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

later12

Sorry to bring this up again, but it is a fairly important point and I am keen to resolve the answers surrounding this particular question if possible. Higher you still have not answered this point.

later12 wrote: »

Originally Posted by Higher
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?

Pantsface

An aside, anyone know what her husband is up to himself these days?

mitosis

lugha wrote: »

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.

Rio Ferdinand.

mitosis

Suspicion is not a form of evidence.

Note the USA reaction when beaten by a Chinese girl this week - immediate suggestion of cheating. With no evidence whatsoever they dragged her through the mud. They did the same with Smyth.

I don't know whether Smyth raced clean or not and have my strong opinions, but until it can be shown she cheated I should not be permitted to claim publicly she did.

FishBowel

Pantsface wrote: »

An aside, anyone know what her husband is up to himself these days?

Probably depressed from living in Kilkenny?

lugha

mitosis wrote: »

Rio Ferdinand.

I presume your point is that we are not as critical of footballers who are caught taking drugs as we are of say sprinters, cyclists or swimmers or the like? (Two word posts can be a bit vague!)

Perhaps we are not very consistent in our attitude, though I think must would agree that doping in football does not offer anything like the same advantage as it does in these other sports.

Anyway, this has little to do with my point. Most of us would be rather unimpressed with any achievements by an athlete at any time in their career if they had even been caught doping. Few would try to argue that X was brilliant in 2009 and 2011 but we discount 2010 and 2012 because they were caught cheating in those years!

And despite the likes of matepac attempting to restrict the discussion to what can be proven in 1996, that she was subsequently banned from swimming is very pertinent to the OP; which asks if you consider MS is out greatest Olympian. I.e. what is your opinion, not can you prove that she is not clean!

Fotish

mitosis wrote: »

Suspicion is not a form of evidence.

Note the USA reaction when beaten by a Chinese girl this week - immediate suggestion of cheating. With no evidence whatsoever they dragged her through the mud. They did the same with Smyth.

I don't know whether Smyth raced clean or not and have my strong opinions, but until it can be shown she cheated I should not be permitted to claim publicly she did.

I would agree with the above.
A certain IT journalist had his knife in her from the start ,without any evidence,also I'm surprised that Janet Evens was not sued for slander.The Americans can hardly point the finger at anybody !

3DataModem

Loads of swimmers, runners and cyclists were juiced. Still are, just keeping ahead of the tests.

Motorist

Pantsface wrote: »

An aside, anyone know what her husband is up to himself these days?

Cant blame him for this - http://www.independent.ie/national-news/de-bruin-fined-for-careless-driving-186621.html
I'd do the same.

marienbad

later12 wrote: »

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

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.

With all due respect later 12 this is just rubbish - she simply was'nt a world class athlete and getting to the olympics in 88 and 92 are just indicative that she was a run of the mill international athlete. If you believe otherwise I can only conclude that you know nothing about sport.

Here is an example of a world class athlete - Janet Evans the girl who cried foul on our Michelle.

1988 Seoul Olympics -3 Gold
1992 Barcelona Olympics -I gold I silver
1991 World Champs 2 Gold I Silver
1993 Worlds 2 gold
1994 Worlds I bronze

And that is only the highlights , she won innumerable US Pan-pacific titles . Set world multiple world records some of which lasted until the last olympics in 2008 . And to rub salt in the wounds she is two years younger than Smith

later12

marienbad wrote: »

she simply was'nt a world class athlete

getting to the olympics in 88 and 92 are just indicative that she was a run of the mill international athlete

1. I mentioned more than "getting to the Olympics - I mentioned highly placed world championship results (5th & 13th) and European gold medals

2. If you believe these are indicative of "run of the mill" athletes, you are living in a dream world. You have zero credibility.

References to Janet Evans are a bizarre irrelevance. You can't prove that Ryan Lochte is an irrelevance by describing what a tremendous athlete Phelps is, for example. Extremely odd.

