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

paky · 31-07-2012 02:34AM

It was never proven that Smith actually took performance enhancing drugs so I can't see why she is so vilified especially in Ireland . Sonia O Sullivan in the very same Olympics had to drop out of a race in which she was favourite to win due to an upset stomach. Who's to say that someone didn't have some sort of vandetta against the Irish team that year?

Red21 · 31-07-2012 02:58AM

paky wrote: »

It was never proven that Smith actually took performance enhancing drugs so I can't see why she is so vilified especially in Ireland .

Seriously??? you can't see why she's vilified? no matter what side of the argument you're on you should be able to see that, it's quiet clear.

paky wrote: »

Sonia O Sullivan in the very same Olympics had to drop out of a race in which she was favourite to win due to an upset stomach. Who's to say that someone didn't have some sort of vandetta against the Irish team that year?

I've no idea what your point is here, surely you're not saying that the person with the vandetta was given de bruin drugs unknowns to her.

paky · 31-07-2012 03:21AM

Red21 wrote: »

I've no idea what your point is here, surely you're not saying that the person with the vandetta was given de bruin drugs unknowns to her.

What do you mean? Theres no proof that she took any drugs whatsoever. The only evidence which stands against her are four Olympic medals and a tampered urine test. Lol anyone could have tampered with it! Does the fact that she won four medals suggest guilt? No it doesn't!

mathepac · 31-07-2012 07:10AM

Sea Filly wrote: »

Tell us these facts. Educate us.

I see no point in re-posting information already given in the thread by someone who had inside knowledge of what happened and when. Do your own research and quote the facts that have led you to your opinion, for what it's worth. otherwise you're just trolling.

The Michelle de Bruin lynch-mob members clearly have no interest in the truth as they are happy to post their unsupported statements and musing without access to facts and they cannot quote any supporting information. "Oh the Mirror said she let us down, the Sun said this, RTE said that, Humphreys on the back page of the Times said something else, me told me granny she doesn't like her" - all merely opinion, a lot of which has been shown in the thread to be based on lies and mis-information.

The condemnatory sheep who would continue with their bigoted farce aimed at dragging down a high-achieving female in the face robust evidence to the contrary, all have the same tune - "She is baaahd, she is baaahd, she is baaahd, baaahd I tell you, someone, somewhere told she is baaahd, so she must be baaahd." It gets annoying when the constant bleating drowns out truth, fact and honesty, because as flock members they can really only hear each other, but at least in winter they can huddle together for warmth.

Now get the flock outta here.:p

Tombo2001 · 31-07-2012 07:22AM

my understanding of the situation is that the performance enhancer she was using was only made illegal for competitive purposes in 1997.

She won her medals in 1996, at which time the product was not illegal, and as such she wasnt breaking any rules.

So where does one stand on that? I dont know.

Anyway Ronnie Delaney was and will be our greatest Olympian and imho or greatest sportsman until someone comes along and wins the Olympic 1500m again. For me there is no bigger event in individual sports. And Sonia our greatest sportswoman.

Tombo2001 · 31-07-2012 07:27AM

Royal Legend wrote: »

Personally, there was no proof that she cheated, she is in my eyes our greatest Olympian.

Her main accuser was a swimmer in the USA, not exactly clean are they either.
Its amazing that more is not made of Carl Lewis 4 golds, are they not tainted? or Flo Jo for that matter, greatest sprinter ever, tested more than most, fastest woman of all time, yet her memory is tainted by some, a) because she was so fast and b) because she died from a heart attack a few years later.
Its easy to cast aspertions on someones character, but without proof it is libelous IMO.
I was watching iTalk sport on Setanta a few weeks ago when Coughlan was on it with Kimmage and Kimmage got thick with Coughlan about his opinion of drugs in Athletics, Kimmage as much as said that Bolt could not possibly do what he does legally. Eamonn put Kimmage in his place, that he had a chip on his shoulder about drug taking in sport

You are right about the US being as guilty as anyone else, at least in the 1980s and 1990s.

