Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Was Michelle de Bruin our greatest Olympian? Eamonn Coughlan says yes

1…457910…27

Comments

  • #182
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....but there is evidence of interference with her "olympic acheivements" in both the scale of her improvement and her avoidance of testing....
    That's evidence that her performances improved and that she didn't submit samples. It's not evidence that she took drugs.
    Nodin wrote: »
    ...but as there is supporting evidence which you just discount and ignore, I'd have to see its still odd, to say the least.
    Tell me where is the specific physical, test results show without doubt that she took drugs in the lead up to or during the Olympics. I have no idea what "supporting evidence" means in this context. Do actual test results exist that confirm doping at the Olympics? If so where are they, who has them and when was the hearing to adjudicate on Michelle's status based on these results held?
    Nodin wrote: »
    .... Because according to the doping authority they'd great difficulty in finding her. ...
    Their difficulty in finding her simply means that no samples were taken and no tests were performed to confirm the drug-taking allegations.

    Remember, lack of samples = lack of tests = lack of test results = innocent until tested positive.


  • #183
    sock puppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    mathepac wrote: »
    Remember, lack of samples = lack of tests = lack of test results = innocent until tested positive.

    Not anymore.


  • #184
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    sock puppet wrote: »
    Not anymore.
    Who fears to speak of '96?


  • #185
    sock puppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    mathepac wrote: »
    Who fears to speak of '96?

    It'd actually be a lot easier for her now. She could just miss the drug tests, serve the short ban (1 year I think), and claim she missed the tests for entirely innocent reasons.


  • #186
    Motorist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Motorist


    sock puppet wrote: »
    It'd actually be a lot easier for her now. She could just miss the drug tests, serve the short ban (1 year I think), and claim she missed the tests for entirely innocent reasons.

    She was so juiced up, it would probably take a decade for her drug testosterone levels (and resultant testicles) to disappear.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Red21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Red21


    mathepac wrote: »
    Simple to answer, you could describe it as my sense of justice for the woman or my sense of outrage that people can condemn someone for an alleged course of actions for which there is no supporting evidence.
    I don't understand how someone could have such sense of outrage for a woman, who after performing poorly at the 1992 games would then decide to work with a trainer who is banned from all competitions for his use of drugs. If you take out everything else that's been said you can't get away for the fact that it was Michelle de bruin who made decission about a guy who wasn't even a swimming coach.


  • #188
    Shelflife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,084 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    Interesting, the testers fail to follow correct procedures and lose sight of the testee in a house for 4-6 mins, they then got the sample and even though they were properly sealed they smelled alcohol off it.

    What still makes no sense is the fact that they had positive tests already on her,but chose to persue the contamination charge as opposed to the actual (3) positive findings.

    If she tested positive why didnt they charge her with those?

    that just doesnt make sense !


  • #189
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mathepac wrote: »
    That's evidence that her performances improved and that she didn't submit ...........positive.


    For reasons known unto yourself, you're delusional on the subject I'm afraid.


  • #190
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Red21 wrote: »
    I don't understand how someone could have such sense of outrage for a woman, who after performing poorly at the 1992 games would then decide to work with a trainer who is banned from all competitions for his use of drugs. If you take out everything else that's been said you can't get away for the fact that it was Michelle de bruin who made decission about a guy who wasn't even a swimming coach.
    That would leave her guilty by association or guilty of poor decision making. So what?


  • #191
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    I've two views.

    One she IS the holder of Olympic Medals, she was not asked to return them or stripped of her titles.

    We know a lot, lot more about drug taking now, the period to take them the period to be clean the substances to take to mask the tests, the substances to take to remove traces of previous drug taking, women especially can exploit their own natural functions in a way that men cannot.

    So, until they retest and find an actual ILLEGALITY [for the time*] then she is our greatest Athlete and Olympian.

    *what once could have been legal may not be today.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    mathepac wrote: »
    ... Do actual test results exist that confirm doping at the Olympics? If so where are they, who has them and when was the hearing to adjudicate on Michelle's status based on these results held?
    ...
    Nodin wrote: »
    For reasons known unto yourself, you're delusional on the subject I'm afraid.
    Not so I'm afraid. While the questions above remain unanswered Michelle has no case to answer, if she ever had.


  • #193
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mathepac wrote: »
    Not so I'm afraid. While the questions above remain unanswered Michelle has no case to answer, if she ever had.


    ...there were drugs found in her samples subsequent to the olympics. She was unavailable for testing. Her results conform to no known pattern of improvement in the sport.


  • #194
    Shelflife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,084 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    Nodin

    at the olympics was she tested?

    were they shown to be clear?

    If so then by their own standards she is clean.

    By your own logic is she tested positive after the olympics then she was dirty at the olympics, therefore she was also dirty at every previous swim meet that she did.

    so by default she was always dirty and there is no proof that the improvement was as a result of taking drugs as she was always on them.


  • #195
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...there were drugs found in her samples subsequent to the olympics. She was unavailable for testing. Her results conform to no known pattern of improvement in the sport.
    By all means, continue with your mantra. At this stage it sounds as if you're trying to convince yourself as it'll never convince me. Don't, whatever you do, answer the questions I have now asked several times, because if you answer them truthfully you'll find her key in-competition metrics at the Olympics were never, ever shown to be illegal. That's why the IOC never took her medals from her or changed her status from the Olympic Champion of record and she still remains our greatest Olympian ever.


