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

Higher

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

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

.

I can't categorically prove that a flying elephant doesn't exist but I can be pretty damn sure. No one was out to get her, FINA are an independent body ffs.

mathepac

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?

Must try much harder.

Sorry bud, some of that is purely circumstantial and is proof on absolutely nothing and none of it relates to her performance at the 96 olympics, which is still the topic of the thread.

later12

Higher wrote: »

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.

Sorry, where did you read that?

This link from Rice said it was used in the Olympics as far back as the 1970s, and is still permissible in baseball, hockey and the NBA. And neither was it banned in 1996 when Smith won her medal.
http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/andro.html

Can you provide a link to back up what you are saying?

Lord of the Bongs

Higher wrote: »

I can't categorically prove that a flying elephant doesn't exist but I can be pretty damn sure. No one was out to get her, FINA are an independent body ffs.

Independent, is that like untouchable and none biased? lol. Seems they were out to get her they even flew to her home and made her take a piss on virtually her own doorstep.

Pherekydes

Sea Filly wrote: »

And women?

Well, last time I checked, teenagers generally aren't able to match mature women in in sports requiring strength, stamina or speed. Why would swimming be any different?

Before anyone mentions body fat, women runners continue to improve into their late 20s, and of course body fat carries a much bigger penalty in running.

omega666

This is all complete horse poo. All speculation and theories and not a single person has a single shred of proof that she cheated in the olympics.
There is only one fact in all this and that is she passed every test at the games and she still holds all her medals.

Until it was proven she cheated and her medals taken away then of course she is our greatest olympian.

mathepac

Higher wrote: »

I can't categorically prove that a flying elephant doesn't exist but I can be pretty damn sure. ...

But we're not discussing elephants of any kind, and "pretty damn sure" probably doesn't make it into the list of measure of evidential certainty.

Higher wrote: »

... No one was out to get her, FINA are an independent body ffs.

There's a statement made earlier that Mrs. Guy said she was out to "get" Michelle.

When you say "FINA are an independent body" what exactly do you mean? Who and what are they independent of?

mathepac

Higher wrote: »

...
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.

Prove it.

StephenHendry

omega666 wrote: »

This is all complete horse poo. All speculation and theories and not a single person has a single shred of proof that she cheated in the olympics.
There is only one fact in all this and that is she passed every test at the games and she still holds all her medals.

Until it was proven she cheated and her medals taken away then of course she is our greatest olympian.

exactly michelle was tested throughout the atlanta games in 96 and passed every one of them

Sea Filly

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, last time I checked, teenagers generally aren't able to match mature women in in sports requiring strength, stamina or speed. Why would swimming be any different?

Actually, it's recognised that female swimmers lose their edge once they get past the teen years, for whatever reason. It seems it's not all to do with strength. Flexibility probably figures too, and there may be common reasons why female swimmers and gymnasts are at their best generally in their teens. There's always going to be outliers like Dara Torres.

mathepac

omega666 wrote: »

This is all complete horse poo. ... Until it was proven she cheated and her medals taken away then of course she is our greatest olympian.

Horse poo is right. Until she plumbs the depths of doping and cheating Cian O'Connor sank to she won't get an invitation back.

lugha

StephenHendry wrote: »

exactly michelle was tested throughout the atlanta games in 96 and passed every one of them

As a rule would you accept the performances of an athlete as bona fide provided they were not caught at the time? Would you for example argue that Ben Johnson deserves still to be regarded as one of the great sprinters in the world prior to '88? Or does his subsequent mishaps taint his earlier achievements?

Pherekydes

Sea Filly wrote: »

Actually, it's recognised that female swimmers lose their edge once they get past the teen years, for whatever reason. It seems it's not all to do with strength. Flexibility probably figures too, and there may be common reasons why female swimmers and gymnasts are at their best generally in their teens. There's always going to be outliers like Dara Torres.

As I said, don't mention that to Therese Alshammar, or any of the others currently in their 20s.

