I agree but it is on the Bulldogs to prove what happened to him wasn't unusual.
Circumstances would pretty clearly indicate it was likely to be unusual, as well.
Putting aside whether or not similar punishment is standard like many are claiming (without much evidence mind you), the Bulldogs have had three players come forward publicly with issues. So either the Bulldogs had three players who were all soft like the boomers are suggesting - despite the fact they had experience at around 5 NRL clubs between them and a few other professional or semi professional clubs as well and had never raised an issue publicly prior. This is also taking into account no other player has ever raised an issue publicly at another club to my knowledge.
Or something unusual happened.
Pretty clear balance of probabilities there. So despite the tough guy bleats of other posters who would shit themselves in the same situation the question is more likely to be was whatever happened unusual enough to be unlawful or to cause harm.