The Dank case is probably more complex, and it may be that the two cases didn't run parallel as many suggested.
Possibly Dank's case is not a slam dunk. I have never been convinced that Dank's was certain to be found guilty.
In the event that Dank is found guilty on any claim, I can understand on how the tribunal can rule on behalf of the AFL and ban him from the game under their rules and that he can't work for a club.
What I don't understand is where that leaves players who look to seek him out individually, as has been done in the past.
As much as the current actions going on are based around PEDs, it's still not to say that Dank doesn't have formidable knowledge in the field and will still be practising (most likely sans the AFL and NRL accreditation/approval). He was employed at Geelong, Gold Coast and Essendon as being THE sports scientist, so before all this blew up - he was considered a leader in his field.
Unless the AFL adds a clause to its ruling also banning players from seeking Dank individually, I don't see too much changing and is probably why Dank seems pretty calm in knowing he'll still be getting paid along the way.
It would be pretty naive if the AFL think that they could corral the players into only ever seeing club doctors during their careers. Unless ASADA/WADA decide to appeal and win the action, after all we've seen over the last two years, not too much changes other than Dank won't be able to work inside the doors of an AFL club.