Truth is, there is no reason why swimmers should peak in their teens, bar the long hours in the pool at stupid o'clock in the morning. It's all a matter of motivation, and many swimmers lose it when they graduate HS or its equivalent.

The monastic lifestyle can fit in ok with high school, but not with university. But now, there's more money in swimming, so swimmers have the motivation to stay in the sport.

Sure look at our own Gráinne Murphy: she's 19, but regarded as a future prospect. Why isn't she washed up at 19?

Higher

You're right it will never be proven hence why she still has her gold medals. But I think most people have enough intelligence to conclude that she did considering all the circumstantial evidence. Theres a reason why she has been airbrushed out of history and has been ranked in the top 10 of all-time Olympian cheats. Like I said, if she wasn't Irish you wouldn't even argue.

later12

Sea Filly wrote: »

Actually, it's recognised that female swimmers lose their edge once they get past the teen years, for whatever reason.

Link?

Strangely enough, I was talking to a former swimmer about the Chinese girl and Michell Smith came up; he said something that I would interpret to jar with what you have just said in terms of predicting female performances.

So since so far all we've had are hearsay and anecdotes on that point in particular, do you actually have evidence for what you are saying?

mathepac

lugha wrote: »

As a rule would you accept the performances of an athlete as bona fide provided they were not caught at the time? Would you for example argue that Ben Johnson deserves still to be regarded as one of the great sprinters in the world prior to '88? Or does his subsequent mishaps taint his earlier achievements?

More off topic stuff.

Higher

StephenHendry wrote: »

exactly michelle was tested throughout the atlanta games in 96 and passed every one of them

You'll be hard pressed to find many Olympic athletes who are dumb enough to be juicing during the games. It usually happens in the months preceding...which begs the question why did Smith avoid all out of competition tests since 1995 and why did that period result in her going from 90th in the world to number 1?

Higher

mathepac wrote: »

More off topic stuff.

Very similar situation. Do you think Ben Johnson deserves his gold? If not then why does Michelle Smith?

omega666

Higher wrote: »

Very similar situation. Do you think Ben Johnson deserves his gold? If not then why does Michelle Smith?

Johnson was caught cheating and his gold medal taken off him.
Michelle was not caught for cheating and still has her medals.
How are these similar?

mathepac

Higher wrote: »

Very similar situation. Do you think Ben Johnson deserves his gold? If not then why does Michelle Smith?

Here's our topic as set by OP "Was Michelle de Bruin our greatest Olympian? Eamonn Coughlan says yes" I'm happy to try and keep up with the flow around that topic. I'm not happy to try and keep track of all the OT stuff because I can't; I'm snowed as it is. I'm not trying to mod the thread, just trying to keep up with it; sorry if I didn't make that clear before.

Sea Filly

Pherekydes wrote: »

As I said, don't mention that to Therese Alshammar, or any of the others currently in their 20s.

Truth is, there is no reason why swimmers should peak in their teens, bar the long hours in the pool at stupid o'clock in the morning. It's all a matter of motivation, and many swimmers lose it when they graduate HS or its equivalent.

Gymnasts require great strength, right? Yet, most top-flight female gymnasts are teenage. Maybe something to do with smaller stature, I don't know, but strength must not be the only thing that is required to have the edge. Could be the same for female swimmers.

Lord of the Bongs

Higher wrote: »

Very similar situation. Do you think Ben Johnson deserves his gold? If not then why does Michelle Smith?

Jonson had drugs inside him and was positively tested for having drugs in his system. In the exact same way Michelle was tested and her results proved to be negative.

Local_Chap

Local_Chap wrote: »

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

Don't think this has been answered yet so if anyone could let me know it would be much appreciated!

Sea Filly

later12 wrote: »

Link?Strangely enough, I was talking to a former swimmer about the Chinese girl and Michell Smith came up; he said something that I would interpret to jar with what you have just said in terms of predicting female performances.

