But while the AFL's representative did make a suggestion on any potential penalties, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority has reserved its position on whether the players should be entitled to a discount for cooperation, which would cut any sentence from 12 months to six months, with backdating from last year.

Sources familiar with evidence from the recently concluded tribunal hearing said ASADA's advocate Malcolm Holmes QC, did not broach the topic of penalties - the drugs agency reserving its position until after a verdict - but that the AFL's representative suggested that a smaller match-based penalty would be appropriate in the event of a guilty verdict.

The AFL left it open for the tribunal to decide whether the players should be found guilty or acquitted of taking the banned peptide thymosin beta-4.

The AFL's legal representative in the month-long hearings, Jeff Gleeson QC, is understood to have told the hearing that a match-based penalty - rather than the blocks of months that are usually involved in doping cases - would be more appropriate, because it fitted the AFL as a team-based sport, if players were found guilty.

ASADA had previously offered the 34 players a six-month ban, plus backdating, after show-cause notices were issued for the first time in 2014 and before Essendon and coach James Hird tried, unsuccessfully, to have the investigation ruled unlawful in the Federal Court. That offer has not been repeated since the tribunal case started.

The idea of a small penalty was raised in the content of "comfortable satisfaction" - the standard of proof for doping charges. "Comfortable satisfaction", unlike the higher criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" or the lesser civil standard of "balance of probabilities", takes into account the consequences for the individual. A severe penalty raises the level of proof required.

A smaller penalty is also consistent with the view that players were "duped" and did not knowingly take banned substances.

The legal representatives for 32 of 34 players, led by David Grace QC and solicitor Tony Hargreaves, did not broach the topic of penalties, their case focusing only on seeking to have the players cleared. The counsel for Western Bulldogs pair Stewart Crameri and Brent Prismall likewise did not address the issue of penalties. The defence for the 32 has maintained optimism that the players will be cleared.

ASADA's written submission for the case is understood to have been close to 360 pages, with lengthy submissions - as much as 60 pages - coming from the players. The mountain of material that tribunal chairman David Jones and his panel have to assess also includes weeks of oral evidence and documents.

Jones indicated to the parties he was mindful of the looming start to the 2015 season but he did not specify a time frame for the verdict from his panel, which also includes former judge John Nixon and former Sydney player and lawyer Wayne Henwood.

In the event of either side appealing the verdict, the next step would be the AFL's special appeals tribunal, chaired by Peter O'Callaghan QC, and then the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The World Anti-Doping Agency would have the option of appealing the sentence and taking it straight to the CAS, which typically happens only when WADA believes a penalty is inadequate. Opposing advocates Holmes and Grace usually sit on the CAS.

The players are provisionally suspended until the case concludes and have chosen not to apply to play in the NAB Challenge. This enables the backdating of any sentence in the event that they are found guilty. ASADA boss Ben McDevitt suggested to a senate hearing last week that backdating could begin from November, when the infractions were issued. In the event of a six-month ban, backdating from November would see players miss games until early May.

ASADA had also indicated last year it was willing to offer players "no significant fault, no significant negligence" under the WADA code, which cuts a two-year ban to 12 months. The question of whether it will renew that six-month offer for cooperation is unclear.