Steven B

As a form of evidence, a screenshot of a text message is not evidence, it is anecdotal and untested. In the case of scientific claims by her, where do the control samples lie? It is impossible to pronounce something abnormal without defining what normal is using the correct methodology. It is science at its simple level. Her comparisons are mere guesses without peer-reviewed information or veterinary care.

As I have been informed, the Stable to Stirrup program has been heavily funded when Becks Nairn participated in it. Extraneous staff were hired including young girls who were hired to help her. Nairn started calling herself the head trainer, a title that indicates her tendency to use high-status names. The staffing and funding were not enough yet the staff retention was a problem. A good number of the younger employees did not last long, and they were reporting internal trouble. Hiring more people within a charity is financially liable and according to me, Nairn has not been open about the way these resources were used. Following the departure of Nairn in the charity, a new manager was hired. Purportedly, things had gotten better- personnel retained their positions and business operations were smoother. I am left wondering as to what exactly occurred between Nairn and the Stable to Stirrup program and whether she has left due to underlying reasons that are still unresolved.

I have seen Becks Nairn boasting a good deal since I read a little about her, about the horses she has dissection-ed--they are not creatures, but merely carcasses. Her endless narration of tales, along with the sale of hypothetical and usually false findings over a paywall, is worrisome. In spite of all these her assertions, there is yet no single piece of veterinary-reviewed or peer-reviewed evidence to substantiate her results. She is aware that should she enter the scientific field, she will be evaluated by experts and be judged according to scores she cannot achieve. She will not be able to conceal herself behind her followers or the edited stories that she can direct. I will repeat it, she realizes that her income would plummet significantly in case she had to tell the truth, to create hard, verifiable evidence.

A text message by the owner of Arcano saying the horse was fridge gassed is a hearsay- not proved evidence. In the event that Becks Nairn believes that hard evidence, then she is either ill-informed regarding what is meant by credible documentation or trying to deceive her audience with the aim of doing so. Hearsay does not go in any professional or legal setting. She might count on the fact that it will pass on face value or people will laugh at it but any person possessing a trained eye can see the theatrics. She needs to offer peer-reviewed evidence, which has been vetted by the veterinarian community, rather than tales and emotions.

It is reassuring to see that some contributors to this forum are well-informed and capable of distinguishing fact from fiction. Frankly, I have never encountered an individual quite like Becks Nairn. She presents herself as a charismatic guru, elevated by her followers who regard her as a figure of authority. Yet her actions suggest a troubling indifference toward the welfare of the very horses she claims to advocate for. Her public persona as an expert in horse dissection is deeply unsettling. On the Duncan Garner podcast, she made bold and emotional appeals, but when challenged, she withdrew—consistent with a pattern of avoiding direct scrutiny. Rather than respond to legitimate questions, she tends to retreat behind her supporters, shielding herself from accountability. One notable example is her involvement in the Kaikōura horse rescue. Nairn authored a lengthy report advocating for the rescue of a filly, which she later acquired. Tragically, the filly sustained injuries during transport and was subsequently dissected, with its remains added to Nairn’s personal bone collection. This incident raises serious concerns about her judgment and the reliability of the information she disseminates. Two veterinarians have publicly reviewed her claims and found them misleading, despite the authoritative tone she adopts. Her anatomical interpretations are questionable, and she continues to publish speculative content behind a paywall—without peer review or professional oversight. Although she positions herself as an educator and researcher, Nairn solicits donations for her work while simultaneously boasting about personal expenditures, such as cosmetic surgery in Thailand. If she has the financial means for such procedures, it is reasonable to ask why she does not fund her own research, as most professionals do. In summary, Becks Nairn’s conduct raises serious ethical and professional concerns. Her avoidance of scrutiny, reliance on emotional storytelling, and lack of verified scientific rigor suggest that her work may be more about personal gain than genuine education or equine welfare.

