It's been arguably the most emotional – and polarising – issue in AFL history, and it will be two years on Thursday since the Essendon supplements scandal officially broke.

Officially, that is, for journalists were close to revealing details of the program in the days leading up to the night James Hird, Ian Robson, Danny Corcoran and Bruce Reid met at the home of David Evans. The Bombers would self-report to ASADA and the AFL the following morning.

It's been a story that in this social-media age has meant reader reaction has been instantaneous. Sometimes thoughtful, often vile. It's sparked so-called pro-Essendon and pro-Hird camps and anti-Essendon and anti-Hird camps – even when stories have been balanced. On the opening day of the Federal Court case brought by Hird and Essendon, one reporter adopted cricket parlance in suggesting ASADA had had its top-order destroyed under questioning by counsel for Hird and the Bombers. So much for that.

For all this, as we head into the third season of this drama, it's amazing to think two of the biggest decisions have yet to be made.

The AFL's anti-doping tribunal must decide if the players are guilty of taking a banned substance. If that's the case, what will be the length of suspensions? And Hird's fate – which always sparks the most heightened of responses – has yet to be rubber-stamped.

If there are mass suspensions, and some would say even as few as one, how will Hird and the Bombers react? Most of the key figures from early 2013, and when the supplements program was running in 2012, have long departed.

Hird exercised his rights in twice challenging the validity of the joint AFL-ASADA investigation – the latter appeal against the wishes of his club. That almost led to his sacking – yet he survived.

Now four judges have emphatically dismissed his case, and the anti-doping hearing can now seemingly run without distraction (unless Hird launches an unlikely appeal to the High Court, his moment of truth truly awaits).

If players are banned, and some followers of the case are suggesting penalties could be for up to four months of the season, the Bombers must determine whether the club can truly move on if Hird remains. There is likely to be legal reprise by the players as well.

For his part, Essendon chairman Paul Little wants Hird to concentrate on the season ahead.

"James was exercising his legal right and was naturally very disappointed his appeal was not upheld," Little said.

"We look forward to James continuing to focus on preparing our players for the upcoming season and building on the great work he has done over the last four months."

It's the next four months that loom as make or break for Hird. There is now the added mess of whether the provisionally suspended players, of which about 20 remain at the club, can play in the NAB Challenge, beginning for the Bombers on March 7.

It may well be that the Bombers forfeit their spot in the NAB Challenge, for confidentiality issues could arise if the provisionally suspended players are not allowed to suit up. The players have been insistent on having their privacy protected through this whole ordeal – it wouldn't be too hard to pinpoint those given infraction notices should there be a mass drop-out while their teammates were allowed to play.

Legal sources believe it could be the end of March, and possibly just days before round one of the home-and-away campaign, before anti-doping tribunal chairman David Jones returns with his decision. What then? If there are suspensions, how do the Bombers field a side in the season proper, let alone a competitive one? Will they have drafted state-league replacements by then? And what of the television broadcasters, desperate for ratings yet now facing one-sided matches involving the Bombers, and a possible drop in attendances?

"I can assure you the coaches and players are working harder than ever to prepare for the upcoming home-and-away season," Little said in a note to members.

In some ways, that work is only just beginning.