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

Show Time

Sour grapes outta the yanks.

mathepac

bluecode wrote: »

Seriously mathepac, you should or are probably a lawyer. ...

About the only thing I have to my eternal credit is that I'm not!

bluecode wrote: »

... But at this stage your argument verges on sophistry. ...

Nah - they only teach that in lawyer/banker/politician/ PR/talking head schools. I didn't qualify so I don't know how.

bluecode wrote: »

... If you want proof you won't get it. ...

For the umpteenth time - read my posts - I never asked for nor have I ever offered proof. I have repeatedly asked for evidence of wrongdoing by Michelle at the 96 olympics and there is none. Poster after poster has admitted there is no evidence of wrong-doing but a few people seem to think that absence of evidence is proof of wrongdoing; it's the only way the position they are adopting can be explained by a rational person.

bluecode wrote: »

... Also if you're seeking evidence of Chinese athletes cheating you won't find it here either. ...

I have never expressed any interest in Chinese athletes. This thread is about our greatest Olympian. Why attempt to steer the thread OT?

bluecode wrote: »

The evidence may be scanty and circumstantial ...

Evidence of that nature is often covered under the heading "no case to answer."

bluecode wrote: »

... Most of us had our minds made up about her long ago. ...

That's pretty obvious.

bluecode wrote: »

...Her reputation as Ireland's greatest sporting cheat is well deserved ..

No that title is reserved exclusively for a proven and disgraced cheat whose medal was taken from him, Cian O'Connor. This proven cheat and doper goes back to the Olympics. Can you explain that? Touted and feted throughout the land, but a cheat and a doper all the same. What does that say about the IOC the Irish Olympic Equestrian selectors, Irish show-jumping supporters and so on?

bluecode wrote: »

... her continuing silence on the matter is damming in itself. ..

It says precisely nothing about her. I I've explained already that a person accused of wrong-doing is under no obligation to mount any kind of defence.

bluecode wrote: »

... But you believe what you like. ....

I believe what the evidence from 96 Olympics dope tests show DIDN'T happened

bluecode wrote: »

... We all have our own opinion.

Except like yourself most people who hold similar opinions don't seem to know how to explain how they formed their opinion(s). Your post IMHO is a good example of "not knowing". No disrespect or slagging off intended, just pointing things out from my perspective.

lugha

mathepac wrote: »

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 didconsume it in 96) is by definition cheating.

This is not my logic at all. I don’t see how anyone could (honestly!) interpret what I posted in such a way?

mathepac wrote: »

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.

If you deliberately breached the drink-driving laws then I would deduce that you are someone who is prepared to breach the drink-driving laws and thus it would no longer possible to classify you as someone for whom there is no indication that you would ever break such a law. To further argue that there is reason to believe you did indeed break these laws in the past cannot be done with your analogy as it doesn’t match the Smyth case in this respect (In the Smyth case my argument is that it is simply not credible to suggest that an athlete would beat the best in the world honestly and then elect to compete dishonestly! Presumably you would concede this; she was either always clean or not so clean for the later years of her career?)

mathepac wrote: »

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

I am pleased that you have now seen that there is some virtue in analogies so perhaps I can remind you of one I presented earlier which you dismissed as “completed irrelevant and OT”. If a politician was convicted of corruption would you insist that this conviction only impacts on this reputation with respect to matters relating to that conviction? Or would you think it reasonable that some odd decisions he made before his conviction might now be reinterpreted in a new light?

Presumably, if you are to be consistent with your assertion that I quote, you would insist that their integrity is beyond question, save for the few occasions when it was possible to prove that they took backhanders? :eek:


Edit: Have the De Bruins ever made public this special training regime to which they attributed her success?

mr kr0nik

I think she's a barrister now so I'm not going to say a thing about her here.

Red21

mathepac wrote: »

For the umpteenth time - read my posts - I never asked for nor have I ever offered proof. I have repeatedly asked for evidence of wrongdoing by Michelle at the 96 olympics and there is none. Poster after poster has admitted there is no evidence of wrong-doing but a few people seem to think that absence of evidence is proof of wrongdoing

No that title is reserved exclusively for a proven and disgraced cheat whose medal was taken from him, Cian O'Connor. This proven cheat and doper goes back to the Olympics. Can you explain that? rish show-jumping supporters and so on?

