ESSENDON's refusal to accept any suggestion of drug cheating was primarily to blame for the drawn-out legal negotiations that almost brought the AFL industry to a halt for two days.

After the highly sensitive talks between the armies of lawyers acting for the AFL, Essendon and four Bombers officials finally concluded on Tuesday night, the new set of charges tabled by the AFL offered a revealing insight into what the Bombers had been fighting for.

In its 34-page set of charges released last Wednesday, the AFL concluded that during the course of the Bombers' 2011-12 supplements program:

(i) "players were administered substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code; alternatively

(ii) the club is unable to determine whether players were administered substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code"

But when the AFL announced its negotiated settlement with Essendon on Tuesday night, its new set of charges included the following acknowledgement:

"The AFL acknowledges that neither Essendon nor any of the individuals charged set out to implement a supplements program that would result in players being administered prohibited or potentially harmful substances."

Accordingly, the first arm of the above charge was watered down to read: 

"There was a risk that Essendon players could have been administered substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code and any such risk is an unacceptable risk."

The change in wording might seem minor to the average lay person, but in legal corridors it has a significantly different effect.

Certainly, Essendon chairman Paul Little seemed satisfied the change in wording removed any suggestion the club had given its players prohibited substances.

"With what we know, we are comfortable. With what we don't know, our belief is that there weren't any substances taken that were illegal or illicit," Little said. 

"No player has been found guilty of taking a performance-enhancing drug. There have been no infraction notices, and we don't think there will be."

The other 15 grounds of the AFL's disrepute charge against Essendon remained substantially the same between the first and negotiated versions. 

The most significant changes were that: 

(a) the first charges alleged the Bombers' program exposed players to "significant risks to their health and safety", while the negotiated charges spoke of "potential risks"; and  

(b) the first charges alleged the Bombers "created or permitted a culture at the club that legitimised and encouraged the frequent, uninformed and unregulated use of the injection of supplements", while the negotiated charges said only that the club permitted that culture.

The language in some of the negotiated charges was also watered-down.

For instance, the first charges made repeated references to Essendon's failings with "all" of the substances in its supplements program, while the negotiated charges referred to "some" substances.

Although the Bombers were content to sign off on the negotiated charges, AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou made it clear on Tuesday night that ASADA's investigation into the club remained ongoing.

As such, ASADA could still issue infraction notices against Essendon players.