As has been pointed out before, it's not "hearsay" if a person testifies about his own actions. Kasuganishiki and Chiyohakuho aren't testifying about things they're only third parties to, and while Enatsukasa can't testify as to whether yaocho actually took place on the dohyo, he can testify for which bouts he contacted both parties as yaocho-arranger (and received a positive response). Whether their testimony is trustworthy is a different matter, but the committee clearly thinks it is.
So far I was under the impression that in some cases, the kyokai went by hearsay without having text messages, bank statements, etc which would prove involvement outside of human testimony. I also did not name Kasuganishiki specifically. There are 20ish rikishi dismissed. The ones against which there is no damning , non-testimonial evidence should not be dismissed imo, because human testimony alone tends to be unreliable.
BTW, what exactly did you mean by "I also did not name Kasuganishiki specifically"? Considering your whole post was about rikishi who might have named names under alleged pressure, there really isn't a large selection of people you could have been talking about, since practically everyone outside the original three hasn't even admitted to their own involvement, let alone others'.
Edit: Sokokurai and Hoshikaze might well have been better off admitting to doing yaocho once or twice (they've only been sekitori for a year, it can't have been nearly as much as for the veterans) and taken the two-year suspension they likely would have received... Well, who knows, maybe the very fact that there can't be nearly as much evidence against them as against e.g. Asofuji or Toyozakura - possibly zero, if Kasuganishiki's testimony against them can be discredited - will actually give them a fighting chance in the court of law.
Edited by Asashosakari, 14 April 2011 - 12:42.