captian hammerhead/ shepparton cup/punters outraged?

[the galah]

Having watched that race last night,i thought i had seen a good race with the winner,Captain hammerhead simply too good.

Tact mcleod,after a brief skip early.having his chance but struggled into about 6th and was never going well enough despite getting the 1/1.

This morning i read that captain hammerhead ,was disqualified because his driver dropped his leg for about 50m with 150m to go,when fighting out the finish with the second horse,when the two were well clear of the rest.

Its unclear whether the driver slipped or the move with his leg was deliberate. Now i think theres no way anyone can really know either way by just watching.

He did leave his leg downfor 50m and his horse may well have contacted his leg,but i'm sure we have all seen drivers who inadvertently drop a leg out of the cart take 50m to put it back in the footrests of the cart.

So,did the dropping of the leg make a difference from running first or second.

To me,there is doubt either way,but clearly over the last 100m,when he driver had returned his foot to the footrest,his horse pulled away significantly to win by about half a length.

Now ,o'm looking at that race from a punters perspective.

And if i was a punter,i would be outraged at thed decision to diaqualify the horse.

In fact i would go as far as tio say,it seemed incompetence by the stipes on the night to do what they did.

To disqualify the horse totally when the first 2 were lengths in fron of the field,even if they deemed he had gained some sort of advantage,just seems crazy.

In nz the driver may have got a $200 fine or maybe a couple day suspension,but for the australian stipes to disqualify the horse and subject the industry to ridicule or anger,seems total incompetence and just unfair to the horses connections.

Clearly HRNZ victoria should look into the competence of thioose making that decision.

Notably,the race video has been remover from the austrailan harness website.

All other races on the night are on there.

Obviously,if it was a justifiable decision then they would have left the video up.That tells a story in itself.

I know its australia,and not nz,but punters here would have bet on that race.

If you want to see the video,you can see it on the TABNSW website.

They have all videos of races that have been run and put the nz harness up far quicker than HRNZ does.

Thats one of the reasons i say tabcorp website is far better than tabnz website,for racing.

Edited Saturday at 08:21 PM by the galah

[the galah]

22 minutes ago, the galah said:

Having watched that race last night,i thought i had seen a good race with the winner,Captain hammerhead simply too good.

Tact mcleod,after a brief skip early.having his chance but struggled into about 6th and was never going well enough despite getting the 1/1.

This morning i read that captain hammerhead ,was disqualified because his driver dropped his leg for about 50m with 150m to go,when fighting out the finish with the second horse,when the two were well clear of the rest.

Its unclear whether the driver slipped or the move with his leg was deliberate. Now i think theres no way anyone can really know either way by just watching.

He did leave his leg downfor 50m and his horse may well have contacted his leg,but i'm sure we have all seen drivers who inadvertently drop a leg out of the cart take 50m to put it back in the footrests of the cart.

So,did the dropping of the leg make a difference from running first or second.

To me,there is doubt either way,but clearly over the last 100m,when he driver had returned his foot to the footrest,his horse pulled away significantly to win by about half a length.

Now ,o'm looking at that race from a punters perspective.

And if i was a punter,i would be outraged at thed decision to diaqualify the horse.

In fact i would go as far as tio say,it seemed incompetence by the stipes on the night to do what they did.

To disqualify the horse totally when the first 2 were lengths in fron of the field,even if they deemed he had gained some sort of advantage,just seems crazy.

In nz the driver may have got a $200 fine or maybe a couple day suspension,but for the australian stipes to disqualify the horse and subject the industry to ridicule or anger,seems total incompetence and just unfair to the horses connections.

Clearly HRNZ victoria should look into the competence of thioose making that decision.

Notably,the race video has been remover from the austrailan harness website.

All other races on the night are on there.

Obviously,if it was a justifiable decision then they would have left the video up.That tells a story in itself.

I know its australia,and not nz,but punters here would have bet on that race.

If you want to see the video,you can see it on the TABNSW website.

They have all videos of races that have been run and put the nz harness up far quicker than HRNZ does.

Thats one of the reasons i say tabcorp website is far better than tabnz website,for racing.

I see harnesslink have that video on as well.

Edited Saturday at 08:39 PM by the galah

[Withadream2]

The decision to put Captain Hammerhead back to last is so plainly absurd I think an enquiry needs to be initiated into the stewards actions and if there is corruption involved on their part. 