I read it on either ESPN or BBC yesterday (can't remember which). Question the credibility of that if you will. But in the same vein, I'd be as entitled the credibility of your statement, unless you can prove this former swimmer exists, and can enlighten us about what he/she said.

lugha

mathepac wrote: »

More off topic stuff.

More evasion on your part more like. I suspect you don't really rate Mr. Johnson as one of the greats.

If an athlete is found to have cheated then any reasonable person would feel that there is a cloud of suspicion over their entire career and not just the particular events in which they were found to have cheated. It is plainly daft to argue otherwise.

But if it amuses you ... :pac:

omega666 wrote: »

Johnson was caught cheating and his gold medal taken off him.
Michelle was not caught for cheating and still has her medals.
How are these similar?

My point related to how Johnson's achievements prior to 88 should be regarded now. Surely you must say that he was at that time one of the heroes of world athletics, and should be regarded as such even now?

later12

Higher wrote: »

You'll be hard pressed to find many Olympic athletes who are dumb enough to be juicing during the games. It usually happens in the months preceding...which begs the question why did Smith avoid all out of competition tests since 1995 and why did that period result in her going from 90th in the world to number 1?

Do you really expect anyone to take seriously the sort of misleading mantra you're putting forward here?

Smith's improvements from around 1991 onwards in terms of world championships and European medals are well documented... you're being totally misleading in terms of her improvements, as though she had never won a major championship or ranked highly in world championships before Atlanta.

Like many other people, I have always been suspicious about Smith's victories in 1996, and I still retain a good deal of that suspicion.

However, it's arguments like the above that are steadily disintegrating the case against Smith because we start to think "if they have to misrepresent the case so vehemently, what are they afraid of admitting?"

Look at Smith's records. Before Atlanta, and particularly since the 1991 world championships, she had a string of achievements that no other Irish swimmer had previously enjoyed, she was an athlete of international repute and an international gold medalist.

Rule 1 of making a convincing case: Be a little bit more realistic; start out by admitting the cold facts, even the ones that don't suit your opinion, and people might actually take you seriously.

later12

Sea Filly wrote: »

I read it on either ESPN or BBC yesterday (can't remember which). Question the credibility of that if you will. But in the same vein, I'd be as entitled the credibility of your statement, unless you can prove this former swimmer exists, and can enlighten us about what he/she said.

No that's not good enough. You're saying you have no evidence? I've just been searching BBC and ESPN on google and I cannot find reference to this.

I'm not saying that what I was told is correct: I called it hearsay. In mentioning it, I am only explaining why I am questioning you on this topic. I've heard something that would seem to disagree with your argument, so I'm asking you for evidence either way.

marienbad

mathepac wrote: »

Off-topic again; why not start your own thread if joining in the topic under discussion doesn't suit you?

Why not let the mods moderate on what is or is'nt on topic and answer the question. You are claiming she is our greatest olympian so it is reason able to ask what criteria you are using and that is best illustrated by giving more that one athlete and why .

Sea Filly

later12 wrote: »

No that's not good enough. You're saying you have no evidence? I've just been searching BBC and ESPN on google and I cannot find reference to this.

I honestly don't give a crap if you don't think it's good enough. Believe me, don't believe me, whatever.

mathepac

lugha wrote: »

More evasion on your part more like. I suspect you don't really rate Mr. Johnson as one of the greats....

Roll back a few posts and you'll see my explanation for my "off topic" comments. After you've read that, think what you like and waffle away off topic if you wish.

bamboozle

later12 wrote: »

Do you really expect anyone to take seriously the sort of misleading mantra you're putting forward here?

Smith's improvements from around 1991 onwards in terms of world championships and European medals are well documented... you're being totally misleading in terms of her improvements, as though she had never won a major championship or ranked highly in world championships before Atlanta.

Like many other people, I have always been suspicious about Smith's victories in 1996, and I still retain a good deal of that suspicion.

