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

mathepac

Motorist wrote: »

...
To get back to the original point, the fact remains independent sports analysts (usually previous Olympic competitors) on past RTE sports programmes don't even mention the embarrassing episode that was Michelle Smyth.

I can't think why she'd be an embarrassment. As I've been saying consistently for years, Michelle was not found to be guilty of any drug transgressions while in training prior to the Olympics, during the Olympics and for two years after she won her medals. The only evidence we have is her performances and her medals and a contaminated sample detected 2 years after the Olympics, by an official who sounds decidedly seedy if other posts are accurate.

The power of self-delusion is astounding; no evidence found at the time means she was guilty all along.

Scenario:

"Good afternoon sir, my radar gun showed me you were travelling over the speed limit."

"OK, sorry Guard, I mis-read the sign. It's my first offence, do you have any discretion?"

"Well it's not as simple as that sir. I know that you've been speeding along this stretch of road for the last 2 or 3 years, so that's what I'm charging you with; multiple counts of travelling at excess speed since 2009. The total accumulation of points will mean your licence will be suspended"

"But do you have any evidence I was speeding all those times?"

"Evidence? Who the feck needs evidence? The dogs in the street know, that'll do me and the courts."

"OK sound Guard. If ye can do it to Michelle de Bruin after the fact, ye'll do it to me. Don't you think Humphreys and those other alickadoos have a lot to answer for?"

Motorist

This isn't a court of law though. The fact she tampered with a sample after the Olympics has put a blight on her whole sporting career.

Just as people make up their own minds on Bertie winning £20,000 on horses, they too will also make up their own minds on how credible her victories were in the context of her husbands ban for cheating, her proven tampering with a urine sample, her surreal improvements in time at a very late stage in her sporting life and her routine unavailability for testing.

mathepac

Motorist wrote: »

.... The fact she tampered with a sample after the Olympics has put a blight on her whole sporting career..

I dunno. If I got two points on my licence last month does that condemn me as an habitual speeder?

Motorist

mathepac wrote: »

I dunno. If I got two points on my licence last month does that condemn me as an habitual speeder?

Would I think you are a habitual speeder? Yeah probably so. If you got caught drunk-driving last week, I wouldn't think it was your first time getting caught. Given the low prevalence of checkpoints, I'd guess you were a regular drink-driver that finally got unlucky.

Unlike a court of law in which you are entitled to your innocence unless otherwise proven beyond reasonable doubt, public sentiment is not a court of law and De Bruin is not entitled to fond public recognition of her athletic strength, achievements and technical ability and people will make up their own minds on the credibility of her medals and the significance of her record.

She's innocent, just like OJ Simpson.

The Aussie

Motorist wrote: »

Her pathetic drivelling supporters remind me of Hitler's generals in the last days in the bunker in Berlin.

Probably not how i would put it but i agree with the sentiment 100%, i would say they are like the gullible, stupid moronic sheep who fall for the Nigerian 419 Scam, the Russian Bride Scam or my favourite the 14% of imbeciles who still voted for Fine Failure in the last general election after they decimated the country with their special brand of stupidity and greed.

I still love their defence of the Cretin how It was not caught at the Olympics, all that means is that It (i refuse to call It a she) had a Chemist who was better than the IOC's chemist.

Nodin

mathepac wrote: »

I can't think why she'd be an embarrassment. As I've been saying consistently for years, Michelle was not found to be guilty of any drug transgressions while in training prior to the Olympics, during the Olympics and for two years after she won her medals. ...................?"

I'll just put this here to counter your somewhat 'smoothed over' version of reality.

In 1995, Erik de Bruin was refused a coach's accreditation to the European Championships in Vienna because of his four-year ban. He used a falsified accreditation badge of a Belgian official to gain entry into the doping control area. In the anti-doping area, Erik proceeded to mark up Michelle's doping control form with comments regarding the sloppiness of the control procedures in Dutch.[2][3] It was reported that in 1996 and 1997, the International Swimming Federation (FINA) had concerns about Smith's repeated unavailability for random out-of-competition testing. Her submitted training schedule was left totally blank, apart from her name and nationality, making it difficult to predict her movements. It has been suggested that Smith's behaviour during this period is wholly consistent with the typical behaviour of others who have subsequently been found guilty of drug taking offences.[4]

Prior to the beginning of the games, swimming analyst Gary O'Toole flagged what he predicted would be an unbelievable performance in the games by Smith. He intimated that such an improvement in performance could not be naturally achieved. Naturally the Irish broadcaster RTÉ balked at the controversial claims and essentially gagged the analyst for fear of litigation. [5]

Two years after the Atlanta Games, FINA banned Smith for four years for tampering with her urine sample using alcohol.[1] She appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Her case was heard by a panel of three experienced sports lawyers, including Michael Beloff QC. Uniquely for a CAS hearing, De Bruin's case was heard in public, at her own lawyer's request.[6] FINA submitted evidence from Dr Jordi Segura, head of the IOC-accredited laboratory in Barcelona, which said she took the bodybuilding drug Androstenedione, a metabolic precursor of testosterone, the night before the test. It also became known that three samples, taken between November 1997 and March 1998, had shown traces of Androstenedione.[4][7][8] The CAS upheld the ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Smith

Pherekydes

sunflower27 wrote: »

Yes, 28 is most definitely considered quite old for a swimmer.

Michael Phelps will be older in London than Mrs de Bruin was in Atlanta.

iguana wrote: »

They do the hop, skip and jump* though. And have since the ancient games.

*The Triple jump.

Step!

Krispie

Have just read some of this thread and side with the stance that she was never convicted of a crime, was not held accountable during the time of the Olympics, whatever was taken during the period in question, and thats my opinion only, were obviously not on the banned substance list as they were not detected and so therefore others were more than likely taken the same thing too, no matter how wrong it is, so therefore she deserves to be noted as our best Olympian ever.

I saw a reference to driving earlier and like that, as announced yesterday, penalty point to increase. So if I get caught speeding and due say 2 points in todays book, but by the time I get my summons it increases to say 5, no court in the land will stand by it as you cannot charge me on current standards when an "offence", if ever, was committed under a different system.

Add to the above that as far as I can reckon, the OCI couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery and this has been a noted fact in sporting circles in this country for well over 20 years.

Also, other posts here reference Wikipedia for "factual extracts". Personnally I wouldnt reference Wikipedia if I wanted to know the time of day.

mathepac

Nodin wrote: »

...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Smith

Well Holy God Biddy, wikipedia, RTE commentators lack of commentary, a complete lack of physical evidence - what next? Jedward, the Moonies, psychic Sal, the West Midlands Police Force?

Shelflife

Can anyone explain how she tampered with the sample when I believe that it's supposed to be taken\given in full view?

sock puppet

Pherekydes wrote: »

Michael Phelps will be older in London than Mrs de Bruin was in Atlanta.

He's been on the decline for years though.

StephenHendry

isn't she statistically our great olympian, most medals by irish athlete in the games. her medals still stand but of course there is huge controversy over them. i mean she improved so much that it caused other swimmers to question it , such as janet evans of usa who said it just coudlnt be possible for someone to improve so much in a relatively short space of time.

afaik i know she competed in 88,didnt get anywhere , similar to barcelona 92 but by 95 was winning european gold medals

i take it this is why michelle wasnt' carrying the torch last week

Motorist

Shelflife wrote: »

Can anyone explain how she tampered with the sample when I believe that it's supposed to be taken\given in full view?

In general, I imagine it's given with supervision such as a person standing beside you so you can't obviously start doctoring the sample. I imagine if you wanted to be devious such as adding in concealed alcohol, you could.

Kidchameleon

Shelflife wrote: »

Can anyone explain how she tampered with the sample when I believe that it's supposed to be taken\given in full view?

she was so paranoid about being caught, she would soak a tampon with whiskey every day... Seamless :-)

Nodin

mathepac wrote: »

Well Holy God Biddy, wikipedia, RTE commentators lack of commentary, a complete lack of physical evidence - what next? Jedward, the Moonies, psychic Sal, the West Midlands Police Force?

The contaminated samples consititute physical evidence.

