A series of appeals against the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s decision to ban 34 past and present Essendon players for doping offences is likely, Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon has hinted.

Mr Gordon – also a prominent lawyer – said his son, Patrick Gordon, is representing ex-Bombers Stewart Crameri and Brent Prismall in the case, and that they are considering appealing to a Switzerland tribunal.

Crameri is currently on the Bulldogs’ senior list for 2016, albeit banned, while Prismall works for the club but is not a senior player. He is also suspended from carrying out his duties this year.

In an in-depth interview on ABC 774 Melbourne, Mr Gordon slammed the decision as ‘unfair’ and a ‘grave injustice’, and his comments may mean the saga is far from over.

“I don’t think there is a way to get it before an Australian court, so if there is to be an appeal it would be to the Swiss federal tribunal, we’ve got 30 days to bring that, so I think the relevant date is about 10 February,” Mr Gordon said.

• James Hird hits out at AFL’s spin
• Legal threat: how the Essendon 34 could proceed
• How the CAS verdict could cripple Essendon

“I’m looking at it myself because we have two players involved in it, and I know the lawyers for the other 32 are investigating it.”

He said the nature of the court system meant it was unlikely a hearing would begin before the start of the season, but lawyers could move for an urgent injunction to grant a stay on the ban.

“We’ve sought advice from Swiss lawyers on a range of issues and we’re hoping to get that advice as soon as we can,” he said.

Mr Gordon also listed reasons why the CAS judgement was “deeply troubling” and susceptible to an appeal.

Jobe Watson and the 33 other guilty players might appeal. Photo: Getty

“I agree, having studied the judgement over the last 10 days quite assiduously, with the expression [of] Lindsay Tanner [Essendon President] … [who said] said on day one that this decision was manifestly unfair and it is,” he said.

“This CAS judgement contains factual errors, unsupported propositions of law, it applies findings which might be pertinent to one player and extrapolates it to all other 33 players often with no basis at all.

“I am deeply troubled that what history is going to show is that these young men have been subject to one of the most grave injustices in the history of Australian sport.”

Mr Gordon said the CAS panel was wrong to say the players tried to delay a verdict with a Federal Court case, when really that was James Hird’s and Essendon’s legal action.

He also said CAS “extraordinarily” argued the players should have pleaded guilty to the charges and the fact they didn’t was a sentencing factor that worked against them.

“These were charges for which these players were cleared unanimously by the AFL Tribunal,” he said.

He then said CAS ignored that all players requested by the body to give evidence did, even though CAS “inferred” there was something suspicious in more players not giving evidence in its ruling.

“Everyone who has looked at this properly understands the players were duped,” Mr Gordon said.

Mr Gordon argued CAS used an answer by Jobe Watson, which said he didn’t remember Stephen Dank being present on an away trip, to hurt the other 33 players.

“As judgements go, the earlier judgement of the AFL Tribunal which found the case against the players unproven, is a much more cogent, logical and defensible piece of juris prudence than is the CAS judgement,” Mr Gordon said.

“There is no doubt about that whatsoever.”

The players have 30 days after the ruling to lodge an appeal on the CAS decision to ban them for the 2016 season. Any appeal would be directed to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.