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

Lord of the Bongs · 01-08-2012 02:21PM

Sea Filly wrote: »

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.

Yes, your unquestionable belief in the opinions of others. The doping testing is completely flawed, as is its governing body (all sports). But you take your medicine and believe what they tell you. he cant do that, she cannot swim that fast, sigh.

Sea Filly · 01-08-2012 02:27PM

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

Yes, your unquestionable belief in the opinions of others. The doping testing is completely flawed, as is its governing body (all sports). But you take your medicine and believe what they tell you. he cant do that, she cannot swim that fast, sigh.

For foooook's sake.

Not interacting with you any more, you get the last word. Yay! \o/

Higher · 01-08-2012 02:30PM

later12 wrote: »

Erm, the drug Smith was found to have taken in 1997, was not banned in 1996.... when she won all those shiny medals.

Does it matter? Andro was a new steroid, the only reason it wasn't banned was because it hadn't been added to the list yet. The fact is no one else was on it except Michelle Smith. Thats why she went from 90th to three time gold medal winner. Hardly an achievement to juice in a women's event and win.

Lord of the Bongs · 01-08-2012 02:30PM

Sea Filly wrote: »

For foooook's sake.

Not interacting with you any more, you get the last word. Yay! \o/

nice way to lose a debate, because I told you you would

Higher · 01-08-2012 02:34PM

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

Yes, your unquestionable belief in the opinions of others. The doping testing is completely flawed, as is its governing body (all sports). But you take your medicine and believe what they tell you. he cant do that, she cannot swim that fast, sigh.

So you expect us to instead believe that in 18 months Michelle Smith went from being 90th in the world to number 1 and cut 17 seconds off her best time? And that the fact that she missed EVERY out of competition drug test since 1995 and that she tampered with her test when she finally did do one and that it tested positive anyway is just one big coincidence?

Jesus christ, I think you should take your medicine mate.

mathepac · 01-08-2012 02:38PM

alastair wrote: »

Entirely relevant - as has been pointed out to you by a number of people...

And because there's anumber of them they have to be correct. I think not. Measure the relevance of most of their posts against the thread topic and clearly they are off-topic.

alastair wrote: »

... Really? Who appointed you to this position?...

Clearly the same one who appointed you as spokesman for most of the people in Ireland, the selection process is identical, the money very poor.

alastair wrote: »

... There's no cloud hanging over the testing procedure, nor the testers. That's a fiction of your making....

My statements are based on the content of posts already made in the thread, but not by me. I have paraphrased as follows:

My Guy, a former customs official, left his own post under a cloud of suspicion. It isn't clear how he procured his position as a tester or what special training he got, if any
There is an allegation in the thread, not posted by me that Mrs. Guy said they would "get" Michelle
Follow the evidence given by Mrs. Guy and quoted above about when the whiskey became evident in the 98 sample. The sample travelled from the toilet to the kitchen and suddenly she and husband became aware of a smell of whiskey, sweetish. Does that not seem strange?
There is also the strange anomaly between Carl Lewis' A & B samples

There you go, four seperate posts none made by me that supply evidence in support of my reservations about the testing procedures and the testers. Do you see how easy it is when you have some evidence - no dark alleys and Tom Dick and Harry stuff.

alastair wrote: »

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.

But that only means that the evidence they purported to have would not withstand judicial scrutiny - hearsay, rumour, lies, etc. If they were confident and had the courage of their convictions they'd have gone ahead.

Tombo2001 · 01-08-2012 02:52PM

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

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

Haha.....randomly chosen swimmer who also happened to be " At 29, he became the oldest American male Olympic swimmer since 1924 when Duke Kahanamoku competed."....

At 29, he was the oldest US olympic swimmer for 80 years!!!!!

Plus the fact that older swimmers move towards shorter events.

Wibbs · 01-08-2012 02:53PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

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

I'd be a bit surprised on that score myself. Yes I could see a person in most sports making big gains between 14 and 17 as their body and hormones mature, but surely their peak is after that age, maybe closer to 25? IIRC in physically active men their testosterone peaks in their late 20's give or take a year. Looking at extreme shíte like the Tour de France you're not likely to see a 20 year old win it anytime soon and again IIRC the oldest to win it was in his mid 30's.

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. ...........

I'd have a similar suspicion myself.

Lord of the Bongs · 01-08-2012 02:54PM

Higher wrote: »

So you expect us to instead believe that in 18 months Michelle Smith went from being 90th in the world to number 1 and cut 17 seconds off her best time? And that the fact that she missed EVERY out of competition drug test since 1995 and that she tampered with her test when she finally did do one and that it tested positive anyway is just one big coincidence?

Jesus christ, I think you should take your medicine mate.

