I believe it to be you who is given to unfounded assumption. You assume that Leach was fired "just because", when it seems clear from any objective reading of the evidence available that Leach operated outside the parameters of the AD guidelines (either express or implied) and treated a player suffering from a traumatic brain injury in an untoward way.
What is indisputable is that Leach was fired. Universities don't make it a habit of firing winning coaches unless the coach's conduct compels them to do so. Treating a player suffering from a injury-type that is on everyone's radar screen, in a reflexively punitive way, would be a compelling reason to fire him. That's not an assumption, that's a reasonable conclusion based on the facts.
You have obviously not read all the “evidence available” or you wouldn’t make such a claim.
Your last paragraph is redundant. Duh - we’re all quite aware that Leach was fired. From the evidence that continues to trickle out, many of us believe that Leach was unjustly fired. We will soon see who prevails, but based on the facts that many of us have researched thus far, the money is on Leach prevailing.