After a long cat-and-mouse game, with drug testers repeatedly unable to locate the swimmer, FINA, the sport's international governing body, finally pinned down de Bruin and banned her from competition for tampering with her urine sample. FINA chose not to pursue sanctions against de Bruin after three successive tests had shown traces of the banned substance androstenedione, a testosterone precursor, in her urine.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000814&slug=4036702
You haven't quite got the hang of the whole "rebuttal" thing, it seems.

padd b1975

Motorist wrote: »

In general, I imagine it's given with supervision such as a person standing beside you so you can't obviously start doctoring the sample. I imagine if you wanted to be devious such as adding in concealed alcohol, you could.

i remember reading somewhere that she was wearing a very baggy jumper as she produced her urine sample.

mathepac

Nodin wrote: »

The contaminated samples consititute physical evidence. ...

The out of competition samples are not evidence of taking banned substances when in competition.

Nodin wrote: »

... http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000814&slug=4036702
You haven't quite got the hang of the whole "rebuttal" thing, it seems.

As above and evidence is not quite the same as an official finding of wrong-doing or a 'conviction' based on the evidence. So if no-one proceeded to the 'prosecution' stage of an investigation, the investigation is incomplete, thus there is no finding of wrong-doing.

Did you see what I did there Brian? Did you see? Obtuseness = apparent lack of rebuttal, did you see?

Garda in Court: "Jaysus Judge I tore around the place with me radar-gun looking for the fecker but I couldn't find him driving anywhere, not to mind catch him speeding."

Learned Judge: "Thanks Guard. Guilty as charged. mathepac, clearly you obstructed the Guard in the execution of his duty, therefore as well as all the instances of speeding he gathered no evidence for, you'll do 7 days in the 'Joy"

mathepac

padd b1975 wrote: »

i remember reading somewhere that she was wearing a very baggy jumper as she produced her urine sample.

Ah sure I knew it, a dead giveaway, guilty as charged. The wardrobe malfunction distracted the testers, No wonder she never featured in HowaYiz? magazine and Gach a Do ignored her for a makeover.

Nodin

mathepac wrote: »

The out of competition samples are not evidence of taking banned substances when in competition.

.....dear o dear o dear.....

You do know how these substances work, I trust? You don't take them on the day like something out of a comic and turn into a super athlete.

mathepac wrote: »

As above and evidence is not quite the same as an official finding of wrong-doing or a 'conviction' based on the evidence. So if no-one proceeded to the 'prosecution' stage of an investigation, the investigation is incomplete, thus there is no finding of wrong-doing.."

So, an individual found repeatedly sticking a knife into anothers chest would not be a murderer, if no trial took place to make such a finding. Technically correct, possibly. The reality, however, outside of such legalisms, is rather different.

mathepac wrote: »

Garda in Court: "Jaysus Judge I tore around the place with me radar-gun looking for the fecker but I couldn't find him driving anywhere, not to mind catch him speeding."

...bit of an odd way to allude to somebody serially avoiding drugs tests.

mathepac

Nodin wrote: »

.....dear o dear o dear.....

You do know how these substances work, I trust? You don't take them on the day like something out of a comic and turn into a super athlete....

Really? Oh silly me Brian. I thought a contaminated sample taken two years after an event could, using my time-travel machine, influence the results of that event.

Nodin wrote: »

.....
So, an individual found repeatedly sticking a knife into anothers chest would not be a murderer, if no trial took place to make such a finding. Technically correct, possibly. The reality, however, outside of such legalisms, is rather different. ...

Well if the person being stabbed was already dead or didn't die as a result of the assailant's attentions with the weapon, then no, no murder was committed. If the assailant was successfully prosecuted for a single murder and the court with no additional evidence found the assailant guilty of other murders, then thank God none of you will sit as a Judge instructing a jury.

What? You're already a Judge? OMG Brian that's the end I'm very much afraid. I'm off to join the CIA (Constipated Infants of America), le Légion étrangère no longer en-rolls children.

Nodin wrote: »

...bit of an odd way to allude to somebody serially avoiding drugs tests.

Ah serial avoidance, evidently a new psychopathology or is it a crime?

Nodin

mathepac wrote: »

Really? Oh silly me Brian. I thought a contaminated sample taken two years after an event could, using my time-travel machine, influence the results of that event.
.............

If she was capable of making the times she did in the Olympics, why would she start taking banned substances?

