He causes said horse to veer into the other; that's the infringement. The problem is that no matter how you look at it, it didn't affect the race outcome; Maximum Security was the best horse from start to finish and everyone knows it. Country House is a known strong finisher, but didn't have enough to take the win… tailing off to lose by 2 lengths at the end… and that's what is pissing the industry off this morning – the "winner" wasn't good enough to be the winner.
The rule is clear: it is not meant to apply if it doesn't affect the outcome of the race, which it did not; neither of the impacted horses was going to top-3 finish.
It isn't just me dimwit; it's pretty much everyone in the sport this morning.
Sheesh.
What makes the whole thing stink even more is that the jockey that complained wasn't either of the jockeys riding the impacted horses… so we have sour grapes on top of everything else because he wasn't good enough to bring his "strong closer" mount to the winning line in front of the rest of the field. Whole think stinks and everyone knows it.
(And no, I didn't bet on the race.)