Even I am not satisfied with SB explanation here and how they handle this situation, they owe a precise explanation.
But, I'm a little confused here. Sportsbet hires users to defend them, I guess they will pay them for it.
So, they refuse to pay user X and spend this money to pay users YY to defend it and save his reputation. why complicate, they definitely have to spend money?
I'm not saying they did do that, but when you are already paying user, you would just have to imply that you would expel them from said benefits to actually have leverage on them. So not, it wouldn't cost them extra money.
Then again, there is no indication/evidence that this happened.