When under AFL investigation, the accused always takes the deal, writes Mark Robinson

IT’S a familiar tale when under investigation by the AFL despite protestation of innocence, in the end, the accused always take the deal, writes Mark Robinson.

Eddie McGuire chats to Graeme Allan. Picture: Wayne Ludbey

IT’S a familiar tale when under investigation by the AFL.

Despite blue-in-the-face protestation of one’s innocence, in the end, the accused always take the deal.

That’s how the AFL does its business.

DEAL DONE: GUBBY CLEARS WAY FOR WHITFIELD BAN

MASON COX: MAGPIES FORWARDS WITH PLENTY TO PROVE

YOUNG GUNS: GIANTS SCORE YET ANOTHER DRAFT WIN

No need for hearings or court houses or the contesting of accusations.

No, the AFL cuts the deal and it’s mostly accepted.

It’s what happened on Monday after weeks of frantic phone calls, negotiations and legal discussion between Graeme Allan and his people and Craig Lambert and his people and the AFL’s people.

Graeme Allan during his time at GWS. Picture: Michael Klein

Craig Lambert during his time at GWS. Picture: Carly Earl

It was revealed in Friday’s Herald Sun that Lachie Whitfield was already cool to the idea of suspension, that he would take six months, but miss just eight games, and that’s despite him thinking he didn’t do anything wrong.

In fact, he has stressed to Greater Western Sydney bosses and investigators he didn’t take any illicit substances in the first place.

Still, he takes the deal.

Why, if he hasn’t done anything wrong other than to listen to Allan and Lambert suggest a sleepover at Lambert’s house?

If Whitfield only gets 8 weeks of the season as a ban surely GWS will lose early picks. Strong suggestion is they lose 1st & 2nd round picks

— Jon Ralph (@RalphyHeraldSun) November 14, 2016

As of late week the Pies believed if Gubby copped a year he would be unlikely to return. Best for them to cut ties now and move on

— Jon Ralph (@RalphyHeraldSun) November 14, 2016

Same with Gubby. The impression on Monday was Allan wanted the wording to his charge to say he didn’t accept guilt — despite agreeing to the deal which would seem him suspended for 12 months from Collingwood.

So, take the deal, but didn’t do anything wrong.

How does that work?

They can be persuasive the AFL — and ASADA is certainly intimidating — but it’s folly to suggest Allan is innocent here.

Lachie Whitfield is reportedly open to a six-month ban. Picture: Phil Hillyard

In official terms, by directing Whitfield to Lambert’s house he ignored processes and tried to conceal and manage an integrity issue rather than elevate it to the highest levels of administration at the club.

In pub talk, Allan went rogue, notwithstanding he believes that Whitfield didn’t take drugs.

Allan’s argument is Whitfield’s former girlfriend, who alerted ASADA to the alleged drug use by Whitfield, was off the rails and not to be believed.

Still, he hid Whitfield — but from what exactly? ASADA wasn’t even looking for Whitfield.

Re Whitfield issue , so you can receive a long suspension for allegedly hiding a player no-one is looking for , AFL clearly spooked by ASADA

— Leigh Matthews (@LeighRMatthews) November 10, 2016

Lions deputy chairman Leigh Matthews is also a little confused about the whole outcome.

He boldly tweeted at the weekend: “Re Whitfield issue, so you can receive a long suspension for allegedly hiding a player no-one is looking for ... AFL clearly spooked by ASADA.”

The AFL’s deal for three accused was ticked by ASADA.

As deals go, it was a good one for Whitfield. The AFL got him six months when, if ASADA prosecuted under its laws, he faced up to four years. Even if he did take a line of coke, and is lying, four years for a line of coke would be way too harsh.

Eddie McGuire chats to Graeme Allan. Picture: Wayne Ludbey

Twelve months for avoiding a drug test which wasn’t even planned on a player who said he didn’t take drugs sounds like a joke.

The fact is Allan and Lambert hid Whitfield and jeopardised the young man’s career.

Deep down, you’d think Allan would accept that if he had his time again, he’d do things differently.

Collingwood fans and directors, meanwhile, have every right to be annoyed and frustrated with chief executive Gary Pert and chairman Eddie McGuire.

They recruited Allan to the club and were told, and told others, the Whitfield situation would not be an issue.

Ten weeks later, Allan, the football boss, is out of there for 12 months and it’s not assumed he will even return when his suspension ends.

That means another football boss for coach Nathan Buckley, another forging of relationships with a key staffer, in what looms as the most important 12 months in Buckley’s football career.

Whether Buckley succeeds next year is not dependent on a stable football department, but gee whiz, it would help.

Pert and McGuire have to put their hands up for this one and admit they got it wrong.

However they want to spin it and point the fingers at the others, they pushed Neil Balme aside and recruited a bloke who has been suspended until the 2018 season.

Very bad deal, Collingwood.

The AFL will be pleased, but all this dealing raises many questions, the main being.

Why did all this see the light of day just hours after Allan was appointed at Collingwood?

Who was hiding who and who went rogue on Allan?