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

Balmed Out

Sea Filly wrote: »

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.

Shane Gould is a woman, one of if not the greatest female swimmers ever.

Tombo2001

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.

Apologies if this seems pedantic but you didnt dispel the fact.

It is a fact that is highly irregular for high level swimmers to show such improvements in their mid-twenties.

You have given a reason why it might be plausible that Michelle Smith would reverse this trend. You might be right, you might be wrong. But it remains a fact that her improvements were highly unusual for some-one in their mid-twenties.

Incidentally, Shane Gould retired age 16, Mark Spitz retired age 22. Relevant facts when you mention that they improved their times post-retirement.

Sea Filly

Balmed Out wrote: »

Shane Gould is a woman, one of if not the greatest female swimmers ever.

My bad. She won her first gold at 16 though, and that appears to have been her best year, in competition anyway.

later12

marienbad wrote: »

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.

Of course we do; case in point, Smith was named European Swimmer of the Year in 1995. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying it is bizarre to suggest that one swimmer is not a world class athlete just because another arbitrarily chosen athlete is usually even more outstanding.

I'm not saying she's the best the world had seen, and if you bother reading the thread you'll see that I'm not saying drugs definitely didn't play a part in her Olympic successes. What I am saying is that from her early 20s, she was a world class athlete.

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 .

When I said she came 13th in the world, I was saying that according to her wiki page, she came 13th in the world championships; I mentioned this in a post just above the one you quoted. The meaning was not intended to be a general ranking; apparently this was only Smith's 2nd major championship so she wouldn't have ranked that highly, or any where close to it. But it does show early form.

marienbad

later12 wrote: »

Of course we do; case in point, Smith was named European Swimmer of the Year in 1995. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying it is bizarre to suggest that one swimmer is not a world class athlete just because another arbitrarily chosen athlete is usually even more outstanding.

I'm not saying she's the best the world had seen, and if you bother reading the thread you'll see that I'm not saying drugs definitely didn't play a part in her Olympic successes. What I am saying is that from her early 20s, she was a world class athlete.


When I said she came 13th in the world, I was saying that according to her wiki page, she came 13th in the world championships; I mentioned this in a post just above the one you quoted. The meaning was not intended to be a general ranking; apparently this was only Smith's 2nd major championship so she wouldn't have ranked that highly, or any where close to it. But it does show early form.

I am sorry later 12 - she was never a world class athlete prior to meeting Eric de Bruin - the official ranking shows that. And using wiki as a source in contrast to the data I have provided just dos'nt cut it.

Neither does qualifying for the 88 and 92 olympics , that just shows you either don't understand or don't care about the qualifying process. The may well have been a 100 swimmers alone in the USA in 88/92 better than her that did'nt make the games and never would . That is the nature of the process.

As for your case in point, 1995 Swimmer of the Year-come on !! Her career has two phases -pre Barcelona92 and post Barcelona/Eric de Bruin . And to pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best.

Pre Barcelona - she was honest international class athlete of the lower level, but a genuine Olympian and a obviously highly intelligent motivated person who could have gone on to have a highly honourable career in law coaching,media such as Gary O'Toole Mick Dowling et al.

After that I am afraid it is only in Ireland that you will find anyone that believes she has any credibility. And the Olympic Council would have been insane to have honoured her as a torch bearer.

later12

marienbad wrote: »

I am sorry later 12 - she was never a world class athlete prior to meeting Eric de Bruin - the official ranking shows that. .

Oh don't apologise - you don't get to decide who is, or isn't, a world class athlete. You may put forward your opinion, as I can mine, and we each may reject the other.

This is all a bit irrelevant, since although I am making the point that you don't come 13th in a world championships unless you are a world class athlete, I only set out to establish that she was a world class athlete prior to Atlanta. It seems your goalposts have now shifted, and anyone who tries to bring some reality to this discussion is expected to prove she was a world class athlete only prior to 1992. I suppose I see that as progress, or an implicit acceptance that yes, Smith was indeed a world class athlete at least as far back as 1992.

marienbad

later12 wrote: »

Oh don't apologise - you don't get to decide who is, or isn't, a world class athlete. You may put forward your opinion, as I can mine, and we each may reject the other.

This is all a bit irrelevant, since although I am making the point that you don't come 13th in a world championships unless you are a world class athlete, I only set out to establish that she was a world class athlete prior to Atlanta. It seems your goalposts have now shifted, and anyone who tries to bring some reality to this discussion is expected to prove she was a world class athlete only prior to 1992. I suppose I see that as progress, or an implicit acceptance that yes, Smith was indeed a world class athlete at least as far back as 1992.

No Later, you are goal posting shifting your self- you can't divorce the events post 92 from the Atlanta and drug tampering saga- it is all of a piece. Eric De Bruin is the key factor and we see that his efforts did not bear fruit until 1995. Prior to that she had no significant ranking or result- do you dispute that.