K-9

later12 wrote: »

1. I mentioned more than "getting to the Olympics - I mentioned highly placed world championship results (5th & 13th) and European gold medals

2. If you believe these are indicative of "run of the mill" athletes, you are living in a dream world. You have zero credibility.

References to Janet Evans are a bizarre irrelevance. You can't prove that Ryan Lochte is an irrelevance by describing what a tremendous athlete Phelps is, for example. Extremely odd.

Usually 13th up to 1st would be questionable as you'd usually have different levels within the Olympics. An Irish swimmer getting to an Olympic finals would be an achievement. The Aussies, Americans, British, French are usually all good, Hungary seem to have a tradition in it.

You've different levels in Olympics, hence the heats and Semi Finals.

I know you are trying to make points for Smith and make excuses, after all you've repeatedly said it's suspicious, but can you point out to me somebody who made a similar spike in improvement at that age, you seem to know a bit about swimming?

Red21

later12 wrote: »

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

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.

Honestly you're embarrassing yourself.:o:o:o
It's obvious from this and other posts you haven't a clue how the entry process to the games work in the bigger countries.
Do you really think the lights of the USA let every athlete that makes the qualifing time into the team ? :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:
Clearly, by you going on about her position at major events you think this is an indication of her talent on an international stage, you do understand that there were far better athletes in 88' and 92' who wouldn't have been at the games? Right???

Red21

later12 wrote: »

1. I mentioned more than "getting to the Olympics - I mentioned highly placed world championship results (5th & 13th) and European gold medals

What???
These results were in 94', 2 years after she met Eric de Bruin

mathepac

marienbad wrote: »

... And then calling into question the evidence from others !

And what precise evidence have others contributed? I've asked for evidence of cheating at the 96 olympics many, many times and poster after poster has said there is none.

What do you know of the provenance of the incidents that I quoted that are detailed previously here? If you can challenge them based on evidence you have, then do so. To dismiss them out of hand with no evidence offered in support of your position lacks intellectual robustness,

We are all in the same boat here as regards to anonymity, even the person who gave first-hand information of certain incidents, disproving some of the rubbish posted by the anti-Michelle lynch-mob had the protection of anonymity.

What evidence do you have pro or con, to progress the discussion?

marienbad wrote: »

... - just a glance at wiki will show you that . .

This bundle of editable tripe is what you use as reference material and you have the gall to question the veracity of posts here. Why am I not amazed?

marienbad

mathepac wrote: »

And what precise evidence have others contributed? I've asked for evidence of cheating at the 96 olympics many, many times and poster after poster has said there is none.

What do you know of the provenance of the incidents that I quoted that are detailed previously here? If you can challenge them based on evidence you have, then do so. To dismiss them out of hand with no evidence offered in support of your position lacks intellectual robustness,

We are all in the same boat here as regards to anonymity, even the person who gave first-hand information of certain incidents, disproving some of the rubbish posted by the anti-Michelle lynch-mob had the protection of anonymity.

What evidence do you have pro or con, to progress the discussion?
This bundle of editable tripe is what you use as reference material and you have the gall to question the veracity of posts here. Why am I not amazed?

Now we are getting into just silly territory - people make unsubstantiated allegations and you ask that they be refuted with proof .

How exactly does that work ??.

What this thread is about , I might remind you is, is Michelle Smith our greatest Olympian - you say yes .

Ok then lets play your game - I have asked you numerous times who is our second and third greatest in an effort to get an idea of your criteria - you have refused to answer.

So a straight question - by what criteria are you deciding she is our greatest ? A straight answer would be appreciated , thank you.

marienbad

later12 wrote: »

1. I mentioned more than "getting to the Olympics - I mentioned highly placed world championship results (5th & 13th) and European gold medals

2. If you believe these are indicative of "run of the mill" athletes, you are living in a dream world. You have zero credibility.

References to Janet Evans are a bizarre irrelevance. You can't prove that Ryan Lochte is an irrelevance by describing what a tremendous athlete Phelps is, for example. Extremely odd.

