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

alastair · 01-08-2012 11:30AM

Tom Kiely.

http://www.tipperaryathletics.com/images/Tom%20Kiely.jpg

Shelflife · 01-08-2012 11:31AM

alastair wrote: »

You missed the part where she was caught cheating.

Alastair

If the testers did their job properly, how did she tamper with the sample ?

read the procedures that i outlined in a previous post and explain how this could happen.

Cheers

Colmustard · 01-08-2012 11:31AM

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.

Really I wont go into as to why there was a cloud of suspicion over her at that Olympics, or that she had a convicted drugs cheat as a husband and coach and she did tamper with a sample. Now why would she do that.

Linford Christie a similar story, he did win an olympic gold for the 100 metre sprint but he later got caught, you notice he is no-where near the Olympic commentary team or he was not invited to participate in the preparation for the games. Now why is that?

alastair · 01-08-2012 11:33AM

Shelflife wrote: »

Alastair

If the testers did their job properly, how did she tamper with the sample ?

read the procedures that i outlined in a previous post and explain how this could happen.

Cheers

I've read the findings of FINA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport. They seem to know what they're talking about. They clearly find fault with Michelle - not the testers.

Lord of the Bongs · 01-08-2012 11:37AM

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.

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

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

u do realise the Olympics are every four years. It is plausible, as is evident with here performances in the years leading up to the 1996 Olympics, that she was training hard and genuinely improved to the point were she achieved what she did, without drugs. Im positive she was tested multiple times over her career with no doping found. So unless you have actual proof and not just some conspiracy theory which the Americans love, then the wholes in your argument are nothing more than a witch hunt.

She does look like a witch, i wouldnt ride her either.

Pherekydes · 01-08-2012 11:38AM

alastair wrote: »

You missed the part where she was caught cheating.

Higher wrote: »

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

In 1997. Check the date of the Atlanta games.

later12 · 01-08-2012 11:39AM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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

No, I also mentioned her world championships in 1991 where she came 13th.

These are not "average" performances - which is the point I am responding to. I'm not saying she was world champion, but she was up there, consistently. One would have thought that if she were using drugs, that would have been discovered sometime in between becoming national champion, European champion and 5th in the world in the eight years before Atlanta.

Hell, one would have assumed it would even have been picked up during the many drug tests in Atlanta, or shortly afterwards!

The only drug she was found to have taken is so tame (indeed, it wasn't even banned during Atlanta) it couldn't possibly account for her performances; but sure, there may be some other mystery drug at play. I'm not denying that, but the drug tests did.

Morgans · 01-08-2012 11:42AM

If an Irish swimmer was second to a swimmer with the profile of De Bruin.

Sure as the three chinese athletes were running away from Sonia in the World Championships there was outrage.

A "Flash in the wok" as George Hamilton said.

Shelflife · 01-08-2012 11:45AM

alastair wrote: »

I've read the findings of FINA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport. They seem to know what they're talking about. They clearly find fault with Michelle - not the testers.

But you would hardly expect them to find fault with themselves ?

That reminds me of blackadder where the judge and the witness were the same person

StephenHendry · 01-08-2012 11:47AM

she never tested positive during the olmpics in 1996. the problems came later on in 1997 and 1998 which obviously put here achievements in atlanta under suspicion.

her 3 gold and 1 bronze may not be beaten by an irish athlete for a very long time yet if ever

Higher · 01-08-2012 11:47AM

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

u do realise the Olympics are every four years. It is plausible, as is evident with here performances in the years leading up to the 1996 Olympics, that she was training hard and genuinely improved to the point were she achieved what she did, without drugs. Im positive she was tested multiple times over her career with no doping found. So unless you have actual proof and not just some conspiracy theory which the Americans love, then the wholes in your argument are nothing more than a witch hunt.

She does look like a witch, i wouldnt ride her either.

Right so, she doesn't win anything (not even european competitions for **** sake) and she passes the tests.

Then suddenly she becomes world champion, breaking records and a few months later fails the test. Not only that but there is evidence she tried to tamper with the test.

Weird........

alastair · 01-08-2012 11:48AM

Shelflife wrote: »

But you would hardly expect them to find fault with themselves ?

That reminds me of blackadder where the judge and the witness were the same person

The court of arbitration is an independent body.

Morgans · 01-08-2012 11:48AM

How are the court for arbitration for sport and FINA the same?

And a few posts ago, it was those damning de Bruin who were the conspiracy theorists.

Anyway, more convinced than ever that those supporting her havent got a leg to stand on.