Cian Connor is a proven and disgraced cheat and I believe any medal he plays a part in winning, should not be celebrated as drugs in sport is a big enough problem without us(the fans) adding to it by celebrating proven cheats. So for me irrespective of how many medals he ever wins he will never be our greatest olympian ever.
If I had proof that de Bruin didn't take any drugs troughout her career I still wouldn't reguard her as the greatest irish olympian ever. Why? Because she employed Eric de Bruin as her coach. I'm not saying that because he is likely to have started her on a drugs programme, what i'm saying is that any medals that were won, weather it was in national or international events should be disreguarded while she was working with that man.There was enough honest sports people and we didn't need such a person playing a part in our sport, as anything he had a hand in winning is not worth having and I'd say that even if it was a sport inwhich drugs have no bearing. Her wrongdoing is that it was she herself who decided to take on a coach who was given a 4 year ban for drug use, what hope is there if this is the kind of example our so called sporting heros are giving.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Red21, Cian won his medal in Athens without prior knowledge of the antics of Team Ireland. To compare that man to the likes of Smith is a disgrace on your part.

marienbad

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Red21, Cian won his medal in Athens without prior knowledge of the antics of Team Ireland. To compare that man to the likes of Smith is a disgrace on your part.

Can you elaborate please, to most people he is just the guy with that drugged horse and had his medal recinded because of it and did'nt appeal that decision.

What else is their to it ?

DEFTLEFTHAND

marienbad wrote: »

Can you elaborate please, to most people he is just the guy with that drugged horse and had his medal recinded because of it and did'nt appeal that decision.

What else is their to it ?

He didn't appeal because of the overwhelming evidence against him and Waterford Crystal, all on a technicality. I know for a fact that Cian was unaware of the additional sedatives given to the horse before the games.

marienbad

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

He didn't appeal because of the overwhelming evidence against him and Waterford Crystal, all on a technicality. I know for a fact that Cian was unaware of the additional sedatives given to the horse before the games.

But with all due respect ''I know for a fact'' is meaningless . I don't know you and I don't know him. The horse was drugged - what more do we need to know ?

And by the way how can you have overwhelming evidence on a technicality ?

DEFTLEFTHAND

marienbad wrote: »

But with all due respect ''I know for a fact'' is meaningless . I don't know you and I don't know him. The horse was drugged - what more do we need to know ?

And by the way how can you have overwhelming evidence on a technicality ?

Because the sedative did not in any way alter the horse's performance, but yet it still was a banned substance. Idiocracy on the veterinary side for sure, but Cian was not at fault.

marienbad

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Because the sedative did not in any way alter the horse's performance, but yet it still was a banned substance. Idiocracy on the veterinary side for sure, but Cian was not at fault.

But this is the same double think that persists with Michelle Smith !

Some questions for you -

1-Why was the horse on a sedative ?
2-why was it banned ?
3-if it had no effect why no appeal ?
4-have other horses and riders been banned for the same offence
5-Why was it not Cian's fault

DEFTLEFTHAND

marienbad wrote: »

But this is the same double think that persists with Michelle Smith !

Some questions for you -

1-Why was the horse on a sedative ?
2-why was it banned ?
3-if it had no effect why no appeal ?
4-have other horses and riders been banned for the same offence
5-Why was it not Cian's fault

The horse was given the banned substance in the months leading up to the games to assist in training. Wrong I know, but you have to remember that the drug was not performance enhancing in any way. When the the team left for Athens as far as Cian was aware the sedative was no longer being administered, he was wrong. The appeal did not work as it was an official banned substance. It later transpired that the other two podium finishers in Athens including Brazil also used the sedative before the games.

Murky Waters

It all depends on your definition of 'greatest Olympian'. If you mean 'competitor with the biggest haul of medals', then yes deBruin is indeed that. She never failed a drug test during the 1996 games using the testing procedures that existed at the time. Of course, neither did Marion Jones in her time either.

So the fact that deBruin didn't test positive in her day, coupled with her association with Erik, compounded by her drasic improvement at such a late age (unusual) which just so happened to coincide with when she first took up with him, plus the fact that she did tamper with a later sample, along with the fact that previous samples were found to contain banned substances, creates a huge question in an awful lot of people's minds over her credibility as an athlete & a mighty dark cloud as regards her reputation.

It's like a child getting caught raiding the cookie jar claiming they never did it before: it might be true, but as most parents will know, in all probability they have been at it for a while. Of course a child stealing cookies is a hell of a lot different to an athlete representing our country, but the principle is the same.

If by 'greatest Olympian' you mean a competitor above & beyond any suspicion of being a drug-cheat, that has taken part in the Olympics under the Irish flag, then no, deBruin is not that IMO.

Da Shins Kelly

To be honest, I wouldn't be too surprised if most 'great Olympians' are taking something to enhance their performance.

doomed

Ireland's greatest olympian?

There are a few I would have ahead of her. namely every Irish athlete who went to the games and never in their entire career (before and after the games) took drugs even though they knew that if they did cheat they would probably get away with it and be more successful. They trained hard and endured being also rans (the familiar sight of a green vest disappearing from the back of the pack) and probably knew that as they competed armchair fans were muttering into their beer "he/she is useles and shouldn't be at the games".

Have a look at the women's world records for

100m
100m Hurdles
200m
400m
800m
1500m
3000m
10000m


What do they have in common? They are all old and the people who set them passed all the drugs tests conducted on them at the time.

mathepac

doomed wrote: »

... There are a few I would have ahead of her. namely every Irish athlete who went to the games and never in their entire career (before and after the games) took drugs even though they knew that if they did cheat they would probably get away with it and be more successful. ...

Your post implies you have evidence of cheating. Could you let us in on the secret? Precisely how did Michelle de Bruin cheat at the 96 Olympics?

doomed wrote: »

... They trained hard and endured being also rans (the familiar sight of a green vest disappearing from the back of the pack) and probably knew that as they competed armchair fans were muttering into their beer "he/she is useles and shouldn't be at the games"....

I'm not sure who you are describing here other than yourself perhaps.

doomed wrote: »

...Have a look at the women's world records for

100m
100m Hurdles
200m
400m
800m
1500m
3000m
10000m


What do they have in common? ...

That they all take place on dry land and have not even the remotest connection with swimming events, even if you include the 3,000m steeple-chase.

alastair

mathepac wrote: »

Your post implies you have evidence of cheating. Could you let us in on the secret?

No secret. The ban was for cheating - with drugs.

There are a few I would have ahead of her. namely every Irish athlete who went to the games and never in their entire career (before and after the games) took drugs

mathepac

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The horse was given the banned substance in the months leading up to the games to assist in training. Wrong I know, but you have to remember that the drug was not performance enhancing in any way ...

So despite your assertion that the drug, a human anti-psychotic by the way not a sedative, was not performance enhancing, it was performance altering, a nice semantic body swerve.

The performance altering properties and the lack of knowledge on its long-term effects / side-effects in veterinary applications are what lead to it being banned.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

. When the the team left for Athens as far as Cian was aware the sedative was no longer being administered, he was wrong. ...

I thought you asserted earlier that O'Connor had no knowledge it was being used. "No knowledge" and "thought it had stopped" are kinda mutually exclusive don't you think? He was wrong because he was a knowing cheat, complicit in all that went on with nhis horse, but not caring about rules or the effects on the animal, just performance and winning medals.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

. ...The appeal did not work as it was an official banned substance. ...

At least there was consistency in his treatment as a knowing drug cheat and horse doper. The inconsistency is letting this type of person near horses or olympic competition again.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

. ... It later transpired that the other two podium finishers in Athens including Brazil also used the sedative before the games.

So at least O'Connor was keeping good company with cheaters like himself, or are you trying to excuse his behaviour and status as a doper and drug cheat with no care for his animal(s) on the basis that he wasn't alone?

I wonder now would this upstanding representative of the Irish blood-stock industry have any media connections to help him massage and grease his way to saint-hood or to magnify his innocence as one of life's much put-upon victims?

mathepac

alastair wrote: »

No secret. The ban was for cheating - with drugs.

