The problem with the question is that they obviously believe their actions to be just. However, when they ask for public acceptance and endorsement of that stance, they have an obligation to show WHY it is just.
It could be a simple personal vendetta by Tygart. It could be a completely rational conclusion. From the evidence at hand, I cannot make any determination.
To me, it appears they are change the rules after the fact, and using innuendo and hearsay to justify their conclusions. Even if they are correct in their conclusion, their methods are a great danger to justice - pursuit of a conclusion unsupported by accepted evidence is a concept completely foreign to justice and rational thought.
They may believe that what they are doing is the right thing to do. But if they want ME to believe it, they need to show me the evidence.
Again, why would they do it? In this particular case...What is the most likely, the most reasonable assumption you could make about that?