I believe she won those medals fair and square. The media spin of her avoiding tests is exaggerated and IF the governing body could not force her to do tests they are not much use really and are incompetent at best. She was tested quite regularly, in season, and nothing or traces of anything was ever found. good enough for me.

Tombo2001 · 01-08-2012 02:55PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

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

.........

Its a fact that swimmers peak early. The only debate is what the reasons are for that.

alastair · 01-08-2012 02:58PM

mathepac wrote: »

[*]My Guy, a former customs official, left his own post under a cloud of suspicion. It isn't clear how he procured his position as a tester or what special training he got, if any

He left a job unrelated to his role as a tester, and that places a cloud over his competancy as a tester? I don't think so - how do you figure?

mathepac wrote: »

[*]There is an allegation in the thread, not posted by me that Mrs. Guy said they would "get" Michelle

An unfounded allegation. One that you would expect to be raised by Michelle's defence - and yet wasn't. I'm proposing that this is because it never actually happened.

mathepac wrote: »

[*]Follow the evidence given by Mrs. Guy and quoted above about when the whiskey became evident in the 98 sample. The sample travelled from the toilet to the kitchen and suddenly she and husband became aware of a smell of whiskey, sweetish. Does that not seem strange?

Not really - given that the initial container was sealed post-pee, then it was decanted under their noses on a kitchen table - I know where I'd expect the smell to become more obvious.

alastair · 01-08-2012 02:59PM

mathepac wrote: »

But that only means that the evidence they purported to have would not withstand judicial scrutiny - hearsay, rumour, lies, etc. If they were confident and had the courage of their convictions they'd have gone ahead.

They would have? Do you make a habit of inviting litigation on yourself?

Tombo2001 · 01-08-2012 03:06PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be a bit surprised on that score myself. Yes I could see a person in most sports making big gains between 14 and 17 as their body and hormones mature, but surely their peak is after that age, maybe closer to 25? IIRC in physically active men their testosterone peaks in their late 20's give or take a year. Looking at extreme shíte like the Tour de France you're not likely to see a 20 year old win it anytime soon and again IIRC the oldest to win it was in his mid 30's.

I'd have a similar suspicion myself.

8 of past 12 TdeF winners were in their '30s, 2 were 29.

The two wins by a guy in his mid-20s were by Alberto Contador, a confirmed doper.

The two winners you'd have highest confidence in not being dopers were 32 and 34.

Muscles change as you get older. They become less flexible, less twitchy, less supple, but also they get stronger and can sustain more endurance.

Thats why a lot of 15 year olds do well in gymnastics; and a lot of 35 year olds do well in Marathons. And not the other way around.

Does this fit into swimmers peaking early? I dont know, it may do.

mathepac · 01-08-2012 03:11PM

Androstenedione - is there a pharmacist / chemist in the house?

This stuff, which was apparently found in Michelle's contaminated '98 sample, is a precursor to both male and female sex hormones, but it requires other "stuff" to combine with and/or to act as a catalyst to decide which way it goes.

Was any of the other stuff found in Michelle's '98 sample and if so which ones?

bullpost · 01-08-2012 03:13PM

I'd be very interested to see a poll on this thread topic as its going around in circles somewhat.
There does seem to be a discrepancy between how Michelle is treated by Official Ireland and how she is viewed by the "ordinary people".

Would be keen to see how boardies stand on this, given the lack of direct evidence for any wrongdoing for her Olympic wins but the circumstantial evidence around her swimming career.

StephenHendry · 01-08-2012 03:20PM

bullpost wrote: »

I'd be very interested to see a poll on this thread topic as its going around in circles somewhat.
There does seem to be a discrepancy between how Michelle is treated by Official Ireland and how she is viewed by the "ordinary people".

Would be keen to see how boardies stand on this, given the lack of direct evidence for any wrongdoing for her Olympic wins but the circumstantial evidence around her swimming career.

yeah, there is no concrete evidence on any wrongdoing for her during the atlanta games except rumour, hearsay pointing to probable wrongdoing

mathepac · 01-08-2012 03:33PM

I dunno. Sometimes I get the impression you're being deliberately obtuse and then I think maybe it's the specs ...

alastair wrote: »

He left a job unrelated to his role as a tester, and that places a cloud over his competancy as a tester? I don't think so - how do you figure?

I don't, as I clearly stated I was paraphrasing - check the original post for the detail and challenge the original poster about the accuracy, oh and maybe pay closer attention before you start running off at the keyboard

An unfounded allegation. One that you would expect to be raised by Michelle's defence - and yet wasn't. I'm proposing that this is because it never actually happened.