  • #196
    Red21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Red21


    mathepac wrote: »
    Not so I'm afraid. While the questions above remain unanswered Michelle has no case to answer, if she ever had.
    Yes she does, she has to answer the following question without treating the irish public like the're fools.
    What training did you do after 92 that you hadn't done before 92 that took you from being a complete outsider(never made the olympic semi-finals on any event) to being able dominate world swimming?

    Can you answer this question for her?


  • #197
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mathepac wrote: »
    By all means, continue with your mantra. At this stage it sounds as if you're trying to convince yourself as it'll never convince me...............

    If she confessed, you wouldn't be convinced.


  • #198
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Red21 wrote: »
    ... Can you answer this question for her?
    What a quaintly ridiculous notion; of course I can't answer for her anymore than I can answer questions for you.


  • #199
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Shelflife wrote: »
    Nodin

    at the olympics was she tested?

    were they shown to be clear?

    If so then by their own standards she is clean.

    By your own logic is she tested positive after the olympics then she was dirty at the olympics, therefore she was also dirty at every previous swim meet that she did.

    so by default she was always dirty and there is no proof that the improvement was as a result of taking drugs as she was always on them.

    ....you might read back over my posts and note that I mentioned the bizarre increase in her performance....


  • #200
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mathepac wrote: »
    What a quaintly ridiculous notion; of course I can't answer for her anymore than I can answer questions for you.

    Speculate then.

    Also speculate as to why the man who supposedly introduced these miracle inducing methods has not gone on to become a leading coach in the sport.


  • #201
    Red21
    Closed Accounts Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Red21


    mathepac wrote: »
    What a quaintly ridiculous notion; of course I can't answer for her anymore than I can answer questions for you.
    It was more of a yes/no type question put that answer will do just fine.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    AngeGal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 927 ✭✭✭AngeGal


    Some people in this thread are friends with Michelle Smith and will never change their position. At least I hope they are, as that would go some way towards jusrifying their head in the sand approach.

    The reality is she improved just under 20 seconds (19.77 seconds to be precise) in the 400m between 1992 and 1996. If those aforementioned people could point out any other female swimmer ever who improved that much at a similiar age as Smith, I would be much obliged.

    You won't though because it isn't possible, it just doesn't happen.


  • #203
    Shelflife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,084 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....you might read back over my posts and note that I mentioned the bizarre increase in her performance....


    Yes which you attributed to her drug taking,

    You state that because she was found dirty afterwards it implies that she was dirty during the olympics, by extrapolting that she was therefore always taking drugs in competition.

    so the bizarre increase couldnt be attributed to drug taking ---according to your own logic.


  • #204
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Shelflife wrote: »
    Yes which you attributed to her drug taking,

    You state that because she was found dirty afterwards it implies that she was dirty during the olympics, by extrapolting that she was therefore always taking drugs in competition.

    so the bizarre increase couldnt be attributed to drug taking ---according to your own logic.

    ...not to sure what you're saying there at all. She had a bizarre increase in performance. Subsequently she was found to have been taking banned substances. Given her avoidance of drug testing, its not too much to extrapolate that she was quite probably taking drugs earlier than when she was caught.


  • #205
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....you might read back over my posts and note that I mentioned the bizarre increase in her performance....

    PRs happen. At some stage in everyones training or life there will be high points performance wise.


  • #206
    Shelflife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,084 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    AngeGal wrote: »
    Some people in this thread are friends with Michelle Smith and will never change their position. At least I hope they are, as that would go some way towards jusrifying their head in the sand approach.

    The reality is she improved just under 20 seconds (19.77 seconds to be precise) in the 400m between 1992 and 1996. If those aforementioned people could point out any other female swimmer ever who improved that much at a similiar age as Smith, I would be much obliged.

    You won't though because it isn't possible, it just doesn't happen.[/QUOTE]

    I dont know her at all, for the record i believe that she was as clean as the rest of her fellow swimmers.

    Montjeu bred horses have never won the champion hurdle, it just doesnt happen until hurricane fly came along !

    All swans are white , until they found the black swan,

    it just doesn't happen, thats really not a valid arguement.


  • #207
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    squod wrote: »
    PRs happen. At some stage in everyones training or life there will be high points performance wise.


    ....to that extent, at that age?


  • #208
    Shelflife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,084 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...not to sure what you're saying there at all. She had a bizarre increase in performance. Subsequently she was found to have been taking banned substances. Given her avoidance of drug testing, its not too much to extrapolate that she was quite probably taking drugs earlier than when she was caught.


    Ok you are basing improvement in her performance on the fact that she was tested positive long after the improvement.

    so how far back do you do you go with this analogy? you cant just pick a point (however logical that may be ) and say she started taking drugs there and this led to the improvement.

    by default, in your agrument she must have always being taking drugs, and therefore the improvement may not be drug related at all.


  • #209
    A_Sober_Paddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,221 ✭✭✭A_Sober_Paddy


    She was a drug cheat so its ridiculous to say she was our greatest ever Olympic athlete...

    /thread


  • #210
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Nodin wrote: »
    Speculate then.

    Also speculate as to why the man who supposedly introduced these miracle inducing methods has not gone on to become a leading coach in the sport.
    Red21 wrote: »
    It was more of a yes/no type question put that answer will do just fine.
    Multiple invocations to answer or to supply speculative answers to irrelevant off-the-wall questions put to me; no attempts made to answer the simple straightforward and relevant questions posed by me.

    Why, I wonder?


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    AngeGal wrote: »
    Some people in this thread are friends with Michelle Smith ...
    I hope you have evidence to back that statement up.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement