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

Red21

mathepac wrote: »

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Everything else is hearsay, rumour and opinion, most of it ill-informed.

All I wanted was someone in the "anti-camp" to state this and every other argument falls flat on its face. 94 irrelevant as is 98. There is no evidence she cheated in 96, so Eamo was right and I agree with Eamo, which makes me right ... again.

Quick mods close the thread; lock the gates I can see the flickering torches snaking their tortuous way up the hill and the glint of light on sharpened scythes and pitch-forks ...

Da da de dum, Da da de dum "I win again, I win again. ..."

So long as this kinda stuff is the argument those rare few who are trying to defend her honour are coming up with, it'll be a long time before that woman gets her lying, cheating, greedy, muscular hands on the olympic torch and thats a good thing for sport.

mathepac

Red21 wrote: »

So long as this kinda stuff is the argument those rare few who are trying to defend her honour are coming up with ...

I have made no argument defending her honour, just her right to due process and a fair hearing with evidence presented by the accusers who say she cheated at the 96 olympics. If you thought I had another agenda then you've been following the wrong thread or you've been trolling - take your pick.

Red21 wrote: »

... it'll be a long time before that woman gets her lying, cheating, greedy, muscular hands on the olympic torch ...

Gee, you've come up with all those adjectives just for her hands, and all on your own too. Naturally you have no evidence to back up your derogatory description, but since when did a lack of evidence get in the way of hyperbole?

alastair

mathepac wrote: »

I have made no argument defending her honour, just her right to due process

She wasn't so interested in due process back in the day.I don't think she'd thank you for it.

You choose to ignore the evidence that was quite apparent to her peers in '94, '96, and '98. You choose to believe this woman who was caught testing positive to steroid use after years of evading testing for specific weeks, took a break from doping for her olympic preparations, you choose to believe a creaky old construct. Best of luck with that faith-based attitude to the world. Maybe you can offer Lance your services? He's at least sticking with the pretense of sticking lawyers on those who dare accuse him.

Johro

I'm not convinced she cheated simply because I've never heard of any actual evidence that says that she did.
Until then I'd give her the benefit of the doubt.
It's funny how it's always the yanks who throw around accusations when they get beaten in finals, as has been happening in the case of twice gold medallist (so far) Ye Shiwen.

later12

Red21 wrote: »

her times remained fairly static for the first six years of her career

Link?

Not because it proves anything, I'd just be interested in seeing the times you refer to.

As an aside, I feel there is something of a confirmation bias going on here. First (Olympic) goal medal at 28? well I can't think of any time that's ever happened before; regardless of how little I know about Olympic records, it must be drugs!

We just had a tour de France winner who won his first tour at 32, putting in some remarkable performances unprecedented in his own career. Thank goodness we do not seem to resort to these pessimistic attitudes every time something extraordinary happens in sport.

alastair

Johro wrote: »

I'm not convinced she cheated simply because I've never heard of any actual evidence that says that she did.

Other than getting caught tampering her dope test sample, and it testing positive for steroid use?

later12

alastair wrote: »

it testing positive for steroid use?

She tested positive for steroid use after the Olympic games; a steroid which was not banned during the Atlanta Olympics, and which is still permissible for sportsmen like NBA players.

If Michelle Smith/ de Bruin was on performance enhancing drugs at the time of the Atlanta Olympics, there is a good deal of medical evidence to suggest that it was unlikely to have been the fairly biochemically innocent androstenedione, which doesn't look like it would have been particularly helpful; in fact the only reason the drug appears to have had its open sale banned by the FDA is possible adverse health risks.

jayteecork

She just evened the playing field. Fair play to her.

titan18

later12 wrote: »

Link?

Not because it proves anything, I'd just be interested in seeing the times you refer to.

As an aside, I feel there is something of a confirmation bias going on here. First (Olympic) goal medal at 28? well I can't think of any time that's ever happened before; regardless of how little I know about Olympic records, it must be drugs!

We just had a tour de France winner who won his first tour at 32, putting in some remarkable performances unprecedented in his own career. Thank goodness we do not seem to resort to these pessimistic attitudes every time something extraordinary happens in sport.

That Tour winner is questioned by a lot of people btw.

On Smith's times, in the 200m IM, in the 1988 Olympics, she swam 2.25.53. In 92, she swam 2.23.83, in 1996, she swam 2.13.93. There wasn't a vast improvement in time amongst the whole field, as 2.12.59 won in 1988.