Bearing amazing resemblances to your unfounded allegations, meaning they never happened either, if that's they way you wish to proceed. Your allegations about cheating at the 96 olympics were never raised in the initial hearing, so cheating there definitely never happened

Not really - given that the initial container was sealed post-pee, then it was decanted under their noses on a kitchen table - I know where I'd expect the smell to become more obvious.

In the jacks of course, but it wasn't introduced there.. The sealed container was carried by Michelle from the jacks to the kitchen, having been filled in the jacks under the watchful eye and nose of Mrs Guy. It was then sealed before they left the jacks. Given that wee-wee is at its highest temperature immediately post-pee and no whiskey aroma was evident in the jacks prior to sealing, then the whiskey was introduced in the kitchen. So who was responsible for unsealing the sample and decanting it into individual containers? Where were these unsealed containers prior to having the samples poured in? In whose possession were they? Why Mr. Guy's of course

mathepac · 01-08-2012 03:37PM

Higher wrote: »

... The fact is no one else was on it except Michelle Smith. ...

How do you know that?

Higher · 01-08-2012 03:40PM

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

I believe she won those medals fair and square. The media spin of her avoiding tests is exaggerated and IF the governing body could not force her to do tests they are not much use really and are incompetent at best. She was tested quite regularly, in season, and nothing or traces of anything was ever found. good enough for me.

What media spin? FINA themselves said she had avoided every out of competition test since 1995. They had to travel unannounced to Ireland and unexpectedly turn up at her home to get her to actually do one (which she attempted to tamper with and ultimately tested positive for steroids anyway)

Higher · 01-08-2012 03:42PM

mathepac wrote: »

How do you know that?

The simple fact that no one else tested positive for it and no one else actively avoided tests like Michelle Smith did.

She's a cheat and a fraud who brought shame on our country. Like I said, she will go down as one of the greatest cheats in Olympic history.

mathepac · 01-08-2012 03:42PM

Higher wrote: »

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

How do you know that for a fact, for an absolute gold-standard fact. Where is your evidence?

Lord of the Bongs · 01-08-2012 03:45PM

Higher wrote: »

What media spin? FINA themselves said she had avoided every out of competition test since 1995. They had to travel unannounced to Ireland and unexpectedly turn up at her home to get her to actually do one.

So u tell me, exactly how many, to the number she avoided? i find it highly dubious the claim she 'avoided' every single test. I sure the same is repeated in many cases among athletes until they become media darlings. more likely the competent authority was incompetent.

alastair · 01-08-2012 03:45PM

mathepac wrote: »

I don't, as I clearly stated I was paraphrasing - check the original post for the detail and challenge the original poster about the accuracy, oh and maybe pay closer attention before you start running off at the keyboard

So - Nothing you can actually present except for a third party's post - that you can't vouch for? Moving on...

mathepac wrote: »

Bearing amazing resemblances to your unfounded allegations, meaning they never happened either, if that's they way you wish to proceed. Your allegations about cheating at the 96 olympics were never raised in the initial hearing, so cheating there definitely never happened

Nope - this case went to two different courts of arbitration - where all evidence from both sides was presented. Since this particular assertion was never raised by the defence - where it would have been central to a claim of bias - It obviously didn't happen. Any arbitration at play here? Nope.

mathepac wrote: »

In the jacks of course, but it wasn't introduced there.. The sealed container was carried by Michelle from the jacks to the kitchen, having been filled in the jacks under the watchful eye and nose of Mrs Guy. It was then sealed before they left the jacks. Given that wee-wee is at its highest temperature immediately post-pee and no whiskey aroma was evident in the jacks prior to sealing, then the whiskey was introduced in the kitchen. So who was responsible for unsealing the sample and decanting it into individual containers? Where were these unsealed containers prior to having the samples poured in? In whose possession were they? Why Mr. Guy's of course

I dunno about you - but any sample I've ever given has involved me sealing the sample before handing over the the recipient. Unless you're proposing that Mrs Guy had her nose stuck down the bowl of the toilet - it wasn't going to present the same 'up close and personal' scenario as decanting said pee into a couple of containers, under your nose on a kitchen table.

Thanks for the wonderfully entertaining pee conspiracy all the same.

Higher · 01-08-2012 03:46PM

mathepac wrote: »

How do you know that for a fact, for an absolute gold-standard fact. Where is your evidence?

The three failed drug tests?
The fact that she attempted to tamper with a drug test?
The fact that she avoided all out of competition tests since 1995
The fact that from 1995 onwards coincidentally when she started avoiding tests,she went from 90th in world to number
The fact that her new coach was himself suspended for doping
The fact that she cut 17 seconds off her personal best in 18 months, unprecedented and again coincided with when she was avoiding tests

How much proof do you need?

mathepac · 01-08-2012 03:58PM

Higher wrote: »

The simple fact that no one else tested positive for it and no one else actively avoided tests like Michelle Smith did...

