I haven't seen the fight, but I don't need to for this particular opinion to be valid; let me explain.
First off I have to say that this is an example of why everyone should just count to ten first before responding. I also need to say that from what I understand TKO is a little dodgy as an organization and that judging in Quebec IS biased, HOWEVER...
Let's walk through this logically - we have two possible scenarios.
1) He cheated and Rice has a legitimate grievance.
2) He didn't cheat and Rice does not have a legitimate grievance.
Let's look at number 1. Is it even remotely in the realms of possibility that this becomes anything other than a he said/he said agument? Will there always be a plausible argument in favor of Hominick ?( not baby-oil, sweat can be very slippery - hell, just watch Stiebling v Goes ).
The answers of course is that nothing can be done at all and that at most an argument could be made over bad reffing - this is even IF Hominick cheated.
What decision would be a good one in this scenario?
Accept that the cheating bastard got away with it this time but keep on a brave face - emotions are understandably on overdrive but the main concern would be at this point to get a rematch and try and seek revenge this way - this is the ONLY way to get payback.
2) He didn't cheat. Accept that although arguments could be made about bad ref's, he did escape a solid armbar and he did clock Rice good (whether or not it was a knock out I can't comment as I didn't see it) and that on this day he won. The main concern would be to get a rematch and try and seek revenge this way - this is the ONLY way to get payback.
So I'd have to say in conclusion that although I didn't see the fight and I know Shane Rice to be a top notch competitor and a great guy this reaction did nothing to help him whatsoever.
This is of course easy for me to say because I wasn't in either fighter's position, but oh well...
PS: Maybe "Final Word" in the thread title is a little arrogant!