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

alastair · 01-08-2012 10:33AM

Royal Legend wrote: »

You really are a complete fkucing clown

where was she caught tampering with her sample?

Trolling simpletons like you should find something useful to do.

She was caught tampering with her sample in her own home. That's why she got the ban. This is fairly well known surely?

http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0607/smith.html

Colmustard · 01-08-2012 10:36AM

Royal Legend wrote: »

I have to say that some of the comments on here in relation to Michelle are slanderous and how the moderators are not putting a stop to false claims and innuendo is beyond me.

To my mind some of the comments on here are absolutely disgusting when you consider that they are not based on any fact whatsover.

God help Michael Phelps, Michael Johnson, Usain Bolt or Steve Redgrave if they had of been Irish.

I don't know if you are naive or a relation to the girl, but you tell me why she would lace her sample with alcohol. If your explanation is logical and not a conspiracy theory I will agree with you.

bbam · 01-08-2012 10:39AM

Royal Legend wrote: »

where was she caught tampering with her sample?

She was found guilty of tampering with the sample and received a four year ban for same..

mathepac · 01-08-2012 10:45AM

Royal Legend wrote: »

I have to say that some of the comments on here in relation to Michelle are slanderous and how the moderators are not putting a stop to false claims and innuendo is beyond me.

To my mind some of the comments on here are absolutely disgusting when you consider that they are not based on any fact whatsover...

You make a good point.

It strikes me that the moderators have been very lenient with the "let's denigrate Michelle and her achievements at all costs" camp. They've been allowed wide temporal scope (88 92 94 & 98) and have relied on makey-uppy stories, hearsay from journalists (who would clearly have no commercial agenda, such as selling newspapers) and what Harry told them he overheard Tom saying to Dick. Every single post off-topic, apart from those that say they an produce no evidence of wrong-doing in relation to the 96 olympics.

The thread topic is whether we agree with Eamo or not. I do. Michelle has no case to answer and remains our greatest Olympic champion ever.

Shelflife · 01-08-2012 10:45AM

alastair wrote: »

"Pull up your jumper there so I can have a better look at you peeing"?

Doesn't seem like a conversation anyone would want to have.

I'm pretty sure no large bottle of Paddy was involved in the tampering - so not surprising it wasn't noticed.

2B7 Once in the privacy of the Sample Collection area, the Athlete must remove all clothing
between the waist and mid-thigh, in order that the DCO has an unobstructed view of the
passing of the urine Sample. Sleeves should be rolled up so that the Athlete’s arms and
hands are also clearly visible.

2B8 The DCO shall directly observe the Athlete when providing the Sample, adjusting his/her
position so as to have a clear view of the entire Sample leaving the Athlete’s body.

It may not be a conversation that anyoneone would like to have, but it was their JOB to do it properly, they clearly did not.

She was not caught tampering with the sample, the sample was tampered with by person or persons unknown, but no one was caught tampering with it.

again im not suggesting that she is entirely innocent, but the testers clearly have a lot of questions to answer as well.

alastair · 01-08-2012 10:50AM

mathepac wrote: »

You make a good point.

It strikes me that the moderators have been very lenient with the "let's denigrate Michelle and her achievements at all costs" camp. They've been allowed wide temporal scope (88 92 94 & 98) and have relied on makey-uppy stories, hearsay from journalists (who would clearly have no commercial agenda, such as selling newspapers) and what Harry told them he overheard Tom saying to Dick. Every single post off-topic, apart from those that say they an produce no evidence of wrong-doing in relation to the 96 olympics.

The thread topic is whether we agree with Eamo or not. I do. Michelle has no case to answer and remains our greatest Olympic champion ever.

I can assure you that when I say that her peers were confident that she was doping in '94 - there wasn't any Tom, Dick, or Harry involved, and the only journalist mentioned didn't actually publish anything on the subject - so hard to know what the commercial agenda might have been there?

What does she have to answer for? Well, that should be obvious. She was a cheat.

Ash.J.Williams · 01-08-2012 10:51AM

If she had "done a flo jo" and retired after the gold medals, it would have been so different!

alastair · 01-08-2012 10:52AM

Shelflife wrote: »

It may not be a conversation that anyoneone would like to have, but it was their JOB to do it properly, they clearly did not.