[Gammalite]

4 hours ago, Withadream2 said:

The decision to put Captain Hammerhead back to last is so plainly absurd I think an enquiry needs to be initiated into the stewards actions and if there is corruption involved on their part. 

Such a poor poor decision . By the stewards it defies belief? .  

AHR website is so Embarassed they refuse to put the race back up again. Luckily it was there for an hour last night so I got to see what All the fuss was about.

Is almost RIOTessly Funny they won't put up a video where No horse or driver was injured. (The reason they sometimes delete video replays) but a Bloke dropping his leg out of the Footrest ??? 🤣😂. the dastardly rascal.

Stupid , stupid is . A Group 3 race video not put up because of the Poor decision by Stewards. One of the weirdest decisions ( and reactions too , to try and keep people in the dark ) completely baffling. 

[Gammalite]

Well I guess after viewing video at a TAB site just now,  like The Galah suggested , David Moran had his leg down from the 200m to the 100m pole marks,  before putting his leg back up the last bit.

It must of been intentional as his leg moves 9 times with 9 strikes from Captain Hammerhead, without him wriggling his leg aside or anything. Must of therefore trying to scare the hammerhead that little bit more to get the victory and get past Kanena Provlima. so by the letter of the law . he was gaining an unfair advantage in making contact with the horse in that manner. 

 Whip flicking not gunna cut the mustard here?  lol.🤣  so perhaps relegate to 2nd ? they were well clear of 3rd. 

Bit of a tough one. Stewards job never easy. 

[the galah]

Chairman of stewards for HRV said this 

"The film was quite evident that the foot did become detached from the sulky and there was contact with the horses hind leg on a couple of occasions. We also believe mr morans foot stayed in the vicinity of the horses legs."

So basically the chairman of stewards has said they believed morans foot made contact at least twice.

So the HRV stewards concluded that the driver,who drives in thousands of races,has the state of mind to do something different, from what he has instinctively done tens of thousands of times over the past couple of decades.

This moran fella must be hell of a guy as ,as we saw with the nz whip rule here,most drivers do things instinctively when driving a horse out. 

And we are lead to believe that because he kept his foot down for over 50 metres,that the stewards believed he was making no effort to put it back in the footrest.

Now i've seen hundreds of drivers drop their foot down,deliberate or not,but its quite hard to get the brain lined up with the body and put the foot back in the footrest straight away when driving a horse with the whip. People should try it on their seat holding their foot,backwards and up, like moran was. Instinctively putting your foot straight back would not happen,you would think it would take about 50m to register with the brain. Thats why you see nearly all drivers taking that long when it happens at any time of a race,let alone one where a driver is also using a whip.

And the stewards believed that a good way for someone to allow their foot to make contact with their horses foot is to place ones foot back and up as moran did,not forward and down as would have worked better if that was the purpose.

Going on that stewards post race comments,to disqualify that horse and punish punters and connections seemingly based on the above assumptions seems bizzare.

 

Edited 22 hours ago by the galah

[the galah]

15 hours ago, Gammalite said:

Well I guess after viewing video at a TAB site just now,  like The Galah suggested , David Moran had his leg down from the 200m to the 100m pole marks,  before putting his leg back up the last bit.

It must of been intentional as his leg moves 9 times with 9 strikes from Captain Hammerhead, without him wriggling his leg aside or anything. Must of therefore trying to scare the hammerhead that little bit more to get the victory and get past Kanena Provlima. so by the letter of the law . he was gaining an unfair advantage in making contact with the horse in that manner. 

 Whip flicking not gunna cut the mustard here?  lol.🤣  so perhaps relegate to 2nd ? they were well clear of 3rd. 

Bit of a tough one. Stewards job never easy. 

Gamma,i hadn't read this reply before posting my most recent one.

The chief stipe for HRV said the rules didn't allow for a relegation,only a disqualification,hence the disqualiification.

The stipes surely should have given the severity of their decison consideration when making it. Bit of a cop out to blame a rule for a poor decision. Afterall they are making many judgment calls every day.

As to the number of times his foot hit the horses leg,maybe it was 9but the stipes did say they had proof of only a couple, but do you agree,if moran really was intentionally using his foot to  encourage his horse,then to drop it and position it as he did,with his foot facing backwards and up,well do you not think he  could have placed it better and that maybe t6hat was an intention of his intent,or lack thereof once his foot was dropped?

