Rarely, perhaps never, have I seen so many extraneous issues brought to bear on a discussion. I didn't think I had anything to offer because, at its core, it's a simple question of application of a rule, or rules, to a specific incident. Since I don't know the exact wording of the rule, I didn't think I was qualified to comment, but absent that knowledge, I thought it was the correct outcome that was reached in a very incorrect manner. And in the interests of full disclosure, that outcome was very detrimental to my bottom line.

Regarding some of these extraneous issues:

- The 20-horse field argument has plenty of merit at the outset, and perhaps to the point where there has been significant separation, meaning the stretch run. At that point, however, horses are no longer jostling for position in a crowded field and it should be pretty much business as usual as far as adjudicating possible infractions. Maximum Security was obviously not crowded when he came over three paths, and was strictly acting on his own volition.

- The fact that Max S. did not gain an advantage by his actions, and would have won regardless, is irrelevant. Clear winners are taken down all the time for transgressions that affect the chances of others, not because they have improved their own. You don't need to speculate what WOW would have done had he not been impeded, unless that is specifically addressed in the rules.

- It's completely understandable why Gaffalione did not lodge a foul. It moves him from 8th to 7th, which is meaningless. Prat, on the other hand, while not disadvantaged, had everything to gain by taking his shot. Whether that kind of objection should have led to the result it did, takes us back to the rules.

- The optics were bad, starting with the failure to flash inquiry. We all understand why stewards would be adverse to doing it in this race, especially since the aggrieved parties weren't going to be moved up to money, but it came back to bite them in the ass. The 22 minutes might or might not have been necessary, but it was another bad look. Subsequent comments, or failure to do so by stewards has not helped.

- Servis may or may not have been victimized because he's Servis. We'll never know and it's useless to speculate. What is safe to say is that trainers like him, or more obviously, Dutrow, are subject to forces of the subconscious when some decisions are made, and the playing field gets tilted away from them.

- By all indications, Bill Mott is one of the good guys in the game. The fact that he lobbied on behalf of his horse in an interview while the decision was being made, is pretty much what you'd expect him to do, or at the very least, what the owner would expect him to do. Expressing sympathy for the connections of Max Sec, afterwards, is not some kind of moral inconsistency. He's been on the losing end of those kinds of decisions, and knows it sucks, which can only be magnified in a race like this, so you don't wish it on anyone, but that doesn't mean you don't advocate for your interests.

Sadly this contributes to more of "The end is near" conversation. I'm pretty sure there are other forces at work that will have much greater impact on the sport's anticipated demise than this. Golf courses are closing left and right, more than half the bowling alleys in our city have been torn down, football will be losing traction at some levels because of safety concerns, etc. Horse racing is just one more recreational endeavor past peak. Until they turn the lights off, I prefer to focus on the next race.