Paddy Samurai · 01-08-2012 11:50AM

Whats legal today ,is illegal tomorrow ,and vice versa. IMO they are all taking something ,most are lucky to get away with it. Drugs are continually been developed and tweeked,so that they are considered outside the banned list.

THG had never been spotted before because it was a new synthetic drug, designed to be undetectable. With a sample, though, the Anti-Doping Agency was able to develop a test for the drug - and many prominent sports players and athletes were engulfed in the subsequent scandal.

A losing battle

It is likely that drugs manufacturers will continue to be steps ahead of the regulators. It is possible, even likely, that there are other 'undetectable' drugs in use. Drug investigators and coaches alike are pragmatic about the fact.

Let them take what they want IMO, once its not suicidal. I’m sure the ancient greeks took stimulants to increase their sporting performance.

The future

The future of cheating

As genetic therapy techniques develop, the opportunity to cheat begins to look limitless. Future developments in performance-enhancing substances may include:
New 'undetectable' drugs

New ways to administer existing drugs without being detected
skin patches, for example, can deliver a steady dosage of the drug, which is harder to detect

Genetic therapy: injecting genes directly into muscles, lungs or other target areas
this was achieved some time ago in trials on animals

The nature of genetic therapy treatments means they will probably be almost impossible to detect.
This is one of the points used in arguments for the legalisation of drugs.

The last point means the richer countries will be able to get away with developing more complex(undectable drugs).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/sport/debate/types_1.shtml

Colmustard · 01-08-2012 11:53AM

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

Whats legal today ,is illegal tomorrow ,and vice versa. IMO they are all taking something ,most are lucky to get away with it. Drugs are continually been developed and tweeked,so that they are considered outside the banned list.

Let them take what they want IMO, once its not suicidal. I’m sure the ancient greeks took stimulants to increase their sporting performance.

The last point means the richer countries will be able to get away with developing more complex(undectable drugs).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/sport/debate/types_1.shtml

I seen that and its undetectable for now, just as all the other cheating techniques where when they first came out.

But techniques will develop and they to will be caught. At least i hope so.

Lord of the Bongs · 01-08-2012 12:02PM

Higher wrote: »

Right so, she doesn't win anything (not even european competitions for **** sake) and she passes the tests.

Then suddenly she becomes world champion, breaking records and a few months later fails the test. Not only that but there is evidence she tried to tamper with the test.

Weird........

The testing during and before the Olympics didnt show any signs of doping. There is nothing to suggest she used drugs when winning her Olympic gold medals. She was only 26 at the time of the 1996 Olympics. She peaked at the right time. Unless there is prove you cant really deny that she wiped the floor with the best in the world on her own merits. so though its 'weird' to see someone become something the have always strived for eh

Higher · 01-08-2012 12:05PM

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

The testing during and before the Olympics didnt show any signs of doping. There is nothing to suggest she used drugs when winning her Olympic gold medals. She was only 26 at the time of the 1996 Olympics. She peaked at the right time. Unless there is prove you cant really deny that she wiped the floor with the best in the world on her own merits. so though its 'weird' to see someone become something the have always strived for eh

LOL

"After her Olympic success, it was discovered that FINA, swimming's international federation, had repeatedly expressed concern that Smith was unavailable for out-of-competition drug tests from 1995 onward.

Tombo2001 · 01-08-2012 12:05PM

later12 wrote: »

No, I also mentioned her world championships in 1991 where she came 13th.

These are not "average" performances - .

Depends on what you mean by average.

In 1988 and 1992, her Olympic performances were average, if compared to her fellow Olympians. Possibly below average. She didnt qualify from her heats and she was closer to the rear of the field than the front of the field.

They were obviously above average, when compared with the local championships in Wickow. But thats not the benchmark.

Higher · 01-08-2012 12:11PM

Lets get the facts.

Michelle Smith is an average swimmer pre 1996.

She starts training with a new swim coach, someone who had himself been suspended for four years for doping

At her physical peak as a swimmer she is ranked 90th in the world.

Then suddenly she starts winning, she goes from 90th in the world to bagging 3 golds in the Olympics and beating her previous swimming times by a whopping 17 seconds.

FINA state that she has COMPLETELY avoided all out of competition drug tests.

Finally they make an unexpected visit to her home to test her.

They find that someone has tampered the test by using alcohol to dilute it.

Despite the dilution her urine tests positive for steroids.

How on earth do people think she didnt dope?

swimming in a sea · 01-08-2012 12:14PM

I once worked in the lawlibrary and I fixed her email account and she sent me a nice email of thanks. So she's all right by me;)

dr.bollocko · 01-08-2012 12:14PM

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

She does look like a witch, i wouldnt ride her either.

