In light of the finding, secretary general of the international Court of Arbitration for Sport, Matthieu Reeb, has told Fairfax Media the Bomber players' challenge appeared doomed from the outset.

Not only does it finalise the doping breaches committed by 34 AFL players – a sporting sin for which they received backdated two-year bans – it leaves the mix of retired and current footballers with a large bill.

The banned Essendon players are committed to footing 75 per cent of the bill for a case argued – exclusively through written submissions – in the Swiss Federal Tribunal. The AFL is committed to paying for 25 per cent.

In as comprehensive a loss in court as they come, the tribunal in Switzerland that considered the technical Essendon appeal ruled not merely to dismiss the AFL players' case but to not even "entertain" the challenge.

"This is not a real surprise for us," Reeb told Fairfax on Wednesday after the verdict was announced.

"Knowing that the ground for appeal, based on the alleged lack of jurisdiction of CAS to entertain WADA's appeal, was not properly raised by the players during the arbitration procedure before CAS. Therefore, it was no longer possible for the players to use such ground in their appeal before the Swiss Federal Tribunal."

Reeb, who predicted – correctly – last month that the final ruling on the Essendon case would come after the AFL finals, though he expected it could be as late as November, suggested the Essendon players' costly challenge was fundamentally flawed from the outset.

Australian-based lawyers acting for the Bombers, Reeb said on Wednesday, missed their golden opportunity to argue their point at an earlier step.

"If the Essendon players considered that the CAS had no jurisdiction to entertain WADA's appeal, they should have formally raised the objection and requested a specific ruling on that issue by the CAS panel.

"Since they did not do it, they have lost their right to challenge the jurisdiction of CAS before the SFT. This is the reason why the SFT did not entertain the appeal. Nevertheless, despite such outcome, the SFT added that, even if the objection had been properly raised, the players' appeal would have been dismissed anyway and the jurisdiction of CAS confirmed."

Reeb would not comment on what kind of lasting lessons – if any - the Essendon players' appeal failure might give sport.

Since the CAS was established in 1984, 160 appeals – including the Essendon players' – have been pursued through the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

Just 10 appeals have been upheld; and only four due to a jurisdiction issue.

Reeb said to Fairfax that, as far as the CAS is concerned, the Essendon case is closed.

Asked how he would term the Essendon players found to have taken banned Thymosin beta-4 in an injection regimen designed by Stephen Dank – currently banned for sport for life for his part – Reeb said simply: "They are considered as guilty of an anti-doping rule violation".

The verdict means CAS - world sport's chief arbiter - has all its legal costs covered for the challenge.

"The exact amount of the CAS costs is not published," Reeb said.

"I have no idea of the legal costs paid by the parties in relation to the CAS procedure, but I can imagine that they are significant."

Throughout the Swiss tribunal challenge the CAS had no direct contact with Essendon player lawyers, Essendon officials or players, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority or the World Anti-Doping Agency on the case.

Fairfax reported in April there would be no oral submissions in the Swiss tribunal process. Though questioned at the time by some involved in the AFL players' appeal, this proved to be the case.

The final judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal was delivered in German but a summary was translated into English by the CAS and released in a statement.

Fairfax has been told it is exceptional that the Swiss Federal Tribunal saw fit to expand on its written judgment to explain that – in its view – the jurisdiction of the CAS was not "properly challenged", according to the CAS's English summary of the verdict, in the case mounted for the players.