In the 400m IM, in 88, she swam 5.01.84, in 92, she swam 4.58.94 and in 1996 she swam 4.39.18. Again no improvement in the rest of the field, as the winner in 88 was 4.37.76

later12

titan18 wrote: »

That Tour winner is questioned by a lot of people btw.

Ah of course it is.
We could question the winner of absolutely every single discipline if we scoured 10 or 15 years of their professional careers for improvements in their performances. That's exactly the point I was making by referencing Wiggans: he's an example, just like every other sportsman and woman out there, none of whom have retained static, consistent performances throughout their careers.

When I asked for Smith's times for the first 6 years of her career, I wasn't asking for two sample times in 1988 and 1992 when she had injury problems; I'm presuming the poster in question has something more substantial and definitive than that, otherwise he would hardly have made such an apparently confident and clear-cut statement about Smith's times.

marienbad

Drugs are destroying sports and drug cheats like Michelle Smith are destroying sports.

And it is indisputable that she is a cheat, after avoiding and evading for so long the testers finally caught up with her and she spiked her sample and she was done for it. It finally confirmed what every one with even the remotest involvement in actual sport as opposed to armchair sport already knew - that she was a cheat.

Do her Atlanta medals still stand ? Unfortunately they do, but only in the records books and no one with a serious interest in sport outside this country and indeed most within this country think otherwise.

I was at those games and I can assure it was not just sour grapes by the Americans - everyone was talking about it , including Irish officials , athletes and supporters. What we were witnessing was just incredible and truly beyond belief.

To the poster that keeps saying she was a world class athlete prior to to those olympics - it is simply not so. Prior to meeting De Bruin she had not achieved one significant world class result. To the put that into perspective the american girl that complained about her in 96 won 3 golds in Barcelona 92 despite being younger than Michelle - the injury story is just that- a story She did nothing at the Seoul and Barcelona olympics despite this being the prime age for a swimmer and then wins 4 medals !
Are we as a nation that naive or that needy for success.

There were other Irish athletes at that games that gave great performances and went on to have fantastic drug free careers and were complete amateurs in the true spirit of the games - the Irish Lightweight 4 for instance finishing 4th in the olympic final .

People like Michelle Smith besmirch the careers of such athletes and those that defend her become complicit in that process.

She is not the only milestone ,but she is a huge one on the olympic journey from wide eyed wonder to the cynical is he/she clean I wonder attitude and will be seen as Ireland's main contribution to olympic history- a nation defined by a cheat - thanks Michelle , nice legacy.

As for Mr Coughlan - his remarks tell us more about him than anything else.

mathepac

alastair wrote: »

She wasn't so interested in due process back in the day.I don't think she'd thank you for it....

I have seen no evidence of that and have no interest in her thanking me, one way or another.

alastair wrote: »

... You choose to ignore the evidence that was quite apparent to her peers in '94, '96, and '98. ...

I have seen no evidence of what her peers observed at any stage, just a load of hearsay. I have asked time and time again for evidence but have yet to see any, all I get is the same old "he said she said" song and dance act.

alastair wrote: »

... You choose to believe this woman who was caught testing positive to steroid use after years of evading testing for specific weeks, took a break from doping for her olympic preparations, you choose to believe a creaky old construct. Best of luck with that faith-based attitude to the world. ...

A bunch of people say they believe she cheated, I asked for evidence of cheating, hard evidence because everything I've read has been nebulous in the extreme and so far after hundreds of posts, no-one has come up with an iota of evidence of cheating.

alastair wrote: »

... Maybe you can offer Lance your services? ...

I have no interest in Lance Armstrong and my "services" whatever they might be in that context are not for sale to him or anyone else.

alastair wrote: »

... He's at least sticking with the pretense of sticking lawyers on those who dare accuse him.

Maybe he wants his accusers to come up with evidence to back up their accusations, which sounds perfectly acceptable to me.

Pherekydes

alastair wrote: »

Other than getting caught tampering her dope test sample, and it testing positive for steroid use?

Her sample was tampered with. She didn't get caught doing it.

I find it amazing the way people think the testing process is infallible when tests are positive, but it's easily cheated when tests are negative.

Morgans

I said for the get go that she should have quit after the olympics. She was never caught at the Olympics. It doesnt mean that she wasnt a drugs cheat then. She was a proven drugs cheat afterwards. Michelle Smith is up there with Flo Jo, Marita Koch and other olympian who were never caught during an olympics. If that satisfies you, as I said best of luck. Others prefer to use a fuller picture to form an opinion.