She was not caught tampering with the sample, the sample was tampered with by person or persons unknown, but no one was caught tampering with it.

again im not suggesting that she is entirely innocent, but the testers clearly have a lot of questions to answer as well.

They were questioned - and the finding was that Michelle tampered with the sample. De facto - she was caught tampering with the sample. She appealed the decision and lost.

"Based on the facts of the case and the evidence before them, the arbitrators were of the opinion that FINA had convinced them that the Appellant [de Bruin] was the only person who had the motive and opportunity to manipulate the sample."

That's not an 'unknown' person - it's a 'specified' person.

Cienciano · 01-08-2012 10:52AM

The samples are sealed and aren't opened till they get to the lab. If we're questioning the testers, or saying someone got to it afterwards, we could say the same about every positive test of any athlete of all time. Actually, same with every negative test, someone could get to the sample and replace the piss with a clean sample.

Higher · 01-08-2012 10:55AM

How can anyone doubt it?

Average swimmer, didn't win anything. Then suddenly shes breaking WRs out of nowhere, this is DESPITE the fact that she was older. Then her tests are tampered with.

If she wasn't Irish you'd be screaming from the rafters.

Americans tampering with her test? LOL. Jesus ****ing christ.

mathepac · 01-08-2012 11:04AM

lugha wrote: »

This is the most interesting aspect of the whole story to me, that there are so many that seemingly see nothing suspicious about the whole business....

You seem confused by the thread topic. Do you know what it is? I have asked the anti-Michelle crew to produce evidence of her wrong-doing. We have now, nearly 500 posts later, established that they have no evidence of wrong-doing. That is all I wanted to establish. I have no other agenda except to try and ensure that Michelle's accusers admit their accusations were made without foundation in fact. I've done that. Other agendas you might ascribe to me are purely creations of your own imagination.

lugha wrote: »

... I am amused reading the posts of those who take refuge in the fact that there is no proof that something underhand was afoot in ’96. ...

I say it again - I have asked the anti-Michelle crew to produce evidence of her wrong-doing. The end of story for me was they couldn't, which says a lot more about them than it does about me, or Michelle for that matter.

lugha wrote: »

... It reminds me of discussions I had with Fianna Fail supporters about Haughey back in the day. I would suggest that there was something dodgy about him and his money, that it made no financial sense that he should have the wealth he did have without “assistance”, just as de Bruin’s performances made no swimming sense, according to those that know, without “assistance”. And the resolute answer they always gave was “nothing has ever been proven against him”. True, but …....

Off topic nonsense and irrelevant.

lugha wrote: »

...
Perhaps we will see these same posters on another thread insisting that there are only isolated examples of corruption in local Irish politics on the grounds that only a small number have been convicted? The reality of course is that with both corruption and doping in sport, a great many more evade detection than get caught, hence the appeal of the “prove it” argument to those who would deny reality.....

Off topic nonsense and irrelevant.

lugha wrote: »

...
Is there proof that Michelle cheated in ’96? No, and bar an admission, there probably never will be? ...

Excellent, a relevant comment at long last.

Thanks for that further admission that Michelle has no case to answer and remains our supreme Olympic Champion.

alastair · 01-08-2012 11:06AM

mathepac wrote: »

You seem confused by the thread topic. Do you know what it is? I have asked the anti-Michelle crew to produce evidence of her wrong-doing. We have now, nearly 500 posts later, established that they have no evidence of wrong-doing.

Except for the cheating of course. The ban didn't arise out of anything else.

mathepac · 01-08-2012 11:06AM

Colmustard wrote: »

No she took drugs. She should be stripped of her medals.

/Thread.

Off topic rubbish. This thread is about the 96 Olympics and evidence that she took drugs then, a point you and others have obviously missed.

mathepac · 01-08-2012 11:09AM

alastair wrote: »

Except for the cheating of course. The ban didn't arise out of anything else.

And how does any of that align with her performance in the 96 olympics and the medals she still holds? That's the thread topic. You've already admitted there is no evidence she cheated then so you are now off-topic, again.

alastair · 01-08-2012 11:12AM

mathepac wrote: »

And how does any of that align with her performance in the 96 olympics and the medals she still holds? You've already admitted there is no evidence she cheated then so you are now off-topic, again.

You're not the arbitrator of that tbh.

