I was being serious for a minute.
If his comments were judged to not transgress the two counts against him = not guilty
If they were = guilty
If they had no evidence he said those things or evidence was inconclusive of his intent = not proven (I know Walter Scott disapproved but I still reckon the third verdict is just one of the things that makes Scots Law better than it's regional counterparts).
He questioned their impartiality.
They could've found him not guilty of bringing the game into disrepute (unlikely but it could be argued that his comments were misconstrued as such) but guilty of questioning their impartiality (absolutely not in question - he straight up did that)
Not Proven???
On the second count, in particular, his comments were a direct questioning of the panel's impartiality.
Seriously, why do any of you think he got that verdict?
I don't think there was any political manouevring as it was an independent panel, I believe (he didn't question their impartiality bizarrely) and they were in no position to plea bargain with him or anything and he hasn't changed his view on the outstanding subjects.
From the Wiki definition of Not Proven
The result is the modern perception that the "not proven" verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the defendant's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict. Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary. In popular parlance, this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as "not guilty and don't do it again
Not Proven (nowadays) is a verdict based on lack of evidence - there is recorded evidence it's bizarre.
Just thought I'd "fill in" while Dev is Maddieing it up in the Algarve
wondered why Mindy was beelin' 
