The court of law versus the court of public opinion
“While I'm aware of the Western Canada animus for Toronto, I just can't see a scenario where this form in Regina (perhaps made up of Rider fans) decided to come to conclusions that would get Kelly suspended, and thus impact the Argos chances.”
Does the term “wrongful conviction” ring a bell? Bias can lead to behaviour that is blatantly obvious, or can lead to subtle behaviour that impacts conclusions to the advantage of the investigators. Did they start their investigations with the feeling that Kelly, as an Argo, is just a dirt bag who is guilty of everything claimed? For example, Kelly is American. The investigators could just ignore this fact and not bother to look into whether or not he was given instruction regarding the Ontario Civil Rights Code. Did they consult psychiatrists/psychologists to get an opinion as to whether or not Kelly suffers from a mental disorder such as erotomania that would be a mitigating circumstance to his reported actions? Did the people they interviewed have to sign affidavits agreeing that the information accredited to them in the report was actually the information they gave? Did they give information that does not appear in the report? And so on.
The court of law is much different than the court of public opinion.