The facts - > Serial avoidance of drug testing. Samples found contaminated/containing a banned substance. Married to a man known to have been banned for drug offences, who becomes her coach. Increase in performance in a time that makes no sense when compared to other athletes and past results.

Given all of that, the only real question is why you're defending the woman.

Krispie

Nodin wrote: »

If she was capable of making the times she did in the Olympics, why would she start taking banned substances?

The facts - > Serial avoidance of drug testing. Samples found contaminated/containing a banned substance. Married to a man known to have been banned for drug offences, who becomes her coach. Increase in performance in a time that makes no sense when compared to other athletes and past results.

Given all of that, the only real question is why you're defending the woman.

Nodin,
With all due respect, what I have read of your argument is based on complete circumstantial evidence and assumption, and guilt by association. Would be thrown out of a court in a nano second.
Fact is she was never convicted of the offence. Granted, you are totally entitled to your opinion, allbeit the wrong one:D, but the facts do no fall on your side on this one.
So Mr. Coughlan et al are correct imho that Yes, she was/is the greatest Olympian we have to date.

Shelflife

I still dont get how she contaminated her sample.

Knock knock, hi we are from the testing agency we are here to collect a sample.

From here on, the person is supposed to be in the presence of the tester until the sample is handed over. including the actual filling of the sample bottle/bottles.

where in this sequence of events can contamination take place?

And if he had tested positive previously , why wasnt she charged with that instead of a contaminated sample?

Nodin

Shelflife wrote: »

I still dont get how she contaminated her sample.

Knock knock, hi we are from the testing agency we are here to collect a sample.

From here on, the person is supposed to be in the presence of the tester until the sample is handed over. including the actual filling of the sample bottle/bottles.

where in this sequence of events can contamination take place?

And if he had tested positive previously , why wasnt she charged with that instead of a contaminated sample?

This is the sequence of events....

The events after the 1996 Olympics had little to do with swimming and everything to do with chasing. In January 1997, FINA officials complained about de Bruin's unavailability for a random drug test. A year later, when two local drug testers showed up at the de Bruin home in Kells, they initially couldn't get past the locked gates.
When they were finally allowed inside, they lost sight of de Bruin for four to six minutes. When de Bruin handed over her urine sample, it smelled of whiskey, the testers said. When the sample got to the laboratory, officials said it had been contaminated by some sort of alcohol.
A forensics laboratory later would find no signs of tampering on the container.
De Bruin was banned for four years in August 1998. When she chose to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland, in May 1999, it allowed the world a long look at the case against de Bruin. It was revealed that she already had tested positive for androstenedione, though FINA had chosen to pursue the tampering charge instead. In June, the court left the ban in place. She would, however, be able to keep her Olympic medals.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000814&slug=4036702

Motorist

If she had come forward and admitted it, if she had said she was sorry, people would have admired her courage and would have forgiven her.

As it stands, she is a coward who has been airbrushed from history.

mathepac

Nodin wrote: »

If she was capable of making the times she did in the Olympics, why would she start taking banned substances? ...

I have no idea, just as I have no idea why a bunch of people still seek to demonise the woman's achievements with zero evidence of any interference with her Olympic achievements.

Nodin wrote: »

...
The facts - > Serial avoidance of drug testing. Samples found contaminated/containing a banned substance. Married to a man known to have been banned for drug offences, who becomes her coach. Increase in performance in a time that makes no sense when compared to other athletes and past results. ...

All of which is circumstantial evidence or evidence gathered after the event and none of which could be used to deprive her of her achievements - to this very day.

Nodin wrote: »

...
Given all of that, the only real question is why you're defending the woman.

Simple to answer, you could describe it as my sense of justice for the woman or my sense of outrage that people can condemn someone for an alleged course of actions for which there is no supporting evidence.

Any physical evidence that exists was accumulated after her Olympic medals were awarded and there was no hearing to take away her status as a multiple Olympic champion and medal-winner.

The woman never gave a contaminated sample or tested positive during the Olympics. The amazing thing is she was tested at least as many times as other athletes and maybe more often than most due to the American bleating.

The nature of the drugs she is alleged to have taken is such that even after stopping, the metabolites hang around for a considerable time. In fact most drug screens test for the presence of the metabolites rather than the original drug / or in some cases precursors.