Two years after the Olympics, based on a contaminated sample, taken by testers of questionable provenance(s) not adhering to set procedures, as I keep reminding you.

alastair

mathepac wrote: »

Two years after the Olympics, based on a contaminated sample, taken by testers of questionable provenance(s) not adhering to set procedures, as I keep reminding you.

There are a few I would have ahead of her. namely every Irish athlete who went to the games and never in their entire career (before and after the games) took drugs

and again:
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. Which they did - to the satisfaction of the court of arbitration.

So - that would be a judgement of cheating against Michelle - for tampering with a sample that contained a banned steroid. No real ambiguity there.

doomed

mathepac wrote: »

Your post implies you have evidence of cheating. Could you let us in on the secret? Precisely how did Michelle de Bruin cheat at the 96 Olympics?
I'm not sure who you are describing here other than yourself perhaps.
That they all take place on dry land and have not even the remotest connection with swimming events, even if you include the 3,000m steeple-chase.

Oh dear. I have no doubt that you believe that Michele was clean when she won and that her staggering improvements were obtained honestly. You probably think it is more likely that the presence of androstenedione and whiskey in her sample is more the fault of the elderly couple who collected it thn herself and that her 4 year ban from the sport is the biggest travesty since Dreyfus. If so I am happy for you. I hope your universe is getting better weather than mine. Its pissing here.

By the way

(a) I didn't at any stage say she cheated in the olympics. People will have to form their own rational conclusions on that. My point is that a great olympian never cheats before during or after the games.

(b) I never competed at the olympics but thanks for the thought. I feel fitter already.

mathepac

You're still in denial about the questions raised by other posters in connection with the Guys. The points they raise have never been rebutted.

alastair wrote: »

... So - that would be a judgement of cheating against Michelle - for tampering with a sample that contained a banned steroid. No real ambiguity there.

Just to deal with this issue on its own for a moment - you still maintain that finding traces of a substance in a badly contaminated sample, a substance which was not banned two years previously, is evidence that Michelle cheated at the 96 Olympics. Do you have evidence that Michelle took this substance or any other at the 96 Olympics? How do you reach your conclusions of cheating in the absence of urinalysis showing the presence of banned substances, or any other performance enhancers,in Michelle's body at the 96 games?

alastair

mathepac wrote: »

You're still in denial about the questions raised by other posters in connection with the Guys. The points they raise have never been rebutted.

They don't need rebutting - they're complete red herrings. The CAS made their judgement quite clear on the matter of chain of evidence and who tampered with the sample.

Shelflife

alastair wrote: »

They don't need rebutting - they're complete red herrings. The CAS made their judgement quite clear on the matter of chain of evidence and who tampered with the sample.

The CAS upheld the appeal, but no one has managed to explain HOW if the procedures were followed properly the sample could be tampered with. You alluded to some "nasty" theories but never expanded on it.

So to totally dismiss this "red herring" HOW if the procedures were followed correctly (as outlined earlier) was the sample contaiminated?

mathepac

alastair wrote: »

They don't need rebutting - they're complete red herrings. The CAS made their judgement quite clear on the matter of chain of evidence and who tampered with the sample.

I see, so on the one hand you argue that a trial before CAS with urinalysis of the contaminated sample forming part of the evidence and a finding that doping did in fact occur is proof of cheating in 1998 and on the other hand a complete lack of any evidence in the form of urinalysis and no trial is proof of cheating in the Olympics in 1996.

A kind of logical fallacy like the old rhyme seems to create:

"I see", said the blind man "the hole in the wall"
"You liar", said the deaf man, "you can't see at all"

alastair

Shelflife wrote: »

The CAS upheld the appeal, but no one has managed to explain HOW if the procedures were followed properly the sample could be tampered with. You alluded to some "nasty" theories but never expanded on it.

So to totally dismiss this "red herring" HOW if the procedures were followed correctly (as outlined earlier) was the sample contaiminated?

I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself? She had a few minutes away from the testers to organise herself for the test - which was tampered with on the toilet (as adjudged by the court).

alastair

mathepac wrote: »

I see, so on the one hand you argue that a trial before CAS with urinalysis of the contaminated sample forming part of the evidence and a finding that doping did in fact occur is proof of cheating in 1998 and on the other hand a complete lack of any evidence in the form of urinalysis and no trial is proof of cheating in the Olympics in 1996.