No neither you or I decide who is world class - the authorities do - and I have shown you she had no top 100 ranking in any event prior to 1995. What more do you need ?

Can you give me a source for your stats other than wiki please ? Finishing 13th in a world championship does not make you a world class athlete , it just shows you do not or will not understand the process. You are not contending that she was ranked 13th in the world are you ?

later12

I'm not trying to divorce Barcelona 92 from Smith's later achievements; in fact that's the point. I earlier mentioned how she did pretty well at Barcelona despite an injury that was affecting her at the time. The only other reference for Smith's achievements are in her auto/biography which I am reading at the moment. I'm not sure if FINA publish historical records going back to 1991.

Like I said, it's not surprising that Smith wasn't higher in the rankings in 1991 - she was not competing in enough major events, despite her fairly impressive placing at the 1991 world aquatic championships;

Finishing 13th in a World Championship does not make you a world class athlete? Swimming is one of the most competitive disciplines in global sport; I think most people would disagree emphatically with your opinion there.

Red21

later12 wrote: »

Oh don't apologise - you don't get to decide who is, or isn't, a world class athlete. You may put forward your opinion, as I can mine, and we each may reject the other.

Yeah, but you'll find that most people consider the swimmer who is able to swim faster to be the better swimmer.

later12 wrote: »

This is all a bit irrelevant, since although I am making the point that you don't come 13th in a world championships unless you are a world class athlete, I only set out to establish that she was a world class athlete prior to Atlanta. It seems your goalposts have now shifted, and anyone who tries to bring some reality to this discussion is expected to prove she was a world class athlete only prior to 1992. I suppose I see that as progress, or an implicit acceptance that yes, Smith was indeed a world class athlete at least as far back as 1992.

If this is what you're saying, you do realise you're gonna have to move those goalposts another little bit.
The only thing you know about swimming is what you read on Michelle de Bruins wiki page, thats obvious from reading your posts. It's also obvious that it never really dawned on you that bigger countries such as the US hold trials to find their best swimmers to represent them in the games.

Balmed Out

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Apologies if this seems pedantic but you didnt dispel the fact.

It is a fact that is highly irregular for high level swimmers to show such improvements in their mid-twenties.

You have given a reason why it might be plausible that Michelle Smith would reverse this trend. You might be right, you might be wrong. But it remains a fact that her improvements were highly unusual for some-one in their mid-twenties.

Incidentally, Shane Gould retired age 16, Mark Spitz retired age 22. Relevant facts when you mention that they improved their times post-retirement.

Its quite obvious that most swimmers are burned out and dont have the will to continue from their early twenties, very very few do. Of those who do its normally those who have not achieved their goals so the cream of every generation retires early. This is in no imaginable way proof that swimmers do not improve in their mid twenties.

Have a look at it, swimmers dont generally retire after a drop in performance (unless due to injury), they retire after achieving some goal whether a pb or an alympic medal or whatever.

It is highly irregular for swimmers to continue swimming in their 20's but those that do will normally continue to improve. The scale of her improvement is a different matter but who are you comparing her with? A swimmer such as Phelps if he was not to retire would not make remarkable improvements - hes too close to perfection. A swimmer further down the pecking order with poorer, strength levels, technique etc just might. Unfortunately its so rare for them not to retire that we just dont know.

Look at this years games, the only "elderly" swimmer I can think of is Anthony Ervin 50m who was the fc champion in 2000 aged 19. Retired afterwards.
Recently back in the pool and competing again and qualifying with a pb.

fc- front crawl
pb - personnal best

marienbad

later12 wrote: »

I'm not trying to divorce Barcelona 92 from Smith's later achievements; in fact that's the point. I earlier mentioned how she did pretty well at Barcelona despite an injury that was affecting her at the time. The only other reference for Smith's achievements are in her auto/biography which I am reading at the moment. I'm not sure if FINA publish historical records going back to 1991.

Like I said, it's not surprising that Smith wasn't higher in the rankings in 1991 - she was not competing in enough major events, despite her fairly impressive placing at the 1991 world aquatic championships;

Finishing 13th in a World Championship does not make you a world class athlete? Swimming is one of the most competitive disciplines in global sport; I think most people would disagree emphatically with your opinion there.

Look lets just agree to disagree - your definition of world class and mine are just poles apart- getting to the olympics does not make you world class - for gods sake Eddie The Eagle got to the Olympics , that Nigerian that took up rowing 3 months ago got to the Olympics, remember that swimmer from the last olympics that nearly had to be helped out of the pool. It is the nature of the qualifying process that produces these anomalies and fuels the debate about quality v participation.

What makes you world class is an independant world ranking and Smith never had one prior to 95, and the injury excuse is meaningless- every athlete of any merit has to endure injury - you slip down the rankings not just never appear in the prime of you career and when you do appear late in the day burst through at the very top.