FullRetard

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Thats pretty standard for a law book, they're all highly priced to reflect the relatively small market that they cater for.

they are more often bought for inclusion in a libary as opposed to some one buying for a bit of light reading in the jax!!

Nodin

mathepac wrote: »

I have no idea, just as I have no idea why a bunch of people still seek to demonise the woman's achievements with zero evidence of any interference with her Olympic achievements..

....but there is evidence of interference with her "olympic acheivements" in both the scale of her improvement and her avoidance of testing.

mathepac wrote: »

Simple to answer, you could describe it as my sense of justice for the woman or my sense of outrage that people can condemn someone for an alleged course of actions for which there is no supporting evidence...

...but as there is supporting evidence which you just discount and ignore, I'd have to see its still odd, to say the least.

mathepac wrote: »

The woman never gave a contaminated sample or tested positive during the Olympics. The amazing thing is she was tested at least as many times as other athletes and maybe more often than most due to the American bleating....

....was she now. Because according to the doping authority they'd great difficulty in finding her. For some reason.
You've some evidence that she was tested that many times?

enfant terrible

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

the sooner they bring in the new Olympics for drug enhancing athletes and keep the original Olympics for the clean athletes the better, I know which one I will be watching.

Exactly I want the athletes to take drugs, I mean, do you want to see someone shave a hundreth of a second off the hundred metres record, or do you want to see them run it in 3 seconds? I don't want to see Dwaine Chambers running on steroids, I want to see him running with the legs of a kangaroo and the heart of a leopard. I want to see him run so fast that half way through the race, he dissapears, like the car from Back To The Future, reappears at the finish line as an old man, shouts 'Beware China', and crumbles into dust.

mathepac

Nodin wrote: »

....but there is evidence of interference with her "olympic acheivements" in both the scale of her improvement and her avoidance of testing....

That's evidence that her performances improved and that she didn't submit samples. It's not evidence that she took drugs.

Nodin wrote: »

...but as there is supporting evidence which you just discount and ignore, I'd have to see its still odd, to say the least.

Tell me where is the specific physical, test results show without doubt that she took drugs in the lead up to or during the Olympics. I have no idea what "supporting evidence" means in this context. Do actual test results exist that confirm doping at the Olympics? If so where are they, who has them and when was the hearing to adjudicate on Michelle's status based on these results held?

Nodin wrote: »

.... Because according to the doping authority they'd great difficulty in finding her. ...

Their difficulty in finding her simply means that no samples were taken and no tests were performed to confirm the drug-taking allegations.

Remember, lack of samples = lack of tests = lack of test results = innocent until tested positive.

sock puppet

mathepac wrote: »

Remember, lack of samples = lack of tests = lack of test results = innocent until tested positive.

Not anymore.

mathepac

sock puppet wrote: »

Not anymore.

Who fears to speak of '96?

sock puppet

mathepac wrote: »

Who fears to speak of '96?

It'd actually be a lot easier for her now. She could just miss the drug tests, serve the short ban (1 year I think), and claim she missed the tests for entirely innocent reasons.

Motorist

sock puppet wrote: »

It'd actually be a lot easier for her now. She could just miss the drug tests, serve the short ban (1 year I think), and claim she missed the tests for entirely innocent reasons.

She was so juiced up, it would probably take a decade for her drug testosterone levels (and resultant testicles) to disappear.

Red21

mathepac wrote: »

Simple to answer, you could describe it as my sense of justice for the woman or my sense of outrage that people can condemn someone for an alleged course of actions for which there is no supporting evidence.

I don't understand how someone could have such sense of outrage for a woman, who after performing poorly at the 1992 games would then decide to work with a trainer who is banned from all competitions for his use of drugs. If you take out everything else that's been said you can't get away for the fact that it was Michelle de bruin who made decission about a guy who wasn't even a swimming coach.

Shelflife

Interesting, the testers fail to follow correct procedures and lose sight of the testee in a house for 4-6 mins, they then got the sample and even though they were properly sealed they smelled alcohol off it.

What still makes no sense is the fact that they had positive tests already on her,but chose to persue the contamination charge as opposed to the actual (3) positive findings.

If she tested positive why didnt they charge her with those?

that just doesnt make sense !