However, it's arguments like the above that are steadily disintegrating the case against Smith because we start to think "if they have to misrepresent the case so vehemently, what are they afraid of admitting?"

Look at Smith's records. Before Atlanta, and particularly since the 1991 world championships, she had a string of achievements that no other Irish swimmer had previously enjoyed, she was an athlete of international repute and an international gold medalist.

Rule 1 of making a convincing case: Be a little bit more realistic; start out by admitting the cold facts, even the ones that don't suit your opinion, and people might actually take you seriously.

smith had avoided testing, had failed to notify doping officials where she would be for random testing, was over the hill as a swimmer and won medals in events she had rarely raced in previously.

and i stand corrected but i dont think she even made an olympic final in 1988 or 1992....

so what was the big difference between the swimmer during her peak years and after her peak years when she suddenly made inroads....her change in coach to De Bruin who himself was banned in 1996.

later12

Sea Filly wrote: »

I honestly don't give a crap if you don't think it's good enough. Believe me, don't believe me, whatever.

I'm not asking you to be concerned. I'm raising this point for the benefit of the debate, so that what you are claiming does not go unchecked.

You cannot seriously expect to make a fairly important, clear cut statement like suggesting that " it's recognised that female swimmers lose their edge once they get past the teen years", as though that held some academic weight, and not expect to be asked for a reference for it.

If it is "recognized", show us the empirical evidence.

omega666

My point related to how Johnson's achievements prior to 88 should be regarded now. Surely you must say that he was at that time one of the heroes of world athletics, and should be regarded as such even now?[/QUOTE]


Johnson admitted himself to using drugs since 1981, so totally different seanario. He was caught and dealt with. On another note it was claimed all his competitors were using drugs at time so all he was doing was trying to stay on an even keel with them. He was the just the one to get caught.

But as i said there's no grey line, your either caught or not caught.
If your not then you cant just persume somebody is.

lugha

mathepac wrote: »

Roll back a few posts and you'll see my explanation for my "off topic" comments. After you've read that, think what you like and waffle away off topic if you wish.

The relevance of considering another athlete is to determine if a particular poster is being consistent in their attitude. This is particularly apt here as Michelle is both Irish and a woman, which means both sexism and tribalism might be influencing people’s thinking.

If you have one attitude to Ben Johnson and a conflicting one to Michelle Smyth (and I suspect you do) then it suggests that tribalism more than reasoning is behind your staunch defence of her.

later12

bamboozle wrote: »

smith had avoided testing, had failed to notify doping officials where she would be for random testing, was over the hill as a swimmer and won medals in events she had rarely raced in previously.

and i stand corrected but i dont think she even made an olympic final in 1988 or 1992....

She was pipped out of the final in 1992, although in fairness she was suffering an injury at that time.

so what was the big difference between the swimmer during her peak years and after her peak years when she suddenly made inroads....her change in coach to De Bruin who himself was banned in 1996.

I'd be curious to know this too; I have her biography but have never gotten around to reading it. Perhaps others who have might fill us in on this aspect of her improvement according to the woman herself.

She came 13th in the world championships in 1991; that's a long way off gold at the Olympics, but it's not a long way off European gold that she made a few years later. So to be honest I do think the Olympics were a dramatic improvement, but I'm not sure the other championships like the World and Europeans were so dramatic.

lugha

omega666 wrote: »

Johnson admitted himself to using drugs since 1981, so totally different seanario. He was caught and dealt with. On another note it was claimed all his competitors were using drugs at time so all he was doing was trying to stay on an even keel with them. He was the just the one to get caught.

But as i said there's no grey line, your either caught or not caught.
If your not then you cant just persume somebody is.

This has no bearing on the point I was making. When establishing the legacy of any athlete who was caught cheating do you set aside just their achievement in the competition where they were caught or is their entire legacy tainted?

For most of us, for non-Irish athletes anyway, the latter would be the case.

alastair

mathepac wrote: »

Originally Posted by alastair

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.