Janet Evans is an example of a world class athlete , so it is not bizarre in the slightest to compare the real deal to her contempory Michelle Smith .

Now as to those 5th and 13th placing you keep going on about - they were after she met the bould Eric - correct ?

To put this into perspective for you - here are the top 100 world rankings for Michelle in the 4 years prior to Atlanta and in the events in which she won medals at Atlanta .

400 m freestyle 92/93/94 not ranked.......... .95 ranked 31
200 m medley 92/93/94 not ranked .............95 ranked 2
400 m medly 92/93/94/not ranked ...............95 ranked 2
200 m butterfly 92/93/94 not ranked ...........95 ranked 11

And it was the same not ranked from 88 to 92. These stats are all taken from swimnews.

Does any of this bother you ? Extremely odd indeed , bizarre even.

mathepac

marienbad wrote: »

Now we are getting into just silly territory - people make unsubstantiated allegations and you ask that they be refuted with proof . .

And the biggest, the foulest unsubstantiated allegation posted here is that Michelle cheated and was using drugs at the '96 Olympics. Have you offered any proof in support of this filthy, unfounded and unsustainable allegation?

marienbad wrote: »

...
Ok then lets play your game - I have asked you numerous times who is our second and third greatest in an effort to get an idea of your criteria - you have refused to answer...

Off-topic nonsense, as I said before I think

marienbad wrote: »

... So a straight question - by what criteria are you deciding she is our greatest ? A straight answer would be appreciated , thank you.

And as I have said before "Was Michelle de Bruin our greatest Olympian? Eamonn Coughlan says yes" Eamo says yes, I agree with Eamo, so I say yes - again.

marienbad

mathepac wrote: »

And the biggest, the foulest unsubstantiated allegation posted here is that Michelle cheated and was using drugs at the '96 Olympics. Have you offered any proof in support of this filthy, unfounded and unsustainable allegation?
Off-topic nonsense, as I said before I think
And as I have said before "Was Michelle de Bruin our greatest Olympian? Eamonn Coughlan says yes" Eamo says yes, I agree with Eamo, so I say yes - again.

So your only criteria is that Eamonn says so ? No discussion on the merits of the events , the difficulty factor of other events , the participating numbers in other disciplines etc.

Just Eamo says so . and here was I thinking you had a serious point but you don't even appear to have a mind of your own.

later12

marienbad wrote: »

Janet Evans is an example of a world class athlete , so it is not bizarre in the slightest to compare the real deal to her contempory Michelle Smith .

It's bizarre to define one athlete as "non world class" by reference to another, undoubtedly (even superior) athlete. My point was that the same argument could be used to denigrate the likes of Ryan Lochte, relative to Michael Phelps.

Now as to those 5th and 13th placing you keep going on about - they were after she met the bould Eric - correct ?

Incorrect. Check your facts. She came 13th in the world over a year before meeting de Bruin, whom she met at her 2nd Olympics.

This is of dubious relevance, so I'm going to park that fact there before elaborating.

later12

K-9 wrote: »

Usually 13th up to 1st would be questionable as you'd usually have different levels within the Olympics.

Just to clarify, that's not necessarily the problem.

To clarify the sort of point I'm countering, I'm just defending Smith's pre 1996 record, stretching back to her early twenties, as a world class athlete.

I'm not saying that her Olympic medals are credible in themselves (necessarily); I'm saying that references to her as a "run of the mill" athlete are incredible.

mathepac

Higher wrote: »

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...

As already pointed out this is untrue and Androstenedione had been in use as a dietary supplement by athletes for at least 20 years before the '96 Olympics until it was banned by the IOC in 97. It was not illegal to own it or take it and it could be purchased OTC without prescription before that time. So this was no sneaky illegal injectable silver bullet smuggled from a former Soviet State or from a secret laboratory in the Alps; it was an ordinary (for athletes) dietary supplement for sale on the high street.