This to me is not just an academic discussion - people like Michelle Smith/Eric De Bruin have at this stage virtually destroyed olympic sport and along with that horsey guy has linked Ireland sporting name to cheats for a long time to come.

There are victims here too and untold damage- those that she deprived of their rightful places and those that she disillusioned, and those too that she validated in their drug taking.

If you really want to look at the greats in Olympic history you could do worse that look up Shirley Babashoff - who instead of having 8 individual gold medals has 8 silver , all down to the drug cheats from E.Germany and despite all we now know those results still stand and Babashoff continues to ply her trade as a postwoman instead of being celebrated as one of the greats.

But as I said lets just agree to disagree.

Sea Filly

marienbad wrote: »

If you really want to look at the greats in Olympic history you could do worse that look up Shirley Babashoff - who instead of having 8 individual gold medals has 8 silver , all down to the drug cheats from E.Germany and despite all we now know those results still stand and Babashoff continues to ply her trade as a postwoman instead of being celebrated as one of the greats

In fairness, a lot of those East German athletes were doped without their consent.

marienbad

Sea Filly wrote: »

In fairness, a lot of those East German athletes were doped without their consent.

Absolutely agree with you , and to do that to them at such a young age is beyond belief. Caused untold health problems in later life.

Pherekydes

Balmed Out wrote: »

t are Look this years games, the only "elderly" swimmer I can think of is Anthony Ervin 50m who was the fc champion in 2000 aged 19. Retired afterwards.
Recently back in the pool and competing again and qualifying with a pb.

fc- front crawl
pb - personnal best

Ryan Lochte is 28 tomorrow and he's still setting lifetime bests.

marienbad

Pherekydes wrote: »

Ryan Lochte is 28 tomorrow and he's still setting lifetime bests.

He has always been setting lifetime bests - that is the point, he did'nt just come out of nowhere and start setting world records at 28.

Pherekydes

marienbad wrote: »

He has always been setting lifetime bests - that is the point, he did'nt just come out of nowhere and start setting world records at 28.

The point is that he can still set lifetime bests at 28. If he can anyone can.

later12

marienbad wrote: »

Look lets just agree to disagree - your definition of world class and mine are just poles apart- getting to the olympics does not make you world class

Straw man. I didn't say they did; I was combining her various achievements. If i thought getting to the Olympics alone made you world class, I would have said so. That's why I raised the world championship performances, as an example.

Getting to the Olympics once might not make you world class; Making it to two consecutive Olympics and coming 13th (later 5th) in a world championships, winning European Gold medals and being named European Swimmer of the Year, yes, this all makes you world class.

And yes, some of these more impressive performances were met after Smith met the man that later became her coach; that's entirely circumstantial. Changing coach might actually mean that coach is bringing about genuine improvements in your performance; it doesn't necessarily mean he's putting steroids in your scrambled eggs.

In any event, my point in raising these issues is simply to to counter the suggestion that Smith came from nowhere in 1996.

Fine, perhaps she was chomping on steroids to get there - you're entitled (without any evidence) to believe that. But as a former European gold medalist, who'd been 5th in the world championships, and named European swimmer of the year 1995, she was not coming out of nowhere in Atlanta as you were earlier intimating. That's the point I've been getting at, for it is simply undeniable.

later12

Pherekydes wrote: »

The point is that he can still set lifetime bests at 28. If he can anyone can.

That's a valid point. Too much of the case against Smith, however suspicious her achievements, are made by way of these unreasonably firm beliefs that 26 is over the hill, a point after which no further (even dramatic) progress is possible and 2. that circumstantial evidence amounting to little more than a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is admissible as a convincing argument.

On the above issue of her age, unless I'm mistaken we're still awaiting evidence that it is "recognized" that female swimmers burn out by their early 20's.

castle

It is a simple case unless someone else wins 3 Golds and 1 Bronze then Michelle remains and always will be always be and rightly so be number 1 Irish person in the Omlypics.
If you choose to use any other method then the likes of Carl Lewis etc would be in the same boat mouth braces and all,:)

Balmed Out

marienbad wrote: »

He has always been setting lifetime bests - that is the point, he did'nt just come out of nowhere and start setting world records at 28.

Thats just it swimmers, if they can keep the sport up, do keep on improving. They dont peak very young their just able to train much more as kids and become elite at a much younger age.
Swimming as a sport is constantly evolving in terms of what is the best technique and training methods and it is possible for someone who trains with outdated methods to make a leap. The size of the leap is questionable though..

marienbad

Pherekydes wrote: »

The point is that he can still set lifetime bests at 28. If he can anyone can.

No the point is not that he can still set life time best at 28 . it is that he can set lifetime bests that are world bests, and that he has been doing so all his sporting life . It is consistency that counts.

Michelle Smith came out of nowhere to set lifetime bests and world best by margins of over 10 seconds where she had absolutely no precedent for such times.

