Michele Smith

block71

In 1995 Michele Smith set a 400-free national record of 4:26:18. Then on July 6, just two weeks before the Atlanta Olympics, she jumped into a pool of a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., private school after a junior meet there. With timing devices and officials at poolside, Smith swam by herself, unshaven, and put in an incredible time of 4:08.86 -- the fastest time in the 400-free in nearly two years. The problem was that the deadline for entering the Olympic swimming competition was July 5, a day earlier.
Dermot Sherlock, the general secretary of the National Olympic Committee of Ireland, said that on July 4 the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG) told him -- erroneously -- that he had until July 20 to make changes in his list of entrants. Ireland submitted a revised list July 17, adding Smith's name to the 400 free, and it was accepted by ACOG.
FINA, swimming's international governing body, ruled that Ire-
land missed the July 5 deadline and so Smith could not swim in the 400. Ireland then appealed to the IOC, who decided that ACOG was to blame and overturned FINA's decision. When news got out that Smith would be allowed to swim in the 400, the United States, the Netherlands and Germany filed protests. A deadline is a deadline, they argued, and every other country complied except Ireland. Why should an exception be made for Smith?
Underlying the protests were the suspicions hanging over Smith's sudden ascendance in the swimming world. In the 1992 Olympics, for example, she swam the 400 individual medley in 4:58:94. In the same event here on Saturday night, she swam 4:39:16 -- lopping nearly 20 seconds off her time -- to win the gold medal. Her best previous finish in an Olympics was 17th place.
And her 4:08.86 in the 400-free two weeks ago raised more eyebrows, as it broke her own national record by 14 seconds. But it was not only the times that started rumors circulating but the fact that three years ago Smith began to train under the direction of her husband, Erik de Bruin, a Dutch discus thrower who tested positive for a banned substance in 1993 and was banned from track and field.
The protest of the United States, Netherlands and Germany was heard late Sunday night by the Court of Arbitration of Sport. At 3 a.m., seven hours before the start of the 400, the court ruled that Smith could swim.
Jannet Evans watched Smith's heat nervously. Also in the heat was German champion Kerstin Kielglass. When they finished, Evans waited for their times: 4:08:99 for Kielglass, 4:09:00 for Smith. Evans was out. She fell into ninth place by two- tenths of a second.
If Smith had not been allowed in, Evans would have made it to the finals.
As Evans cried in the warmdown pool, U.S. swimming coach Richard Quick spoke to reporters at poolside. "She miscalculated," he said. "She swam a little bit too easy going out and just got into a little bit of an easy routine instead of pressing it probably as hard as she should have. Janet is a great champion and that can never be taken away from her."
An hour after the race, Evans entered the press room red-eyed but smiling. Through the smiles, her voice cracked and her eyes filled. She spoke of allowing herself one day to be disappointed, then putting this behind her. "Water under the bridge," she said. Inevitably, she was asked about Smith, both her failure to meet the entry deadline and the rumors of drug use.
Evans didn't back down from either. "Being someone who plays by the rules, I think everyone should play by the rules,' she said.
About the drug rumors: "If you're asking if the accusations are out there, yes they are. . . . I guess it's possible she's somebody who peaks late in life and she's in her prime right now. But whenever you see such dramatic improvements, there will be questions. It's questionable. It's suspicious. But I guess it's possible. It's a topic of conversation on the pool deck, let's put it that way."
Im not pro Evans or anti Smith but coming from a swimming bacground and being the same age as Michelle and coming up through the Irish ranks with her the times speak for themselves and you cannot take 20 sec of a 400m time in 12 months without the use of drugs and thats fact

brucechan

Grainne Murphy did. What do you say about that?

