It is the niggling question struggling for expression in so many Newcastle Knights fans and the people who commit big firms to sponsorship: if Danny Wicks and Chris Houston were dealing in drugs, and we should bear in mind that this has not been established, why wouldn't those in the Knights who knew have done something about it? If police make out their case against Wicks and Houston, it will appear that the club has not countered the tolerance or blind eye that was obvious when Andrew Johns admitted in 2007 that he'd been using drugs for a long time.
I'm assuming that some other players, and perhaps officials, would have been aware of the drug dealing, if the police allegations are correct. And I believe it is a reasonable assumption. As I write in my column in The Herald today the Knights players are bound together on and off the field for at least the season - it's called bonding - and if Wicks and Houston are convicted it is asking too much of my gullibility to suggest that some didn't know of the dealing.
The club's greater problem, then, would be not the charging of two players but the confusion of loyalties that was effectively a tolerance of the alleged drug use and dealing. Those in the Knights camp who were aware of the dealing or use and did nothing would be more responsible than anyone else for the club's crisis.
Had these others understood that their foremost loyalty is to the club, not to individuals, the Knights may well not be in the precarious position they are today. Yes, it is precarious even with the continued support, at this stage, of major sponsors.
At what point should a footballer's loyalty to his club override the boys' bar on shopping a mate?