Sea Filly

later12 wrote: »

On the above issue of her age, unless I'm mistaken we're still awaiting evidence that it is "recognized" that female swimmers burn out by their early 20's.

Google and Pubmed are your friends here. I know, burden of proof is on me, blah blah, but not one fuck could be given by me TBH. You're like a dog with a bone anyway. :cool: And you never told us all the interesting snippet you heard from some swimmer.

This thread is going around and around at this stage, and seems to just be attracting people who just like to debate and not necessarily give a crap about swimming or doping in sports at this point.

later12

Sea Filly wrote: »

And you never told us all the interesting snippet you heard from some swimmer.

I was told something to the effect of dramatic variations in performance being more credible in women's swimming, which I have no reason to believe, nor would I believe without some evidence. You seem to be unaware that the reason I brought it up was merely a polite way of saying "I don't believe you".

Why are you suggesting pubmed now? You said you read this on BBC or ESPN. I searched for the article but strangely enough to no avail ! I'll do a cursory look on pubmed but I'm not expecting anything, are you?

I know, burden of proof is on me, blah blah, but not one fuck could be given by me TBH.

Don't be surprised when people pull you up on blatantly incredible-sounding articles you claim exist.

marienbad

later12 wrote: »

Straw man. I didn't say they did; I was combining her various achievements. If i thought getting to the Olympics alone made you world class, I would have said so. That's why I raised the world championship performances, as an example.

Getting to the Olympics once might not make you world class; Making it to two consecutive Olympics and coming 13th (later 5th) in a world championships, winning European Gold medals and being named European Swimmer of the Year, yes, this all makes you world class.

And yes, some of these more impressive performances were met after Smith met the man that later became her coach; that's entirely circumstantial. Changing coach might actually mean that coach is bringing about genuine improvements in your performance; it doesn't necessarily mean he's putting steroids in your scrambled eggs.

In any event, my point in raising these issues is simply to to counter the suggestion that Smith came from nowhere in 1996.

Fine, perhaps she was chomping on steroids to get there - you're entitled (without any evidence) to believe that. But as a former European gold medalist, who'd been 5th in the world championships, and named European swimmer of the year 1995, she was not coming out of nowhere in Atlanta as you were earlier intimating. That's the point I've been getting at, for it is simply undeniable.

Is is just semantics to separate 1995 and 1996- they are of a piece. And the alarm bells were already ringing loud and clear in 1995.

Her various achievements prior to 1995 do not make her world class,what is your source for 5th in the world championship prior to that date ?

And by the way getting to the olympics once , twice or even five times does not make you world class.

Coming 13th in a world champs does not make you world class.

What makes you world class is being at the business end of competition consistently over a sustained period of time .

She never achieved that level of excellence and consistency prior to 95.

But to each their own I suppose - I will stick with Michael Caruth Sam Lynch John Tracey etc true heroes of Irish Sport and leave you the last word on the dubious distinction of defending Michelle Smith

Sea Filly

later12 wrote: »

You said you read this on BBC or ESPN. I searched for the article but strangely enough to no avail ! I'll do a cursory look on pubmed but I'm not expecting anything, are you?

I did read it on either of those. Search better, I guess? And I did actually find stuff on Pubmed. Off you go.

As for me, I'm out. Laters.

later12

marienbad wrote: »

Is is just semantics to separate 1995 and 1996- they are of a piece.

No they're not - they have over 700 days combined. What a strange statement; are you only making this because it suits you to ignore Smith's pre Atlanta swimming history?

Her various achievements prior to 1995 do not make her world class,what is your source for 5th in the world championship prior to that date ?

Get her book; she finished 5th in the World Championships 2 years before Atlanta, 3 years after coming 13th in said world championships. I would say this, combined with her other victories and previous performances make her a world class athlete.

And by the way getting to the olympics once , twice or even five times does not make you world class.

I already told you, you're constructing a strawman; nobody has said that.

later12

Sea Filly wrote: »

I did read it on either of those. Search better, I guess? And I did actually find stuff on Pubmed. Off you go.

As for me, I'm out. Laters.

How convenient!

Sea Filly has the article but is refusing to share it, and has now left the discussion.

Why would that possibly be? Surely if you had the article, and it said what you are claiming, you'd be only to eager to prove us all wrong?

No?

Sea Filly?

marienbad

later12 wrote: »

No they're not - they have over 700 days combined. What a strange statement; are you only making this because it suits you to ignore Smith's pre Atlanta swimming history?
Get her book; she finished 5th in the World Championships 2 years before Atlanta, 3 years after coming 13th in said world championships. I would say this, combined with her other victories and previous performances make her a world class athlete.

I already told you, you're constructing a strawman; nobody has said that.

As I said there are none so blind as those that cannot see.

mathepac

Sea Filly wrote: »

Google and Pubmed are your friends here. ...

PubMed maybe. Google will lead to wiki and we all know what a tup of crap that can be for reference material.