When did Michelle test positive for any banned substance during the olympics or immediately afterwards? Dates and times please because they are relevant to your case.

Higher wrote: »

... She's a cheat and a fraud who brought shame on our country. ...

No, a few people think or suspect or have been told by others that she cheated at the 96 olympics, that does not make it an indisputable fact.

Higher wrote: »

... She's a cheat and a fraud who brought shame on our country. Like I said, she will go down as one of the greatest cheats in Olympic history.

No people like Cian O'Connor who fed his horse anti-psychotic drugs and was thrown out of the Olympics and had his medal confiscated are cheats and frauds and he is our greatest olympic disgrace, a proven doper and cheat. Yet his face with the saccharine smile is everywhere, with his horses, with his mott, etc. Yet he, a proven cheat goes back to the olympics.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/olympics/equestrian/2012/0710/328616-oconnor-replaces-lynch-in-irish-olympic-team/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics_2004/equestrian/3606042.stm

Higher · 01-08-2012 04:02PM

mathepac wrote: »

When did Michelle test positive for any banned substance during the olympics or immediately afterwards? Dates and times please because they are relevant to your case.
No, a few people think or suspect or have been told by others that she cheated at the 96 olympics, that does not make it an indisputable fact.
No people like Cian O'Connor who fed his horse anti-psychotic drugs and was thrown out of the Olympics and had his medal confiscated are cheats and frauds and he is our greatest olympic disgrace, a proven doper and cheat. Yet his face with the saccharine smile is everywhere, with his horses, with his mott, etc. Yet he, a proven cheat goes back to the olympics.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/olympics/equestrian/2012/0710/328616-oconnor-replaces-lynch-in-irish-olympic-team/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics_2004/equestrian/3606042.stm

I've already stated that the substance Michelle tested positive for was new at the time and not on the radar. It was still a steroid. Andro is considered one of the more powerful steroids.

You can argue all you want but the fact is that she is known around the world as a cheat and that's because she did cheat. You can argue technicalities all you want but anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that she doped.

Pherekydes · 01-08-2012 04:12PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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

Therese Alshammar set a world record (50m fly) at age 31.

Ryan Lochte set a world record last year when he was nearly 27. Check back tomorrow night to see if he can peak on the eve of his 28th birthday.

Phelps set a 200 fly record at 15, and also at 24.

Swimmers retired early because there wasn't much money in it. Now there is money and swimmers are staying on in the sport and setting PBs and WRs late into their 20s and early 30s.

Lord of the Bongs · 01-08-2012 04:14PM

Higher wrote: »

The three failed drug tests?
The fact that she attempted to tamper with a drug test?
The fact that she avoided all out of competition tests since 1995
The fact that from 1995 onwards coincidentally when she started avoiding tests,she went from 90th in world to number
The fact that her new coach was himself suspended for doping
The fact that she cut 17 seconds off her personal best in 18 months, unprecedented and again coincided with when she was avoiding tests

How much proof do you need?

All this and you cannot categorically PROVE she took drugs to help win them medals, fact.

Out of competition tests, she was more in-competition during 1995 than out of competition, how many in-competition tests did she fail? Answer - None!

All signs lead to drug taking and she did test positive for a newly banned substance in 1998. how many competitors have had similar instances of been banned for 'newly banned substances', quite a lot. She was hunted and hounded after the olympics until they could get her with something that could demean her character, but yet before, during and immediately after the Olympics they could prove nothing, why, because there was nothing to prove.

Sea Filly · 01-08-2012 04:15PM

Wibbs wrote: »

IIRC in physically active men their testosterone peaks in their late 20's give or take a year.

And women?

mathepac · 01-08-2012 04:15PM

I think I edit this incorrectly - anyway:

alastair wrote: »

So - Nothing you can actually present except for a third party's post - that you can't vouch for? Moving on...

My documented evidence from here in this thread is far superior to the info from third-party anonymous whisperers that you present as evidence, those wonderful upstanding experts and peers who failed to take any concrete action according to you, because their "evidence" was nothing of the kind.

I dunno about you - but any sample I've ever given has involved me sealing the sample before handing over the the recipient. Unless you're proposing that Mrs Guy had her nose stuck down the bowl of the toilet - it wasn't going to present the same 'up close and personal' scenario as decanting said pee into a couple of containers, under your nose on a kitchen table.

Men and women use differently shaped containers to collect samples. The containers women use tend to have a wider opening at the top and this facilitates the dispersal of aromas more readily than a container used for a male sample. So why wasn't the whiskey aroma evident at the point of collection? Because it was introduced in the kitchen.

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

Comments