays [in the Cronulla case] were directly the result of the lack of activity or decision by either ASADA or the Australian government". The ASADA chief will likely argue that within 25 days of being appointed to his post, he issued infraction notices against the AFL players for the 2012 breaches.

When Essendon launched legal action 24 hours later, it forced him to withdraw an offer of a six-month penalty to the 34 players.

Anxious to then fast forward the Cronulla case, McDevitt was advised by lawyers that he should await the outcome of Essendon's Federal Court case.

One week after ASADA won the Federal Court case, the show-cause letters were issued to the Cronulla players and the matter processed.

Presumably, he would also argue that delays brought by the Federal government in seeking enhanced legislative powers to prosecute drug cheats should be applauded by WADA, rather than criticise an agency for seeking to do its job better.

Maybe he could also point out to WADA that the first line in their press release saying it would not appeal the sanctions imposed "by ASADA on the NRL players" is wrong. ASADA recommends sanctions, which are then imposed by the NRL or AFL.

While the Cronulla and Essendon players have entitlements under the "no significant fault" provision – meaning the standard two-year ban can be reduced to 12 months – the NRL players had a greater claim to backdating their sanctions.

Their ad hoc drug regime took place over a couple of months in 2011, compared to Essendon's season-long program the following year. ASADA's investigation into the AFL started before the NRL probe.

In other words, there was a bigger time gap between the alleged offence and the interview process in the case of Cronulla, compared to Essendon.

Cronulla had nine months of their year sanction backdated, to produce a three-month ban, which is unlikely to be accepted by ASADA if it is repeated by the AFL's tribunal.

If ASADA does not appeal such a judgment – perhaps bowing to the Prime Minister who recently said the case had gone on far too long – WADA can challenge it, based on the lack of substantial assistance provided.

The case would then proceed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, headed by Australia's IOC vice president John Coates, whose role is largely administrative. Coates does not sit on cases as an arbitrator and has no role in their selection for cases.

Notwithstanding, Coates has been careful not to comment on the supplements saga in the two Australian football codes but is a long-term campaigner against drugs in sport.

McDevitt will fly from Montreal to Paris for a meeting of national anti-doping bosses. His two-week absence from Australia is expected to correspond with the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (ADRVP) meeting and the convening of the AFL tribunal.