Take a look at the finish of the race as well as the two slow-motion views and you make the call.
According to the Pocono Downs judges, there was no violation of the breaking rule. In fact, from looking at the chart of the race, no break was noted so the judges must have decided Emily Do was merely rough-gaited before the wire.
My initial thought was WTF? How could the horse have stayed up? I then went and looked at it step by step and have concluded while I still think the #7 should have been disqualified, I can see why she stayed up. I can also see if the second place horse appeals the judges' decision, there is a chance that the original decision does get overturned.
It did look like she threw in a couple of pacing strides which would have been fine except it was a trotting event. At the wire, the horse was back on her gait.
So we go to the breaking rule in Pennsylvania.
§ 183.292. Breaking.
(a) When a horse breaks from its gait in trotting or pacing, the driver shall at once, where clearance exists, take the horse to the outside and pull it to its gait.
(b) The following shall be considered violations of section 12Q:
(1) Failure to properly attempt to pull the horse to its gait.
(2) Failure to take to the outside where clearance exists.
(3) Failure to lose ground by the break.
(c) If there has been no failure on the part of the driver in complying with subsection (b)(1)—(3), the horse may not be set back unless a contending horse on his gait is lapped on the hind quarter of the breaking horse at the finish.
(d) The judges may set any horse back one or more places if in their judgment any of the violations listed in this section have been committed, and the driver may be penalized
Let's step throug through the rule.
183.292(a) - The horse was on the outside so there was clearance. As for pulling it to the gait it is covered elsewhere.
183.292(b).1 - Well, it was a couple of bad strides and the horse went back to its gait. Does a driver react that quick to get a horse back on stride? I don't know. Let's give David Miller the benefit of the doubt.
183.292(b).2 - Well, the horse was on the outside so by default Miller did take her outside.
183.292(b).3 - I didn't see the horse lose ground. This would have been the point I would have taken the horse down. Apparently the judges felt there was not enough time to get the horse to lose ground, or they felt the #9 came back to the #7, not the #7 gaining on the #9.
183.292(c) - No lap on break as Emily Do got back on the trot right on the wire. Doesn't apply.
183,292(d) - "The judges may..." not "The judges shall...". Probably the way they word these things, certainly if one of the conditions are violated, the horse comes down. The question is did it?
The point here is not that the judges blew the call, or not. While I would have taken her down, I can understand why the judges didn't. I disagree with their decision, and you are going to have some people unhappy either way; especially those who had the horses in question in their wagers.
Bottom line is, its not easy being the judge.