block71

Grainne Murphy has been an exceptional junior swimmer for many years culminating in her winning 3 gold medals at the 2009 European Junior Swimming events at 16yrs of age.She won the 800m in a time of 8min 36secs and now holds the Irish record of 8min 25sec that she set at the European Seniors in Budapest in August,she also won the 200im in a time of 2min 14.22sec and now holds the Irish record of 2min 13.64sec set at the world champioships in Rome in July 09 and finally won the 400im in a time of 4min 40sec but DOSE NOT hold the Irish Record in that event as its still held by Michele Smith in a time of 4min 39.16sec that she set in the Atlanta Games in 96.
The big difference is Grainne set her times at 16yrs of age while Michele was 26yrs of age As I mentioned above in the 1992 Olympics Michele was 22 and swam the 400 individual medley in 4:58:94. In Atlanta she swam 4:39:16 lopping nearly 20 seconds off her time.When she was Grainne Murphys age she never swam 5min 40sec for a 400 individual medaly a FULL MINUTE slower than Murphy at the same age.Smith was an above average junior swimmer that would have won her meets in Ireland but never on the international stage where as Murphy was an exceptional Junior International Swimmer and is turning into an exceptional Senior International Swimmer.She is not arriving late on the International swimming scene under a cloud of controversay with a cup of Chineese herbal tea she has progressed up through the World Junior ranks as all the top International swimmers have.
The clock dosent lie and that has always been the biggest problem for Michele.She was never been able to truly explain the rapid increase in her performances at the time which culminated in her failing a drugs test.

Kevski

block71 wrote: »

In 1995 Michele Smith set a 400-free national record of 4:26:18. Then on July 6, just two weeks before the Atlanta Olympics, she jumped into a pool of a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., private school after a junior meet there. With timing devices and officials at poolside, Smith swam by herself, unshaven, and put in an incredible time of 4:08.86 -- the fastest time in the 400-free in nearly two years. The problem was that the deadline for entering the Olympic swimming competition was July 5, a day earlier.
Dermot Sherlock, the general secretary of the National Olympic Committee of Ireland, said that on July 4 the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG) told him -- erroneously -- that he had until July 20 to make changes in his list of entrants. Ireland submitted a revised list July 17, adding Smith's name to the 400 free, and it was accepted by ACOG.
FINA, swimming's international governing body, ruled that Ire-
land missed the July 5 deadline and so Smith could not swim in the 400. Ireland then appealed to the IOC, who decided that ACOG was to blame and overturned FINA's decision. When news got out that Smith would be allowed to swim in the 400, the United States, the Netherlands and Germany filed protests. A deadline is a deadline, they argued, and every other country complied except Ireland. Why should an exception be made for Smith?
Underlying the protests were the suspicions hanging over Smith's sudden ascendance in the swimming world. In the 1992 Olympics, for example, she swam the 400 individual medley in 4:58:94. In the same event here on Saturday night, she swam 4:39:16 -- lopping nearly 20 seconds off her time -- to win the gold medal. Her best previous finish in an Olympics was 17th place.
And her 4:08.86 in the 400-free two weeks ago raised more eyebrows, as it broke her own national record by 14 seconds. But it was not only the times that started rumors circulating but the fact that three years ago Smith began to train under the direction of her husband, Erik de Bruin, a Dutch discus thrower who tested positive for a banned substance in 1993 and was banned from track and field.
The protest of the United States, Netherlands and Germany was heard late Sunday night by the Court of Arbitration of Sport. At 3 a.m., seven hours before the start of the 400, the court ruled that Smith could swim.
Jannet Evans watched Smith's heat nervously. Also in the heat was German champion Kerstin Kielglass. When they finished, Evans waited for their times: 4:08:99 for Kielglass, 4:09:00 for Smith. Evans was out. She fell into ninth place by two- tenths of a second.
If Smith had not been allowed in, Evans would have made it to the finals.
As Evans cried in the warmdown pool, U.S. swimming coach Richard Quick spoke to reporters at poolside. "She miscalculated," he said. "She swam a little bit too easy going out and just got into a little bit of an easy routine instead of pressing it probably as hard as she should have. Janet is a great champion and that can never be taken away from her."
An hour after the race, Evans entered the press room red-eyed but smiling. Through the smiles, her voice cracked and her eyes filled. She spoke of allowing herself one day to be disappointed, then putting this behind her. "Water under the bridge," she said. Inevitably, she was asked about Smith, both her failure to meet the entry deadline and the rumors of drug use.
Evans didn't back down from either. "Being someone who plays by the rules, I think everyone should play by the rules,' she said.
About the drug rumors: "If you're asking if the accusations are out there, yes they are. . . . I guess it's possible she's somebody who peaks late in life and she's in her prime right now. But whenever you see such dramatic improvements, there will be questions. It's questionable. It's suspicious. But I guess it's possible. It's a topic of conversation on the pool deck, let's put it that way."
Im not pro Evans or anti Smith but coming from a swimming bacground and being the same age as Michelle and coming up through the Irish ranks with her the times speak for themselves and you cannot take 20 sec of a 400m time in 12 months without the use of drugs and thats fact

Sorry but why did you post all this? It's basically a mini biography of Michelle Smith and something more suited to wikipedia than boards. A previous thread on this subject was locked a little over a week ago.

block71

why did you read it so ???