Mod:

No more of this kind of crap please.

mathepac · 01-08-2012 12:14PM

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 ?

Off-topic again; why not start your own thread if joining in the topic under discussion doesn't suit you?

Lord of the Bongs · 01-08-2012 12:16PM

Higher wrote: »

LOL

"After her Olympic success, it was discovered that FINA, swimming's international federation, had repeatedly expressed concern that Smith was unavailable for out-of-competition drug tests from 1995 onward.

Lame conspiracy attempt there, have you actually checked how much time she spent 'out-of-competition' pre 1996? Might surprise you the answers there. Apparently she was setting Irish records during the whole of 1995. God help her if she may have took a holiday and was 'unavailable' at some point.

alastair · 01-08-2012 12:22PM

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

God help her if she may have took a holiday and was 'unavailable' at some point.

She took an awful lot of holidays for a number of years.

Higher · 01-08-2012 12:22PM

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

Lame conspiracy attempt there, have you actually checked how much time she spent 'out-of-competition' pre 1996? Might surprise you the answers there. Apparently she was setting Irish records during the whole of 1995. God help her if she may have took a holiday and was 'unavailable' at some point.

She avoided tests for 2 years. Out of competition simply means not in the day before, during or after competition by the way.

So she avoids the test for 2 years. They finally get her to do a test. She tampers with the test and tests positive.

The test follows her going from being ranked 90th in the world to winning 3 gold medals in the Olympics in less than 18 months. In 18months she beats the time set by her when she was in her prime physically as a swimmer by 17 seconds.

later12 · 01-08-2012 12:26PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by average.

In 1988 and 1992, her Olympic performances were average, if compared to her fellow Olympians. Possibly below average.

I don't know about 1988, but she had an injury in 1992, and she certainly wasn't below average even then.

"average" or "below average" swimmers just don't break national records and come 5th in the world championships or win European Gold and Olympic gold and never test positive for a drug. That sounds like a remarkable burst of luck for an "average" swimmer,as well as being something of a biochemical freak of nature.

Even when she had been found to have taken a drug much later, it was a drug which I think we all agree utterly fails to explain her performances; indeed it hadn't even been banned at Atlanta in 1996, and can still be used by athletes like basketball players without restriction.

While I do agree that there may be some serious questions about Smith's record, the point I am countering is that she was "average" before Atlanta. Come on. If we are going to have a serious debate, at least let both sides be honest about her ability.

StephenHendry · 01-08-2012 12:28PM

Higher wrote: »

She avoided tests for 2 years. Out of competition simply means not in the day before, during or after competition by the way.

So she avoids the test for 2 years. They finally get her to do a test. She tampers with the test and tests positive.

The test follows her going from being ranked 90th in the world to winning 3 gold medals in the Olympics in less than 18 months. In 18months she beats the time set by her when she was in her prime physically as a swimmer by 17 seconds.

another thing if she was using stuff in 96 and 95, it may have been legal then but illegal today or a few years after. just a thought really ....

Lord of the Bongs · 01-08-2012 12:29PM

Higher wrote: »

She avoided tests for 2 years. Out of competition simply means not in the day before, during or after competition by the way.

So she avoids the test for 2 years. They finally get her to do a test. She tampers with the test and tests positive.

The test follows her going from being ranked 90th in the world to winning 3 gold medals in the Olympics in less than 18 months. In 18months she beats the time set by her when she was in her prime physically as a swimmer by 17 seconds.

The two years you are reffering to are the two years after the Olympics. Was she tested before, during and immediately after the Olympics? i suspect the answer is yes and did they find any doping/drugs in her system, the answer is no. Hence why she still has her medals.

Lord of the Bongs · 01-08-2012 12:30PM

StephenHendry wrote: »

another thing if she was using stuff in 96 and 95, it may have been legal then but illegal today or a few years after. just a thought really ....

if that was the case it would still be headline news and no one, even me would take her gold medals as genuinely won

later12 · 01-08-2012 12:32PM

Higher wrote: »

In 18months she beats the time set by her when she was in her prime physically as a swimmer by 17 seconds.

How do you know when she was in her prime?

Bradley Wiggins, at 32, is a man who is indesputably "past his prime" by somewhat primitive reference to age, yet has just won his first Tour de France.

If we were to follow the mindset suggested by you people, he'd never even have been allowed take the victory because how dare someone improve their performance past the age of 25? I can't explain it, so it must be drugs!

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

Comments