Sea Filly wrote: »

... This thread is going around and around at this stage, ...

I agree.

Sea Filly wrote: »

... and seems to just be attracting people who just like to debate and not necessarily give a crap about swimming or doping in sports at this point.

I don't know about the first part but if you want to have a thread about "swimming or doping in sports " then go start one this is not it. The thread topic is " Was Michelle de Bruin our greatest Olympian? Eamonn Coughlan says yes" and I say yes.

A suggestion:

With the hang-her-high committee failing to produce any tangible evidence of cheating, perhaps a sub-committe (or individual) from the lynch-mob would detail what substance(s) they believe (but cannot prove) Michelle took at the 96 Olympics? Steroids, performance enhancers, supplements, whatever and explain to us how they enhance the performance the performance of a female swimmer looking down the barrel of 30 years of age?

It might be slightly OT, but as not one single request for evidence of her cheating at the 96 olympics has been fulfilled, maybe we'll do better with substances. (or maybe not)

"Ah sorry Larry the questions didn't suit me today, they were very hard."

later12

marienbad wrote: »

As I said there are none so blind as those that cannot see.

Ah, proverbs; the next best thing to evidence, or a logical argument.

marienbad

later12 wrote: »

Ah, proverbs; the next best thing to evidence, or a logical argument.

Well when you present an argument based on something other than a wike page and a dubious biography that might be the case.

But so far you have failed to present anything like that so proverbs will more than suffice.

So here is another one for you - '' The trust of the innocent is a liar's most useful tool ''

Pantsface

I think Eamo Coughlan is an awful nob.

marienbad

mathepac wrote: »

PubMed maybe. Google will lead to wiki and we all know what a tup of crap that can be for reference material.

I agree.

I don't know about the first part but if you want to have a thread about "swimming or doping in sports " then go start one this is not it. The thread topic is " Was Michelle de Bruin our greatest Olympian? Eamonn Coughlan says yes" and I say yes.

A suggestion:

With the hang-her-high committee failing to produce any tangible evidence of cheating, perhaps a sub-committe (or individual) from the lynch-mob would detail what substance(s) they believe (but cannot prove) Michelle took at the 96 Olympics? Steroids, performance enhancers, supplements, whatever and explain to us how they enhance the performance the performance of a female swimmer looking down the barrel of 30 years of age?

It might be slightly OT, but as not one single request for evidence of her cheating at the 96 olympics has been fulfilled, maybe we'll do better with substances. (or maybe not)

"Ah sorry Larry the questions didn't suit me today, they were very hard."

Completely off thread mathepac , and as for the questions did'nt suite - I am still waiting for an answer on your criteria in selecting Smith as our greatest Olympian .

Or are you still sticking with ''because Eamonn said so'' ???

mathepac

marienbad wrote: »

Completely off thread mathepac ,

I can't seem to remember asking you.

Any concrete evidence of Michelle cheating at the 96 olympics forthcoming? You know, the one where she won 4 medals, 3 of them gold? Any test results or illegal drugs found, confessions from suppliers, corrupt officials, anything solid or just more waffle and avoidance?

marienbad wrote: »

... - I am still waiting for an answer on your criteria in selecting Smith as our greatest Olympian ....

I condescended to answering your question fully; if the answer isn't to your liking, tough titty

marienbad wrote: »

... Or are you still sticking with ''because Eamonn said so'' ???

You are now admitting you read at least some of my answer so why persist in this childish repetition of answered questions you are indulging yourself in?

What about supplying answers you haven't yet supplied. For example:

Any concrete evidence of Michelle cheating at the 96 olympics forthcoming? You know, the one where she won 4 medals, 3 of them gold? Any test results or illegal drugs found, confessions from suppliers, corrupt officials, anything solid or just more waffle and avoidance?

lugha

mathepac wrote: »

I can't seem to remember asking you.

Any concrete evidence of Michelle cheating at the 96 olympics forthcoming? You know, the one where she won 4 medals, 3 of them gold? Any test results or illegal drugs found, confessions from suppliers, corrupt officials, anything solid or just more waffle and avoidance?

You don’t need hard proof to form an opinion, otherwise we all would have very little to say, or think about anything. And the thread essentially is about whether we regard (i.e. in our opinion) Michelle as our greatest Olympian.

And her subsequent ban from her sport impacts on how some of us (not you of course) form an opinion about her integrity. It says nothing directly about 1996 and before but it does suggests that she was prepared to break the rules.

Of course she may have swam clean up to and after 1996 and for some reason went bad, after the highlight of her career. That’s another opinion someone could choose to take, if they wish, but most of us would see it as a tad implausible.

bruschi

mathepac wrote: »

I can't seem to remember asking you.

Any concrete evidence of Michelle cheating at the 96 olympics forthcoming? You know, the one where she won 4 medals, 3 of them gold? Any test results or illegal drugs found, confessions from suppliers, corrupt officials, anything solid or just more waffle and avoidance?

