Why do they get away with it?

Yet again the result of a major race is determined by a jockey's decision to transgress in the confident expectation that the valuable victory thereby achieved would be upheld with no significant penalty (but just a couple of days holiday). When his horse started to drift left across Royal Diamond, Frankie was well aware that the rules require him (as far as possible) to keep a straight course / not take another horse's ground and that to comply he must pull his stick through or at least stop using it in his right hand. At the same time he knew that such compliance would certainly result in his horse finishing only second and therefore he consciously decided to completely flout the rules, comfortable in the knowledge that the prize would be secured even though only achieved by his offence. I am sure that the stewards correctly applied the rules as they stand, based upon their subjective view of what the outcome might have been had the offence not been commited. The fault lies with the rules which (as I understand it) require the stewards to be CERTAIN that the beaten horse would have won (rather than being certain that it would not have won) thereby bestowing the default advantage to the offender and thus ensuring that the 'crime pays'! In these circumstances one cannot blame the jockeys for acting as they do, but is it fair?