In banning it, the IOC classified the substance (which occurs naturally in both men and women) as an anabolic steroid, one of the first of many administrative organisations to classify it as such. Strangely, despite wide-ranging legal classification as an androgenic-anabolic steroid, scientists have found little to no evidence of muscle-production or promotion capability in Androstenedione. Weird or wha'?

In women Androstenedione is a precursor to oestrogen, in men testosterone. It needs other substances to combine with to produce these hormones.

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. Produce the evidence that Michelle cheated her way to her victories at the 96 Olympic games.

mathepac

marienbad wrote: »

So your only criteria is that Eamonn says so ? No discussion on the merits of the events , the difficulty factor of other events , the participating numbers in other disciplines etc.

Just Eamo says so . and here was I thinking you had a serious point but you don't even appear to have a mind of your own.

I think you meant to type 'criterion' in your first sentence.

I find the tone and content of your post deeply offensive. Be that as it may, Eamo is a very successful athlete, world-class in his day, world record holder, european champion, supreme indoor miler for 7/8 years, etc, etc. I admire him and I followed his career with great interest and admiration. I also respect him and trust his judgement. As an insider to all the wheelings and dealings in sport and as a guy whose career was free of drug controversy, his nomination is good enough for me and satisfies my own criteria.

I worked with Eamonn from time-to-time, me as a volunteer, he in his role as chief fund-raiser (the man who put the 'fun' into fund-raising) and manager of events for Our Lady's Childrens' Hospital in Crumlin. I came to admire his professionalism, drive and enthusiasm, all the attributes that made him such a great athlete and a world-renowned and admired representative of our country, employed in a task vital to the on-going health and well-being of the children of our country.

My mind is good enough to recognise someone of good character and judgement, whose opinion I value.

I think your attempts at demeaning me say more about you than they do about my mind or lack of one.

mitosis

lugha wrote: »

I presume your point is that we are not as critical of footballers who are caught taking drugs as we are of say sprinters, cyclists or swimmers or the like? (Two word posts can be a bit vague!)

Perhaps we are not very consistent in our attitude, though I think must would agree that doping in football does not offer anything like the same advantage as it does in these other sports.

Anyway, this has little to do with my point. Most of us would be rather unimpressed with any achievements by an athlete at any time in their career if they had even been caught doping. Few would try to argue that X was brilliant in 2009 and 2011 but we discount 2010 and 2012 because they were caught cheating in those years!

And despite the likes of matepac attempting to restrict the discussion to what can be proven in 1996, that she was subsequently banned from swimming is very pertinent to the OP; which asks if you consider MS is out greatest Olympian. I.e. what is your opinion, not can you prove that she is not clean!

My point was, you say if an athlete is guilty of a doping offence their entire career is suspect and tainted. Do you apply that to Ferdinand, for example, who missed a test and therefore served a ban? And if a team member is exposed do the achievements of the team also get called into question?

How far do you extrapolate?

I think, with a caveat, that she is our greatest achieving Olympian. As I said, I have my doubts, but no evidence of wrongdoing, so......

Tombo2001

mitosis wrote: »

My point was, you say if an athlete is guilty of a doping offence their entire career is suspect and tainted. Do you apply that to Ferdinand, for example, who missed a test and therefore served a ban? And if a team member is exposed do the achievements of the team also get called into question?

How far do you extrapolate?

I think, with a caveat, that she is our greatest achieving Olympian. As I said, I have my doubts, but no evidence of wrongdoing, so......

I'd agree with you on the former. There is a double standard.

Boxing for example, I have no doubt that doping is rife. But I do guess that doping is more prevalent in say swimming/ cycling than in soccer. No drug will give you Messi's silky touch.

On Michelle Smith.....

Your caveat is a pretty big caveat. And there is evidence of wrongdoing. Maybe its just not sufficient evidence for you, but there certainly is evidence.

I dont think there will be a resolution to this debate. There cant really be, as really it comes down to a matter of opinion.

