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…1617192122…27

Comments

  • #542
    Balmed Out
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Balmed Out


    Some call Carl lewis the worlds greatest Olympian ever, Linford Christie is still a Hero in Britain yet both failed drugs tests while poor Michelle who never failed a test is villified in her home country, hardly seems fair.

    Im of the opinion that just about all finalists are on something, certainly in athletics, swimming and cycling.


  • #543
    Higher
    Site Banned Posts: 1,519 ✭✭✭Higher


    Balmed Out wrote: »
    Some call Carl lewis the worlds greatest Olympian ever, Linford Christie is still a Hero in Britain yet both failed drugs tests while poor Michelle who never failed a test is villified in her home country, hardly seems fair.

    Im of the opinion that just about all finalists are on something, certainly in athletics, swimming and cycling.

    she failed 3 drug tests for crying out loud.

    If she wasn't Irish there wouldn't even be a discussion about it.

    She is known around the world as being one of the biggest cheats in Olympic history.


  • #544
    Higher
    Site Banned Posts: 1,519 ✭✭✭Higher


    later12 wrote: »
    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!

    It is drugs. She tested positive in case you forgot.

    Also swimming is different to cycling. Its well established that swimmers peak far earlier.


  • #545
    Lord of the Bongs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 121 ✭✭Lord of the Bongs


    Higher wrote: »
    she failed 3 drug tests for crying out loud.

    If she wasn't Irish there wouldn't even be a discussion about it.

    She is known around the world as being one of the biggest cheats in Olympic history.

    The substances she was banned for were at the time only recently banned substances, its interesting to note how many others in history may have used them and to just what effect they are actually performance enhancers. And these substances were not, as far as I know, found in tests during the Olympics otherwise she would have been stripped of her medals.

    The Americans cried wolf but thats only because the lost, fair and squarely as far as im concerned.


  • #546
    Lord of the Bongs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 121 ✭✭Lord of the Bongs


    Higher wrote: »
    It is drugs. She tested positive in case you forgot.

    Also swimming is different to cycling. Its well established that swimmers peak far earlier.

    On average the peak age is 21, on average. She was 26. hardly over the hill.


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭mathepac


    alastair wrote: »
    Except for the cheating of course. The ban didn't arise out of anything else.
    The thread topic is her 96 olympic achievements, maybe you'd stick with that rather than constantly attempting to deflect the thread into irrelevancies.
    alastair wrote: »
    You're not the arbitrator of that tbh.
    In this case I am
    alastair wrote: »
    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.
    I'm not sure when "most people" appointed you as their spokesman, but the allegations of cheating at the 96 Olympics lack evidence and there is a cloud of suspicion hanging over the testing procedures and indeed the testers after that.
    alastair wrote: »
    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.
    Where have all these wonderful upstanding people, who are not named Tom, Dick or Harry, spoken out? What public record is there of them voicing their concerns? Where did they make their complaints heard? What evidence did they gather and what were they able to produce at an official investigation? Or is it that while they had suspicions they hadn't the guts to act on them? Or is it that they all suddenly, like the majority of posters here suddenly became experts after '98? "Oh, we knew all along, didn't we Mary dear? It was so obvious, as I said to Alastair the other day. I mean I know it was 16 years ago but I remember like it just yesterday". The usual auld "Valley of the Squinting Windows" tripe. John Weldon would certainly recognise the place from his writings nearly 100 years ago.
    Morgans wrote: »
    It is not off-topic.
    It clearly is as are most of your posts. The thread title is, just to refresh your mind "Was Michelle de Bruin our greatest Olympian? Eamonn Coughlan says yes" inviting discussion about her 96 olympic performances. Anything else is off-topic.
    Morgans wrote: »
    ... 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.
    I wasn't aware that the majority of Irish people had requested you to speak on their behalf or that you had polled them to gauge their opinions. Let's stick with her 96 olympic achievements shall we, just for a change as that's the thread topic.
    Morgans wrote: »
    ... 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.
    Don't you think it's a bit strange then that a statement by an irish olympian in support of michelle's achievements started this debate? or did you not realise that with your wide-ranging meanders off-topic?[/QUOTE]
    Morgans wrote: »
    ...It is 100% on topic. You just have run out of reasonable debate.

    And now I believe trolling. Enjoy the rest of the argument.
    If you think I'm trolling report me to the mods, and let them take appropriate action, otherwise withdraw your unfounded allegation please.


  • #548
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,814 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Lord of the Bongs wrote: »
    On average the peak age is 21, on average. She was 26. hardly over the hill.

