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

Sea Filly

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by average.

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

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

Nail on the head.

mathepac

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

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

Sea Filly

later12 wrote: »

How do you know when she was in her prime?

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

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

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

later12

Higher wrote: »

FINA said she had been avoiding tests since 1995.

Totally misleading statement there, this has been done.

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

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

Lord of the Bongs

Tombo2001 wrote: »

It is for this sport.

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

Similar for Kirst Coventry.....

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

No it isnt.

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

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


maybe he was on drugs? zzzz

Sea Filly

later12 wrote: »

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

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

Beefy78

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

later12

Sea Filly wrote: »

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

What are you doing here then? Off with you.

Lord of the Bongs

Higher wrote: »

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

You can continue living in fantasy land though.

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

Sea Filly

later12 wrote: »

What are you doing here then? Off with you.

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

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

alastair

mathepac wrote: »

The thread topic is her 96 olympic achievements, maybe you'd stick with that rather than constantly attempting to deflect the thread into irrelevancies.

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

mathepac wrote: »

In this case I am

Really? Who appointed you to this position?

mathepac wrote: »

I'm not sure when "most people" appointed you as their spokesman, but the allegations of cheating at the 96 Olympics lack evidence and there is a cloud of suspicion hanging over the testing procedures and indeed the testers after that.

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

mathepac wrote: »

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

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

StephenHendry

later12 wrote: »

How do you know when she was in her prime?

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

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

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

StephenHendry

later12 wrote: »

Totally misleading statement there, this has been done.

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

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

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

Lord of the Bongs

NTMK wrote: »

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

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

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

but

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

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

Sea Filly

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

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

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

Balmed Out

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Lord of the Bongs

Sea Filly wrote: »

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

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

Morgans

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

Sea Filly

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

So your just regurgitating something someone else said? any opinions of your own?

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

later12

Morgans wrote: »

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

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

Lord of the Bongs

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

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

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

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

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

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:

1. 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
2. There is an allegation in the thread, not posted by me that Mrs. Guy said they would "get" Michelle
3. 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?
4. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Higher wrote: »

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

How do you know that?

Higher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wibbs wrote: »

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

And women?

mathepac

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.