A kind of logical fallacy like the old rhyme seems to create:

"I see", said the blind man "the hole in the wall"
"You liar", said the deaf man, "you can't see at all"

You do like a straw man, don't you?

She's a proven drug cheat. That's enough to undermine her credibility across her entire record. She's dishonest.

Shelflife

alastair wrote: »

I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself? She had a few minutes away from the testers to organise herself for the test - which was tampered with on the toilet (as adjudged by the court).

No I cant work it out for myself, thats why i asked for an explanation. If you cant explain it fine just say that.

alastair

Shelflife wrote: »

No I cant work it out for myself, thats why i asked for an explanation. If you cant explain it fine just say that.

Fair enough. It just involves a miniature of whiskey/Southern Comfort/Tullamore Dew/whatever, a few minutes out of sight, and possession of a female anatomy. Alcohol was known to mask levels of andro - and Michelle was well versed in strategies for avoiding detection.

Shelflife

Ok so you are suggesting that she inserted a minature whiskey up her vagina immediately prior to the test and then emptied it into the sample bottle as she urinated?

If so how did she open the bottle just prior to giving the sample? because otherwise it would just have spilt out and im sure mrs guy is knowledgable enough about the female body to realise that you dont have to unscrew anything to pass urine.

Youll have to do better then that

and Michelle was well versed in strategies for avoiding detection

and you know this how?

alastair

Shelflife wrote: »

Ok so you are suggesting that she inserted a minature whiskey up her vagina immediately prior to the test and then emptied it into the sample bottle as she urinated?

If so how did she open the bottle just prior to giving the sample? because otherwise it would just have spilt out and im sure mrs guy is knowledgable enough about the female body to realise that you dont have to unscrew anything to pass urine.

Youll have to do better then that

and Michelle was well versed in strategies for avoiding detection

and you know this how?

She was married to a known doping advocate, and she had a long record of evading testing herself.

And the logistics of ensuring a bottle only empties when you want it to aren't exactly rocket science. You don't need any screw top to contain the liquid.

Shelflife

alastair wrote: »

She was married to a known doping advocate, and she had a long record of evading testing herself.

And the logistics of ensuring a bottle only empties when you want it to aren't exactly rocket science. You don't need any screw top to contain the liquid.

Oh well that explains it, so do you let your mechanics wife fix your car? she is married to a mechanic after all.

and while it may not need a screw cap it would need a lid of some form, so how does she manage it in full view of the tester?

Look alistair you need to come up with some ACTUAL method here as opposed to some ahh well they would know how to do it while you knowingly tap the side of your nose bull****.

alastair

Shelflife wrote: »

Oh well that explains it, so do you let your mechanics wife fix your car? she is married to a mechanic after all.

and while it may not need a screw cap it would need a lid of some form, so how does she manage it in full view of the tester?

Look alistair you need to come up with some ACTUAL method here as opposed to some ahh well they would know how to do it while you knowingly tap the side of your nose bull****.

You don't seem predisposed to listen to common sense. My mechanic's wife is not my mechanics trainer. Spot the distinction?

There are multiple mechanisms for stopping the flow out of an upturned miniature - some of which wouldn't require the use of a hand at all, and some which could be easily disguised with a wipe of some toilet tissue. If you can't use your imagination, that's not really a failing on my part - the specific technique she chose to use is known only to her - but we know she did employ a technique that was unseen by the tester.

marienbad

mathepac wrote: »

You're still in denial about the questions raised by other posters in connection with the Guys. The points they raise have never been rebutted.
Just to deal with this issue on its own for a moment - you still maintain that finding traces of a substance in a badly contaminated sample, a substance which was not banned two years previously, is evidence that Michelle cheated at the 96 Olympics. Do you have evidence that Michelle took this substance or any other at the 96 Olympics? How do you reach your conclusions of cheating in the absence of urinalysis showing the presence of banned substances, or any other performance enhancers,in Michelle's body at the 96 games?

At this stage mathepac I am at a loss to understand what your point is - other than defending Michelle Smith at all costs. And you are completely inconsistant.