But about Kimmage having a chip on his shoulder.........you could hardly say he is making it up now, could you? I know he has made a career out of calling time on drug cheats.......but major sporting events have consistently disappointed with regard to drug cheating and the inability of the authorities to deal with it......Kimmage's own sport being the prime example.

alastair · 31-07-2012 08:29AM

mathepac wrote: »

The condemnatory sheep who would continue with their bigoted farce aimed at dragging down a high-achieving female in the face robust evidence to the contrary, all have the same tune - "She is baaahd, she is baaahd, she is baaahd, baaahd I tell you, someone, somewhere told she is baaahd, so she must be baaahd." It gets annoying when the constant bleating drowns out truth, fact and honesty, because as flock members they can really only hear each other, but at least in winter they can huddle together for warmth.

Let it go. She was a cheat and got caught. We've come to terms with it. You should too.

mathepac · 31-07-2012 08:47AM

alastair wrote: »

... She was a cheat and got caught. ....

Prove it dates, times, places, test results - all those little things that go to build a credible body of evidence that she cheated her way to being our supreme olympic champion

alastair wrote: »

... We've come to terms with it. ...

I wish you and your cohort well in your recovery and hopefully you'll all have a warm and woolly future..

alastair wrote: »

... You should too.

Thanks for the "shudds, cudda, wuddas". I like eating sheep but I could't live with them.

Karsini wrote: »

Except for the fact she wasn't tested positive for an anabolic steroid.

As @Karsini pointed out above the stuff that some of Michelle's detractors trot out as fact at times is just downright embarrassing.

Sea Filly · 31-07-2012 09:41AM

mathepac wrote: »

I see no point in re-posting information already given in the thread by someone who had inside knowledge of what happened and when.

Now why does this not surprise me?

alastair · 31-07-2012 10:09AM

mathepac wrote: »

Prove it dates, times, places, test results - all those little things that go to build a credible body of evidence that she cheated her way to being our supreme olympic champion.

Well - a finding of sample tampering by FINA is fairly clear as to her guilt in '98 - as were her attempts to undermine the integrity/legitimacy of FINA. The IOC testing of her B sample which found testosterone only clarifies the matter. I was aware that most of the Irish swim scene were working under the assumption she was doping in 1994 - I was told so at the time. That she then went on to patently unbelievable improvements in performance, past her prime, doesn't really do anything to disprove those assumptions. Her peers, the experts in the field, the governing bodies who oversee doping, and all common sense point to her being a cheat. If it walks and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

leeroybrown · 31-07-2012 10:44AM

mathepac wrote: »

BTW who do you think gives a shyte about your distorted view of what happened and your crappy and rather creepy attempt at re-aligning reality to match your crazy views?.

I'd like to thank you for your attempt to engage in an eloquent adult discussion on the subject and remind you that I still believe Michelle Smith to be a drug cheat and consider her sample tampering as clear evidence of it. There's no real point to my engaging in further "discussion" with you.

mathepac · 31-07-2012 11:08AM

Sea Filly wrote: »

Now why does this not surprise me?

Well it doesn't surprise me in the least that you're too lazy to bother to research the topic and rely on the "dogs in the street" argument as evidence.

As a sound man once said "put up or shut up" like a good fellah and stop trolling.

mathepac · 31-07-2012 11:13AM

leeroybrown wrote: »

I'd like to thank you for your attempt to engage in an eloquent adult discussion on the subject and remind you that I still believe Michelle Smith to be a drug cheat and consider her sample tampering as clear evidence of it. There's no real point to my engaging in further "discussion" with you.

I engage in adult discourse with adults. Your beliefs have no bearing here, evidence in support of the wrong-doing you allege does (for only the 10,000th time

)

Sayonara Leerey

Sea Filly · 31-07-2012 11:55AM

mathepac wrote: »

As a sound man once said "put up or shut up" like a good fellah and stop trolling.

Take your own advice.