That she was never caught using drugs at the Olympics doesnt mean that she wasnt on drugs. Her career profile, how she progressed, the subsequent failed test, and her standing both during and after the games within the sport all indicate that she was on drugs. Al Capone was never proven to be a mass murderering gangland boss - he was proven a tax evader. Sometimes people get away wiith things.

Morgans

Pherekydes wrote: »

I find it amazing the way people think the testing process is infallible when tests are positive, but it's easily cheated when tests are negative.

How? Testers are always behind the curve when it comes to doping, its the nature of the beast. When they are caught, there are very few admitted dopers who say "fair cop, guv". They try everything to damn the testing process. "Let's wait for the B sample." Those who have no leg to stand on tend to claim "conspiracy". The positive tests are the tip of the iceberg. There is nothing infallible about it but there is nothing amazing about the positives rarely being disproven after.

Cookie_Monster

Pherekydes wrote: »

Her sample was tampered with. She didn't get caught doing it.

I find it amazing the way people think the testing process is infallible when tests are positive, but it's easily cheated when tests are negative.

Exactly. I've no doubt in my mind that it was the testers who tampered with it to try and discredit her, more than likely in the pay of the Americans.

Pherekydes

Morgans wrote: »

How? Testers are always behind the curve when it comes to doping, its the nature of the beast. When they are caught, there are very few admitted dopers who say "fair cop, guv". They try everything to damn the testing process. "Let's wait for the B sample." Those who have no leg to stand on tend to claim "conspiracy". The positive tests are the tip of the iceberg. There is nothing infallible about it but there is nothing amazing about the positives rarely being disproven after.

In 2003 Bernard Lagat tested positive for EPO and missed the world championships. The 'B' sample was tested and proved negative.


The 'A' and 'B' samples are identical. Their test results cannot be different.

Morgans

Good to know. Any other examples.

No one is claiming that the testers are infallible. Carl Lewis failed a test because of substance no longer on the banned list. There are lots of loopholes and the amount of drug cheats who arent caught at the most important times would amaze.

Those who have no doubts at all about Michelle de Bruin scare me.

alastair

Pherekydes wrote: »

Her sample was tampered with. She didn't get caught doing it.

I find it amazing the way people think the testing process is infallible when tests are positive, but it's easily cheated when tests are negative.

She did get caught doing it - the testers knew she had put whiskey in the urine sample. They knew at the time, but they couldn't do anything about it.

Mrs. Guy, who was present in the bathroom with Smith-De Bruin, said she only noticed the smell after the sample was taken back to the kitchen for decanting.

"The odor, or the smell, just came about," she said. It was a "sweet whiskey smell."

The Guys said they had mentioned the smell only to each other after they were in their car and driving away.

They didn't return to confront Smith-De Bruin, they said.

"We had been briefed to collect the sample. We had done that,"

The finding was that Michelle had tampered with the sample.

Local_Chap

Sorry if this has been asked already but is there anyway that you can read a full unbiased story of what happened with Michelle and Atlanta? It would make for an interesting read

conorhal

marienbad wrote: »

Drugs are destroying sports and drug cheats like Michelle Smith are destroying sports.

And it is indisputable that she is a cheat, after avoiding and evading for so long the testers finally caught up with her and she spiked her sample and she was done for it. It finally confirmed what every one with even the remotest involvement in actual sport as opposed to armchair sport already knew - that she was a cheat........

As you point out, contradicting yourself, her records stand and the fact that she was a cheat is not indisputable, it's just disputed by you. She never tested positive for a banned substance.
As for the tainted sample, she was tested by a couple that had on a previous occasion publicly stated that they would 'get' Michelle Smith.

Would you hand over a urine sample to a Guard who had pulled you over on a drink drive charge who had previously said that he would 'get you'?
And of course there's the fact that alcohol is not an agent capable of masking performance enhancing drugs. Pouring whisky into a urine sample would be as effective as popping a breath mint before getting breathalyzed.
Something dodgy happened that day, and it wasn't necessarily down to Michelle Smith.

alastair

conorhal wrote: »

As for the tainted sample, she was tested by a couple that had on a previous occasion publicly stated that they would 'get' Michelle Smith.

They did? Strange that Michelle would never bring this up as part of her appeal. Maybe because it didn't actually happen?

lugha

Morgans wrote: »

Those who have no doubts at all about Michelle de Bruin scare me.

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.

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. 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 ….

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.

Is there proof that Michelle cheated in ’96? No, and bar an admission, there probably never will be? Is it reasonable to believe that her endeavours were honest? I don’t think so. I could just possibly be doing her a massive injustice but I don’t think so.

