Some people have suggested the efc defense of aod as non ped and the receipt of bad advice from asada is evidence of efc running two defenses, and indicative of their guilt. JFyi this is not necessarily the case.
If you have a product recall, even due to accepting wrong advice from the ACCC, a recall must still happen (as the product doesn't comply with Au regs). What happens though is the ACCC don't penalize you, and may accept a temp solution to allow stock to be sold (ie in store relabeling)
Basically the idea is minimize the impact upon the seller who received the poor advice, but without impacting upon the rights of the consumer.
If (and it's still if) asada gave bad advice, the next question is how do you shove the shit back in the horse, and a key question here will be "did efc receive an unfair advantage from aod?". If it did, nullifying the results for 2012 makes sense. If it can be shown that the effects carried into 2013, then removing points for 2013 is a real possibility. It's unfair to efc, but if they were still receiving an unfair advantage it's unfair on the other 17 clubs.
So this is why this question of AODs capabilities may be so important, as it may allow them to avoid losing 2013 points on AOD.
Please note this is contingent of course on them having received wrong info from asada. It also doesn't avoid any sanctions due to the Ziggy report from the AFL (which I think should be a massive fine and draft sanctions), or any asada penalties from other supplements.