Iggy, I pretty much agree with you on your comments. Here's my squeak from the peanut gallery, disclaimer first:
DISCLAIMER: I have developed an opinion as to whether or not Billy Mitchell's disputed scores were legitimate. That opinion will be kept to myself for the purposes of this post, though that opinion may not be difficult to discern. In any event, I intend to speak as impartially as possible about this as I can.
Cheaters, by practice, are liars. Someone who is capable of competing against others on a level playing field with ethics and integrity is exhibiting honesty in play, regardless of whether they win, lose, or draw. However, a cheat cannot compete on a level playing field. They need to tilt it to their advantage because they are incapable of fair play, and there are numerous ways of doing this.
The reality is that how they tilt the field is almost a non-question once it's discovered: they'll do it in any way that they can and for as long as they think that they can get away with it. But what is important is that when that manipulation is both recognised and confirmed, the person responsible is totally, completely, and utterly ostracised. And, as part of this ostracism, any achievements that they may have set - related to the event that came under suspicion or otherwise - are also purged and that person is perpetually banned from competition.
Having said that, I firmly believe that all persons appearing before a jury (or other panel of inquiry) are innocent until proven guilty. But I also reserve the right to believe that when certain evidence strongly suggests a particular degree of culpability, then, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, there are a very limited number of reasonable outcomes that can be derived given the evidence at hand.
The judiciary's decision is awaited with anticipation.