I condescended to answering your question fully; if the answer isn't to your liking, tough titty

You are now admitting you read at least some of my answer so why persist in this childish repetition of answered questions you are indulging yourself in?

What about supplying answers you haven't yet supplied. For example:

Any concrete evidence of Michelle cheating at the 96 olympics forthcoming? You know, the one where she won 4 medals, 3 of them gold? Any test results or illegal drugs found, confessions from suppliers, corrupt officials, anything solid or just more waffle and avoidance?

wouldn't it be all so, so wonderful if it was just as black and white a situation as you wish to believe.

keep fighting the good fight, but dont forget to take your head out of the sand once in a while to breathe.

marienbad

mathepac wrote: »

I can't seem to remember asking you.

Any concrete evidence of Michelle cheating at the 96 olympics forthcoming? You know, the one where she won 4 medals, 3 of them gold? Any test results or illegal drugs found, confessions from suppliers, corrupt officials, anything solid or just more waffle and avoidance?

I condescended to answering your question fully; if the answer isn't to your liking, tough titty

You are now admitting you read at least some of my answer so why persist in this childish repetition of answered questions you are indulging yourself in?

What about supplying answers you haven't yet supplied. For example:

Any concrete evidence of Michelle cheating at the 96 olympics forthcoming? You know, the one where she won 4 medals, 3 of them gold? Any test results or illegal drugs found, confessions from suppliers, corrupt officials, anything solid or just more waffle and avoidance?

I don't care if you asked me I was just giving you a bit of your own medicine , it seems you can dish it out but can't take it .

I read all your posts most carefully and I asume you do the same with others . Why would it be otherwise ? Now to the points raised

So you are sticking to the Eamo said so then , pity as you are derailing what could have been a great discussion. I would have thought that at least the notion of winning the most medals is not the only criteria for judging the greatest olympian .

By Eamonn's definition ( and yours by extension as you don't have an opinion yourself) Michael Phelps followed by a Russian gymnast no one could remember until this week are the greatest olympians ,

Not Steve Redgrave who won 5 in a row , or Al Oerter winning 4 in a row or Paavo Nurmi winning 5 golds in track at one olympiad , or Theofilo Stevenson who dominated his sport for 8 years

And in an Irish context Dr.Pat O'Callagahan wining 2 golds in a row and prevented from a possible third because of a stupid turf war between associations.

Most is not synonymous with greatest .

Back to the bould Michelle, firstly I would refer you back to my first post in this thread where I unequivocally stated that she won 3 golds and a bronze and than those results stand. And by definition will continue to stand ( like those E.Germans) until and unless new information comes along.

I notice that you now state you are looking for ''concrete'' evidence of drug cheating in 95/96 . There is none as in failed drug tests , and being consistent with that , that is why I say those results from 95/96 stand .

But in the greater scheme of things there is considerable circumstantial evidence that she was'nt clean.

-Her history prior to 92 was that of a lower level international class athlete.
-she became associated with a known and banned drugs cheat
- thereafter she developed a long history of missing out of competition drugs tests
- her times improved and not just dramatically , but of extraordinary proportions , often by margins of over 10 seconds.
-She attributed this improvement to revolutionary new training techniques, none of which have ever been published .
-Now that she is retired she has no reason not to publish those techniques and every reason to publish them. I - they would be worth a fortune. 2 They are a certain way to clear her name when other moderate athletes achieve revolutionary results . So why not publish ?
-She tampered with a drugs sample
-She appealed to the highest level and lost every step of the way.
-She was handed an effective ( at her age) a lifetime ban .

But you are correct those olympic results do stand and she joins the pantheon of great olympians such Kornelia Ender Marita Koch whose medals and records still stand , Yeah right.

doomed

Hi

Is there anyone out there who believes that a mediocre, short, mid 20s international swimmer who suddenly becomes a multiple gold medalist, is trained by a person banned for taking drugs himself, gets caught later for doping herself and is banned, was clean when she won her medals?

If so please send us your bank account details and password so we can process your membership payment.

Red21

doomed wrote: »

Is there anyone out there who believes that a mediocre, short, mid 20s international swimmer who suddenly becomes a multiple gold medalist, is trained by a person banned for taking drugs himself, gets caught later for doping herself and is banned, was clean when she won her medals?

You'll find very few who are willing to say "I believe she was clean when she won her madals" yet many think she was our greatest Olympian ever, it says a lot about them really.

marienbad

Red21 wrote: »

You'll find very few who are willing to say "I believe she was clean when she won her madals" yet many think she was our greatest Olympian ever, it says a lot about them really.

And us as a nation I am afraid .

Red21

41 people got to carry the torch, even Jedward got in in on the act and she didn't get near it, so there may be hope for us yet.

marienbad

Red21 wrote: »

41 people got to carry the torch, even Jedward got in in on the act and she didn't get near it, so there may be hope for us yet.