Nodin

mathepac wrote: »

That's evidence that her performances improved and that she didn't submit ...........positive.

For reasons known unto yourself, you're delusional on the subject I'm afraid.

mathepac

Red21 wrote: »

I don't understand how someone could have such sense of outrage for a woman, who after performing poorly at the 1992 games would then decide to work with a trainer who is banned from all competitions for his use of drugs. If you take out everything else that's been said you can't get away for the fact that it was Michelle de bruin who made decission about a guy who wasn't even a swimming coach.

That would leave her guilty by association or guilty of poor decision making. So what?

gbee

I've two views.

One she IS the holder of Olympic Medals, she was not asked to return them or stripped of her titles.

We know a lot, lot more about drug taking now, the period to take them the period to be clean the substances to take to mask the tests, the substances to take to remove traces of previous drug taking, women especially can exploit their own natural functions in a way that men cannot.

So, until they retest and find an actual ILLEGALITY [for the time*] then she is our greatest Athlete and Olympian.

*what once could have been legal may not be today.

mathepac

mathepac wrote: »

... Do actual test results exist that confirm doping at the Olympics? If so where are they, who has them and when was the hearing to adjudicate on Michelle's status based on these results held?
...

Nodin wrote: »

For reasons known unto yourself, you're delusional on the subject I'm afraid.

Not so I'm afraid. While the questions above remain unanswered Michelle has no case to answer, if she ever had.

Nodin

mathepac wrote: »

Not so I'm afraid. While the questions above remain unanswered Michelle has no case to answer, if she ever had.

...there were drugs found in her samples subsequent to the olympics. She was unavailable for testing. Her results conform to no known pattern of improvement in the sport.

Shelflife

Nodin

at the olympics was she tested?

were they shown to be clear?

If so then by their own standards she is clean.

By your own logic is she tested positive after the olympics then she was dirty at the olympics, therefore she was also dirty at every previous swim meet that she did.

so by default she was always dirty and there is no proof that the improvement was as a result of taking drugs as she was always on them.

mathepac

Nodin wrote: »

...there were drugs found in her samples subsequent to the olympics. She was unavailable for testing. Her results conform to no known pattern of improvement in the sport.

By all means, continue with your mantra. At this stage it sounds as if you're trying to convince yourself as it'll never convince me. Don't, whatever you do, answer the questions I have now asked several times, because if you answer them truthfully you'll find her key in-competition metrics at the Olympics were never, ever shown to be illegal. That's why the IOC never took her medals from her or changed her status from the Olympic Champion of record and she still remains our greatest Olympian ever.

Red21

mathepac wrote: »

Not so I'm afraid. While the questions above remain unanswered Michelle has no case to answer, if she ever had.

Yes she does, she has to answer the following question without treating the irish public like the're fools.
What training did you do after 92 that you hadn't done before 92 that took you from being a complete outsider(never made the olympic semi-finals on any event) to being able dominate world swimming?

Can you answer this question for her?

Nodin

mathepac wrote: »

By all means, continue with your mantra. At this stage it sounds as if you're trying to convince yourself as it'll never convince me...............

If she confessed, you wouldn't be convinced.

mathepac

Red21 wrote: »

... Can you answer this question for her?

What a quaintly ridiculous notion; of course I can't answer for her anymore than I can answer questions for you.

Nodin

Shelflife wrote: »

Nodin

at the olympics was she tested?

were they shown to be clear?

If so then by their own standards she is clean.

By your own logic is she tested positive after the olympics then she was dirty at the olympics, therefore she was also dirty at every previous swim meet that she did.

so by default she was always dirty and there is no proof that the improvement was as a result of taking drugs as she was always on them.

....you might read back over my posts and note that I mentioned the bizarre increase in her performance....

Nodin

mathepac wrote: »

What a quaintly ridiculous notion; of course I can't answer for her anymore than I can answer questions for you.

Speculate then.

Also speculate as to why the man who supposedly introduced these miracle inducing methods has not gone on to become a leading coach in the sport.

Red21

mathepac wrote: »

What a quaintly ridiculous notion; of course I can't answer for her anymore than I can answer questions for you.

It was more of a yes/no type question put that answer will do just fine.