
the most important difference is no essendon player tested positive to a banned substance, which is more than you can say for sinner.Once again, you are failing to work out the connection and differences here between the situations. If the circumstances fitted the mould of these Olympic situations and the Essendon saga, I'm sure they would lose it.
The Olympics example you raised and the Essendon saga stripping of titles and the like happened during their respective seasons and events.. Where there is a clear "performancing enhancing benefit". I don't think Player A should lose titles for something they won years before their offence. And I don't think Player B should lose titles and the like where there is no performance enhancing benefit.
E.g. If Essendon won the Premiership in 2011, they should not lose it in 2012 when the saga was then. Are you saying you'd be happy for Essendon to lose ALL of their Premierships?
I don't think players should lose titles from time before or after, or where there is no clear performance enhancing benefit. I don't think it is too hard to understand.
three months is an absolute crock.