...or does it?
As Blackshadow pointed out, appeals of decisions made by the ADRVP are made to the AAT. The AAT hears appeals against administrative decisions of federal government and quasi-government bodies (such as the ADRVP). The general rule is that while the appeal is on foot, the decision remains valid and binding until and unless it is overturned. Plus the AAT has the power not only to overturn a decision, but also to substitute its own decision for that of the original decision-maker, or refer the matter back to the original-decision maker.
Which would put * in a bind - say ASADA issue infraction notices and the ADRVP bans the players. * might think "hey, might as well appeal, they're banned anyway, worst case we lose in which case the ban stands. Best case they get off, effectively for time served." But what if the AAT think the ban was too light-on and imposes harsher ban? Especially if the players cop light bans on the basis the ADRVP thinks they aren't entirely responsible for what happened (mitigating circumstances), but the AAT disagrees and goes the full whack?
It's an unlikely, but not unheard of scenario, and one that would have to make * think twice about appealing. That, and *their fondness for throwing people under buses. *They'll just sack all the players, blame them for what happened (should have been more diligent) and ask the AFL for GC/GWS type draft concessions so *they can re-build their list - oh, and can *we have some AFL money, *we have some really big fines and legal bills to pay?