While lawyers for the 34 players issued with show-cause notices maintain the players "remain steadfast in their belief they have done nothing wrong", McDevitt told Fairfax Media there was evidence that may not have been the case. The players are alleged to have been administered the banned drug, thymosin beta-4.

"As the guardian of the World Anti-Doping Code in Australia, I take my responsibility in issuing a show-cause notice against an athlete or support person seriously. This is a decision that I do not take lightly," McDevitt said.

"The sensitivity that surrounds allegations of doping can affect the reputation and career of an athlete or support person. It is for this reason I will only issue a notice where I believe sufficient evidence is present.

"In my opinion, ASADA has compiled a considerable body of evidence. The decision for me was to determine whether there was sufficient evidence that a possible anti-doping rule violation had been committed under the National Anti-Doping scheme or AFL anti-doping policy.

"Based on the advice of our legal counsel, including the architect of the code, and a review of the evidence by a former Federal Court judge, I reached the conclusion that these players have a case to answer under the code."

Tensions have risen between the AFL Players Association, which is spearheading the players' defence, and ASADA since the players opted to bypass fighting their show-cause notices and called for all evidence to be heard by the independent Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel within the next week.

ASADA responded by declaring it would not be "dictated" to, and it had no power to order the ADRVP when to assess the body of evidence produced by the players and ASADA.

The ADRVP decides whether there is sufficient evidence to place a player on the register of findings. Inclusion on the register, provided there is no appeal, is the trigger point for infraction notices to be issued, and for the players to appear before the AFL's anti-doping tribunal. This tribunal must agree to a comfortable satisfaction that players were administered banned drugs for suspensions to be issued.

Asked how difficult it would for the players to prove their innocence, McDevitt said: "Under the World Anti-Doping Code or a sport's anti-doping policy, the area of proving innocence is quite complex. In any anti-doping rule violation matter, the ability of an athlete to prove their innocence would depend on the unique facts or circumstances of their case."

The show-cause notices have been individually tailored for the players. Each player, according to players lawyer Tony Hargreaves, has  been issued with about 105 pages of evidence.

However, Hargreaves insists these documents are only "a summary of what ASADA says is the evidence". Hargreaves says he has known about this summary since last year.

McDevitt  said it would be "inappropriate" for him to comment on any recommendations he could offer the AFL in terms of individual or group suspensions - should the players be found guilty.

"It would be inappropriate for me to postulate on the outcome of a sport's tribunal hearing. This would be unfair on the players and disrespectful to the tribunal members who are entitled to fully consider the evidence and players' submissions," he said.

"What I can say is every case that ASADA deals with is unique and a number of factors can influence the outcome of a case.

"Any athlete that comes under a code compliant policy can make a request to the sport's tribunal for an elimination or reduction of a period of ineligibility based on exceptional circumstances. An example might be where an athlete can establish that he or she had 'no fault or negligence', or 'no significant fault or negligence', in connection with the violation.

"Ultimately, if violations are proven in these matters, the AFL [not ASADA] will determine sanctions based on an athlete's individual circumstances.

"In the event players are entered onto the Register of Findings by the independent Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel, I will notify the AFL and provide them with a recommended sanction in accordance with the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code."

If suspensions are handed out, it's likely players will miss at least the opening month of next season.