I understand that where money is involved - particularly with respect to horse racing and gambling- emotions run high. Everyone is entitled to an opinion just not to their own set of facts. It seems to me that those who are upset at the DQ fall into two camps: Camp 1- whatever MS did had no impact on the winner and it’s unfair to move up an deserving horse, particularly in the Derby. Whatever equitable surface appeal the Camp 1 argument may have that has never ever been the rule in any jurisdiction. Every single person on this board has lost what seemed to be a win even though he horse that was moved up was not fouled. Since the foregoing statement can’t be logically or factually challenged is it the Camp 1 position that because it was the Derby that rule of disqualification should be ignored? Camp 2 seems to be that because Gaffalione and his horse did not go down there should be no DQ notwithstanding the indisputable visual evidence that a. MS came over three paths quite suddenly and b. Gafilliones horses legs actually became intertwined with MS. If I have accurately stated camp 2s position that also makes no sense to me. Requiring a disastrous spill for a DQ has never ( thankfully) been the rule and amidst all the discussion about horses that weren’t going to win, if we are being honest we will never know if the 1 horse “might have won”. We do know he was deprived of a fair chance. The fact that all the horses had a 1/4 mile to run is totally irrelevant in determining whether there was an egregious foul. Finally, on this issue, the stewards were guilty of gross negligence in not putting up an inquiry sign immediately. Had they done so, I respectfully suggest there would not be nearly the brouhaha we are all experiencing. Any bets as to the stewards being suspended or fired?