Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cj
That is the only explanation that makes sense, but it is setting a very tricky precedent.
|
That precedent has long been set. From the NY rule posted by You.
(b) A horse crossing another may be disqualified, if in the judgment of the stewards, it interferes with, impedes or intimidates another horse, or the foul altered the finish of the race, regardless of whether the foul was accidental, willful, or the result of careless riding.
In regards to the #3 vs #1, the "crossing another" didn't "alter the finish". Notice in the stewards explanation you posted the justification for placing the #1 behind the #2 was that "the initial action of #1 Awesome Merger altered the finish of the race." This shows the operable language was "altered the finish of the race.