Actually you are right and I was wrong to tarnish the whole nation. Mea Culpa

mathepac

lugha wrote: »

You don’t need hard proof to form an opinion ...

But lugha I asked for "evidence" which IMHO is different to proof. The terms are not synonymous (IMHO) and cannot be interchanged.

I didn't ask for opinion, I didn't ask for rumours, I didn't ask for beliefs, I didn't ask for thoughts, and I didn't ask for proof. I asked for the evidence upon which people based their opinions, rumours, beliefs, and thoughts, which IMHO is a reasonable approach to trying to gain some insight and understanding into where the opposition is coming from in a discussion.

The Straw men don't seem to work.

lugha wrote: »

And the thread essentially is about whether we regard (i.e. in our opinion) Michelle as our greatest Olympian. .

I'm very aware of that and I'm also aware that at times I have strayed OT in frustration - oversight though, not consciously.

lugha wrote: »

And her subsequent ban from her sport impacts on how some of us (not you of course) form an opinion about her integrity. It says nothing directly about 1996 and before but it does suggests that she was prepared to break the rules. ....

And all I've requested time and time again is evidence that she broke the rules in the 96 olympics or before 97 when the substance allegedly found in her contaminated sample in 98 was still a legal (dietary) supplement.

lugha wrote: »

Of course she may have swam clean up to and after 1996 ...

The evidence is she did, or at least there is no evidence she was taking any banned substance. So in the absence of evidence, where is the presumption of innocence?

mathepac

bruschi wrote: »

wouldn't it be all so, so wonderful if it was just as black and white a situation as you wish to believe. ...

I don't understand that; thankfully not understanding tripe won't cost me any lost sleep.

bruschi wrote: »

...
keep fighting the good fight, but dont forget to take your head out of the sand once in a while to breathe.

Wonderful contribution - keep up the good work.

marienbad

mathepac wrote: »

But lugha I asked for "evidence" which IMHO is different to proof. The terms are not synonymous (IMHO) and cannot be interchanged.

I didn't ask for opinion, I didn't ask for rumours, I didn't ask for beliefs, I didn't ask for thoughts, and I didn't ask for proof. I asked for the evidence upon which people based their opinions, rumours, beliefs, and thoughts, which IMHO is a reasonable approach to trying to gain some insight and understanding into where the opposition is coming from in a discussion.

The Straw men don't seem to work.
I'm very aware of that and I'm also aware that at times I have strayed OT in frustration - oversight though, not consciously.

And all I've requested time and time again is evidence that she broke the rules in the 96 olympics or before 97 when the substance allegedly found in her contaminated sample in 98 was still a legal (dietary) supplement.
The evidence is she did, or at least there is no evidence she was taking any banned substance. So in the absence of evidence, where is the presumption of innocence?

There is no presumption of innocence mathepac, this is not a court of law and people keeps acting as if it is . The standards are much lower . That might seem unfair , but that is the way it is .

For example , Marion Jones was jailed not for using banned substances but for perjury and check fraud.

In the same way the legal authorities have stopped their investigation into Lance Armstrong but this does not make him innocent as some claim. Doping in France is not a crime in the USA. But wada are pursuing the case using in part the information gleaned from the legal authorities.
And like all these cases of high profile athletes it has to be fought injunction by injunction every step of the way before we can confirm what every dog in the street already knows.

And Michelle and her team were quick in their day with the threat of injuction in silencing any Irish journalists that dared to raise questions, and the Irish Libel laws being as they are...

You asked for evidence and I gave you evidence ( which conforms exactly to your definitions above)- mediocre record/stunningly improved times/missed drug tests/ associated with a known drug cheat .

That is all solid circumstantial evidence , the pity is the proof as in ''smoking gun'' did'nt come until after the games when at last she was unable to evade the tester and tampered with her sample.

As an aside - and someone can correct me if I am wrong- but I believe that since then ( and influenced by that case among others) a series of missed tests are now enough to get banned . And that includes unannounced tests- the athlete must let the authorities know where they will be at all times.

lugha

mathepac wrote: »

And all I've requested time and time again is evidence that she broke the rules in the 96 olympics or before 97 when the substance allegedly found in her contaminated sample in 98 was still a legal (dietary) supplement.

You are missing the implications of her getting banned post 96. You argument seems to be that the only inference that we can draw from her using a banned substance in ’98 is that she might have used the same, not yet banned, substance in ’96, which of course would be acceptable.

This is a rather myopic view. A more reasonable one in my view is that if you take a substance that is banned at the time you take it, then this indicates that you are willing to take banned substances, not just one particular substance.

This in turn prompts the question as to when this willingness to break the rules began. The ’98 finding only tells us that it began no later than ’98. If you insist, as you implicitly do, that it was after ’96 then we have the very curious state of affairs whereby an athlete, fairly and squarely established herself as one of the great Olympians (not just Irish) of all time and then bizarrely, put her reputation at risk by deciding for the first time in her career to break the rules!