 

you've driven,What do you think about drivers driving instinctively in a finish and when you've dropped your foot at some point in a race before,did you instinctively put it straight back up or did it take 50m or so before you focused  your mind to put it back up. Moran was driving the horse out as well which would have made it even harder for him to do it straight away.

I still don't know how they could infer it was intentional if he said his foot slipped.

Maybe it was and moran was willing to risk being called a cheat and suffer a substantial suspension just for the sake of one race.But if your cheating then you do it in a way that you try to hide it..

In this case it seems very hard to condem Moran based onwhat i saw from the video. It doesn't seem fair at all .

Edited 13 hours ago by the galah

[paleface adios]

2 hours ago, the galah said:

Gamma,i hadn't read this reply before posting my most recent one.

The chief stipe for HRV said the rules didn't allow for a relegation,only a disqualification,hence the disqualiification.

The stipes surely should have given the severity of their decison consideration when making it. Bit of a cop out to blame a rule for a poor decision. Afterall they are making many judgment calls every day.

As to the number of times his foot hit the horses leg,maybe it was 9but the stipes did say they had proof of only a couple, but do you agree,if moran really was intentionally using his foot to  encourage his horse,then to drop it and position it as he did,with his foot facing backwards and up,well do you not think he  could have placed it better and that maybe t6hat was an intention of his intent,or lack thereof once his foot was dropped?

 

you've driven,What do you think about drivers driving instinctively in a finish and when you've dropped your foot at some point in a race before,did you instinctively put it straight back up or did it take 50m or so before you focused  your mind to put it back up. Moran was driving the horse out as well which would have made it even harder for him to do it straight away.

I still don't know how they could infer it was intentional if he said his foot slipped.

Maybe it was and moran was willing to risk being called a cheat and suffer a substantial suspension just for the sake of one race.But if your cheating then you do it in a way that you try to hide it..

In this case it seems very hard to condem Moran based onwhat i saw from the video. It doesn't seem fair at all .

I think you will find  stipes are saying  driver was hocking 

[Gammalite]

2 hours ago, the galah said:

I still don't know how they could infer it was intentional if he said his foot slipped.

Well the bloke is a top driver ( even used by Emma Stewart on her array of star runners a few times in age group features at times) and also trained 100 winners from 400 starters across past 5 seasons. an excellent strike rate.  

So David Moran sure knows what he's doing . Of course he could say his foot slipped as you wouldn't admit to doing it purposely. (and very well could of slipped too, as in the heat of that moment in a vigorous contest with Kanena Provlima , he was 'working' very hard to try and head it off. 

But leaving the leg dangling ,meant the horses hoof struck it a number  of times.  a normal drive might see you move the leg after one strike ? 

Paleface Adios says 'Hocking' . I don't think so . He didn't push/swing his foot forward to do that. 

Stewards say 'Foul Play' to advantage, (because they disqualified him  ) I think a bit harsh. He could of been off balance, he could of been in the instinctive moment you mentioned , with adrenaline surging and Will to Win being applied. (I think those not trying as hard are more of an issue for stewards lol 🤣)

So yes the disqualification very harsh for a group 3 Cup race, that don't come along too often. 

(I believe drivers get fined for dropping a leg in Brisbane , but is a rare event) 

footnote: in case anyone wondering why this Aussie race being discussed, a NZ horse being set for the Hunter Cup was in it , and was of interest to the punters and NZ connections. TACT McLeod. he went fairly average sadly , and looks No Hunter Cup chance on his 2 Victorian races to date, for Anthony Butt and Mark Jones.

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Gammalite said:

Well the bloke is a top driver ( even used by Emma Stewart on her array of star runners a few times in age group features at times) and also trained 100 winners from 400 starters across past 5 seasons. an excellent strike rate.  

So David Moran sure knows what he's doing . Of course he could say his foot slipped as you wouldn't admit to doing it purposely. (and very well could of slipped too, as in the heat of that moment in a vigorous contest with Kanena Provlima , he was 'working' very hard to try and head it off. 

But leaving the leg dangling ,meant the horses hoof struck it a number  of times.  a normal drive might see you move the leg after one strike ? 

