Essendon players" anti-doping tribunal hearing set to be held privately The AFL had an obligation to work with ASADA during investigations into Essendon supplements scandal, the Federal Court has been told on Day two of James Hird's appeal. Essendon players would strongly oppose any move to throw open the doors of an AFL anti-doping tribunal hearing. AN AFL anti-doping tribunal which would rule on drug bans for Essendon players seems certain to be held behind closed doors. The AFL's new mantra of transparency at the expense of political solutions meant there were hopes any hearing would be open to media. But Essendon players would strongly oppose any move to throw open the doors of that hearing, believing confidentiality for players is critical. Lawyers for the 34 players handed show-cause notices have consistently attempted to shield their identity and would demand the league continue that trend. An anti-doping hearing open to the public would allow supporters confused by two years of claim and counterclaim to make up their own minds. Lawyers for the 34 Essendon players handed show-cause notices have consistently attempted to shield their identity. The AFL's anti-doping code states the tribunal boss can authorise hearings to be conducted in public. But former ASADA boss Richard Ings said that was a futile hope, aware of only one anti-doping tribunal case conducted in public. Players have waived their right to respond to show-cause notices, with the AFL expected to issue infraction notices after the players names are placed on the register of findings by the anti-doping rules violation panel. Ings said a judgment issued by the tribunal would hopefully be made public, allowing fans some measure of transparency. "Anti-doping tribunals like this have always been held in private unless the athlete in question waives their right to confidentiality at the hearing, which to my knowledge has only occurred once,"" he told the Herald Sun. Essendon players have not responded to the show-cause notices. (Tour de France winner) Floyd Landis opened his arbitration case to the public in the US and in fact it was webcast. But unless the Essendon players requested it, it's not going to happen. Players are innocent until proven guilty but if the verdict of a drug violation was handed down, then the reasoned decision should be made public. ASADA would prosecute a potential case at the AFL anti-doping tribunal with a panel likely to be headed by AFL tribunal chairman to hear evidence. Essendon players have not responded to the show-cause notices, believing the threshold that a doping violation tribunal might have occurred is impossible to overturn. If the Rules Violation Panel puts the case on the Register of Findings, AFL legal counsel Andrew Dillon would then need to decide on infraction notices and an anti-doping tribunal.