Many of our readers were outraged by the soring tactics recently found at horse stables. This article is a follow-up piece to that one, detailing the offenses. The more information we have, the better armed we are against those who would defend “The Big Lick”. ~ HfH
From: Humane Society’s Blog – A Humane Nation
By: Wayne Pacelle
Horse Soring Exposed: Results Show 100 percent of Samples at Major Stable Test Positive for Illegal Substances
Two days ago I announced on A Humane Nation our latest undercover investigation – this one, providing incontrovertible proof that a major stable in Murfreesboro, Tenn., called ThorSport Farm, is knee-deep in the practice of horse “soring” – the deliberate injuring of horses’ legs and hooves by chemical or mechanical means. We’ve been campaigning aggressively against soring ever since we released the results of a prior investigation three years ago. That investigation led to criminal charges against a former Hall of Fame trainer named Jackie McConnell. The ThorSport investigation put an exclamation point on our exposing of soring practices, and makes the case that reform is long overdue for a scofflaw industry
Today, I want to add to the details of our investigation – more test results have come in since Tuesday, showing that the final 12 samples of wrappings from horses’ legs all tested positive for illegal chemicals. In short, our investigator took portions of towels or cloth wrapped around the animals’ legs, after the trainers applied substances to them, and we sent those samples to a highly accredited lab. Every sample tested positive for USDA-prohibited substances – 75 of 75 samples.
Late Tuesday, ThorSport denied there’s any soring going on at its barns, even though the three trainers there had previously been cited for soring. “ThorSport Farm has a well-earned reputation for operating ethically and legally, and we emphatically reject the HSUS’s charges of soring,” said the statement released by the stable.
Someone who knows Duke Thorson, the owner of the stable, laughed out loud when the individual read this line and said that Duke always instructed his people to use the word “reject” because “deny” sounds like you’re guilty.
This is like a crack dealer denying possession or sale of cocaine when there are 75 pieces of evidence at his home. I mean, you can make the argument, but is anybody going to believe you when the preponderance of evidence is so damning?