Essendon expects its players to escape any suspension following their Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing in November even if it is found they were administered banned substances in 2012.
There is also an expectation the players would accept a guilty verdict, rather than fight on in another appeal to remove any mark against their names.
The Bombers are confident a decision on their 34 past and present players will be reached by Christmas, with the CAS hearing to start on November 16.
The club's "informed" opinion is that the players will be cleared of taking the banned substance Thymosin Beta-4 as part of the club's 2012 supplements program.
But even in the event they are found guilty, CEO Xavier Campbell said the club was not expecting the players to miss any future playing time.
"The advice to us – and we understand the AFL has supported this in its written submission to the CAS – is that with the backdating that would apply (and) the provisional suspension that has already been incurred by the players, they wouldn't receive a sanction," Campbell said on Thursday.
November's CAS case is expected to be a re-hearing of evidence presented to the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal, which cleared the past and present Essendon players in March.
The Australian Sport Anti-Doping Authority chose not to challenge that decision, but the World Anti-Doping Agency did.
Campbell said the CAS hearing in November was expected to last little more than a week.
"I'd also expect it to be a much more efficient process than what the AFL anti-doping tribunal was," Campbell said.
"(But) there haven't been any certainties around the process for these sorts of things and they always seem to take slightly longer than they need to.
"We do believe there is a strong possibility a decision will be delivered before Christmas."
Only 13 of the 34 players remain on Essendon's list after extensive retirements, delisting and trades over the past three seasons.
An appeal against a CAS ruling can only be made on limited grounds, such as "lack of jurisdiction, violation of elementary procedural rules or incompatibility with public policy".