Do the facts:
-that she was suspended for tampering with a sample that contained illegal substances not long after the Olympics
-that she showed extraordinary improvements at an age where it is highly irregular for swimmers to do so
- that her coach was a confirmed doper
- that she was unavailable for out of competition testing prior to the Olympics......
......... IN YOUR VIEW........
................. cast suspicion on her gold medal winning performances.

If yes, then you dont consider her the greatest olympian.

If no, then you may consider her the greatest olympian....

Its not a YES or NO answer, its a matter of opinion answer.

Is there anything else to this? Do we need another 300 posts on it?

Tombo2001

mitosis wrote: »

And if a team member is exposed do the achievements of the team also get called into question?

.

On this point, Michael Johnson was stripped of a relay gold medal when one of his team mates was shown to have doped, several years after the event.

So yes, in Athletics it applies.

I guess in soccer it doesnt. Several times we've seen English clubs field weak teams for various events, unlike the Chinese badminton players they dont get kicked out of the competition.

Re your Rio Ferdinand question, I think the message here is, Money Talks.

Sea Filly

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'd agree with you on the former. There is a double standard.

Boxing for example, I have no doubt that doping is rife. But I do guess that doping is more prevalent in say swimming/ cycling than in soccer. No drug will give you Messi's silky touch.

On Michelle Smith.....

Your caveat is a pretty big caveat. And there is evidence of wrongdoing. Maybe its just not sufficient evidence for you, but there certainly is evidence.

I dont think there will be a resolution to this debate. There cant really be, as really it comes down to a matter of opinion.

Do the facts:
-that she was suspended for tampering with a sample that contained illegal substances not long after the Olympics
-that she showed extraordinary improvements at an age where it is highly irregular for swimmers to do so
- that her coach was a confirmed doper
- that she was unavailable for out of competition testing prior to the Olympics......
......... IN YOUR VIEW........
................. cast suspicion on her gold medal winning performances.

If yes, then you dont consider her the greatest olympian.

If no, then you may consider her the greatest olympian....

Its not a YES or NO answer, its a matter of opinion answer.

Is there anything else to this? Do we need another 300 posts on it?

Yeah, it really is just going around and around at this stage.

lugha

mitosis wrote: »

My point was, you say if an athlete is guilty of a doping offence their entire career is suspect and tainted. Do you apply that to Ferdinand, for example, who missed a test and therefore served a ban? And if a team member is exposed do the achievements of the team also get called into question?

I think I have already answered this. Rightly or wrongly we do not have the same standards and attitudes across all sports. Most people would say the Ferdinand incident does not undermines Man Utd's achievements. But I think most would also say that an individual athlete in certain disciplines (swimming, cycling, sprinting, weight lifting etc.) who was banned from their sport does not deserve to retain much of their reputation, regardless of the chronology of their achievements and their ban.

The assess how we should regard the Michelle Smyth legacy I think we should ask how would we regard her if she was say a British, or Dutch(!) swimmer.

Tombo2001

lugha wrote: »

The assess how we should regard the Michelle Smyth legacy I think we should ask how would we regard her if she was say a British, or Dutch(!) swimmer.

Or Chinese.

StephenHendry

fact is michelle is our greatest olympian, she passed all the tests during olympic games in 96 , the tests she failed/tampered with etc. in 97 and 98 leading to her ban obviously create suspicion over her achieves at the OG in 96 but we have no prove whatsover she was on any wrongdoing for the atlanta. its on record that she passed all test for these games. it appears that most believe that it is not possible to become a world class swimmer having met de bruin in 92. we will never know what really happened as michelle won't tell her side of the story

Tombo2001

StephenHendry wrote: »

fact is michelle is our greatest olympian

Not fact, opinion.

Balmed Out

marienbad wrote: »

No discussion on the merits of the events , the difficulty factor of other events , the participating numbers in other disciplines etc.

We dont really enter any of the sports that have massive worldwide participating numbers in the Olympics such as soccer, volleyball, ping pong, judo etc.

