Warnie V's Leslie

This morning Ivan and I were discussing Michelle Leslie and comparing her case to Shane Warne's own drug case a couple of years ago. There are, ofcourse, some similarities as well as major differences aswell, but here's a comparison.

Shane Warne
- Was given the drugs by someone else (his mum).
- Claims he didn't know the drugs were of the banned variety.
- Didn't actually commit any crime, but a sporting offence.
- Was banned from playing cricket for 12 months as a result.
- Did all he could to avoid the media in the aftermath.

Michelle Leslie
- Apparently a friend left the drugs in her bag.
- Claims one day that she thought they were her prescribed meds, then next day she admits to being an occasional Ecstacy user.
- Committed a crime in Indonesia, and it would also be a crime in Australia.
- Given a 3 month sentence, with time already served concluded, so she's already home.
- Wants to profit from crime and sell her story to the media.

Isn't there something inherently wrong when a person committing an actual crime does less time than a cricket player who did something a bit stupid? Yes, I love Shane Warne so perhaps I'm biased, but it does seem a bit backwards to me.

Any other comparisons I've forgotten about?