But then those who thought the Germany Austria match in 82 (?) dodgy or ditto with any number of horse races / snooker matches might be doing an injustice to the competitors. But many of us who witnessed such “sporting” events have little doubt in our mind, despite having no proof.

Shelflife

Morgans wrote: »

I said for the get go that she should have quit after the olympics. She was never caught at the Olympics. It doesnt mean that she wasnt a drugs cheat then. She was a proven drugs cheat afterwards. Michelle Smith is up there with Flo Jo, Marita Koch and other olympian who were never caught during an olympics. If that satisfies you, as I said best of luck. Others prefer to use a fuller picture to form an opinion.

That she was never caught using drugs at the Olympics doesnt mean that she wasnt on drugs. Her career profile, how she progressed, the subsequent failed test, and her standing both during and after the games within the sport all indicate that she was on drugs. Al Capone was never proven to be a mass murderering gangland boss - he was proven a tax evader. Sometimes people get away wiith things.

The same arguement can be used for every athlete,

As regards the sample, how did she tamper with it if mrs guy was in the bathroom with her? surely the bathroom isnt that big that she didnt notice the bottle of paddy in her hand?

The testers function is to get a sample that they can see coming from the athlete. they cant take one that was prepared earlier or let them nip into the loo to do it by themselves.

from the uk antidoping procedures

Sample provision
2B5 The DCO witnessing urine Sample provision shall be of the same gender as the Athlete
providing the Sample.
2B6 The DCO shall escort the Athlete to the Sample Collection area. The Athlete will carry
his/her own Sample Collection vessel at all times. The Athlete will be requested to wash
his/her hands thoroughly or to wear gloves during Sample provision.
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.
2B9 Once a Sample has been collected the DCO shall escort the Athlete, who shall carry
his/her own Sample, back to the processing area. If the Sample satisfies applicable
volume requirements (minimum 90mls) the DCO and Athlete shall proceed to divide and
seal the Sample. If the Athlete has provided a partial Sample and is unable to provide any
more urine for the time being, the Sample Collection vessel containing the Sample shall be
sealed with a lid by the Athlete and the procedure in 2B13 to 2B25 will be followed.
2B10 If an Athlete wishes to wash his/her hands after providing the Sample, the Sample should
at this time be placed in a safe and secure location, in full view of both the Athlete and the
DCO.
2B11 If the DCO observes any unusual behaviour by the Athlete while witnessing the provision
of the Sample, this should be reported to the Lead DCO as soon as possible and fully
documented. If there are doubts as to the origin or authenticity of the Sample or the suitability of the Sample is in question, the Athlete shall be asked to provide an additional
Sample.
2B12 The DCO shall sign the Sample Collection Form to verify that he/she witnessed Sample
provision in accordance with these procedures.

Now if the procedures were followed correctly how would Mrs Guy not seen the tampering.

if they noticed the sweet whiskey smell why didnt they ask for another sample as per the above guide lines.

again let me state that im not saying that she was clean, merely that she was as clean as the others she was competing against.

Having testers that have stated that they were out to get you and clearly didnt follow the correct procedures themselves is not a level playing field in itself.

Colmustard

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

/Thread.

bbam

The 1998 FINA ruling was that she had tampered with the sample by adding alcohol.. Now there is only one reason she whould tamper with the sample... to hide something in the sample... she appealed the ruling but it was upheld.

To me it seems that it was a last ditch attempt to muddy the waters and try and dodge being caught..

This isn't a court of law so "proving byond all doubt that she cheated" doesn't apply, it is of the highest probability that she was using performance enhancers and that was the reason for her super improvment in performance at a time in her career when it is just not possible..

Its a shame on her for degrading the reputation of sport in Ireland, her medals are worthless!

alastair

Shelflife wrote: »

The same arguement can be used for every athlete,

As regards the sample, how did she tamper with it if mrs guy was in the bathroom with her? surely the bathroom isnt that big that she didnt notice the bottle of paddy in her hand?

The testers function is to get a sample that they can see coming from the athlete. they cant take one that was prepared earlier or let them nip into the loo to do it by themselves.

"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.

Royal Legend

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.

alastair

Royal Legend wrote: »

God help Michael Phelps, Michael Johnson, Usain Bolt or Steve Redgrave if they had of been Irish had been caught tampering with their dope testing.

Fixed that for you.

Royal Legend

alastair wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

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.

Poster banned.

alastair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

alastair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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