You keep demanding proof and evidence against Michelle and when strong circumstantial evidence is presented you just ignore it.

Yet unsubstantiated rumour is presented about the Guys and you reverse your stance and require proof that those rumours are incorrect !

You refuse to discuss any criteria ( that word again) for deciding ''the greatest Olympian''.

To a lot of people a straight medal count is not the sole factor in deciding the greatest anything , and you refuse to engage in any way with that view .

marienbad

mathepac wrote: »

Two years after the Olympics, based on a contaminated sample, taken by testers of questionable provenance(s) not adhering to set procedures, as I keep reminding you.

Rubbish , other the the two years bit all of the rest is false . If you have evidence of this please and not rumour and speculation culled from boards provide it..

And as an aside why would the Guys even be interested in doing this ?

Shelflife

alastair wrote: »

You don't seem predisposed to listen to common sense. My mechanic's wife is not my mechanics trainer. Spot the distinction?

There are multiple mechanisms for stopping the flow out of an upturned miniature - some of which wouldn't require the use of a hand at all, and some which could be easily disguised with a wipe of some toilet tissue. If you can't use your imagination, that's not really a failing on my part - the specific technique she chose to use is known only to her - but we know she did employ a technique that was unseen by the tester.

Ok im sorry you are right, so smyth had a reasonably complex container that she inserted up her vagina and then used her vaginal muscles to open this container and allow alcohol to enter the sample container all without the container falling out or becoming visible to the tester, and all this is done in full view half naked infront of the tester.

Well clearly nothing wrong with your imagination alastair.

alastair

Shelflife wrote: »

Ok im sorry you are right, so smyth had a reasonably complex container that she inserted up her vagina and then used her vaginal muscles to open this container and allow alcohol to enter the sample container all without the container falling out or becoming visible to the tester, and all this is done in full view half naked infront of the tester.

Well clearly nothing wrong with your imagination alastair.

Finished with the mechanic's wife analogies then?

Some strange suppositions there (complex container?), but the sarcasm is noted and entirely irrelevant.

Shelflife

alastair wrote: »

Finished with the mechanic's wife analogies then?

Some strange suppositions there (complex container?), but the sarcasm is noted and entirely irrelevant.

Well you havent come up with any plausible explanation as to how it was done apart from asserting without any proof whatsoever that she was well versed in such activities.

Im simply asking for a plausable senario in which the sample could be tampered with without the testers noticing anything improper. thats all .

alastair

Shelflife wrote: »

Well you havent come up with any plausible explanation as to how it was done apart from asserting without any proof whatsoever that she was well versed in such activities.

We know she was well versed in evading positive tests. Her husband/trainer had a ban on the back of such activities, and she had her own record of evasion, and, in the final analysis, a positive test, albeit masked by alcohol.

I've presented you with an entirely plausible explanation for one approach to the tampering. You just aren't prepared to concede it's plausibility. But then you can't recognise that her spouse had expertise in doping either, so we're obviously not going to bridge your skepticism.

Pantsface

Shelflife wrote: »

Ok im sorry you are right, so smyth had a reasonably complex container that she inserted up her vagina and then used her vaginal muscles to open this container and allow alcohol to enter the sample container all without the container falling out or becoming visible to the tester, and all this is done in full view half naked infront of the tester.

Well clearly nothing wrong with your imagination alastair.

:rolleyes:

Shelflife

Alastair the evasion of testing is a simple process, you just dont be where you said youd be, i concede that that is simple and straightforward.

Your plausible solution is that she place a minature bottle of whiskey with a special/modified lid on it inside her and then discretely opened it passing the alcohol into the sample bottle.

and that this was all done half naked in front of a testor?

I simply dont think that the above is plausible.

Again im not saying that smyth was clean, but this part of the whole senario genuinely confused me back then and still does now.

FishBowel

Shelflife wrote: »

I simply dont think that the above is plausible.

Yes it it. She mistook the whiskey for urine. That's how they get away with these tests.

alastair

Shelflife wrote: »

Your plausible solution is that she place a minature bottle of whiskey with a special/modified lid on it inside her and then discretely opened it passing the alcohol into the sample bottle.

and that this was all done half naked in front of a testor?