Royal Legend · 31-07-2012 12:06PM

That young Irish one in the yacht or whatever it is, winning two Olympic races, after coming from no where, something dodgy there, I mean, you can't just arrive from no where and start winning races, she must be on something

Or maybe its part of a big betting scandal, all the other racers have placed big money on some unknown Irish girl to win Gold

Now that we know this to be true, (cause I wrote about it on boards)
I cannot accept her even if she wins the Gold medal

:rolleyes:

Almaviva · 31-07-2012 12:09PM

I think Coughlan is spot on and Michelle is indeed Ireland's greatest olympian. Complaining about her being on drugs is missing the point - drugs, cheatings, gambling, corruption, mickey mouse sports, 'sports' whose outcome is determined by judges, politics, jingoism, etc. are all part and parcel of what the modern olympics are all about. It may not be sport, but Michelle bought in to this new olympic ideal of anything-goes-as-long-as-you-get-away-with-it and succeeded.
The olympics is a sickening sham to most true sports fans. But then so was Michelle Smith, and so she deserved her 'success'.

StephenHendry · 31-07-2012 12:18PM

Almaviva wrote: »

I think Coughlan is spot on and Michelle is indeed Ireland's greatest olympian. Complaining about her being on drugs is missing the point - drugs, cheatings, gambling, corruption, mickey mouse sports, 'sports' whose outcome is determined by judges, politics, jingoism, etc. are all part and parcel of what the modern olympics are all about. It may not be sport, but Michelle bought in to this new olympic ideal of anything-goes-as-long-as-you-get-away-with-it and succeeded.
The olympics is a sickening sham to most true sports fans. But then so was Michelle Smith, and so she deserved her 'success'.

we can only speculate that she was possibly using illegal substances leading up to the olympics in 96 and during it but we can't be 100 percent certain. im sure this is the anlge eamonn coughlan is coming from but in 98 she was caught out and lost her european medals.

later12 · 31-07-2012 12:45PM

sunflower27 wrote: »

Yes, 28 is most definitely considered quite old for a swimmer.

I find it very hard to believe she won Olympic gold on her own merit. How many seconds (minutes ) did she shave off her personal best times to win the gold?

Got this off the web:

Ireland never had been a swimming powerhouse. They had never won an Olympic medal, and their best hope going into the 1996 games in Atalanta, Michelle Smith, had never finished better than 17th in any race in previous Olympics. But a miracle happened in 1996. At the age of 28, Michelle Smith came out of nowhere to win 3 gold medals and 1 bronze.

That's somewhat misleading though.

That just applies to the Olympics, not world or European championships. There were only two previous Olympics, the first when she was a rather inexperienced 18 year old. You're choosing not to inform people that her Barcelona Olympics was marred by her injury problems; and even when she competed at the World Championships two years before Atlanta, she came just outside the medals, again being upset by illness. You have to take these things into account when considering Smith's progress in the run up to Atlanta.

Smith was a prominent international swimmer and European gold medalist long before the Atlanta games and you choosing to mask that by reference to her underperformance at previous Olympics, without explaining why that might have been, is deliberately misleading.

Red21 · 31-07-2012 01:22PM

It seems that many defending her are completely unaware of how unbelieveable her improvements were, if she was an american it's douthful she would have ever competed in the olympics, until her mid 20's:eek:,they have swimmers of her ability in every state that never make the USA team.
She peaked for the 88' games and after these games she trained unbelieveably hard day-in day-out, month-in mouth-out, year-in year-out like most athletes she was prepared to go trough untold amounts of work/pain/dedication just to remain at her peak level unfortunately for the 92' games the world had moved on, new swimmers were on the scene and as a result Smith didn't do as well as she had in 88'.
Comparing this the differance from 92' to 96' to other sports just shows how ignorant people are about swimming, even for her to get into one olympic final at that stage of her career is off the scale in terms of believabilty. If the woman had won the 100m sprint and broke Javilin WR at in Athlanta it wouldn't have added to the level of unbelivablity because you couldn't, we were all maxed out for crazy in athlata 96'.

mathepac · 31-07-2012 01:25PM

alastair wrote: »

Well - a finding of sample tampering by FINA is fairly clear as to her guilt in '98 -.

So big deal. Some crowd found her guilty of "sample tampering" 2 years after the olympics? FFS she could have committed mass murder in '98 and it wouldn't effect the status of her medals, won fair and square in '96.

Lesson 1 today class - sums.

98 - 96 = ? Cad e an freagra a bhuacailli agus a cailini? A do, ta an ceart agaibh. Two, a positive integer, class, which means that if we treat 96 and 98 as ordinals, 98 is greater than 96 which means that 96 comes first. Ta sibh go han mhaith ar fad, ar fad.

