Here's the thing that makes my head hurt.
To those of you who say "He outplayed her and won, therefore he should be the champion regardless" and "if he had not been there, it's a moot point, you can't prove that she would have won!"
Do you people employ logic or is it just blind 'HUURRR DUURRRR HE WENT X-0 AND WON HURR DUUR!"
Sure, he outplayed everyone (Apparently with no rare candy and a 3-2-3 line - which speaks magnitudes about the level of play at the event if he won - no disrespect meant on the competitors! I have no good way of expressing this at 7:30am after not sleeping - it's in my mind, but I just can't 'translate' it, so please don't take offense), but let's assume he was not in the event.
That's one player removed - Statistically, that would not skew the results considerably enough for Cecily to be knocked out of top cut. If she was second or third seed originally, logically and statistically, given her performance, she would have made top cut regardless.
It would have made a difference if the top cut threshold had shifted (For instance, only 63 players and it becoming a top 8 instead of top 16 due to that one crucial player). But I think the numbers were significant enough to not have impacted this. Also given her seed placement, her performance would have to have had to have suffered a lot in order for her to be knocked out of the cut regardless.
In top cut, she has proven herself against the best field of players there. She would have went on to win the event - especially if her ONLY loss was against Ayden. That means, she's more than likely to be able to take out the rest of the field. She would have won top cut if Ayden was not present. At least anyone with any sense could come to that conclusion. Don't be so blind.
Simply put, Deception + Trusting staff oversight = fraud outcome. Personally I recognize Cecily as the winner.
Anyone arguing otherwise is simply ignorant, trolling, or clearly uneducated enough in the way TOM operates.