While lawyers for former Bombers Brent Prismall and Stewart Crameri were under fire from former WADA president John Fahey on Monday, they continue to contemplate their next move, with the 2007 case involving Argentinian tennis player Guillermo Canas high in their thoughts.

Lawyer and Bulldogs president Peter Gordon – Crameri and Prismall are now at the Whitten Oval – had stated the Canas case was one of three reasons an appeal could be lodged by February 10, with an interim injunction also on the agenda, which could allow the players to return this season.

Canas had been suspended for two years by the ATP after testing positive for a banned diuretic – hydrochlorothiazide. He argued the drug was present in medicine given to him by ATP doctors.

He took his case to the Swiss-based CAS and largely lost, but then won under appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal – the same court the "Essendon 34" are considering lodging their case in. Canas was the first athlete to successfully appeal in the then 23-year history of CAS.

Documents show Canas appealed under a "right to a fair hearing", and felt CAS had not considered his arguments. Several of the 34 current and former Essendon players believe CAS did not take into account their individual arguments, with the case of one player – who said in evidence his injections had stopped well before there was any evidence of thymosin beta-4 at Essendon – potentially of particular interest in any appeal.

In the Canas case, CAS arbitrators had ruled that he ingested the diuretic accidentally but was still responsible for knowing what was in the medication – a key element of the WADA code. The panel reduced the suspension to 15 months and restored some of Canas' money and rankings points.

However, the Swiss Federal Court later found that Canas had "submitted a number of alternative arguments to the CAS, in case the latter rejected his principal claim that he had not committed any fault when taking the disputed medication".

"Supposing that they had been deemed well-founded, these alternative arguments were liable to change the outcome of the dispute, since they suggested that no sanction at all should be imposed against the appellant. They could not therefore be considered irrelevant, whatever the respondent may say," the tribunal documents state.

"It appears from these considerations that the right to a fair hearing was infringed by the CAS."

While it was a win for Canas, it took from June 2005 to March 2007 to clear his name.

Gordon, whose son Patrick has represented Crameri and Prismall, has said that CAS used the findings "that may be pertinent to one player and extrapolates it to all the other 33 players, often with no basis at all."

Fahey took aim at any suggestions of an appeal, declaring the CAS judgment was "very logical and I can't imagine anyone who read that judgment, whether they are a lawyer or not, coming to a different conclusion to the one the tribunal itself came to".

"The 34 players knew what they were doing," Fahey said on SEN.

"They actually signed a statutory declaration. They took an oath which carries a criminal penalty for failure."

Peter Jess, the manager of former Bomber Nathan Lovett-Murray, one of the suspended players, said he endorsed Gordon's move.

"We would definitely back that. Not only he is right, he is absolutely right," Jess said.

"I thought the CAS decision was flawed because of those matters – CAS went for the one size fits all. It's quite clear some players were very badly treated. We would support and encourage an appeal."

The AFL Players Association is also weighing up whether to appeal, either to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, or the NSW Supreme Court, as the CAS hearing was held in Sydney.

If an injunction was lodged, it would likely be after February 10 but before the AFL home-and-away season begins on Thursday, March 24.