Kevski

block71 wrote: »

why did you read it so ???

A troll. Just as I thought.

Dj Stiggie

block71 wrote: »

why did you read it so ???

Like me, he probably wanted to know where you were going with it

brucechan

So its ok that Murphy can do it 12 months but Smith can't in 4 years? Murphy is a super swimmer and a great talent, but your argument is way off the mark. Smith wasn't banned for tampering with her sample. The fact is "her sample was tampered with", and its up to the swimmer to prove innocence no matter who does the damage. I'm amazed the testers could sign off on the sample when they are supposed to be with the athlete during the test. Anyway, I don't give a damn whether she did or she didn't do anything illegal - only she knows that. The fact is she was never proven guilty of anything, and you should be considered innocent until proven guilty. By the way, didn't Dara Torres win three Olympic swimming medals in Beijing at 42 years of age?

charlemont

joe duffy might be interested, "cos its them drugs again..

AnonymousPrime

Dj Stiggie wrote: »

Like me, he probably wanted to know where you were going with it

Glad i read this post first. You just saved me 3 minutes :cool:

Susie564

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/lots-of-legwork-how-michelle-shocked-the-world-1330165.html

Old news but thought I'd add to the post all the same.

I was trying to find the original article written by Chalkie White in Swimming World ('96/7) but was unable to find it. It makes interesting reading for those who didn't know Smith early in her career.

Major difference between Smith and Murphy - Smith did not have the same high quality level training so early on, far from it in fact. That came later for Michelle, hence the later improvement in her times.

I don't think 20 sec off in 12 months in an event like the 400 is all that unusual.

Like a previous poster said I don't know if Michelle cheated or not, only she knows, but I do know that a lot of what Chalkie White said about the changes that Michelle made in her training, diet, attitude etc around that time are true. It's definately not as clearcut as some make out.

Grainne Murphy is a fantastic young swimmer and hopefully herself and the other raft of great young swimmers we have in this country at the moment can finally restore the glory to Irish swimming.

Lirange

Prior to 1996 Michelle's personal best time in the long course 400 Metres Freestyle was a 4:26 from 1995. Then suddenly in the summer of 1996 she lopped off 19 seconds to swim 4:07 to win the Gold medal. She jumped ahead of more than 150 women in the world that had been ranked above her in the previous year. The reason she was such a late entrant into the field (in violation of the written rules) was that her best time did not qualify her to even swim. She had just swam a 4:08 in Florida that occurred after the entry deadline slicing a massive 18 seconds off her PB. This sort of improvement over a short time frame is not only ridiculous it is in no way whatsoever remotely comparable to Grainne Murphy. That's not even taking age into account. Older swimmers that have excelled internationally such as Torres, Mark Foster, Therese Alshammar, and Allison Sheppard are all sprinters. More importantly they have all been at the top of their sport since they competed as teenagers. It is not unusual for a 26 year old swimmer to win a gold medal albeit in women's middle to mid distance events it is a bit rare. But that she was 26 has nothing to do with the incredulity people in the international swimming community expressed toward her improvements.

Michelle Smith often only qualified for international events through either FINA's or the IOC's wild card or development programmes. She did not qualify to swim in Barcelona (didn't meet FINA's B time) but only gained entry because of this. She was getting beat by swimmers from the Faeroe Islands and Luxembourg at the European Championships in Sheffield finishing near the bottom in each of her events. She was 23 at the time and nowhere near world class. When she was a teenager she was far from the best young female swimmer in the country. But there wasn't the support to develop those swimmers and they moved onto university, careers, and other things.

