Melbourne deliberately broke the rules in a way never seen before. To treat them as other teams were treated would make no sense, as they acted like no other team that we are aware of.
Melbourne had a distinct advantage by breaking the salary cap- if they didn't get that advantage the NRL wouldn't have the rule, or no one else would care that they broke the rules. It is patently absurd to deny that spending more than the cap allows offers no advantage.
To say that the advantage is only relative and therefore we can't know if there was an advantage, because other squads were not scrutinised is actually true- it is possible that every other team broke the rules by more, and the Storm were at a relative disadvantage by not cheating enough. But the NRL can only act on what they do know, not what they don't. If a team is not caught cheating it is assumed that it is not cheating, just like if a player is not caught taking illegal drugs, it is assumed that player is not taking drugs, and we don't exonerate drug takers because we're not sure if they are actually getting an advantage (since we haven't caught everyone else yet).
If a team performs well, unless they are caught cheating, we assume that they are doing the right thing. We assume the Storm are currently doing well because they have a well coached, good roster. It doesn't matter if a team is the best team for 100 years in a row, if they are then caught cheating on the 101st, they are to be punished for cheating in that 101st year because we assume for that year that they had an unfair relative advantage. They may still have had a great roster and great coaching even though they cheated, so much so that if they chose not to cheat they may still have won. But they chose to cheat and should be punished for it.
It should not be difficult for anyone to understand. This is the sort of understanding of cheating and punishment you would want your children to grow up understanding.