This does not mean that you can interpolate (or extrapolate) that a person who had a spoiled sample in 98 also had a spoiled sample in 96. Ta sin micheart a bhuacailli agus a cailini. What we we call people whose reasoning works that way? Ceart, "revisionists", sin ainm amhain, "deluded or delusional" might fit, sea, "eejits", ceart ,sin ainm eile, but we must be careful not to upset them in case they cry.

Now what else do delusional revisionist eejits do? Well they might suggest that bacuase a spoiled sample is observed / tested in 98 that also makes someone guilty of taking drugs in 96!!

Can you imagine a bhuacailli agus a cailini. Stopann an Gharda me. "Ya have a baldy tyre dere, bud, because a da' I'm chargin' ya wi' drunk-drivin' two tears ago. Blow in the bag please."

"You cheeky fecker, I'm not going near your poxy girl-friend. Go bhoire Dia orainn, cad a dheanaimid feasta gan Gaybo?"

Do ye understand now a bhuacailli agus a cailini?

Beig Latin againn now so Reductio ad absurdum to ye all.

alastair wrote: »

... The IOC testing of her B sample which found testosterone only clarifies the matter. ...

This was also in 98. By jackers lads this is powerful sutff, stupid and idiotic beyond belief in terms of
the 96 olympic achievements, but powerful enough to finally kill off the lynch-mob's non-arguments. Tell us what happened in 96 - no-one with half a brain cares what happened in 98 because it has no bearing on her performance in 96.

alastair wrote: »

... I was aware that most of the Irish swim scene were working under the assumption she was doping in 1994 - I was told so at the time. That she then went on to patently unbelievable improvements in performance, past her prime, doesn't really do anything to disprove those assumptions. Her peers, the experts in the field, the governing bodies who oversee doping, and all common sense point to her being a cheat. If it walks and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

An anonymous someone who had been told by another anonymous someone else in some dark alley told you these irrefutable facts. Well I guess that settles the argument once and for all. The looney majority talk to each other about a flat-earth and convince each other it must be true because they are all saying it. They have no evidence other than the behind the hand whispers but it's all true. Of course they miss the crucial fundamental issue that all this happen 2 years before the olympics, with no substantiating test data. Nice one as a Brit might say, all your evidence gathering was done by the West Midlands Police naturally and Widgerey & Co. adjudicated on it.

I have to say your case for olympic drug-cheating by Michelle de Bruin is as solid as moth eaten lace and is just as likely to stand the test of time.

Sea Filly · 31-07-2012 01:41PM

later12 wrote: »

That just applies to the Olympics, not world or European championships. There were only two previous Olympics, the first when she was a rather inexperienced 18 year old.

18 would be peak time for a female swimmer.

27 would be the beginning of the end.

Red21 · 31-07-2012 01:42PM

later12 wrote: »

That's somewhat misleading though.

That just applies to the Olympics, not world or European championships. There were only two previous Olympics, the first when she was a rather inexperienced 18 year old. You're choosing not to inform people that her Barcelona Olympics was marred by her injury problems; and even when she competed at the World Championships two years before Atlanta, she came just outside the medals, again being upset by illness. You have to take these things into account when considering Smith's progress in the run up to Atlanta.

Smith was a prominent international swimmer and European gold medalist long before the Atlanta games and you choosing to mask that by reference to her underperformance at previous Olympics, without explaining why that might have been, is deliberately misleading.

This is a very misleading post her PBs don't back up what you are saying or are you saying she was marred by injury form the age of 16 to 24.
Why would she be inexperienced at the 88' games you do known that she is 2 years older than Evans and she won 3 golds at the 88' games

Shelflife · 31-07-2012 02:03PM

look the question was who is our greatest olympian. now clearly in the fact that she hold 3 golds and one bronze this would make her the most successful irish olympian ever.

This is a basic fact, she still holds those medals.

Now the fact that something happened two years later is basically irrelevant to what happened in 96.

Any logical person would clearly have to question the improvement and the subsequent sample tampering but based on the FACTS, she won the medals, she passed all the tests and and she was never asked to return the medals.

The arguement that, well she had a better chemist than the testers can easily be made for every athlete that passes a test.