I don't know why people insist on bringing Janet Evans into the discussion. She did not even compete against Michelle in the final and was not considered a favourite. She peaked in the late 80s and is still considered the greatest distance swimmer the sport has ever seen. Naturally there was attention foisted onto her because it was a home games. But the reality is she didn't qualify in her best event, the 800 metres freestyle which was won by her compatriot Brooke Bennett (who was coached by Peter Banks, our current director). Her press conference comments were mild and modest compared to international journalists and other athletes. She acknowledged there were suspicions on the deck but stopped short of outright accusing her like some Dutch and Australian swimmers did. She was treated with skepticism by the entire world outside Ireland (not just the Americans) before she ever got up on the blocks in Atlanta.

She failed a drug test in 1998. Even leaving aside the presence of Androstenedione if you're found guilty of contaminating a test you have failed it. The four year ban was the strictest suspension given out to athletes at the time. It was upheld by CAS. Either Michelle tampered with the sample or the drug testers did. It shouldn't be that difficult to ascertain who has more credibility there.

Susie564 wrote: »

Grainne Murphy is a fantastic young swimmer and hopefully herself and the other raft of great young swimmers we have in this country at the moment can finally restore the glory to Irish swimming.

She shouldn't even be part of this discussion. There is no reasonable comparison to be made. It's an attempt to put people on the defensive to falsely cast MSDB in a more favourable light.

Susie564

Lirange wrote: »

She failed a drug test in 1998. Even leaving aside the presence of Androstenedione if you're found guilty of contaminating a test you have failed it. The four year ban was the strictest suspension given out to athletes at the time. It was upheld by CAS. Either Michelle tampered with the sample or the drug testers did. It shouldn't be that difficult to ascertain who has more credibility there.

I totally agree with you there. And as another poster said it's up to the swimmer to prove themselves if they feel they've been wronged. I think if it was me I'd be shouting about it until they cleared my name if I was innocent.
My only point is that, I do feel it is possible to make these improvements if the changes in training regime/diet etc are drastic enough, and Michelle's were. That's not to say she didn't take drugs also.

Lirange wrote: »

She shouldn't even be part of this discussion. There is no reasonable comparison to be made. It's an attempt to put people on the defensive to falsely cast MSDB in a more favourable light.

In relation to Grainne - firstly, I didn't bring her into the discussion first & it is true that in previous years the support for young swimmers coming up just hasn't been there in this country. Secondly, I think that's where peoples focus should be now, not on what Michelle did/didn't do 15 or so years ago. There is a great chance for Irish swimmers to have some really good-news stories in the near future, instead of the crap they've had to deal with for the last couple of decades.

brucechan

Lirange, I don't think anyone is trying to falsely accuse Smith of anything, in fact, she may well have been falsely accused for the last decade. Doesn't she still have her medals? Weren't the testers embroiled in a controversy previous to the Smith case?
Anyway, the andro case was in 1998, Atlanta was in 1996. How anyone can tamper with a sample when the testers are supposed to be right there looking at you is beyond me.
The other point is quite rightly stated that swimmers didn't have the expertise in coaching that they have now, that's why Smith left to go to Canada and Holland. She did training there that no swimmer was doing in Ireland, plyometrics, specific strength, medicine balls, nutrition etc. I would say that if other swimmers of her age and ability (male or female) did the same thing they may well have seen improvements too. In fact, Murphy and many other swimmers are all doing that type of training now, so it is relevant to mention Murphy in the argument. Murphy and others are fantastic talents being in the right place at the right time and fair play to them. I wonder how good Michelle would have been if she was born 10 years later and had the same opportunities. We'll never know!

paky

how come michael phelps was never questioned about the medals he won yet smith was?

Lirange

paky wrote: »

how come michael phelps was never questioned about the medals he won yet smith was?

The only reason people might question Phelps is because he's successful. For some that might be enough. However, people did not question Michelle Smith simply because she was successful. It's highly unusual for a swimmer at the international level to go from struggling to qualify, swimming anonymously in the slow heats with the no-hopers/just glad to be here crowd, to then suddenly setting the pace from the middle lane(s) in the championship heats in their mid twenties. Michael Phelps for instance was the youngest male in history to break a world record in swimming (200 butterfly at age 15).

Dogwatch

Michelle passed all her drug tests at Atlanta as did the other medal winners.

Michelles times improved gradually but impressively over the preceding 12 months and a lot of the publicity was just American bull cos their girl got beaten.

None of Michelles winning race tests at Atlanta have ever been doubted.


Janet Evans never got near her winning time she set 4 years earlier. She was significantly slower at Atlanta than other races. Why? What made her so exceptional ???


Before the OP castigates Michelle for such an improvement maybe he/she should do a like for like comparison with Evans's times over a similar period.

wild1

More than one person above has alluded to Smith being the only one that really knows whether she cheated or not but I don't agree. She may genuinely believe that she has nothing to be guilty about.

The sad thing is that there is no smoke without fire and not being a swimmer (but having an interest in most sports including swimming) I might not be the most qualified to comment but I always smelt a rat with the Atlanta and other wins.

What brings this subject to the fore again?

Dogwatch

wild1 wrote: »

More than one person above has alluded to Smith being the only one that really knows whether she cheated or not but I don't agree. She may genuinely believe that she has nothing to be guilty about.

The sad thing is that there is no smoke without fire and not being a swimmer (but having an interest in most sports including swimming) I might not be the most qualified to comment but I always smelt a rat with the Atlanta and other wins.

What brings this subject to the fore again?

What makes you think the rat is smelly.

Are you being sucked in by the very biased American media of the time who believed Evans was unbeatable.

Michelle has three Olympic Gold medals and a Bronze and if there was any doubt about these races you can be sure that she would be stripped of them.
It is a pity that her home country could not celebrate this great athlete as it is unlikely any other Irish person will ever emulate her feat.

A little less begrugery from an ungrateful nation would be nice.

Michelle won an Olympic event which is far before anything Sonia O Sullivan ever did.

I know which one I admire

Joe10000

I don't know why this has come up now but I read the OP and immediately thought of Grainne M.

Surely knocking 16 or 20 seconds off any PB is a tad suspicious ?

wild1

Dogwatch wrote: »

What makes you think the rat is smelly.



I know which one I admire

An amazing, almost impossible improvements to her performance, her association with a known cheat and controversy over tampered samples strongly back my suspicion.

I admire them both for having done something that I never have or will do and that is to put Ireland on an international sports stage in their chosen discipline.

Dogwatch

wild1 wrote: »

An amazing, almost impossible improvements to her performance, her association with a known cheat and controversy over tampered samples strongly back my suspicion.

I admire them both for having done something that I never have or will do and that is to put Ireland on an international sports stage in their chosen discipline.

Not impossible as she has shown, as her coach/husband was a known cheat it is more likely she would be more closely monitored and her samples at Atlanta have never been questioned.

What happened with the tampered sample will always be the subject of debate and maybe the invigilating testers bear some responsibilty for incorrect supervision of the test.

Lirange

Dogwatch wrote: »

What happened with the tampered sample will always be the subject of debate and maybe the invigilating testers bear some responsibilty for incorrect supervision of the test.

You're reaching. She failed a drug test. She was suspended for four years. The harshest penalty meted out to athletes for failed tests at the time. There was an investigation into the matter and an appeal. WADA ruled against Michelle and the suspension was upheld.

Essentially one has to grasp for a highly unlikely conspiracy scenario to absolve her of cheating.

Dogwatch

Lirange wrote: »

You're reaching. She failed a drug test. She was suspended for four years. The harshest penalty meted out to athletes for failed tests at the time. There was an investigation into the matter and an appeal. WADA ruled against Michelle and the suspension was upheld.

Essentially one has to grasp for a highly unlikely conspiracy scenario to absolve her of cheating.

Yes , I understand what you are saying, but her Olympic triumphs are still clean. She never failed the test as it was not put through the lab because of contamination. She got the four years for not providing a good sample as it had been tampered with. Who tampered with it has never been proven.
Even though she fell from grace she is still the highest achieving athlete this country has produced and it is unlikely any other such achiever will come along.

As an aside, I find it strange that the athlete is held responsible for the condition of the sample until it is opened in the lab even though they have no physical control over it. Has this condition changed in recent times??

Dogwatch

I have notice the OP has studiously avoided replying to any of the rebuttals here. Is this because you are wrong in your final assumption or the other facts undermine your original hypohesis.

All you have done is repeat the American propoganda of the time as they thought Evans should just have been handed the gold medals.

Happy Xmas to all in Irish Swimming.

brucechan

good posts dogwatch. someone's talking sensibly.

happy Xmas all.

Lirange

Dogwatch wrote: »

Yes , I understand what you are saying, but her Olympic triumphs are still clean.

Many established and subsequently shamed cheats didn't fail tests at the Olympic Games or other prestigious competitions. When an athlete long suspected of cheating fails a drug test they tend to lose the benefit of the doubt over their past achievements. That's the way it goes.

Dogwatch wrote: »

She never failed the test as it was not put through the lab because of contamination. She got the four years for not providing a good sample as it had been tampered with. Who tampered with it has never been proven.
Even though she fell from grace she is still the highest achieving athlete this country has produced and it is unlikely any other such achiever will come along.

As an aside, I find it strange that the athlete is held responsible for the condition of the sample until it is opened in the lab even though they have no physical control over it. Has this condition changed in recent times??

You seem to forget there are two samples. An A Sample and a B sample. Both are sealed immediately after testing, usually in the presence of the athlete. The A sample will be taken and tested in an accredited lab. The B sample is withheld separately pending the outcome of the A sample test. If the athlete fails the A sample test then they can request the B sample tested in a different lab which is what Michelle chose to do. The B sample also came back as contaminated. Both with a not insignificant amount of alcohol. A level well in excess of what would be considered lethal. The only way both samples could have been contaminated would have been for this to occur by Michelle herself or in plain view of Michelle. Or you can go further and theorise a deliberate conspiracy on the part of different accredited labs and testing staff to bring Michelle down and tarnish her reputation. The latter scenario is considered beyond delusional by most people. If there was a grand conspiracy to frame her they could have just spiked it with a steroid rather than the guileless "let's pour whiskey" into the sample.

Dogwatch wrote: »

I have notice the OP has studiously avoided replying to any of the rebuttals here. Is this because you are wrong in your final assumption or the other facts undermine your original hypohesis.

All you have done is repeat the American propoganda of the time as they thought Evans should just have been handed the gold medals.

Diverting attention from MS with claims of "American propaganda" and bringing up Janet Evans who is entirely irrelevant. Michelle Smith had zero impact on Janet Evans's placing at those Olympic Games. She would not have won a medal regardless and Evans did not even qualify in the only event that both of them swam. That swimmer was in the twilight of her career and remained in the sport to compete at a home Olympics. She's still considered the premier female distance swimmer ever. The late 80s being her zenith. MS's presence in Atlanta had no effect on her career resume. The Dutch were initially the most vocal about Michelle. They were the first to protest her participation in swimming events before Michelle ever jumped in the water. The Australian journalists were more aggressive and accusatory than the Americans. It is international opinion and the widely held view inside the sport globally that she was a cheat.

You do a disservice to Irish swimming and Irish Sport in general by propping up Michelle Smith as an example of Irish achievement. It's not fair to all those Irish athletes in various sports that competed clean and by the rules. Given proper organisation, facilities, and funding support Irish athletes can and will succeed. We don't need to suspend reality to inflate a false idol to encourage future generations.

Rented Mule

brucechan wrote: »

didn't Dara Torres win three Olympic swimming medals in Beijing at 42 years of age?

If you are going to bring up Dara Torres, you need to bring up the facts around Dara.

1) Dara swam in the 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2008 Olympics.
2) Dara is a sprinter.
3) Dara volunteered for an advanced drug screening process before the Olympics to show that she was clean.

Rented Mule

Dogwatch wrote: »

Michelle passed all her drug tests at Atlanta as did the other medal winners.

Michelles times improved gradually but impressively over the preceding 12 months and a lot of the publicity was just American bull cos their girl got beaten.

None of Michelles winning race tests at Atlanta have ever been doubted.


Janet Evans never got near her winning time she set 4 years earlier. She was significantly slower at Atlanta than other races. Why? What made her so exceptional ???


Before the OP castigates Michelle for such an improvement maybe he/she should do a like for like comparison with Evans's times over a similar period.

Janet Evan's really came across as a whiny, spoiled little brat on the day. Her press conference was nauseating to watch. She was 'America's Sweetheart' going into the Games with huge sponsorship from General Motors (who's ad space was booked during all of the medal events that Janet was assumed to be swimming in). In this regard, Evans made Smith her scapegoat for not qualifying for the final 8.