Many of use would resolve this implausibility by suggesting that the willingness to break the rules did not begin after ’96 and we then have a narrative for this tale that makes a good deal more sense.

Your only way to circumvent this problem is, without much in the way of evidence ironically, to shoot the messenger (i.e. attack the integrity of the finding against her). Unfortunately, this is the stock response when a finding is made against anyone in any domain. The court / tribunal / committee’s findings were bias / perverse / politically motivated etc. (delete as appropriate).

mathepac

lugha wrote: »

You are missing the implications of her getting banned post 96. You argument seems to be that the only inference that we can draw from her using a banned substance in ’98 is that she might have used the same, not yet banned, substance in ’96, which of course would be acceptable....

Her ban dates from 98, which is 2 years after the Olympic games. So using your perverse and convoluted logic, consuming a legal substance (if indeed athletes did consume it in 96) is by definition cheating. So if I fail a road-side breath test based on newly lowered limits, my first such offence, you think it reasonable to deduce that I've been guilty of drunk-driving previously, I'm just a previously undetected drunk-driver. Therefore allegations that I was drunk-driving before detection and opprobrium relating to that time are defensible. I'd dearly love to meet you on the steps of the Four Gold Mines if that was your case. Michelle might represent you; you'd need the very, very best.

lugha wrote: »

This is a rather myopic view. A more reasonable one in my view is that if you take a substance that is banned at the time you take it, then this indicates that you are willing to take banned substances, not just one particular substance. ..

I don't agree that that is the conclusion a reasonable person could come to, only an unreasonable one with an agenda

lugha wrote: »

This in turn prompts the question as to when this willingness to break the rules began. The ’98 finding only tells us that it began no later than ’98. If you insist, as you implicitly do, that it was after ’96 then we have the very curious state of affairs whereby an athlete, fairly and squarely established herself as one of the great Olympians (not just Irish) of all time and then bizarrely, put her reputation at risk by deciding for the first time in her career to break the rules!...

That requires quite a leap as there are unresolved issues about the sample collectors, the procedures they followed and the contaminated sample. If the sample gatherers cannot explain how or when the whiskey got into the sample, how can anyone claim they followed correct procedures? The chain of evidence is broken as Michelle went missing for about 4 minutes according to the sample collectors' own evidence.

lugha wrote: »

Many of use would resolve this implausibility by suggesting that the willingness to break the rules did not begin after ’96 and we then have a narrative for this tale that makes a good deal more sense. ...

I'm quite sure many of you would, except this is not a tale, and we need far more than your suggestions about what happened; we need evidence, not rumours, not hearsay, not beliefs, not suggestions, etc. but evidence.

lugha wrote: »

Your only way to circumvent this problem is, without much in the way of evidence ironically, to shoot the messenger (i.e. attack the integrity of the finding against her). Unfortunately, this is the stock response when a finding is made against anyone in any domain. The court / tribunal / committee’s findings were bias / perverse / politically motivated etc. (delete as appropriate).

There is no problem I wish to circumvent, there is a problem I wish to resolve though. I haven't attacked the finding - the finding is the finding about 98. I'm unhappy about the way the evidence used was collected, but given that extremely questionable evidence, gathered without the use of set procedures, the outcomes of the various hearings were never in any doubt. So the Guys did "get" Michelle.

alastair

mathepac wrote: »

That requires quite a leap as there are unresolved issues about the sample collectors, the procedures they followed and the contaminated sample. If the sample gatherers cannot explain how or when the whiskey got into the sample, how can anyone claim they followed correct procedures? The chain of evidence is broken as Michelle went missing for about 4 minutes according to the sample collectors' own evidence.

One more time for luck.
1. There are no unresolved issues relating to the sample collectors.
2. The procedures they followed were standard.
3. They don't need to explain when the whiskey got into the sample. They just need to account for the chain of evidence.
4. I think they know quite well when the whiskey got in the sample - as common sense would inform anyone - and which led to the findings of FINA and the court of arbitration. It's just not their job to offer supposition.
5. The four minute gap preceded the sample collection. No consequence for chain of evidence there - but quite a clue as to the means of tampering.

bluecode

Seriously mathepac, you should or are probably a lawyer. But at this stage your argument verges on sophistry. If you want proof you won't get it. You know that quite well. You certainly won't get it here. Also if you're seeking evidence of Chinese athletes cheating you won't find it here either.

The evidence may be scanty and circumstantial but that's no accident.

Most of us had our minds made up about her long ago. Her reputation as Ireland's greatest sporting cheat is well deserved and her continuing silence on the matter is damming in itself.

But you believe what you like. We all have our own opinion.

don ramo

Yes she is our greatest Olympian ever and she has the medals to prove it.


END OF