I have taken the time to confirm that Becks Nairn charged the owner of Arcano for schooling the horse for the show ring. I possess photographic evidence of the owner expressing gratitude for her training services. Despite this, Nairn later claimed—without any verified veterinary documentation—that Arcano had been “fridge gassed.” This allegation was discussed during a board meeting, yet no supporting evidence was ever produced. Arcano suffered from respiratory issues, yet Nairn proceeded to include him in her “Stable to Stirrup” program. A more ethical course of action would have been to retire the horse to paddock life or consider humane euthanasia. Instead, Nairn pursued publicity and profit, ultimately dissecting the horse and monetising the narrative through emotionally charged storytelling and unverified conclusions. Although she publicly stated that Arcano had been fridge gassed, Nairn insists she does not make diagnoses. She demanded evidence to support her claim, yet none was provided. To date, she has not presented any findings that have been verified by licensed veterinarians. Her current activities resemble exploitation more than education. Nairn is also affiliated with a teaching centre in Christchurch, reportedly backed by an Irish organisation. This centre appears to legitimise amateur dissections under a rural scheme, allowing individuals without formal training in anatomy or osteopathy—such as Nairn—to lecture. Rumours continue to circulate regarding her role in this operation and other things She has advised horse owners to euthanise their animals and frequently acquires horses post-mortem, often with vet certificates. She then publishes speculative and inaccurate findings behind a paywall. These results are not peer-reviewed, and owners are rarely given the full truth. Despite soliciting donations for her research, Nairn has publicly boasted about travelling to Thailand for cosmetic surgery. If she has the means for such procedures, it raises the question: why not self-fund her research or seek a professional loan, as most educated individuals do? She claims to be a high-level classical dressage rider, yet there is no verifiable record of competitive success or production of elite horses. According to my wife, the conformation of her breeding stock is questionable at best. In her interview with Duncan Garner, Nairn claimed to work with the best in the world and emphasised the cost of her education. I found this difficult to take seriously. When I requested Arcano’s results, she claimed they had been sent to the CEO of Standardbred Racing NZ—another unverified assertion. When challenged, Nairn often retreats behind paywalls and curated narratives. She frequently name-drops veterinarians and associates herself with their reputations to bolster her own credibility. When she has none However, I doubt she will ever enter the scientific arena, where truth and accuracy are non-negotiable. Her income depends on storytelling, not scrutiny. In summary: no evidence, no accountability. Yet Nairn rides again.

If Becks Nairn wants credibility, she must show her hand. In her podcast with Duncan Garner, she speaks of transparency—but where is the vet-provable evidence? Let’s talk about Arcano. Nairn asserts that during a charity board meeting, she was informed a grey Standardbred named Aranco was arriving, already “fridge-gassed.” Yet somehow, this same horse—allegedly suffering respiratory issues—was schooled for the show ring, sold to a new owner, and earned her a payment. A year later, she dissects him and declares he’d been fridge-gassed all along. So here’s the question: Where is the autopsy report? Where is the pathology? Where is the independent veterinary confirmation? If Nairn profited from the horse in life, then monetized his death for Patreon content, she owes the public more than dramatic narration. She claims she doesn’t diagnose—yet she diagnosed Arcano. She is not a trained veterinarian, not a qualified pathologist, and operates without peer-reviewed oversight. So what kind of science is she selling? Her business model is built on a paywall that shields her from scrutiny. Anyone who questions her is excluded—on Facebook, in forums, wherever she controls the discourse. When challenged by someone knowledgeable, she hides behind her followers and dispatches them to silence dissent. She told Garner, “Let people bring the challenge.” But when it comes? She disappears. No results. No transparency. No credibility. If she ever enters a scientific arena, she will be held accountable. And she knows it. That’s why she stays behind the paywall—because selling stories is profitable. Selling truth? That’s a different game. Charisma doesn’t replace evidence. And science doesn’t shrink under inspection.