One of the things that kept me believing in Smith (just after the Atlanta Games) was the fact that the times in all of the events that she competed in were 'slow'. I had questioned the drop in her times at the Games, but none of the events were close to Olympic or World Record times. I have always tried to keep these facts in perspective when speaking of Smith.

That was then.

The fact of the matter is that she was found guilty of tampering with her sample. The events surrounding this were embarrassing to say the least.

wild1

Dogwatch, you will now see that the tables have turned - I think it is hard to refute a word that has been put forward by Lirange. Congratulations Lirange for expressing so clearly what I wanted to say.

I always come back to the thought that there is no smoke without fire. It angers me to think that anybody that has brought such embarrassment and controversy to any sport could be held in any high regard, and worse it sickens me to see that there are (educated) people such as dogwatch and brucechan that genuinely believe that MS is completely innocent and the victim of some conspiracy. I mean come on...

Dogwatch

wild1 wrote: »

Dogwatch, you will now see that the tables have turned - I think it is hard to refute a word that has been put forward by Lirange. Congratulations Lirange for expressing so clearly what I wanted to say.

I always come back to the thought that there is no smoke without fire. It angers me to think that anybody that has brought such embarrassment and controversy to any sport could be held in any high regard, and worse it sickens me to see that there are (educated) people such as dogwatch and brucechan that genuinely believe that MS is completely innocent and the victim of some conspiracy. I mean come on...

I dont agree.
Michelle did not fail the test. Both samples had been tampered with and the test could not be done. She was suspended for allegedly tampering with the samples. The test was never carried out and drug use/abuse has never been proven. There are many,like yourself, who believe she tampered with the samples. If she did, why did the invigilators not see it being done as they are supposed to observe the test and personally( i.e. be in the toilet/bathroom with the athlete) witness the passing of the urine into the sample bottle. They are then obliged to sign off that the sample was given under these conditions. So, at what point was the tampering done ??????

It is very easy for others to condemn any athlete whose sample is tampered with but I believe the system to be unfair. The athlete is held responsible for the samples until they are tested. Yet they have no control over it. Compare that to a drink/drive blood/urine sample. You, the accused, are also given a sample to have indepentantly tested. Athletes do not get this so therefore against natural justice.

I dont know if Michelle cheated or not, but I would require either greater conclusive proof or an admission of guilt before I would condemn Irelands most successful sportsperson.

Are the International Olympic Commitee wrong to allow her to keep her medals? Maybe they too require greater proof to strip her of her titles than her own countrymen/women. A number of people were upset that a minority sport could produce a Triple Gold Medal winner and even today cannot get past it. It is time to move on as the Olympic Rolls still bear her name whether you like it or not

Everyone has an opinion on this and I respect your right to disagree. However I dont see the point is continuing this as I wont change my opinion with more substansial proof and I dont suppose anyone else will either.

I wish Irish swimming a good future and prosperity to all involved. I enjoyed my years involved with Irish Swimming when it was known as the IASA.

brucechan

well said, totally agree with you

Me.

"you cannot take 20 sec of a 400m time in 12 months without the use of drugs and thats fact" Michelle didn't swim a serious 400m free until 1996. It is not right to compare those times. Just by looking at the time she swam in 1995 on the 100 free and the 400 Im you can conclude that 12 months before the Olympics she was capable of swimming a much faster 400 free. My guess is that she improved maybe 4 or 5 seconds and not 20 in that year. You should compare like with like. She didn't improve 20 seconds in the 400 IM in that year because she did swim that event at championships in 1995. You can compare those times. Very small improvements on that event from 1995 to 1996.

Indo404

Im not pro Evans or anti Smith but coming from a swimming bacground and being the same age as Michelle and coming up through the Irish ranks with her the times speak for themselves and you cannot take 20 sec of a 400m time in 12 months without the use of drugs and thats fact[/QUOTE]



The 400 meter time in 1995 was a training swim for her Dutch club. You should compare like with like. She did not "improve" 20 seconds. Yes there is a difference of 20 seconds in those two times. Look at her time in the 400 IM in 1995 (4:42) and her time in 1996 (4:39). Same distance Those are two times you can compare. She was rested and tapered for both those meets.

PS "She came out of nowhere" Where did MS finish two years before the Olympics in 1996 at the wold championships in Rome?