Is she a proven cheat? Yes she is.
Would that undermine her record as 'greatest olympian'? I'm pretty sure it would for most people.

And that's to just sideline the concerns about the validity of her performance (by her peers now - not any Tom, Dick, or Harry) from '94 onwards.

Morgans · 01-08-2012 11:12AM

It is not off-topic.

If you think it is, good luck to you.

She should have an * beside her olympic titles along with all olympians who have previously and subsequently failed or tampered with drug tests.

The majority of Irish people do not think she is Ireland's greatest olympian becase of the failed and tampered drug tests that happened after the game. It makes many people who were able to suspend their disbelief of 1996, change their mind and regard her as an embarrassment to the rest of Irish olmpyians who got the olympics using their natural ability.

It is 100% on topic. You just have run out of reasonable debate.

And now I believe trolling. Enjoy the rest of the argument.

marienbad · 01-08-2012 11:14AM

mathepac wrote: »

Off topic rubbish. This thread is about the 96 Olympics and evidence that she took drugs then, a point you and others have obviously missed.

Might I ask you as we you are confining it to the olympics and you Give the gold to Michelle as our greatest , who would you give the silver and bronze to as our second and third best olympians ?

Pherekydes · 01-08-2012 11:14AM

Higher wrote: »

How can anyone doubt it?

Average swimmer, didn't win anything. Then suddenly shes breaking WRs out of nowhere, this is DESPITE the fact that she was older. Then her tests are tampered with.

Americans tampering with her test? LOL. Jesus ****ing christ.

She went nowhere near any world records. It makes you wonder, though, doesn't it?

Morgans · 01-08-2012 11:16AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

She went nowhere near any world records. It makes you wonder, though, doesn't it?

Is this some sort of proof that she didnt take banned substances? The 100m women's record still stands. Even convicted drug cheat Marian Jones couldnt get near it.

Ash.J.Williams · 01-08-2012 11:21AM

After achieving what Michelle achieved in the olympics, it defies logic why she would "take up" drugs afterwards.

later12 · 01-08-2012 11:21AM

Higher wrote: »

How can anyone doubt it?

Average swimmer, didn't win anything.

Eh no.

I'm a little disappointed how much of the "undoubtedly guilty"'s camp depends on this argument.

She was dominant in Irish swimming from the age of 14, made it to her first Olympics at 18, was 13th in the world at 21... and all of this before she met her allegedly corrupting coach/ partner at 22. She went on to win gold at the European Championships and subsequently came 5th in the world championships - years before the Atlanta Olympics.

Decribing her as "an average swimmer" just doesn't cut it. She was clearly a world class swimmer, who had had the misfortune of suffering a significant injury prior to the 1992 games (where she still managed a very impressove performance, under the circumstances).

I'd like to reiterate that I'm not convinced that Smith is entirely innocent; but if your argument is that she was "an average" swimmer, or wasn't winning anything before Atlanta, then your argument falls down. Badly.

How many average swimmers come 5th in the world, or win European Gold medals?

Tombo2001 · 01-08-2012 11:21AM

marienbad wrote: »

Might I ask you as we you are confining it to the olympics and you Give the gold to Michelle as our greatest , who would you give the silver and bronze to as our second and third best olympians ?

Ronnie Delaney is our Greatest olympian.

OK thats a personal view, but no matter what way you cut it there are doubts over Michelle.

But more than that.

In the 1950s, athletics was arguably the most popular sport, more popular than soccer for example. Meets attracted huge crowds. The hype over the 4 minute mile was massive. This was the context for his win.

Even today, for me, the 1500meters is THE banner event for the Olympics. More so in my view than the 100m.

To say that Ireland has a 1500 metre Olympic champion means a lot more to me personally than to say Ireland has a 200 metres backstroke/ butterfly or whatever else champion. Some sports, I just dont give a crap (personally); when Cian O'Connor won.....did I care.....no. When he (or the horse) was caught out.....did i care....no.

The 1500m is the no.1 gold medal to win in the entire Olympics, and Ronnie Delaney won it.

I'm surprised he doesnt get more credit for it.

lugha · 01-08-2012 11:23AM

mathepac wrote: »

You seem confused by the thread topic.

No, it is you I’m afraid that is confused. The question essentially is do you believe that Michelle was our greatest ever Olympian and not the revised but different question that you have focused on: can you prove that she cheated? Can you see the difference?

