I don't see cameras pointing the other direction like you're saying is in the rules in all the camera angles that have been shown on stream. You'll have to give me a direct quote for me to believe you on that. I think my point about Xyp9x still stands: stopping him from going somewhere doesn't stop him from putting his phone next to his monitor on the stream, in a position where his camera doesn't capture it. He is the most obvious example where there is no camera behind him that would capture such a device.
"In every computer..." - this part is irrelevant as I never said that the stream was running on the players' computers.
I agree that proving malicious intent in such circumstances is generally difficult. I also agree that any team can benefit without giving an obvious proof: we saw this with the coach bug abuse. However, since the evidence of the stream usage here is particularly obvious (it's literally a giant screen in the background), it would suggest that its use is non-malicious, as there is no attempt to mask the behavior. It also suggests that it is a managerial employment, as the players would have put it in a less obvious spot that was more readily available for themselves (i.e. in front of them).
Ultimately, I think the judgment and resultant action by ESIC was fair given these circumstances, as a harsher or lesser punishment would imply they knew more information about the case (and its effects) than they possibly could.
I have to go do life stuff now, so have a nice day!