Because this was different in nature from some of other "loopholes". Some of the other "ethics" discussions have been about the probity of people doing things which have been specifically forbidden by the rules of the programmes to which they agreed and signed up.

Now, you may have views about whether or not those people should or should not have broken those rules. But it's a different order entirely from people who have taken something openly and unequivocally offered, if only by mistake. No rules were broken by doing so.

You are throwing down an implicit challenge to compare chalk and cheese. No wonder nobody's taking you up on it!