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.

Sorry - at this point the farcical nature of this line is too much to bear - for that reason, I'm out!

There's no difference between male and femal urine sample containers btw. Not a blind bit of difference.

Loved your pee conspiracy musings - but I'm done with the flat earth game.

Balmed Out

unlike most sports swimming is done in water. To improve technique a lot of practice is required but unlike most sports the medium of water means swimming is a low impact sport meaning excessive training regimes wont do a lot of damage to the body. An average week for a kid swimming at a high level in an Irish context could mean 50,000 metres a week. Pools are used at off peak times so its mainly early morning and late evening. This overtraining is a massive burden on youngsters and most will drop away when an interest in the opposite sex, dating, socialising etc etc begin to compete for their attention. On top of all this swimming mile after mile (to compete in short course events!) isnt the most exciting sport.

Given that those with god given talent can overtrain at a young age you would expect them to reach elite levels faster then most sports and you would expect them to burn out faster then those of most sports.

Having swam early morning before school in junior infants up till I was 17 im convinced its the over competitiveness of the sport that leads to people packing it up at a relatively early age even if they reach the elite stage of Olympic level. It takes an enormous amount of commitment and mental strength to keep going.

I think michelle and just about all other top athletes probably do to some extenct take performance enhancing substances but to use her age as some sort of proof is incorrect.

omega666

lugha wrote: »

This has no bearing on the point I was making. When establishing the legacy of any athlete who was caught cheating do you set aside just their achievement in the competition where they were caught or is their entire legacy tainted?

For most of us, for non-Irish athletes anyway, the latter would be the case.

For whatever competition they get caught in of course.
Why would they're entire carer be tainted if they were tested in other competitions and were not found to be using drugs.

marienbad

mathepac wrote: »

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.
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.


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.
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.

The mind boggles- here are you culling unsubstantiated rumours on an anonymous forum and presenting then as evidence that the testing process is flawed. And then calling into question the evidence from others !

alastair

marienbad wrote: »

The mind boggles- here are you culling unsubstantiated rumours on an anonymous forum and presenting then as evidence that the testing process is flawed. And then calling into question the evidence from others !

In good faith - I have to assume s/he's just pulling people's chains for entertainment purposes. The alternative is too tragic.

Shelflife

marienbad wrote: »

The mind boggles- here are you culling unsubstantiated rumours on an anonymous forum and presenting then as evidence that the testing process is flawed. And then calling into question the evidence from others !

If the Guys followed the correct procedure that i outlined in a previous post, can you explain any senario where smyth could have introduced whiskey to the sample without mrs Guy seeing her do it?

For me this is what always perplexed me.

marienbad

Lord of the Bongs wrote: »

Independent, is that like untouchable and none biased? lol. Seems they were out to get her they even flew to her home and made her take a piss on virtually her own doorstep.

Unannounced testing at your own home is standard practice,

alastair

Shelflife wrote: »

If the Guys followed the correct procedure that i outlined in a previous post, can you explain any senario where smyth could have introduced whiskey to the sample without mrs Guy seeing her do it?

For me this is what always perplexed me.

I can think of a couple of obvious, if nasty, means.

Keeping in mind she disappeared for a bit after they arrived.

Shelflife

alastair wrote: »

I can think of a couple of obvious, if nasty, means.

Keeping in mind she disappeared for a bit after they arrived.

This is true 4mins i believe, Do tell !!

lugha

omega666 wrote: »

For whatever competition they get caught in of course.
Why would they're entire carer be tainted if they were tested in other competitions and were not found to be using drugs.

Fine if you to so narrowly interpret what a finding of cheating signifies.

But most of us take a broader view. If someone is found to have cheated that of course means that they did (or probably did) in the competition in question.

But it also means that they have made a conscious decision to cheat in order to win.