I simply dont think that the above is plausible.

I can't help that - but she wasn't half naked - she just had her trousers down like anyone else would - she wore a long jumper. The bottle doesn't need a modified lid - a condom or a simple piece of screwed up tissue would do just as well.

Plausibility:
http://www.marijuana.com/threads/im-a-size-0-no-place-to-hide-fake-pee.176219/

http://boards.cannabis.com/drug-testing/1146-substitution-tips-tricks-guidelines.html

YoungTrouble

Anyone arguing that she didn't take drugs in 96 is an idiot.

Shelflife

alastair wrote: »

I can't help that - but she wasn't half naked - she just had her trousers down like anyone else would - she wore a long jumper. The bottle doesn't need a modified lid - a condom or a simple piece of screwed up tissue would do just as well.

Plausibility:
http://www.marijuana.com/threads/im-a-size-0-no-place-to-hide-fake-pee.176219/

http://boards.cannabis.com/drug-testing/1146-substitution-tips-tricks-guidelines.html

Ok now we are getting places, something like this is plausible.

However

2B7 Once in the privacy of the Sample Collection area, the Athlete must remove all clothing
between the waist and mid-thigh, in order that the DCO has an unobstructed view of the
passing of the urine Sample. Sleeves should be rolled up so that the Athlete’s arms and
hands are also clearly visible.

2B8 The DCO shall directly observe the Athlete when providing the Sample, adjusting his/her
position so as to have a clear view of the entire Sample leaving the Athlete’s body.

If mrs guy was doing her job correctly she should have been half naked and a long jumper should not have been permitted.

If she could not directly observe the sample leaving the body she didnt do her job properly. If she did it properly she may well have spotted this and insisted on a second sample.

FishHook

YoungTrouble wrote: »

Anyone arguing that she didn't take drugs in 96 is an idiot.

Pretty much agree. Yet apparantly some on this thread do...they can't all be trolls, can they ????

alastair

Shelflife wrote: »

If she could not directly observe the sample leaving the body she didnt do her job properly. If she did it properly she may well have spotted this and insisted on a second sample.

Who's saying she didn't observe? We know Michelle peed in the container - because her steroid containing pee was what went to the test lab. That she slipped in some alcohol as well could be impossible to spot.

It was a cold winter's morning too - and human compassion might have meant that insisting on swapping the jumper - waist length when standing offers a fair bit of coverage when seated - would have been a nuisance to no advantage. FINA and CAS were happy that the testing procedure was adhered to.

Shelflife

alastair wrote: »

Who's saying she didn't observe? We know Michelle peed in the container - because her steroid containing pee was what went to the test lab. That she slipped in some alcohol as well could be impossible to spot.

It was a cold winter's morning too - and human compassion might have meant that insisting on swapping the jumper - waist length when standing offers a fair bit of coverage when seated - would have been a nuisance to no advantage. FINA and CAS were happy that the testing procedure was adhered to.

It would appear that you are

The whole point of procedures is that they remove human compassion and have a clear and verifiable way of doing a test.

Insisting on swapping the jumper which you yourself have suggested offers a fair bit of coverage would have been the correct procedure.

They either followed procedure or they did not, you cant follow most of the procedure and then not the rest.

By allowing her "a fair bit of coverage" they didnt follow procedure.

mickydoomsux

I love how pathetic some people are when it comes to how ****e we are at winning things as a nation.

One of our athletes cheats to win, gets herself caught and there are still people defending her nearly two decades later because "IRELAND, IRELAAAAAANNNNNNAAAAAAAAAADDDD........................................."

alastair

Shelflife wrote: »

It would appear that you are

The whole point of procedures is that they remove human compassion and have a clear and verifiable way of doing a test.

Insisting on swapping the jumper which you yourself have suggested offers a fair bit of coverage would have been the correct procedure.

They either followed procedure or they did not, you cant follow most of the procedure and then not the rest.

By allowing her "a fair bit of coverage" they didnt follow procedure.

Well - the arbitrators of the rules happen to disagree with you. And I'd hazard that they're more attuned to the letter and spirit of the rules than you or I.