Among the sports we do enter the only one close to swimming is track and field. I would be convinced that among developed nations the number of people participating from an early age at a competitive level in swimming would be far far more then track and field. At a world wide level maybe not but the idea of swimming being just an american / australian / european sport is wrong. There are competitive associations all over the world with China, Brazil, South Africa, Japan, South Korea and Russia all off the top of my head developing stars (in the swimming world) in recent times.


As for the difficulty factor if you compare the amount of training done in the lifetime of a swimmer vs virtually any sport (possible exception of gymnastics) its hard to knock it there either.

The only way I think swimming is easier then most sports is if you are an unusually talented individual its easier to win multiple swimming medals then say for a runner eg spitz or phelps.

AlanG

Jimmy Magee was on RTE this morning raving about how Carl Lewis is the greatest Olympian ever – seems Jimmy has no problem with proven drug cheats.

Ormus

I think the paranoia of people is hilarious. Just make a blanket statement that all athletes in all sports are doped up to the eyeballs. That way you will never have the wool pulled over your eyes, and if you're actually wrong, it will never be conclusively proven.

Guilty until proven innocent, and even then, guilty. Now that's justice.

Personally, I think that Michelle Smith should have come out with some statement as to why she tampered with a drug sample. If she was still in denial of having done this, she should have made a statement explaining her version of the circumstances in which she was accused of doing so.

The fact that she never did is very suspicious, albeit not conclusive.

Ormus

AlanG wrote: »

Jimmy Magee was on RTE this morning raving about how Carl Lewis is the greatest Olympian ever – seems Jimmy has no problem with proven drug cheats.

Carl Lewis is not a proven drug cheat.

foxyboxer

Tombo2001 wrote: »

On this point, Michael Johnson was stripped of a relay gold medal when one of his team mates was shown to have doped, several years after the event.

So yes, in Athletics it applies.

I guess in soccer it doesnt. Several times we've seen English clubs field weak teams for various events, unlike the Chinese badminton players they dont get kicked out of the competition.

Re your Rio Ferdinand question, I think the message here is, Money Talks.

He voluntarily returned the medal.

FishHook

AlanG wrote: »

Jimmy Magee was on RTE this morning raving about how Carl Lewis is the greatest Olympian ever – seems Jimmy has no problem with proven drug cheats.

He was on the Late Late Show a few years ago, saying that Michelle Smith was Ireland's greatest Olympian ever, so at least he is being consistent !!

Balmed Out

Tombo2001 wrote: »

-that she showed extraordinary improvements at an age where it is highly irregular for swimmers to do so

I though i had dispelled that "fact" already. A kid cannot train hard in most sports as it causes too many injuries. You swim in water its low impact thus you can start the journey to become an elite swimmer far before that of other sports. Swimmers dont peak young but they are capable of being world champs when their young.

By the time they are 23 the likes of Phelps will have spent a decade or more doing two sessions a day, every day, four or five hours in the pool. Up early to train then to school then to train then to bed. Thats life. Once you've achieved success its very very difficult to continue. On top of this when your that good improvement comes more and more slowly so its difficult to keep up the enthusiasim.

Swimmers are far the most part burnt out by the time they reach the mid 20's, sprinters tend to last longer but then they do more srength conditioning rather then endless pool hours.

Many swimmers, including Mark Spitz, Shane Gould and Murray Rose were able to swim faster times decades into their retirement then they did in the Olympics.

If you improve your stroke, strength, conditioning etc its perfectly possible to continue improving beyond her age.

I reiterate I believe Michelle and the vast majority of Olympians take performance enhancing substances.

bruschi

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'd agree with you on the former. There is a double standard.

Boxing for example, I have no doubt that doping is rife. But I do guess that doping is more prevalent in say swimming/ cycling than in soccer. No drug will give you Messi's silky touch.

On Michelle Smith.....

Your caveat is a pretty big caveat. And there is evidence of wrongdoing. Maybe its just not sufficient evidence for you, but there certainly is evidence.

