Yes. But JDB's case was dismissed twice. It was terribly protracted but the courts and the appropriate legal processes didn't find guilt.And done well to slip in a photo of Jack in the article too, who although was stood down under the same rule was under a much worse charge. By putting it in there people will paint Dylan with the same brush which is wrong IMO.
1. If he played for those two years and was ultimately found guilty, the NRL and the club would, justifiably, be subject to criticism.
2. if he was sacked or unpaid for those two years and was subsequently found not guilty - or case dismissed - the NRL and the club would, justifiably, be subject to criticism - and probably have to pay retrospective compensation.
Hence, the no-fault stand down policy. IMO, it was applied, and it worked, appropriately and correctly.
To be completely fair, given that JDB's case was dismissed, the media would be well advised to not continue referring to it.