    It is for this sport.

    Phelps won 4 Olympic Individual golds aged 19.
    He won 5 Olympic Individual golds aged 23
    He won 0 Olympic Ind golds aged 27 and just....(and he was 26 until one month ago).

    Similar for Kirst Coventry.....

    Show us one other swimmer who peaked in late 20s.

    Bradley Wiggins comparison is silly. There are plenty of early '30s TdF winners, and very early '20s ones.


  • #549
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Higher wrote: »
    It is drugs. She tested positive in case you forgot.

    Also swimming is different to cycling. Its well established that swimmers peak far earlier.

    Oh for Heaven's sake. This is a statistical generality; there is no rigid rule that a swimmer cannot improve throughout her early to mid twenties, especially if her early training regime & facilities were substandard.

    I keep reiterating that I do have suspicions about Smith, but I find it baffling to see how far people are going in order to try and suggest she was a swimming nobody or came, as one of the earlier references said "from last to first".

    Sorry, but you do not make 3 Olympic games, finish 5th at a world championships, win European Gold medals and Olympic Gold medals over a period of a years and never fail a drugs test in that time if you are anything less than a seriously talented athlete.
    Lord of the Bongs wrote:
    And these substances were not, as far as I know, found in tests during the Olympics otherwise she would have been stripped of her medals.
    Again - this substance was not banned during the Atlanta Games because nobody believed it was/ is an anabolic steroid - it was only banned after the games. It is still permissible in sports like basketball. Read up on it.

    There may have been some other drug behind Smith's victories, we can not be 100% sure imo, but it probably wasn't the drug she was found to have taken in 1997.


  • #550
    Higher
    Site Banned Posts: 1,519 ✭✭✭Higher


    later12 wrote: »

    Sorry, but you do not make 3 Olympic games, finish 5th at a world championships, win European Gold medals and Olympic Gold medals over a period of a years and never fail a drugs test in that time if you are anything less than a seriously talented athlete.


    FINA said she had been avoiding tests since 1995. Conveniently from 1995 onwards she began winning those titles. She was ranked 90th in the world when she was complying with the tests and didn't win anything, in fact her best finish was 13th when she was at her physical peak.

    You can continue living in fantasy land though.


  • #551
    NTMK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,575 ✭✭✭NTMK


    later12 wrote: »
    Oh for Heaven's sake. This is a statistical generality; there is no rigid rule that a swimmer cannot improve throughout her early to mid twenties, especially if her early training regime & facilities were substandard.

    I keep reiterating that I do have suspicions about Smith, but I find it baffling to see how far people are going in order to try and suggest she was a swimming nobody or came, as one of the earlier references said "from last to first".

    Sorry, but you do not make 3 Olympic games, finish 5th at a world championships, win European Gold medals and Olympic Gold medals over a period of a years and never fail a drugs test in that time if you are anything less than a seriously talented athlete.


    one of the crucial points of the argument against her is the 17 seconds see managed to clear off her time. for a world class swimmer this is a crazy amount of time to clear epically after finishing her physical development at around 21.

    It is true she may not have reached her peak until 26 but at her level its really difficult to gain a few seconds not to mind gaining 17.

    add in the fact that she did avoid out of competition testing which is where most of the doping does occur

    but

    She was never found guilty at the games so her medals do stand. but her legacy is tainted by her positive tests 15 months later


  • Advertisement
  • #552
    Sea Filly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭Sea Filly


    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. 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.

    Nail on the head.


  • #553
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭mathepac


    While there's a gap - I apologise for causing offence in post #390 above for which I received a deserved infraction.

    My apology was delayed because I was busy, not because it is offered with bad grace.


  • #554
    Sea Filly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭Sea Filly


    later12 wrote: »
    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.

    Different sport. Different gender. Which both make a difference.

    And cycling and doping go hand in hand, so bad example.


  • #555
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Higher wrote: »
    FINA said she had been avoiding tests since 1995.
    Totally misleading statement there, this has been done.

    I believe it's impossible to say with any significant confidence whether Smith was clean or not at Atlanta. The drug tests say she was, as do previous tests regardless of the above statement, but natural scepticism says there had to have been something wrong.

    People on both sides, trying to misrepresent the case (for a crazy number of pages, ad nauseum) will always fail to convince those who are interested in the objective facts of the case, which are scant and do not come down heavily on either side.


  • #556
    Lord of the Bongs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 121 ✭✭Lord of the Bongs


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    It is for this sport.