I dont think there will be a resolution to this debate. There cant really be, as really it comes down to a matter of opinion.

Do the facts:
-that she was suspended for tampering with a sample that contained illegal substances not long after the Olympics
-that she showed extraordinary improvements at an age where it is highly irregular for swimmers to do so
- that her coach was a confirmed doper
- that she was unavailable for out of competition testing prior to the Olympics......
......... IN YOUR VIEW........
................. cast suspicion on her gold medal winning performances.

If yes, then you dont consider her the greatest olympian.

If no, then you may consider her the greatest olympian....

Its not a YES or NO answer, its a matter of opinion answer.

Is there anything else to this? Do we need another 300 posts on it?

+1 on this. Mathepac will only discuss Atlanta 96 and will bury the head in the sand to everything else around it as it is off topic. To try say that there is no suspicion over her avoidance of drug tests in the years prior to the games, her association with a banned drug taker, her dramatic improvement in times, and her subsequent banning after a positive drug test was tampered with is peoples opinion. Obviously she was a more than average swimmer. Taking drugs does not automatically mean you go from being a complete loser to being the best. It enhances an already established level of quality. But that is what seems to have happened after her meeting of her husband, her times got better when by all reasonable logic they would have deteriorated. My opinion is that all of the above are very much relevant to her standing as our greatest Olympian.

So there are 2 ways of looking at it. Michelle Smith was not found to have a positive drug test at the Olympics and was never asked to return her medals.

Michelle Smith has a lot of highly supsicious activity around her that does not add up, and has subsequently served a drug related ban. It has subsequently been shown that athletes on drugs during Olympics passed tests.

Hannibal

AlanG wrote: »

Jimmy Magee was on RTE this morning raving about how Carl Lewis is the greatest Olympian ever – seems Jimmy has no problem with proven drug cheats.

Most people were probably watching BBC when Jimmy was on RTE, he has that effect people who want actual commentary rather than nonsense.
Lewis failed 3 tests prior to Seoul in 1988. He tested positive for pseudoephedrine, ephedrine and phenylpropanolamine. He was initially banned by the USOC but they later accepted his explanation that he inadvertantly consumed these substances via the usage of cold medication.

MonkeyTennis

They should strip away your medals if you get caught doping at any stage. They should make that the price of cheating.

Royal Legend

Hmmmmmm

Posted elsewhere

Indo had to remove another unsubstantiated claim

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056715181

Quick question, how long do they hold onto the samples taken at games for?

marienbad

later12 wrote: »

It's bizarre to define one athlete as "non world class" by reference to another, undoubtedly (even superior) athlete. My point was that the same argument could be used to denigrate the likes of Ryan Lochte, relative to Michael Phelps.

Incorrect. Check your facts. She came 13th in the world over a year before meeting de Bruin, whom she met at her 2nd Olympics.

This is of dubious relevance, so I'm going to park that fact there before elaborating.

How is it bizarre to define one athlete in reference to another ? It is how we do it all the time - e.g world player of the year, world boxer of the year, mvp etc. And to use Phellps and Lochte to refute the point is laughable - they are both outstanding world class athletes.

Instead of telling me to correct my facts cab you give me the source of that 13th in the world please ? And can you clarify is that 13th in one meet or ranked 13th in the world .

I have given you specific reference material and I expect no less from you.

marienbad

mathepac wrote: »

I think you meant to type 'criterion' in your first sentence.

I find the tone and content of your post deeply offensive. Be that as it may, Eamo is a very successful athlete, world-class in his day, world record holder, european champion, supreme indoor miler for 7/8 years, etc, etc. I admire him and I followed his career with great interest and admiration. I also respect him and trust his judgement. As an insider to all the wheelings and dealings in sport and as a guy whose career was free of drug controversy, his nomination is good enough for me and satisfies my own criteria.

