More on the 'Swimming World' article: " "They Cheated. They Stole. They Lied!" - Moral conundrum for the IOC"

There is an article in the New York Times regarding philosophical and moral conundrums which I think works well as an analogy to the Marion Jones/East German medal argument: Here is a snippet:

" Suppose the chairman of a company has to decide whether to adopt a new program. It would increase profits and help the environment too. “I don’t care at all about helping the environment,” the chairman says. “I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new program.” Would you say that the chairman intended to help the environment?

O.K., same circumstance. Except this time the program would harm the environment. The chairman, who still couldn’t care less about the environment, authorizes the program in order to get those profits. As expected, the bottom line goes up, the environment goes down. Would you say the chairman harmed the environment intentionally? ..." New York Times: [Link]

Included in the article are the polling results to the above questions. I personally felt that both CEO's intended to either assist or hurt the environment respectively. Between 72% and 82% of the respondents disagreed with me. Therefore, I am either an idiot; (likely), or a genius; (unlikely), but so far I have no opinion on the IOC decision yet.

Did some or all of the East Germans knowingly dope? Do they deserve a statute of limitations (SOL) window? Does any athlete deserve and SOL window if they knowingly or unknowingly cheated. Also, how do you prove something that occurred nearly 1/3-of-a-century ago? The IOC is not a legal body.