And for this reason, their entire careers are tainted in our eyes. Perhaps with some reprieve for those who were, or claim they were, breaking the rules inadvertently.

marienbad

later12 wrote: »

Do you really expect anyone to take seriously the sort of misleading mantra you're putting forward here?

Smith's improvements from around 1991 onwards in terms of world championships and European medals are well documented... you're being totally misleading in terms of her improvements, as though she had never won a major championship or ranked highly in world championships before Atlanta.

Like many other people, I have always been suspicious about Smith's victories in 1996, and I still retain a good deal of that suspicion.

However, it's arguments like the above that are steadily disintegrating the case against Smith because we start to think "if they have to misrepresent the case so vehemently, what are they afraid of admitting?"

Look at Smith's records. Before Atlanta, and particularly since the 1991 world championships, she had a string of achievements that no other Irish swimmer had previously enjoyed, she was an athlete of international repute and an international gold medalist.

Rule 1 of making a convincing case: Be a little bit more realistic; start out by admitting the cold facts, even the ones that don't suit your opinion, and people might actually take you seriously.

Then follow your own rule 1 -she was not world class before she met her husband and hand no significant results before then - just a glance at wiki will show you that . Prior to 1995 she had won nothing of significance and you keep glossing over that.

Having a string of achievements that no other Irish swimmer has is just meaningless. There are no significant results from Irish swimmers.

And by the way this issue of her improving is not telling the complete story- sure people can improve even as they get older . It is the margin of her improvement that is unsettling.

I may be incorrect here but if my memory serves she won the bronze in an event she had really never raced before !

She keeps her medals as she was'nt caught . She also cheated and was caught. So she is a multible Olympic medal winner and a cheat - those facts are beyond dispute.

I won't be cheering her on any time soon and you can if you like. There is no so blind as those that cannot see.

Time for a poll please.

titan18

later12 wrote: »

She was pipped out of the final in 1992, although in fairness she was suffering an injury at that time.


I'd be curious to know this too; I have her biography but have never gotten around to reading it. Perhaps others who have might fill us in on this aspect of her improvement according to the woman herself.

She came 13th in the world championships in 1991; that's a long way off gold at the Olympics, but it's not a long way off European gold that she made a few years later. So to be honest I do think the Olympics were a dramatic improvement, but I'm not sure the other championships like the World and Europeans were so dramatic.

She wasn't close to a final in 1992. She was swimming in the lower ranked heats and was well off the pace needed to be doing well in a final. 13th in the World Championships in 1991 was probably her best result before she met Erik De Bruin, and that's still nothing at a world level.

later12

marienbad wrote: »

Then follow your own rule 1 -she was not world class before she met her husband

She had made it to two Olympic Games and had come 13th in the world.

And by the way this issue of her improving is not telling the complete story- sure people can improve even as they get older . It is the margin of her improvement that is unsettling.

I happen to agree. The gold medals she won at Atlanta went too far in my own, possibly sceptical, opinion.

What I am saying is that she was not 'out of the running' in terms of an Olympics medal. She might have won one of those medals and no serious questions would be raised, ceteris paribus. That was my point -she was a strong, world class athlete.

4 medals was a bit unbelievable, but we have no evidence of any wrongdoing. Yes, I am as suspicious as most reasonable people. But I'm not denying that she used drugs per se. All I am asking is that people stop repeating this notion that she came from absolutely nowhere - that is demonstrably false. She proved her international repute over a number of years, not only from reaching the Seoul Olympics, but more appreciably from the 1991 world championships onwards, when she was 21. Leaving aside the Atlanta Olympics, Smith's international career - including 13th and 5th places at two World Championships, and also European Gold medals - was not particularly inconsistent at all.

The four medals, however, were.

Nevertheless, evidence is what is needed.

Wattle

I know what really happened to Michelle Smith De Bruin. It was a simple case of having her head turned by a fella. She's not the first and she won't be the last. It was that evil coach fella. Sure didn't the Dutch invent drugs? And frankly the mere idea of an Irish person ever cheating at anything is completely laughable.