My comparison with political corruption was to emphasise the distinction between what reasonable, intelligent people might believe to be going on in a particular arena and what they can prove. Of course were you to be consistent and say that you also believe (on the basis of lack of proof) that there is little evidence of corruption in Irish politics any credibility you have for your argument would be immediately gone. So you had the good sense to evade the analogy by pretending you didn’t get the point of it.

Ok, lets stick with sport. Do you take the view that any suspicion of cheating, be it match fixing, doping or whatever, by any athlete in any sport should not be considered to have any merit unless there was absolute proof that there was cheating in that particular event? Regardless of how odd the play or outcome of that event might be? Regardless of whether the competitors involved were later found to be cheats?

later12 · 01-08-2012 11:24AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

After achieving what Michelle achieved in the olympics, it defies logic why she would "take up" drugs afterwards.

It also defies logic why, if she were to artificially gain muscle mass, she would bother with androstenedione, which apparently is not even banned by the NBA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androstenedione

Pherekydes · 01-08-2012 11:25AM

Morgans wrote: »

Is this some sort of proof that she didnt take banned substances? The 100m women's record still stands. Even convicted drug cheat Marian Jones couldnt get near it.

Nah. Proof is just of the form "OMG, she swam faster!" and "She didn't retire at 21 or 22 and kept training" and "OMG, she comes from a country with a bad historical record in swimming".

Now that's proof!

alastair · 01-08-2012 11:27AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Nah. Proof is just of the form "OMG, she swam faster!" and "She didn't retire at 21 or 22 and kept training" and "OMG, she comes from a country with a bad historical record in swimming".

Now that's proof!

You missed the part where she was caught cheating.

Morgans · 01-08-2012 11:27AM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Ronnie Delaney is our Greatest olympian.

OK thats a personal view, but no matter what way you cut it there are doubts over Michelle.

But more than that.

In the 1950s, athletics was arguably the most popular sport, more popular than soccer for example. Meets attracted huge crowds. The hype over the 4 minute mile was massive. This was the context for his win.

Even today, for me, the 1500meters is THE banner event for the Olympics. More so in my view than the 100m.

To say that Ireland has a 1500 metre Olympic champion means a lot more to me personally than to say Ireland has a 200 metres backstroke/ butterfly or whatever else champion. Some sports, I just dont give a crap (personally); when Cian O'Connor won.....did I care.....no. When he (or the horse) was caught out.....did i care....no.

The 1500m is the no.1 gold medal to win in the entire Olympics, and Ronnie Delaney won it.

I'm surprised he doesnt get more credit for it.

I'd vote for Ronnie Delany as well.

Sonia O'Sullevan was clearly the best runner at her distances of her generation, the most dominant athlete Ireland has produced in my lifetime (especially when she first came onto the scene) but didnt happen to fall right for her at the Olympics.

Higher · 01-08-2012 11:27AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Nah. Proof is just of the form "OMG, she swam faster!" and "She didn't retire at 21 or 22 and kept training" and "OMG, she comes from a country with a bad historical record in swimming".

Now that's proof!

I'm pretty sure the tampering with the sample and testing positive for steroids is proof.

Tombo2001 · 01-08-2012 11:29AM

later12 wrote: »

Eh no.

She went on to win gold at the European Championships and subsequently came 5th in the world championships - years before the Atlanta Olympics.

She wasnt an average swimmer but she wasnt a world beater either.

The performances you describe above were in 1994 and 1995.......

Is this "years before" the 1996 Olympics.....yes, two years before. (and two years after she met her coach).

You've been a bit liberal with the facts there.

As an 18 year old, she "narrowly missed out on a semi-final spot in the Olympics", which is another way of saying she did well in her heat but didnt progress.

Which is about where Sycerika McMahon is now. And is more or less consistent with how the best Irish swimmers have done through the years.

Morgans · 01-08-2012 11:29AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Nah. Proof is just of the form "OMG, she swam faster!" and "She didn't retire at 21 or 22 and kept training" and "OMG, she comes from a country with a bad historical record in swimming".

Now that's proof!

You think this is what is being used as proof. Not the failed and tampered drugs test??

Had she retired after the olympics, many would have given her the benefit of the doubt. She didn't.

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

Comments