can sag be trusted?

Why did SAG tell us all that the previous board were wrong to report the final results as they were, creating a perception they weren't a success?

What purpose was for them to make such a misleading arguement? Would this have played on peoples paranoia almost suggesting the previous board had some invested interest in making out the companys drug wasn't a success?

Helen Cameron and co reported the results exactly the same and stated to do otherwise would be misleading? (only when in power and were under llegal responsibility)

Did Helen Cameron and Co tell SAG that this arguement is misleading?

How can we trust a board that was put in by people who made inaccurate misleading arguements and have had questions of insider trading (currently investigations are in process) within a month of being in the top job.