I think the comparison with players who have taken performance enhancing drugs is interesting, however it is flawed for one major reason - it is not the club's responsibility to ensure that the players are not taking them, but rather the player's responsibility. It is therefore the player who rightly faces any punishment. However, it is the club's responsibility to ensure they follow operational rules (ie playing with the correct number of players), and therefore the club who rightly faces any punishment.
In this case, I can't really believe Salford appealed. Precedents had not really been set as the offences have been very different. Saints had 14 men on the field but the replacement player did not become involved in play before the error was noticed and action taken to put it right. In Salford's case, the replacement player was directly involved in making tackles and the club failed to notice the error for a much longer period of time. Therefore the punishment was more severe even though the same offence was committed, as is normal in other walks of life (eg the punishment will be more severe for a drunk driver who causes injury to others than it would be for someone who causes no injury, even though they have technically committed the same offence).
To be honest, I am very surprised Salford appealed the initial judgement. The longer that Koukash continues to spout off and complain, the more the RFL and other clubs are going to turn against him.

I don't agree. Salford ended up with 14 players on the field not as a result of something [ithe club[/i had done (i.e. to the best of our knowledge, no-one at the club decided to field 14 players), but because one player entered the field before the player he was replacing had left it. It was the fault of the players involved and, in fact, I believe Sean Long - who, in this case, you could see as a 'representative' of the club - was behind play desperately trying to get the player being substituted off the field.

And even if you still don't agree, there's still the problem of salary cap breaches, which [iare[/i the responsibility of the club. Salford are docked two points for having 14 players on the field for three plays where there is no conclusive proof that it prevented Castleford scoring, so what should a proportionate punishment be for a club that spends an [ientire season[/i employing a squad of players that, by the laws of the game, it shouldn't have been able to employ? Surely, it should be [iall[/i competition points removed. I just don't think the RFL would dare do that to a Wigan or a Leeds.

Why though? What have Salford done to upset you so much that you would like us to start next season on -2 and not finish in the 12?

An attitude you'd normally see a football fan have towards other clubs, not RL. Unjustified desire to see another club fail.

Amazingly the RFL have decided that Salford having an extra man on for 30 seconds is more serious than when Saints broke the salary cap and were fined, and an equal punishment to Bradford going over the cap 2 years in a row and getting a measly two point deduction on both occasions.

But Bradford and Saint's salary cap breaks were down to technicalities in the old salary cap system with regards to 3rd party payments and how they impact the cap not being made clear enough. Were as the rule about having only 13 players on the field is pretty clear cut.

If anyone should be upset about the similar punishments it should be Saints and Bradford for having too harsh a punishment.

Although I don't think it was done intentionally, it is ultimately the club's responsibility to ensure that they don't break operational rules and they failed to do this. The Salford pitch-side coaches hold this responsibility and should not have allowed one player to enter the field whilst it was clear the player he was replacing was obviously not leaving the field. Substitutions are simple enough to do correctly - you only have to be able to ensure that before a player enters the field another one has departed, or is in the process of doing so if the change is made during a break in play. There is really no excuse for getting in wrong, particularly for the length of time Salford left both players on the field.
I agree that a breach of salary cap should result in the loss of all competition points though.

In Saints case it was an unusual one and was partly down to Roby and his contract clause over International recognition. The RFL selected him for international duty which triggered an increase in Salary, the club didn,t inform the RFL on the technicality and you could say the club were fined for providing an international player.

the only reason Salford got 2 points off was due to London's bad results. the RL do not want there team to finish bottom

The RFL don't own London, nor do they provide them with "mythical" financial support....in fact, London are constantly hamstrung by the RFL's refusal to allow an additional 20% weighting on the London Salary cap to allow for the well documented increased cost of living in the Capital.

I therefore fail to see how London could be described as "their" team....but as you're trolling, I suppose facts don't really matter to you!

Welcome to franchising, enjoy

Correct, the RFL are against London because they refuse to let them cheat.

London should be allowed to play with 15 players, double the cap and be awarded a trophy every year because they aren't in the heartlands.

Correct. But do we expect the RFL to get anything right first time?