I think they mean the stewards will not open a hearing. They said their judgement is final. Apparently, that doesn't mean the Wests can't sue in a court of law. In the article I linked previously, West indicated that this is about reputation at this point.So wait, is a lawsuit still being contemplated? I thought I read that it will not be allowed to be heard.
I also think this is about human nature. People who have never ridden in a horse race, but may know a little about racing or who own horses, or who are sports broadcasters were all weighing in without actually having seen crucial footage. We were all making judgement calls and jumping to conclusions about the jockey Saez and about MS being a green horse and over-reacting to noise, when it looks like MS is actually an amazing horse, because he was putting up with interference from behind for awhile before he veered, and then he still was able to collect himself with the guidance of the jockey and go on to cross the finish line first. He never gave up running, which some horses might do after being hit that many times.
The question will probably be whether MS actually stayed in his lane and for how long before the interference from behind caused him to veer and switch leads (altho' obviously the stewards' decision stands -- money has already changed hands so they won't change the decision). MS may have started to begin veering after being hit twice and not five times as the lawyer video states. The bad thing is it looks bad on MS once he veered, but again I do think it's clear MS did not cause the stack-up behind him. It was War of Will who was giving his jockey a rough ride from the opening gate. And then the jockey was also attempting to prematurely force an opening.
It goes to show that slo-mo and frame-by-frame visuals are extremely important, especially prior to looking at the point where interference is claimed. I think the video evidence (which they specifically point out is chronological and not altered, only slowed or moved forward and backward to gain a better picture of the details) calls into question the stewards' ruling.