'NO SIGNIFICANT fault or no significant negligence' could be a defence used to help radically reduce the potential doping ban that faces Fremantle tagger Ryan Crowley.
 
The lawyers who represented Ahmed Saad – the St Kilda footballer who was banned for 18 months for taking a prohibited substance - say the 'no significant fault' defence can cut a doping ban in half.
 
Crowley tested positive to a 'specified' substance in a sample taken after Fremantle's round 17 clash against Greater Western Sydney on July 13 last year.

His 'B' sample was tested on September 11 and he received a show-cause notice on September 18 - five days after Fremantle's last game of the 2014 season.

The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority was due to lodge its written submissions to the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal on Thursday regarding Crowley's positive test for a banned substance.

William Sheehan and George Haros of M + K Lawyers represented Saad in his doping case.
 
Sheehan, who only has public knowledge of Crowley's case, told AFL.com.au that there appeared to be limited options available to Crowley's defence.
 
He said the 'no significant fault' defence could radically reduce a suspension but to use it one had to demonstrate there were "exceptional circumstances".

"This is really, no doubt, where Ryan's team would be focusing all their efforts to consider the why and how he ended up taking this substance."
 
Sheehan said ASADA's written submissions would have focused on the evidence.
 
"ASADA will make submissions as to why Ryan Crowley should receive a two-year ban, presumably," Sheehan said.
 
"They will outline the positive test that they would've conducted and received, and I imagine in these circumstances that won't be a hotly contested issue.
 
"So those submissions will be rather short, just pointing to the evidence there."
 
Following ASADA's written submissions, Crowley and his independent legal team are due to file their own written submissions to the Tribunal on April 17.
 
The date for the Tribunal hearing is May 1.
 
Crowley's case has been delayed due to the Anti-Doping Tribunal's deliberations on 34 past and present Essendon players, who were cleared of all charges on March 31.

Sheehan said Crowley's case differs dramatically to that of the Essendon players where the onus shifts to the defence following a positive test.
 
"Once the positive test happens, it's exactly like running a red light," Sheehan said.
 
"Once the camera flashes and you run the red then the onus immediately shifts to a fixed penalty, and you need to demonstrate why that penalty shouldn't apply.
 
"You need to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. It's actually a two-part hurdle because once you have demonstrated exceptional circumstances you then need to demonstrate that the penalty should be between 12 to 24 months.
 
"So in Ahmed's case we were able to jump hurdle No.1 and then demonstrate he should have a six-month reduction in all of the circumstances."
 
Crowley accepted a provisional suspension that began on September 25, 2014.