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

Pantsface

FishHook wrote: »

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

You would have to wonder! I think some people just like to argue

mathepac

YoungTrouble wrote: »

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

As against idiots who argue she took drugs in 96 without evidence.

marienbad

mathepac wrote: »

As against idiots who argue she took drugs in 96 without evidence.

how about replying to posts pointing out you require no such evidence to slander the drug testers ?

Double standars no ?

mathepac

marienbad wrote: »

how about replying to posts pointing out you require no such evidence to slander the drug testers ?

Double standars no ?

Very opportune, thank you. If you have been following the thread, three different posters IIRC brought up issues in relation the the testers. I was not one of those posters, so I don't have a case to answer.

For a poster who stated earlier in a direct reply to one of my posts that this is not a court, it struck me as add that legal lingo had begun to evidence it self in your posts as in "slander" above ...

marienbad wrote: »

... I read all your posts most carefully ....

Which probably explains why and how you seem to have plagiarised my point made ages ago about circumstantial evidence. (Refer to post #603 above). Amazingly it seems you may have copied and pasted from two posts, one of them mine, the other @Higher's to "create" "your" post.

If someone can cheat like this on an internet forum, I think it effectively undermines their credibility when posting criticisms about athletes cheating in sport.

This is the first and up to the time of the post I allege you plagiarised, the only mention of "circumstantial" in the thread.

mathepac wrote: »

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

@Higher had already listed most of the table you used in that same post and I agreed that the bullet points listed by @Higher amounted to "circumstantial" evidence.

Given the proximity of my posts and @higher's, the fact that my post is the only post prior to yours to mention "circumstantial" I think that is pretty solid evidence of plagiarism.

Double standards - I don't have a case to answer but evidently do.

Have you any evidence that Michelle de Bruin took illegal performance enhancing substance when winning her medals at the 96 Olympics? I think she is our greatest Olympian, so does Eamo.

mathepac

mickydoomsux wrote: »

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

Wonderful post, well thought out, articulate, succinct and cogent; an exceptional contribution.

mickydoomsux wrote: »

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

Which athelete and what evidence do you have of her cheating behaviour?

marienbad

mathepac wrote: »

Very opportune, thank you. If you have been following the thread, three different posters IIRC brought up issues in relation the the testers. I was not one of those posters, so I don't have a case to answer.

For a poster who stated earlier in a direct reply to one of my posts that this is not a court, it struck me as add that legal lingo had begun to evidence it self in your posts as in "slander" above ...


Which probably explains why and how you seem to have plagiarised my point made ages ago about circumstantial evidence. (Refer to post #603 above). Amazingly it seems you may have copied and pasted from two posts, one of them mine, the other @Higher's to "create" "your" post.

If someone can cheat like this on an internet forum, I think it effectively undermines their credibility when posting criticisms about athletes cheating in sport.

This is the first and up to the time of the post I allege you plagiarised, the only mention of "circumstantial" in the thread.


@Higher had already listed most of the table you used in that same post and I agreed that the bullet points listed by @Higher amounted to "circumstantial" evidence.

Given the proximity of my posts and @higher's, the fact that my post is the only post prior to yours to mention "circumstantial" I think that is pretty solid evidence of plagiarism.

Double standards - I don't have a case to answer but evidently do.

Have you any evidence that Michelle de Bruin took illegal performance enhancing substance when winning her medals at the 96 Olympics? I think she is our greatest Olympian, so does Eamo.

I just must report this post, as I cannot accept on a public forum being called a cheat .

Now if you would read my posts again starting from my first post No 462
you will see that my position has been consistant and informed all the way through and any information is from my own sources ( of which I have copious) and owes nothing to any other poster.

KeithM89_old

We will leave it there for now. Petty name calling for disagreeing with you isnt on either.