Western Bulldogs president and lawyer Peter Gordon said on Friday the reasoning behind the suspensions imposed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport contains "factual errors", and has revealed he is considering appealing the decision.

Gordon's son, Patrick, has represented former Bombers Stewart Crameri and Brent Prismall since the pair joined the Bulldogs. Crameri is on the senior list and Prismall is a VFL player and development coach.

However, Gordon said on Friday he had been in contact with Swiss lawyers about appealing the CAS ruling. This could involve seeking an interim injunction, allowing Crameri, and potentially the 16 other players still in the AFL system, of which a dozen are at Essendon, the chance to play this year while they await an appeal before the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

Lawyers believe papers for a Swiss appeal would have to be lodged by February 10, but the appeal itself would almost certainly not be heard until after the home-and-away season.

An injunction, though, would likely be lodged after February 10 but before the AFL season begins on Thursday, March 24.

Lawyers for the AFL Players Association, representing 32 players, continue to weigh up their options, including appealing through the NSW Supreme Court, as the CAS hearing had been held in Sydney.

The three grounds for a potential appeal by Gordon focus on a rule change midway through the players' AFL anti-doping tribunal hearing last year.

Gordon said the players had initially fallen under the 2010 AFL anti-doping code, which stipulated that rulings could only be appealed if the decision involved legal error or gross unreasonableness. But he said the upgraded AFL anti-doping code unveiled in January last year - when the case before the AFL anti-doping tribunal was underway - allowed CAS to pursue the entire case again.

"A couple of months after the AFL trial started the rules changed, it changed it to give ASADA and WADA a 'double jeopardy' go," Gordon said on ABC radio.

"You can't change the rules mid-course, as a cynic might see it, because you know you're going to lose.

"WADA compliance in the present environment means no right to hear about the dissent, it means double jeopardy prosecutions, it means adjudication by a panel in which two thirds of the panel either get picked by WADA or CAS, it means denial of basic democratic rights of access to our own Australian highest courts."

Lawyers are also considering arguing CAS had failed to respond to each argument the players had given in explaining their actions during the Bombers' discredited 2012 injecting program.

The third argument involves the length of the penalty, with lawyers considering arguing that it was unreasonable.

Gordon told Fairfax Media: "This is not a decision for Peter Gordon, it is not a decision for lawyers, it is not a decision for Essendon or even the AFL. This is a decision for the 34 blokes who have been so unfairly and so dramatically damaged by this decision."

Player agents contacted on Friday said they supported any move that would aid the banned players.

An AFL spokesman said: "An appeal is a decision for the players. They have an appeal option that is available to them and it would be their right to make whatever decision they feel is in their best interests."

Gordon pointed out that of the six judges who had adjudicated on the case, four had ruled against banning the players. The CAS decision was 2-1 in favour of a suspension for taking the banned drug, thymosin beta-4.

"History will show these young men have been subject to one of the gravest injustices in Australian sporting history," Gordon said.

However, if there is an injunction, and appeal, it would have the potential to add more chaos to the season, as the Bombers are well into recruiting 10 top-up players.

These players were expected to play the entire 2016 season but that could change, impacting the Bombers and the top-up players and their lower-league clubs should they have to head back to the likes of the WAFL and VFL earlier than expected.

Another question would be whether the suspended players would be fit enough or mentally in the right state to return to senior football, as it's likely they would have missed the entire post-Christmas training period.

AFLPA lawyers have already been in talks with Essendon about a compensation claim, with several players already engaging independent lawyers through their managers.

The architect of the Bombers' 2012 supplements program, Stephen Dank, could also face separate action.

While the Bombers have been allowed to secure top-up talent, the Bulldogs, St Kilda, Melbourne and Port Adelaide have only been allowed to elevate a rookie-listed player. The Power have appealed this, while the Bulldogs and Saints are also keen for the ruling to change.