I personally don’t think he should’ve been charged with a crime (even if it was one), but it’s hard to say it wasn’t unsportsmanlike. Knox was barred from competing for breaking the association’s sportsmanship code, not for being charged with assault.
The judge should’ve never issued the injunction. Whether Knox was ultimately convicted or found not guilty in court had no bearing on the association’s decision to bar him, so the judge’s reasoning to protect his right to due process was erroneous. Knox’s due process was to appeal the association’s decision to bar him per the bylaws of the code. He did. They upheld the decision. That should’ve been the end of it. Knox is the one who brought the “law” into it by suing the association instead of honoring the code by which he, like every athlete, agreed to abide.
Knox could’ve flipped off the crowd after his match or got caught with a dip in his mouth in the locker room, and the association could’ve barred him from competing at state, just as well. No “crime” committed, but obvious violation of the code. Would people be crying “innocent until proven guilty” then? No, they would say it’s a harsh penalty, but he should’ve been smarter. Knox stormed the stands and punched a kid, and somehow that’s more defensible, because he was charged with a crime? Doesn’t make sense.