Paleface Adios says 'Hocking' . I don't think so . He didn't push/swing his foot forward to do that. 

Stewards say 'Foul Play' to advantage, (because they disqualified him  ) I think a bit harsh. He could of been off balance, he could of been in the instinctive moment you mentioned , with adrenaline surging and Will to Win being applied. (I think those not trying as hard are more of an issue for stewards lol 🤣)

So yes the disqualification very harsh for a group 3 Cup race, that don't come along too often. 

(I believe drivers get fined for dropping a leg in Brisbane , but is a rare event) 

footnote: in case anyone wondering why this Aussie race being discussed, a NZ horse being set for the Hunter Cup was in it , and was of interest to the punters and NZ connections. TACT McLeod. he went fairly average sadly , and looks No Hunter Cup chance on his 2 Victorian races to date, for Anthony Butt and Mark Jones.

I think your above summation is very fair.

Maybe you should have been a stipe.

The HRV stipes post race comment,where he said thehorse couldn't be just relegated to 2nd,the rules only allowed a total disqualification,to me clearly indicated the stipes themselves thought if there was to be a penalty,it should have been relegation to 2nd,not total disqualification. Why else say that post race unless that was the case.

yet they went and made a decision that they knew the magnitude of the penalty far outweighed the indescretion. In other words they made a decision to apply the rules,knowing it was unfair.Knowing the level of unfairness was far greater in what they did,than leaving the winner as the winner.

Administrators should not underestimate the significance of that decision on punters perception of the victorian industry.

Things like that are very rare,but it was a significant race and would have got a lot of publicity becuase of the cuircumstances.

Punters aren't the mugs that some make out they are,they know when things are fair and when they aren't and they will have perceived that decision as an indication of an industry that doesn't place much consideration on whether their perspective is valued,or just taken for granted.

 

Edited 8 hours ago by the galah

[the galah]

i th

15 minutes ago, the galah said:

I think your above summation is very fair.

Maybe you should have been a stipe.

The HRV stipes post race comment,where he said thehorse couldn't be just relegated to 2nd,the rules only allowed a total disqualification,to me clearly indicated the stipes themselves thought if there was to be a penalty,it should have been relegation to 2nd,not total disqualification. Why else say that post race unless that was the case.

yet they went and made a decision that they knew the magnitude of the penalty far outweighed the indescretion. In other words they made a decision to apply the rules,knowing it was unfair.Knowing the level of unfairness was far greater in what they did,than leaving the winner as the winner.

Administrators should not underestimate the significance of that decision on punters perception of the victorian industry.

Things like that are very rare,but it was a significant race and would have got a lot of publicity becuase of the cuircumstances.

Punters aren't the mugs that some make out they are,they know when things are fair and when they aren't and they will have perceived that decision as an indication of an industry that doesn't place much consideration on whether their perspective is valued,or just taken for granted.

 

just to add to that,i think the decision should have been based on the same simple principles as every other decision they make in protests.

in other words,would the have winner have won had the dropping the foot not occured.

and i think he if they just used that simple common sense principle,that everyone understands and sees as fair,then they would not have changed the result.

Edited 8 hours ago by the galah

[Gammalite]

55 minutes ago, the galah said:

The HRV stipes post race comment,where he said thehorse couldn't be just relegated to 2nd,the rules only allowed a total disqualification,to me clearly indicated the stipes themselves thought if there was to be a penalty,it should have been relegation to 2nd,not total disqualification. Why else say that post race unless that was the case.

yet they went and made a decision that they knew the magnitude of the penalty far outweighed the indescretion. In other words they made a decision to apply the rules,knowing it was unfair.

Stipes decisions are quite often difficult to make .  some of the jockey ones in close finishes cause people to be agree with the decision or refute it greatly. No jockey ever says he deliberately bumped the other horse etc . The stewards just have to decide on whether the horse 'would of Won or not , if it wasn't for the incident that occured. when A horse changing racing line etc. 

This decision with the dropped foot seems huge . as a disqualification is quite brutal (for connections and Punters) 

I don't think the decision was based on whether the horse was going to win or Not, but the act that was applied between driver and horse . The heavy Penalty has One Serious Advantage . It will STOP/deter others making that error in the future. 