I worked with Eamonn from time-to-time, me as a volunteer, he in his role as chief fund-raiser (the man who put the 'fun' into fund-raising) and manager of events for Our Lady's Childrens' Hospital in Crumlin. I came to admire his professionalism, drive and enthusiasm, all the attributes that made him such a great athlete and a world-renowned and admired representative of our country, employed in a task vital to the on-going health and well-being of the children of our country.

My mind is good enough to recognise someone of good character and judgement, whose opinion I value.

I think your attempts at demeaning me say more about you than they do about my mind or lack of one.

Jee whiz - you find the tone of my posts offensive - oh dear , and this coming from someone who has sneered and condescended his/her way through this whole thread.

And starts her reply with a bit of grammer police action .

For your information I did not mean to type criterion in my post - criteria is what I posted and intended - look it up.

So when we strip out the indignation and hero worship my question still stands , other the Eamo saying so - have you any other criteria for your opinion ?

We know what Eamo thinks - what do you yourself think .

Bearing in mind that if it is the quality of the witness you are going on there are dozens of world class athletes, commentators , coaches that believe the opposite set against our own Jimmy McGee and Eamonn . Do they not count as they are not Irish ?

Royal Legend

The 16 year old Chinese girl swam the last 50 quicker than Lochte, so in the Americans eyes that makes her a drugs cheat, but they just can't prove it. Same when Michelle won, they cast suspicion then as well.
I think that they are a bit peed this year as they were hoping that Locthe would win 6 golds, which is not going to happen now. The strange thing with the yanks is that they never question their own. Sore losers in my opinion

bamboozle

Royal Legend wrote: »

The 16 year old Chinese girl swam the last 50 quicker than Lochte, so in the Americans eyes that makes her a drugs cheat, but they just can't prove it. Same when Michelle won, they cast suspicion then as well.
I think that they are a bit peed this year as they were hoping that Locthe would win 6 golds, which is not going to happen now. The strange thing with the yanks is that they never question their own. Sore losers in my opinion

hmmm, Marion Jones might disagree with you.

FishHook

Royal Legend wrote: »

The 16 year old Chinese girl swam the last 50 quicker than Lochte, so in the Americans eyes that makes her a drugs cheat, but they just can't prove it. Same when Michelle won, they cast suspicion then as well.
I think that they are a bit peed this year as they were hoping that Locthe would win 6 golds, which is not going to happen now. The strange thing with the yanks is that they never question their own. Sore losers in my opinion

Going by this thread, the yanks aren't the only ones with that tendency!!!!

Sea Filly

Balmed Out wrote: »

I though i had dispelled that "fact" already. A kid cannot train hard in most sports as it causes too many injuries. You swim in water its low impact thus you can start the journey to become an elite swimmer far before that of other sports. Swimmers dont peak young but they are capable of being world champs when their young.

By the time they are 23 the likes of Phelps will have spent a decade or more doing two sessions a day, every day, four or five hours in the pool. Up early to train then to school then to train then to bed. Thats life. Once you've achieved success its very very difficult to continue. On top of this when your that good improvement comes more and more slowly so its difficult to keep up the enthusiasim.

Swimmers are far the most part burnt out by the time they reach the mid 20's, sprinters tend to last longer but then they do more srength conditioning rather then endless pool hours.

Many swimmers, including Mark Spitz, Shane Gould and Murray Rose were able to swim faster times decades into their retirement then they did in the Olympics.

If you improve your stroke, strength, conditioning etc its perfectly possible to continue improving beyond her age.

I reiterate I believe Michelle and the vast majority of Olympians take performance enhancing substances.

You mention only male athletes there. Just pointing out that this is introducing another variable.

I agree with you though that many sports at the elite level are likely saturated with PED-assisted participants.

Royal Legend

FishHook wrote: »

Going by this thread, the yanks aren't the only ones with that tendency!!!!

I am talking about the hierarchy in US sports,

newport2

Royal Legend wrote: »

Quick question, how long do they hold onto the samples taken at games for?

Currently 8 years