A day after the Swiss court wrote to lawyers telling them of the failed appeal, McDevitt and ASADA released a statement welcoming the decision.

"You cannot agree to the rules and then expect them to change if you don't like the outcome," he said.

Patrick Gordon who ran the case for Slater and Gordon – the firm which lodged the appeal – said McDevitt's claim that players accepted the "de novo" ("from the beginning") hearing was utterly wrong.

Gordon said the notion that the player's representatives agreed to the Swiss Supreme Court case being de novo is a distortion of the truth.

While the players' representatives signed the "order of procedure" document, they did so with it containing written submissions that they rejected the notion the case should be de novo.

Information attained by Fairfax Media show that the players' lawyers filed documents that prove at no stage did they withdraw their objection to a de novo hearing.

Instead, they argued that the appeal should simply be a retrial without new evidence.

"There was never any issue that CAS has jurisdiction to hear a proceeding," Gordon said.

"The question was the scope of the proceeding. That was the subject of lengthy submissions, which ASADA took a position on.

"At no stage did my clients ever retreat from the position that the scope of the hearing was limited."

Jack Rush, QC, a retired Supreme Court judge, provided the opinion to the Swiss Supreme Court on what would happen if Australian law was applied to the legal rights of the scenario.

While the full judgement from the Swiss court is still being translated, the players can still technically appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in France.

An appeal at this stage is very unlikely, with the majority of the 34 players reported to be exhausted from the process, which is close to entering its fifth year.

If an appeal were to go ahead, it's likely to further delay the AFL Commission's decision on Jobe Watson's 2012 brownlow medal, with a decision currently scheduled for November 15.

The relationship between ASADA – particularly McDevitt - and the Essendon camp has been fractured for some time.

The club and the players felt vindicated when the AFL tribunal – after a joint investigation by ASADA and the AFL – found it could not be comfortably satisfied that Essendon players were injected with performance enhancing drugs in 2012.

McDevitt was hopeful that WADA would appeal the decision, which eventually saw the matter head to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and the finding was overturned.

"Nothing Mr. McDevitt says surprises us or affects our views," Gordon said.

"We will await a proper translation of the judgement into English so we can make an informed comment about it."