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

My two issues with Michelle de Bruin case:

1) The lack of contrition towards Janet Evans who was nothing but diplomatic and fair in her discussions about Michelle

2) Why didnt she just retire after the Olympics and leave everyone guessing

My own opinion is those who believe she swam clean are flat earth society members. Evidence and intuition are against them IMO.

mathepac wrote: »

What evidence do you have to offer? Your opinion as someone who is not an expert and who was not party to the what happened at the time, counts for nothing. For the upmteenth time where is your evidence? Have you gone to the pound to rescue the descendants of the dogs on the street at the time and interviewed? Have you test results from the Olympics? Affidavits from legit testers with no personal agendas?

The real answer here, as with others, is that you have nothing to offer in support of your allegations, just prejudice and ill-founded rumour.

I claim its an opinion, but there is no ones opinion or no one's evidence that would satisfy you. That's the beauty of the flat earth society membership. Evidence and judgements are dismissed as conspiracies. There is simply no evidence that could be persuasive.

Those who believe Michelle de Bruin was a drugs cheat. What point of theirs gives you most pause for thought?

mathepac wrote: »

If someone makes allegations of wrong-doing the normal expectation is that they produce evidence in support of their allegations. In the absence of any evidence the normal thing in civilised western society is that they withdraw their allegations, sometimes with an apology. or face defamation charges.

Unfortunately as this is the Interweb it comes down to who can shout loudest for the longest time, with the mindless mob high-fiving each other for posting non-evidence-based statements and further polarisation of opinion with no middle ground.

You have no evidence because in the 16 years since the olympics none has surfaced, anywhere, and that's what's so sad here. It's not justice, it's simply mob-rule and prejudice.

Under mosts systems of justice, the accuser produces evidence in support of their claims and bears the burden of proof. The accused doesn't have to open his or her mouth or make one statement in their defence because the presumption of innocence until proven guilty still prevails (except in the Scotch system).

Considering the amount of athletes in a load of sports who never tested positive, but had doped, the innocent until proven guilty doesn't work too well for sport imo.

There's plenty against Smith that you can show she was doping tbh

Can doping have that much of an effect though? Like if your 10th in the world, can it put you in first? As a hypothetical question. I don't think drug use can do that much to a persons abilities. And you have to consider that the competition will be using as well. So it's not like there's one cheat pumped up to the gills and the rest clean as a whistle.

mathepac wrote: »

Point me to evidence you or your cohort have produced. Despite repeated requests you have come up with nothing - diddly, zero, nada, squat.

As the accuser surely you'd think it's appropriate to have something, anything to hang your accusations on. As the defendant if you like, I don't have to produce anything, just ask you to back up your accusations. Shouting loudly while ganging up is not evidence of anything other than mob-rule.

Flat Earth Society answer. There is no decent point that the other side have.

You call it mob-rule, it was clear at the time that the swimming community (then and now) didnt believe she was clean, Gary O'Toole on RTE being a fantastic commentator, but others like Nick O'Hare have commented then and since, the journalists that followed the sport at the time didnt believe she was clean, including those known to be interested in drugs in sport (Humphries and Walsh) the authorities of Irish sport (was it John Treacy who said that her legacy to Irish sport was good anti-doping policy) didnt believe that she was clean, that she was subsequently found to have tampered an out of competition sample with testosterone, and the 4 year ban confirmed by Court of Sports Arbitration.

Mob-rule indeed. Uninformed opinions. That you supercede.

She didnt fail a test at the 96 Olympics. If you think that is enough to convince you she was clean during the olympics, I believe you not to be looking at the full picture. Best of luck to you.

The only people I feel sorry for are her family who embarrassed themselves by coming out to defend her on RTE. I feel she should apologise to them. The rest of country can wonder all they want.

Feisar wrote: »

Can doping have that much of an effect though? Like if your 10th in the world, can it put you in first? As a hypothetical question. I don't think drug use can do that much to a persons abilities. And you have to consider that the competition will be using as well. So it's not like there's one cheat pumped up to the gills and the rest clean as a whistle.

It's not a magic pill, you still need to put in the training. How many are doping is anybody's guess. 10th in the world clean is a pretty decent achievement, regardless of whether the 9 ahead are clean.

Where the major gains are made are women doping with anabolic steroids, they have a much greater impact on female physiology. Which is the reason why it was women athletes from the Eastern bloc nations that dominated decades ago, and also why suspicion is directed at female Chinese athletes and not male ones.

Funny to hear her get a mention from Jon Kenny, when talking about individual medley performances at the Olympics. Good to know not everyone wants to airbrush simple history.