As far as I know, they did not explain the decision other than to say no action taken. Based on that, the only thing that they could have thought is that #1 was going to win no matter what and the #6 was going to finish second since it looked like he took the worst of it as the jockey had to stand up and steady. But I agree it was obvious that the #1 came in and caused the #6 to steady and bang into the #3. I think the #1 comes down if the #6 cannot re-rally and beat the #3 for second, but it would be nice to get an explanation. Plus, how many times have we seen a horse who looks beaten comeback. I think it was a bad decision and he should have been placed third as you cannot judge who was going to second and they both were affected.