Too often in these scenarios you have some people arguing what morally should be the case and others arguing based on previously poor moral outcome decisions and so that's where the problem lies.

One thing I never get the logic of though is when horse A bumps or hampers horse B, is someone saying "Yeah but horse A was hampered just as bad, if not worse than horse B" as if that makes it OK then and all is forgiven.  If horse A even does come off worse in it all, that's too bad as it was the one causing the problem to begin with.

Isn't that a bit like footballer A fouling footballer B but A comes off worse so we should all feel sorry for him and he shouldn't get a card for the foul?