Here are the DisQualification rules for Australian harness racing . I would say the Stewards applied the Last 2 Clauses . You could say they have an argument For these clauses. but it does seem Harsh, as the horse Won Super Well . 

Disqualification

64.  If a horse fails to start in a race from its correct handicap mark or its correct barrier position it may be disqualified or declared a non-starter in that race.

65.  If the Stewards find that a horse or a trainer or driver was ineligible to compete in a race they may disqualify the horse from the race or declare such horse a non-starter and make any consequent changes to the placings.

66.  A horse may be disqualified from a race or placed in a lower finishing position in a race if the horse -

(a)  crosses a horse without being clear of it;

(b)  jostles or interferes with a horse unless solely in response to the action taken by another horse or driver;

(c)  forces a passage where there is insufficient room;

(d)  forces a horse out of its ground;

(e)  races on the inside of a marker post or if its sulky or part thereof goes on the inside of a marker post;

(f)  interferes with another runner so as to cause that runner, or cause its sulky or any part thereof, to go inside a marker post;

(g)  being in the home straight and having a clear uninterrupted run to the post, changes course and thereby prejudices or advantages the chances of another runner.

(h) gains an unfair advantage.

(i)  is driven in a manner prejudicial or detrimental to the reputational interests  of harness racing.

 

[Chief Stipe]

Uh?  I don't believe this.  @the galah is advocating for someone who clearly cheated amd broke the rules of racing.  Hitting a horse with your leg can accrue a major advantage.

Only one option disqualify horse and driver.  

[the galah]

1 hour ago, Gammalite said:

 

Here are the DisQualification rules for Australian harness racing . I would say the Stewards applied the Last 2 Clauses . You could say they have an argument For these clauses. but it does seem Harsh, as the horse Won Super Well . 

Disqualification

 

66.  A horse may be disqualified from a race or placed in a lower finishing position in a race if the horse -

(a)  crosses a horse without being clear of it;

(b)  jostles or interferes with a horse unless solely in response to the action taken by another horse or driver;

(c)  forces a passage where there is insufficient room;

(d)  forces a horse out of its ground;

(e)  races on the inside of a marker post or if its sulky or part thereof goes on the inside of a marker post;

(f)  interferes with another runner so as to cause that runner, or cause its sulky or any part thereof, to go inside a marker post;

(g)  being in the home straight and having a clear uninterrupted run to the post, changes course and thereby prejudices or advantages the chances of another runner.

(h) gains an unfair advantage.

(i)  is driven in a manner prejudicial or detrimental to the reputational interests  of harness racing.

 

I think the key words in the rule you've quoted gammalite are..."a horse MAY be disqualified...

In other words it was up to the discretion of the stipes as to whether to throw the horse out  completely.

so when the stipe, in response to criticism, said the rules only allowed for disqualification ,not relegation,he was leaving out the bit that it was at the stipes discretion,not mandatory.

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Uh?  I don't believe this.  @the galah is advocating for someone who clearly cheated amd broke the rules of racing.  Hitting a horse with your leg can accrue a major advantage.

Only one option disqualify horse and driver.  

Like i've always said chief,the video evidence is what i base my opinions on and in this case i agree he broke the rules by dropping his leg,but  i earlier gave my reasons why i think no one can be sure either way whether it was deliberate or most importantly,whether it gained an advantage.

The reason the decision is so controversial is, based on the video evidence, its unclear if any advantage was gained and the margin at the finish.

The reason the stipes are on media justifying their decision is because of the criticsm they are getting.

If the stipes decision was viewed as fair by punters,there would be no controversy .

Common sense to me was to have an inquiry,dismiss the protest on the basis it could not be established that the foot dropping was deliberate/and even if it was it could not be established any advantage was gained while also factoring in the winning margin.Nice and simple,easily understood.

Then move on ,penalise the driver,not the owners or the punters,controversy averted,everyone happy,all blown over within a couple of days....

Edited 5 hours ago by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

17 minutes ago, the galah said:

The reason the decision is so controversial is, based on the video evidence, its unclear if any advantage was gained and the margin at the finish.

Have you seen ALL the video evidence?  The stipes will have.

17 minutes ago, the galah said:

The reason the stipes are on media justifying their decision is because of the criticsm they are getting.

If the stipes decision was viewed as fair by punters,there would be no controversy .

