Mark Robinson: The questions left unanswered in Freo minefield

WE’RE not being told something — a lot in fact — about Fremantle coach Ross Lyon, the former female employee and the hush money, writes Mark Robinson.

Dockers coach Ross Lyon reacts during the Round 4 AFL match between the Greater Western Sydney (GWS) Giants and the Fremantle Dockers at UNSW Canberra Oval in Canberra, Saturday, April 14, 2018. (AAP Image/Lukas Coch) NO ARCHIVING, EDITORIAL USE ONLY

WE’RE not being told something — a lot in fact — about Ross Lyon, the former female employee and the hush money.

We’re certainly not being told why the AFL was satisfied with the outcome which saw the woman, who accused Lyon of making inappropriate comments about her appearance, receive a five-figure payment.

In December, the AFL said the accusation was of sexual harassment.

LYON ACCUSED OF SECRET PAYMENT TO WOMAN

AFL BOSS ‘OK’ WITH FREO SECRECY

AFL CLUB FIGURE IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT

On Monday, it was reported something was said about her clothing. It is an odd story.

Made more odd by the AFL’s position on this situation, in light of its supposedly fierce stance on the treatment of women in the industry.

The AFL has denied it was hush money, but not that money was paid. What we’re not being told is why it was paid and by whom.

There are many questions to be asked about the hush money paid to Ross Lyon’s accuser. Picture: AAP Image/Julian Smith

One logical argument is the AFL believes, after its integrity department investigated the accusation, that there was no disrespect or irresponsible behaviour directed at the woman by Lyon. That something was said by Lyon to the woman, but not worth a fine or suspension, or indeed a sacking.

That’s fine, but equally as logical is the question: Why the payment? If Lyon did not cross the line, why did the woman receive the cash and a privacy agreement?

By not disclosing any of this, the AFL is asking us to trust them. But whenever money changes hands, suspicion is part of the transaction. That’s not an inquisitive mind racing, that’s the law of the jungle.

There’s mass confusion about where hush money sits in the AFL’s respect and responsibility policy.

When asked if payments to victims of sexual harassment would be in line with the league’s policy, McLachlan replied: “A core part of that policy is actually resolving the issue between the complainant and the person they are making the allegation against.

AFL chief Gillon McLachlan has not denied that money was paid. Picture: AAP Image/Brendan Esposito

“Part of the policy is for it to be confidential and there is a wide view, a wide series of options of getting a resolution without making any comment on what’s happened at Fremantle.”

AFL Commission chairman Richard Goyder supported McLachlan’s comments.

Goyder is a good man and highly respected and it’s unfathomable to think he would tick off a serious accusation of sexual harassment, and the subsequent investigation, if there was a case for Lyon to answer.

Workplace payments are commonplace and they can be made without an admission of guilt. Like, a go-away payment. Or an acknowledgment something wasn’t quite right, something happened, but it was not deemed drastic.

It’s the hint of hypocrisy that also raises questions, however.

Port Adelaide’s Sam Powell-Pepper missed three weeks of footy, via club and AFL sanction, after a drunken incident in a nightclub which was eventually agreed to being described as inappropriate contact with a woman.

That also was a messy affair, in which Port and the AFL were at loggerheads.

One suggestion made in jest was Powell-Pepper should’ve paid the woman a settlement, have both sign a confidentiality agreement and move on.

As it sits, people watching this story unfold in the Herald Sun over the past four months are in the dark about what happened. Lyon, the woman, the Dockers and the AFL have explained nothing as to what happened, as per the privacy agreement.

It’s a comfortable fallback position for the AFL to make no comment. Clearly, though, it’s uncomfortable for everyone involved.

It must be noted, Lyon denied the allegation and welcomed the AFL investigation and clearly would’ve been relieved when the investigation found he wasn’t liable for any penalty.

Still, that one question burns away: Why the money?

MORE HERALD SUN STORIES

FOOTY BRAWL: ‘IT WAS DISGUSTING, THEY SHOULD BE BANNED FOR LIFE’

ULTIMATE DEBATE: HOW TO MAKE AFL GREAT AGAIN