Surely the initial images you spoke of in the start of this wonderful thread were test images. You owned those. You wouldn't do testing and comparing against the Mark 2 with a clients card or tethered to their gear under contractual conditions. You had two scenarios, testing and client work, right? You can see why this raises eyebrows when you state you have no proof.
Boy you guys are something.... Stopped with the IDXMKIII's and Moved right back to the MKII's. We brought the MKIII's and switched right back over to the MKII's. The client agreed the shots tested were not in-line with what we produced with the MKII. And for me, if a client is not happy and I'm not happy why invest? Wait!!! We don't own the shots, the test shots or watermarks or even "like images" of anything taken at the stadium. When we switch or propose to switch the client wants to see the shots at the venue, in their lighting and tied to their BO&E infrastructure for tethered. Everyone decided to stay with the 1DXMKII's for now.
If you feel the camera is good for you and your clients. Go buy it. Put on your big boy pants and make the decision. We made ours. From a legal/contract perspective we have never breached a contract, why would anyone risk losing all their sports clients? We are grown people with families, homes, kids in school, you ask us to steal pictures for you? People try and bribe us all the time, magazines, newspapers, web sites... They have offered substantial money. They can't get sideline access. We have never "ever" lost a client's trust or stolen from anyone. Again, if you think this camera is good for your business, and your clients buy it. I very much hope you do.