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

later12

Higher wrote: »

How can anyone doubt it?

Average swimmer, didn't win anything.

Eh no.

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

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

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

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

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

Tombo2001

marienbad wrote: »

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

Ronnie Delaney is our Greatest olympian.

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

But more than that.

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

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

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

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

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

lugha

mathepac wrote: »

You seem confused by the thread topic.

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

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

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

later12

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

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

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

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

Pherekydes

Morgans wrote: »

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

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

Now that's proof!

alastair

Pherekydes wrote: »

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

Now that's proof!

You missed the part where she was caught cheating.

Morgans

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Ronnie Delaney is our Greatest olympian.

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

But more than that.

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

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

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

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

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

I'd vote for Ronnie Delany as well.

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

Higher

Pherekydes wrote: »

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

Now that's proof!

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

Tombo2001

later12 wrote: »

Eh no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morgans

Pherekydes wrote: »

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

Now that's proof!

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

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

alastair

Tom Kiely.

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

Shelflife

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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