    Phelps won 4 Olympic Individual golds aged 19.
    He won 5 Olympic Individual golds aged 23
    He won 0 Olympic Ind golds aged 27 and just....(and he was 26 until one month ago).

    Similar for Kirst Coventry.....

    Show us one other swimmer who peaked in late 20s.

    No it isnt.

    is this the same Phelps that has two Silver medals from 2012? Perhaps he hasnt declined but just beaten by a better athlete!

    One quick search shows that This Guy won a gold at age 29!! actually bettering him performance four years earlier!!.


    maybe he was on drugs? zzzz


  • #557
    Sea Filly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭Sea Filly


    later12 wrote: »
    will always fail to convince those who are interested in the objective facts of the case, which are scant and do not come down heavily on either side.

    Luckily people knowledgeable on the sport, don't need to convince any layperson. :cool:


  • #558
    Beefy78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    Plus wasn't the guy who beat Phelps for gold at the weekend the same age as he is? Some people peak at different ages.


  • #559
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Sea Filly wrote: »
    Luckily people knowledgeable on the sport, don't need to convince any layperson. :cool:

    What are you doing here then? Off with you.


  • #560
    Lord of the Bongs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 121 ✭✭Lord of the Bongs


    Higher wrote: »
    FINA said she had been avoiding tests since 1995. Conveniently from 1995 onwards she began winning those titles. She was ranked 90th in the world when she was complying with the tests and didn't win anything, in fact her best finish was 13th when she was at her physical peak.

    You can continue living in fantasy land though.


    these tests you go on and on about did she avoid all of them? Surely and i mean for definite she would have been tested numerously and thoroughly and nothing was found. to say she avoided some tests as concrete proof of drug taking is ludicrousness in the extreme


  • #561
    Sea Filly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭Sea Filly


    later12 wrote: »
    What are you doing here then? Off with you.

    It's interesting to read. You know the way sometimes it nice to read things that are, like, interesting and stuff?

    Not saying I'm one of those experts, I'm saying I give more weight to their opinions than anyone here on any side.


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mathepac wrote: »
    The thread topic is her 96 olympic achievements, maybe you'd stick with that rather than constantly attempting to deflect the thread into irrelevancies.
    Entirely relevant - as has been pointed out to you by a number of people.
    mathepac wrote: »
    In this case I am
    Really? Who appointed you to this position?
    mathepac wrote: »
    I'm not sure when "most people" appointed you as their spokesman, but the allegations of cheating at the 96 Olympics lack evidence and there is a cloud of suspicion hanging over the testing procedures and indeed the testers after that.
    There's no cloud hanging over the testing procedure, nor the testers. That's a fiction of your making.

    mathepac wrote: »
    Where have all these wonderful upstanding people, who are not named Tom, Dick or Harry, spoken out? What public record is there of them voicing their concerns? Where did they make their complaints heard? What evidence did they gather and what were they able to produce at an official investigation? Or is it that while they had suspicions they hadn't the guts to act on them? Or is it that they all suddenly, like the majority of posters here suddenly became experts after '98? "Oh, we knew all along, didn't we Mary dear? It was so obvious, as I said to Alastair the other day. I mean I know it was 16 years ago but I remember like it just yesterday". The usual auld "Valley of the Squinting Windows" tripe. John Weldon would certainly recognise the place from his writings nearly 100 years ago.

    I made quite clear that they did go public - right up to the point of avoiding litigation. We're talking '94 here - no need for after-the-fact expertise.


  • #563
    StephenHendry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭StephenHendry


    later12 wrote: »
    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!

    exactly, nobody was questionning cadel evans last year when he won the tour at 34


  • #564
    StephenHendry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭StephenHendry


    later12 wrote: »
    Totally misleading statement there, this has been done.

    I believe it's impossible to say with any significant confidence whether Smith was clean or not at Atlanta. The drug tests say she was, as do previous tests regardless of the above statement, but natural scepticism says there had to have been something wrong.

    People on both sides, trying to misrepresent the case (for a crazy number of pages, ad nauseum) will always fail to convince those who are interested in the objective facts of the case, which are scant and do not come down heavily on either side.

    yeah, in relation to the games in 96 we don't know for certain whether she was or wasnt', there is no absolute proof either way.


  • #565
    Lord of the Bongs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 121 ✭✭Lord of the Bongs


    NTMK wrote: »
    one of the crucial points of the argument against her is the 17 seconds see managed to clear off her time. for a world class swimmer this is a crazy amount of time to clear epically after finishing her physical development at around 21.