 

Hang on a minute are you saying because some punters screamed loudly the horse shouldn't have been disqualified?  The driver knew the rules and had no reason to drop his leg and as said by the stipes touch the horse with it.  It was a deliberate action NOT accidental.

Peter Chadwick, Chairman of Stewards for HRV, explained the post-race scenario when stewards delayed the all-clear on the race.

“Following the running of the race, the Shepparton Cup, stewards did delay all clear. The reason being that the driver of the first past the post David Moran, his right leg became detached from the sulky and appeared to be there for quite a significant point of time,” Chadwick said.

“The film was quite evident that the foot did become detached and there was contact with the horse’s hind leg on a couple of occasions. We also believe Mr Moran’s foot stayed in that vicinity of the horse’s legs…

“The stewards believed the rule 170 part five should be invoked and as such the horse was disqualified. There’s no part in that rule that actually says the horse can be relegated, it talks about the horse may be disqualified.  

 

“It is a big race, we understand the impact it has upon those involved and the connections of that horse that was first past the post, but equally we have to be fair to all the other participants and administer the rules as they are.”

[Chief Stipe]

35 minutes ago, the galah said:

Common sense to me was to have an inquiry,dismiss the protest on the basis it could not be established that the foot dropping was deliberate/and even if it was it could not be established any advantage was gained while also factoring in the winning margin.Nice and simple,easily understood.

Then move on ,penalise the driver,not the owners or the punters,controversy averted,everyone happy,all blown over within a couple of days....

Really?  Yet when an INCA race was reviewed subjective opinion determined that there was match fixing and the drama went on for years.

The rule is quite clear the driver couldn't do what he did.  Disqualified.

[Chief Stipe]

Interview with HRV Chief Steward Peter Chadwick regarding Captain Hammerhead's disqualification.

 

 

 

[the galah]

 

33 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Have you seen ALL the video evidence?  The stipes will have.

Hang on a minute are you saying because some punters screamed loudly the horse shouldn't have been disqualified?  The driver knew the rules and had no reason to drop his leg and as said by the stipes touch the horse with it.  It was a deliberate action NOT accidental.

 

The video evidence on the replay we see is the same as what they would have used to make their decision. What more do you need.you can see what happened.

it was only about 3 months ago that  mathew neilson,in australia, had an appeal heard,after he had been found guilty of this offence.

He appealed. He had dropped his foot in the last 40m. His was on a grass track.

He maintained his action was not deliberate. The appeal hearing noted how many previous drives he had and how he had never been charged with that offence previously.

Neilson won his appeal and the stewards decision was overturned as those hearing the appeal said there was not the evidence to say it was anything other than accidental. 

There been talk on  why weren't punters refunded their money,possible punters law suit,media coverage,etc.   

possibly may not come to much but is an indication of how many feel.

Do Harness racing victoria  think how it was handled will improve their image as far as integrity goes?

and all over something that couldn't be proved for sure whether it was delibertae or just careless.

Oh well,strange things can happen sometimes.

Edited 4 hours ago by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

56 minutes ago, the galah said:

The video evidence on the replay we see is the same as what they would have used to make their decision. What more do you need.you can see what happened.

 

It may not be the only video evidence.  There can be additional Stewards video and even the video you have seen in the replay will be at a higher definition than the public get to see.

58 minutes ago, the galah said:

Do Harness racing victoria  think how it was handled will improve their image as far as integrity goes?

and all over something that couldn't be proved for sure whether it was delibertae or just careless.

It should improve the Stewards image.  They disqualified a horse under the rules of racing because the driver was caught hocking.  Whether deliberate or accidental or careless is irrelevant.  Now will there be an appeal against the disqualification?  I don't know if the rules allow it but there could be.  However it is clear that the rule was broken and the horses leg was touched by the boot of the driver.  That is illegal.

What would it have done for the image of racing if there had been an outcry from all and sundry about how a driver in a race kicked a horse and nothing was done about it!!!!  In saying that, not that I have read everything you have written on the subject, I think you don't disagree with some action being taken just think that the disqualification was over the top.

[Brodie]

Clearly Moran breached the rule and he wouldve known but I had never ever heard of it being done before and making horses run quicker!

What I find a bit interesting is the number of times Moran used the whip with force and nothing mentioned?????

He would have no doubt got done for excessive use in NZ!