read the article and read the complaint
not sure why you are outraged at peta based on this. am surprised, given all you know about the dirty side of this sport, that you arent at least a little outraged by what is passing itself off as journalism regarding an issue that you care a lot about.
couldnt find the full length video that bloodhorse says is linked on khrc website. couldn\'t find anything on the khrc website about the peta investigation tbh, that is probablly because the investigation is still underway and no conclusions have been rendered yet.
I wouldnt blame you if you missed this fact--the article is written to imply peta\'s complaint was found to be baseless as an indisputable matter of fact/law. but the opinion that no smoking gun was found and that peta\'s complaint is fallacious is solely the opinion of the author of the article.
the review of the evidence, which I doubt included the most necessary documents, the medical records and testimony of involved persons under oath, was made by, and the conclusions were reached by, the article\'s author, and no one else. in fact, im sure that the author didnt have access to real evidence or he would have mentioned it.
this is as deceptive as anything the article accuses peta of doing. even the way the article covers its ass by saying \"that is not say investigators wont find violations...\" is manipulative.
for all the vitriol against peta\'s heavily edited footage (which was known all along, as it was less than 5 minutes of 10 hours), this article was no better--it sets it self up as an article reporting the khrc\'s findings but does not quote any one at the khrc, instead it relies on the authority of milt toby, a horse racing author (whatever the hell that is) and an unidentified rules expert. period.
the drugs peta says were administered, the article confirms were administered. the issue is whether they were administered by a vet and/or if they required to be prescribed by a vet. this has yet to be determined as the article admits. but even if they fall within the legal lines, you know that that doesnt make them nonperformance enhancing, or legitimate in the true sense of the word. and it certainly doesnt mean they are therefore good for the horse.
peta\'s filing a complaint about the drugs is neither radical, nor nefarious. people filing complaints about suspected violations of any kind are how our system works. someone sees something that looks fishy to them, they inform the apprpriate authority, the appropriate authority investigates. shocking.
regarding the remixed dialog accusation. the article confirms blasi cursed the horses profanely, and that one of the horses he cursed was teardrop after she lost and then came up lame. then the article states that peta edited the original 5 minute video so that it appeared that blasi\'s cursing teardrop occurred during an endoscopy. even if peta did play his rant over footage of an endoscopy, its a difference without distinction. he cursed the horse, the article confirms he cursed the horse. peta did not manufacture anything. and again, there has never been a question that the original video was an extremely edited version.
so...the issue that has you raising pitchforks is that peta may have played confirmed dialog with unrelated footage. the question when this sort of thing is done is whether the footage gives the dialog another connotation (or vice versa)--here is doesnt. and without seeing the full footage I refuse to give this hack the benefit of the doubt that the footage isnt what was originally with the rant (conversations around endoscopies in horse stalls are hardly unusual). I guaranty this was the only instance where remixing occured or more would gave been described...ones that actually did result in a change in connotation.
the article sounds like it was written by assmussen\'s lawyer and released by them to bloodhorse. I\'ll take the nyt and drapes credibilty over an industry rag\'s any day. if bloodhorse wants to get into a credibility pissing match with times, it will lose. it wont look good if drape/nyt reports that bloodhorse is letting assmussen write its articles about him.
I m not a member of peta, but I will say this, they are not hacks and they absolutely know how to conduct undercover investigations that are unasailable in a court. peta exposes animal abuse by corporations who make assmussen look like a pan handler. they\'ve filmed inside feed lots and slaughterhouses in states where doing so is a felony, and have won. they have a top notch legal counsel. they are not just some dumb zealots with cameras and axes to grind. most important, they dont care if everyone hates them. the more you sqwauk about this, the more people hear about it, the more likely something gets done. and they\'ve won, or rather the horses have.