In the end the only person she has to answer to is herself, if she cheated shes a fool to herself if she didnt she knows that shes a true champion.

My own personal belief is that she was as clean as the rest of her competitors.

later12 · 31-07-2012 02:18PM

Red21 wrote: »

This is a very misleading post her PBs don't back up what you are saying

Which part don't they back up?

I have no idea whether the then Smith/ later de Brun used banned substances prior to the 1996 Olympic Games. So I'm not saying anything on that front either way.

All I'm saying is that the post was misleading. If someone is going to mention Smith's rankings in the Barcelona Olympics, at least have the honesty to mention a significant injury which might have affected that; or the fact that Smith was a European gold medalist and not exactly a swimming nobody as sunflower27's post suggested.

Lets look at all the facts, but those facts do include a tremendously disappointing and badly timed set of injuries in Smith's early career.

Sea Filly · 31-07-2012 02:26PM

later12 wrote: »

Lets look at all the facts, but those facts do include a tremendously disappointing and badly timed set of injuries in Smith's early career.

Which experts who cast doubt on her achievements are, I'm sure, fully aware of.

later12 · 31-07-2012 02:37PM

Sea Filly wrote: »

Which experts who cast doubt on her achievements are, I'm sure, fully aware of.

Indeed; my point is merely that the situation is not quite as absurd as the poster, sunflower27, was suggesting. People are being very selective with the truth on both sides of this thread.

Smith's actions are suspicious, but she was a world class athlete prior to Atlanta 1996 with some considerable successes and placings.

Red21 · 31-07-2012 03:12PM

later12 wrote: »

In

Smith's actions are suspicious, but she was a world class athlete prior to Atlanta 1996 with some considerable successes and placings.

True, but she wasn't a world class athlete prior to meeting Eric de Bruin.

The badly timed injuries claim is often touted by the De bruin camp, this is just a smoke screen in attempt to confuse the public but lets just say it's true and she was very unlucky in the early 90s, her PBs should then tell a true story of how fast she was troughout her career and if there was a massive swing in the graph after meeting Eric de bruin

Michelle de bruin still holds 4 national records they were all achieved in 96/97 , does anybody have the records in her events down trough the years from 96 back to 86 i've seen them before somewhere but can't seem to find them now.

later12 · 31-07-2012 03:21PM

Red21 wrote: »

True, but she wasn't a world class athlete prior to meeting Eric de Bruin.

She met him at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, her second games.

How many "non world class athletes" make two Olympics Games and come 13th in the World Championships (again, long before meeting de Bruin)

I'd like to re-iterate that I do find Smith's improvement in 1996 dramatic and difficult to explain; I think it's entirely possible that she was using banned substances. But some of the references to her undeniable talent, as though she was a complete nobody trashing about in an aqua aerobics class before she discovered all the delicious drugs, is slightly bizarre.

Everyone is too desperate to perpetuate their own black and white interpretation of the Michelle Smith story, with one side unwilling to accept any wrongdoing, and the other side unwilling to accept what was undoubtedly an extraordinary talent.

alastair · 31-07-2012 05:29PM

mathepac wrote: »

An anonymous someone who had been told by another anonymous someone else in some dark alley told you these irrefutable facts. Well I guess that settles the argument once and for all. The looney majority talk to each other about a flat-earth and convince each other it must be true because they are all saying it. They have no evidence other than the behind the hand whispers but it's all true.

(various deranged rants removed)

Nothing anonymous about it. I was told by a fairly high profile figure in the Irish swim world that her performance and times in '94 could only be attributable to doping. That's a judgement made by people closely engaged with the sport, and familiar with her previous record. No dark alleys or whispers behind the hand. I know for certain that Tom Humphries had been approached by swimmers concerned about the situation. Michelle was already playing the evasion game with testers at the time.

Now you might claim that she was entirely innocent at this time, and that the gamesmanship with testers and rapid improvement in times were nothing to do with the certainty that we have about her actions a couple of years later - but that lacks a certain credibility.

nikkime · 31-07-2012 05:49PM

Yeh I find it a bit hard to believe that her times could go through such a dramatic change...no matter what the field of sport all athletes have a fairly consistent track record and normally for trying to shave hundreths of a second off their PBs over a more lengthy time...

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

Comments