    It is true she may not have reached her peak until 26 but at her level its really difficult to gain a few seconds not to mind gaining 17.

    add in the fact that she did avoid out of competition testing which is where most of the doping does occur

    but

    She was never found guilty at the games so her medals do stand. but her legacy is tainted by her positive tests 15 months later

    yes the dramatic increase in her times would raise eyebrows but like you said she became a world class swimmer. why people are so readily believing to say drugs can only be the factor for such an improvement and that someone could not train themselves when they know their body has developed and peaked is beyond me. I could cite numerous professionals that made dramatic leaps and bounds late on in their career because they blossomed later on in life or took the sport more seriously because they became more mature.


  • #566
    Sea Filly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭Sea Filly


    Lord of the Bongs wrote: »
    yes the dramatic increase in her times would raise eyebrows but like you said she became a world class swimmer. why people are so readily believing to say drugs can only be the factor for such an improvement and that someone could not train themselves when they know their body has developed and peaked is beyond me. I could cite numerous professionals that made dramatic leaps and bounds late on in their career because they blossomed later on in life or took the sport more seriously because they became more mature.

    People can improve, sure, but not how she did. People shave fractions of seconds up to a few seconds off their time over a period of a few years. Not 17 seconds. People who know what they're talking about have said this.


  • #567
    Balmed Out
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Balmed Out


    As a former competitive swimmer I think the whole swimmers peaking early is pure and absolute bs, anyone have medical backup?

    Its a sport that requires more training then most and people burn out.
    As a 12 year old you could be hitting the pool at 5.45 am. At school everyones talking about V or whatever tv show is popular at the time but your in bed at 9 and never see them. Training is very intensive and can be very lonely. You may be in a lane with lots of others but your going up and down, up and down over and over again and your competing only with yourself. If your doing just about any other sport theres different scenery etc.

    Most swimmers regardless of ability dont manage to get past the ages of 15 to 18 and manage to not quit. Those that keep it up and reach olympic heights often quit after the one games and end up trying to make a comeback later - thorpe, spitz even janet evans. Lisby got a gold this year in the womens relay after making a comeback but normally they dont manage to replicate the success. How could you though, after getting to appreciate a normal life, return to the intense training and restricted lifestyle.


    There are plenty who have managed to compete at the highest level for extended levels. Darra Tores broke the american 50m record twice - the second time was about 25 years after she first broke it.

    Janet Evans, the USA swimmer who famously accused de bruin of drugtaking was a bit of a sore loser. She won 3 golds in 88 and swam faster in 88 then de bruin did in atlanta (despite a very goofy stroke and being a very slight girl) so de bruins performance wasnt so amazing, the best happened not to be so great in atlanta. The US doping agency during the 80s and 90s famously did not report a 100 or so failed tests that should have led to the banning of among others carl lewis.

    Personally I think the vast, vast majority of athletes are taking some sort of drug whether its a not yet banned or in a regime so as to avoid getting caught. the 100m famous ben johnson final ended with Johnson getting a ban and having his medal taken of him, Lewis winning who should have been banned in the first place and Christhie getting bronze who's test in the 200m race in the same games tested positive for a stimulant.

    The IOC try to get in as much money as possible, positive drug testis will reduce that, World and olympic records will improve it. ...........


  • #568
    Lord of the Bongs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 121 ✭✭Lord of the Bongs


    Sea Filly wrote: »
    People can improve, sure, but not how she did. People shave fractions of seconds up to a few seconds off their time over a period of a few years. Not 17 seconds. People who know what they're talking about have said this.


    So your just regurgitating something someone else said? any opinions of your own? In the sports world people can and do improve drastically, if they are dedicated enough, she was. She may have swam at lesser speeds in her early career that does not mean that it is impossible to improve later on, imo.


  • #569
    Morgans
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,444 ✭✭✭Morgans


    And what Lewis was banned for then, would not fail a test now. Its a shame that Michelle Smith has no such defense.


  • #570
    Sea Filly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭Sea Filly


    Lord of the Bongs wrote: »
    So your just regurgitating something someone else said? any opinions of your own?

    Yup, I am. Problem? I do have opinions, but they hold less weight than expert ones. Not all opinions are equal. I never said it was impossible to improve, by the way.


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Morgans wrote: »
    And what Lewis was banned for then, would not fail a test now. Its a shame that Michelle Smith has no such defense.
    Erm, the drug Smith was found to have taken in 1997, was not banned in 1996.... when she won all those shiny medals.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement