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

leeroybrown

mathepac wrote: »

BTW who do you think gives a shyte about your distorted view of what happened and your crappy and rather creepy attempt at re-aligning reality to match your crazy views?.

I'd like to thank you for your attempt to engage in an eloquent adult discussion on the subject and remind you that I still believe Michelle Smith to be a drug cheat and consider her sample tampering as clear evidence of it. There's no real point to my engaging in further "discussion" with you.

mathepac

Sea Filly wrote: »

Now why does this not surprise me?

Well it doesn't surprise me in the least that you're too lazy to bother to research the topic and rely on the "dogs in the street" argument as evidence.

As a sound man once said "put up or shut up" like a good fellah and stop trolling.

mathepac

leeroybrown wrote: »

I'd like to thank you for your attempt to engage in an eloquent adult discussion on the subject and remind you that I still believe Michelle Smith to be a drug cheat and consider her sample tampering as clear evidence of it. There's no real point to my engaging in further "discussion" with you.

I engage in adult discourse with adults. Your beliefs have no bearing here, evidence in support of the wrong-doing you allege does (for only the 10,000th time )

Sayonara Leerey

Sea Filly

mathepac wrote: »

As a sound man once said "put up or shut up" like a good fellah and stop trolling.

Take your own advice.

Royal Legend

That young Irish one in the yacht or whatever it is, winning two Olympic races, after coming from no where, something dodgy there, I mean, you can't just arrive from no where and start winning races, she must be on something

Or maybe its part of a big betting scandal, all the other racers have placed big money on some unknown Irish girl to win Gold

Now that we know this to be true, (cause I wrote about it on boards)
I cannot accept her even if she wins the Gold medal

:rolleyes:

Almaviva

I think Coughlan is spot on and Michelle is indeed Ireland's greatest olympian. Complaining about her being on drugs is missing the point - drugs, cheatings, gambling, corruption, mickey mouse sports, 'sports' whose outcome is determined by judges, politics, jingoism, etc. are all part and parcel of what the modern olympics are all about. It may not be sport, but Michelle bought in to this new olympic ideal of anything-goes-as-long-as-you-get-away-with-it and succeeded.
The olympics is a sickening sham to most true sports fans. But then so was Michelle Smith, and so she deserved her 'success'.

StephenHendry

Almaviva wrote: »

I think Coughlan is spot on and Michelle is indeed Ireland's greatest olympian. Complaining about her being on drugs is missing the point - drugs, cheatings, gambling, corruption, mickey mouse sports, 'sports' whose outcome is determined by judges, politics, jingoism, etc. are all part and parcel of what the modern olympics are all about. It may not be sport, but Michelle bought in to this new olympic ideal of anything-goes-as-long-as-you-get-away-with-it and succeeded.
The olympics is a sickening sham to most true sports fans. But then so was Michelle Smith, and so she deserved her 'success'.

we can only speculate that she was possibly using illegal substances leading up to the olympics in 96 and during it but we can't be 100 percent certain. im sure this is the anlge eamonn coughlan is coming from but in 98 she was caught out and lost her european medals.

later12

sunflower27 wrote: »

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

I find it very hard to believe she won Olympic gold on her own merit. How many seconds (minutes ) did she shave off her personal best times to win the gold?

Got this off the web:

Ireland never had been a swimming powerhouse. They had never won an Olympic medal, and their best hope going into the 1996 games in Atalanta, Michelle Smith, had never finished better than 17th in any race in previous Olympics. But a miracle happened in 1996. At the age of 28, Michelle Smith came out of nowhere to win 3 gold medals and 1 bronze.

That's somewhat misleading though.

That just applies to the Olympics, not world or European championships. There were only two previous Olympics, the first when she was a rather inexperienced 18 year old. You're choosing not to inform people that her Barcelona Olympics was marred by her injury problems; and even when she competed at the World Championships two years before Atlanta, she came just outside the medals, again being upset by illness. You have to take these things into account when considering Smith's progress in the run up to Atlanta.

Smith was a prominent international swimmer and European gold medalist long before the Atlanta games and you choosing to mask that by reference to her underperformance at previous Olympics, without explaining why that might have been, is deliberately misleading.

Red21

It seems that many defending her are completely unaware of how unbelieveable her improvements were, if she was an american it's douthful she would have ever competed in the olympics, until her mid 20's:eek:,they have swimmers of her ability in every state that never make the USA team.
She peaked for the 88' games and after these games she trained unbelieveably hard day-in day-out, month-in mouth-out, year-in year-out like most athletes she was prepared to go trough untold amounts of work/pain/dedication just to remain at her peak level unfortunately for the 92' games the world had moved on, new swimmers were on the scene and as a result Smith didn't do as well as she had in 88'.
Comparing this the differance from 92' to 96' to other sports just shows how ignorant people are about swimming, even for her to get into one olympic final at that stage of her career is off the scale in terms of believabilty. If the woman had won the 100m sprint and broke Javilin WR at in Athlanta it wouldn't have added to the level of unbelivablity because you couldn't, we were all maxed out for crazy in athlata 96'.

mathepac

alastair wrote: »

Well - a finding of sample tampering by FINA is fairly clear as to her guilt in '98 -.

So big deal. Some crowd found her guilty of "sample tampering" 2 years after the olympics? FFS she could have committed mass murder in '98 and it wouldn't effect the status of her medals, won fair and square in '96.

Lesson 1 today class - sums.

98 - 96 = ? Cad e an freagra a bhuacailli agus a cailini? A do, ta an ceart agaibh. Two, a positive integer, class, which means that if we treat 96 and 98 as ordinals, 98 is greater than 96 which means that 96 comes first. Ta sibh go han mhaith ar fad, ar fad.

This does not mean that you can interpolate (or extrapolate) that a person who had a spoiled sample in 98 also had a spoiled sample in 96. Ta sin micheart a bhuacailli agus a cailini. What we we call people whose reasoning works that way? Ceart, "revisionists", sin ainm amhain, "deluded or delusional" might fit, sea, "eejits", ceart ,sin ainm eile, but we must be careful not to upset them in case they cry.

Now what else do delusional revisionist eejits do? Well they might suggest that bacuase a spoiled sample is observed / tested in 98 that also makes someone guilty of taking drugs in 96!!

Can you imagine a bhuacailli agus a cailini. Stopann an Gharda me. "Ya have a baldy tyre dere, bud, because a da' I'm chargin' ya wi' drunk-drivin' two tears ago. Blow in the bag please."

"You cheeky fecker, I'm not going near your poxy girl-friend. Go bhoire Dia orainn, cad a dheanaimid feasta gan Gaybo?"

Do ye understand now a bhuacailli agus a cailini?

Beig Latin againn now so Reductio ad absurdum to ye all.

alastair wrote: »

... The IOC testing of her B sample which found testosterone only clarifies the matter. ...

This was also in 98. By jackers lads this is powerful sutff, stupid and idiotic beyond belief in terms of
the 96 olympic achievements, but powerful enough to finally kill off the lynch-mob's non-arguments. Tell us what happened in 96 - no-one with half a brain cares what happened in 98 because it has no bearing on her performance in 96.

alastair wrote: »

... I was aware that most of the Irish swim scene were working under the assumption she was doping in 1994 - I was told so at the time. That she then went on to patently unbelievable improvements in performance, past her prime, doesn't really do anything to disprove those assumptions. Her peers, the experts in the field, the governing bodies who oversee doping, and all common sense point to her being a cheat. If it walks and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

An anonymous someone who had been told by another anonymous someone else in some dark alley told you these irrefutable facts. Well I guess that settles the argument once and for all. The looney majority talk to each other about a flat-earth and convince each other it must be true because they are all saying it. They have no evidence other than the behind the hand whispers but it's all true. Of course they miss the crucial fundamental issue that all this happen 2 years before the olympics, with no substantiating test data. Nice one as a Brit might say, all your evidence gathering was done by the West Midlands Police naturally and Widgerey & Co. adjudicated on it.

I have to say your case for olympic drug-cheating by Michelle de Bruin is as solid as moth eaten lace and is just as likely to stand the test of time.

Sea Filly

later12 wrote: »

That just applies to the Olympics, not world or European championships. There were only two previous Olympics, the first when she was a rather inexperienced 18 year old.

18 would be peak time for a female swimmer.

27 would be the beginning of the end.

Red21

later12 wrote: »

That's somewhat misleading though.

That just applies to the Olympics, not world or European championships. There were only two previous Olympics, the first when she was a rather inexperienced 18 year old. You're choosing not to inform people that her Barcelona Olympics was marred by her injury problems; and even when she competed at the World Championships two years before Atlanta, she came just outside the medals, again being upset by illness. You have to take these things into account when considering Smith's progress in the run up to Atlanta.

Smith was a prominent international swimmer and European gold medalist long before the Atlanta games and you choosing to mask that by reference to her underperformance at previous Olympics, without explaining why that might have been, is deliberately misleading.

This is a very misleading post her PBs don't back up what you are saying or are you saying she was marred by injury form the age of 16 to 24.
Why would she be inexperienced at the 88' games you do known that she is 2 years older than Evans and she won 3 golds at the 88' games

Shelflife

look the question was who is our greatest olympian. now clearly in the fact that she hold 3 golds and one bronze this would make her the most successful irish olympian ever.

This is a basic fact, she still holds those medals.

Now the fact that something happened two years later is basically irrelevant to what happened in 96.

Any logical person would clearly have to question the improvement and the subsequent sample tampering but based on the FACTS, she won the medals, she passed all the tests and and she was never asked to return the medals.

The arguement that, well she had a better chemist than the testers can easily be made for every athlete that passes a test.

In the end the only person she has to answer to is herself, if she cheated shes a fool to herself if she didnt she knows that shes a true champion.

My own personal belief is that she was as clean as the rest of her competitors.

later12

Red21 wrote: »

This is a very misleading post her PBs don't back up what you are saying

Which part don't they back up?

I have no idea whether the then Smith/ later de Brun used banned substances prior to the 1996 Olympic Games. So I'm not saying anything on that front either way.

All I'm saying is that the post was misleading. If someone is going to mention Smith's rankings in the Barcelona Olympics, at least have the honesty to mention a significant injury which might have affected that; or the fact that Smith was a European gold medalist and not exactly a swimming nobody as sunflower27's post suggested.

Lets look at all the facts, but those facts do include a tremendously disappointing and badly timed set of injuries in Smith's early career.

Sea Filly

later12 wrote: »

Lets look at all the facts, but those facts do include a tremendously disappointing and badly timed set of injuries in Smith's early career.

Which experts who cast doubt on her achievements are, I'm sure, fully aware of.

later12

Sea Filly wrote: »

Which experts who cast doubt on her achievements are, I'm sure, fully aware of.

Indeed; my point is merely that the situation is not quite as absurd as the poster, sunflower27, was suggesting. People are being very selective with the truth on both sides of this thread.

Smith's actions are suspicious, but she was a world class athlete prior to Atlanta 1996 with some considerable successes and placings.

Red21

later12 wrote: »

In

Smith's actions are suspicious, but she was a world class athlete prior to Atlanta 1996 with some considerable successes and placings.

True, but she wasn't a world class athlete prior to meeting Eric de Bruin.

The badly timed injuries claim is often touted by the De bruin camp, this is just a smoke screen in attempt to confuse the public but lets just say it's true and she was very unlucky in the early 90s, her PBs should then tell a true story of how fast she was troughout her career and if there was a massive swing in the graph after meeting Eric de bruin

Michelle de bruin still holds 4 national records they were all achieved in 96/97 , does anybody have the records in her events down trough the years from 96 back to 86 i've seen them before somewhere but can't seem to find them now.

later12

Red21 wrote: »

True, but she wasn't a world class athlete prior to meeting Eric de Bruin.

She met him at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, her second games.

How many "non world class athletes" make two Olympics Games and come 13th in the World Championships (again, long before meeting de Bruin)

I'd like to re-iterate that I do find Smith's improvement in 1996 dramatic and difficult to explain; I think it's entirely possible that she was using banned substances. But some of the references to her undeniable talent, as though she was a complete nobody trashing about in an aqua aerobics class before she discovered all the delicious drugs, is slightly bizarre.

Everyone is too desperate to perpetuate their own black and white interpretation of the Michelle Smith story, with one side unwilling to accept any wrongdoing, and the other side unwilling to accept what was undoubtedly an extraordinary talent.

alastair

mathepac wrote: »

An anonymous someone who had been told by another anonymous someone else in some dark alley told you these irrefutable facts. Well I guess that settles the argument once and for all. The looney majority talk to each other about a flat-earth and convince each other it must be true because they are all saying it. They have no evidence other than the behind the hand whispers but it's all true.

(various deranged rants removed)

Nothing anonymous about it. I was told by a fairly high profile figure in the Irish swim world that her performance and times in '94 could only be attributable to doping. That's a judgement made by people closely engaged with the sport, and familiar with her previous record. No dark alleys or whispers behind the hand. I know for certain that Tom Humphries had been approached by swimmers concerned about the situation. Michelle was already playing the evasion game with testers at the time.

Now you might claim that she was entirely innocent at this time, and that the gamesmanship with testers and rapid improvement in times were nothing to do with the certainty that we have about her actions a couple of years later - but that lacks a certain credibility.

nikkime

Yeh I find it a bit hard to believe that her times could go through such a dramatic change...no matter what the field of sport all athletes have a fairly consistent track record and normally for trying to shave hundreths of a second off their PBs over a more lengthy time...

nikkime

*I meant - normally SETTLE for trying to shave etc etc....

mathepac

alastair wrote: »

(various deranged rants removed)...

Sorry you didn't like my little impromptu one-act offering starring El Presidente Mickey D. as SchoolMar'm O'Rourke, but ye must get the sums right, ye're constantly 2 years out with what passes for evidence.

alastair wrote: »

... Now you might claim that she was entirely innocent at this time, and that the gamesmanship with testers and rapid improvement in times were nothing to do with the certainty that we have about her actions a couple of years later - but that lacks a certain credibility.

How often must I make my point? - instead of high-fiving each other in the corner of the field to choruses of Wacko Jacko's "Baahd", ye're constantly two years off the pace.

The issue for me is what happened in 96, not 94 and not 98. If all these wonderful experts, swimmers, administrators and a scribbler had evidence of dirty doings, why didn't they go public instead of confiding in you?

If there was actual widespread knowledge & evidence of drug use in 94 and nothing was done, then those who stayed quiet are surely guilty of dereliction of duty. For example what did you do? What actions did you take then? What agenda have you in making these revelations now? If you have such certainty as you claim about 96, show me the money - where is the evidence about doping at the 96 games?

alastair

mathepac wrote: »

The issue for me is what happened in 96, not 94 and not 98.

That propsed window where she wasn't cheating, but sustained the marked improvements built on cheating, you mean? I don't believe, on the back of the evidence available, that this window exists.

mathepac wrote: »

If all these wonderful experts, swimmers, administrators and a scribbler had evidence of dirty doings, why didn't they go public instead of confiding in you?

They did - right to the point of avoiding litigation. Unless they were managing to do better on the dope testing front that the officials were (Michelle was regularly not to be found for testing) - it's pretty hard to prove the obvious.

mathepac wrote: »

If there was actual widespread knowledge & evidence of drug use in 94 and nothing was done, then those who stayed quiet are surely guilty of dereliction of duty. For example what did you do? What actions did you take then? What agenda have you in making these revelations now? If you have such certainty as you claim about 96, show me the money - where is the evidence about doping at the 96 games?

I guess I'm guilty. But then I'm not the one with the cabinet filled will ill-gotten awards, so I can live with myself.

ps. Lance Armstrong was a cheat too. We've known it for years despite the missing golden bullet of proof. At least his chickens are coming home to roost regarding his old TdF wins.

Morgans

My two issues with Michelle de Bruin case:

1) The lack of contrition towards Janet Evans who was nothing but diplomatic and fair in her discussions about Michelle

2) Why didnt she just retire after the Olympics and leave everyone guessing

My own opinion is those who believe she swam clean are flat earth society members. Evidence and intuition are against them IMO.

leeroybrown

This thread could go around in circles for another 2000 posts and we'd still have the same group of people (me included) who think she's a drug cheating embarrassment to sport and the nation, and another who think she's somehow clean and a national superstar. The arguments aren't going to change.

le la rat

She couldn't win the under 11 gala at my local club a month before the games

mathepac

Morgans wrote: »

.. My own opinion is those who believe she swam clean are flat earth society members. Evidence and intuition are against them IMO.

What evidence do you have to offer? Your opinion as someone who is not an expert and who was not party to the what happened at the time, counts for nothing. For the upmteenth time where is your evidence? Have you gone to the pound to rescue the descendants of the dogs on the street at the time and interviewed? Have you test results from the Olympics? Affidavits from legit testers with no personal agendas?

The real answer here, as with others, is that you have nothing to offer in support of your allegations, just prejudice and ill-founded rumour.

Nodin

mathepac wrote: »

What evidence do you have to offer? Your opinion as someone who is not an expert and who was not party to the what happened at the time, counts for nothing. ............

So you're an expert who was party to what happened at the time?

mathepac

leeroybrown wrote: »

... we'd still have the same group of people (me included) who think ...

What you think isn't evidence of anything untoward in relation to the 96 olympics. Show me evidence.

Morgans

mathepac wrote: »

What evidence do you have to offer? Your opinion as someone who is not an expert and who was not party to the what happened at the time, counts for nothing. For the upmteenth time where is your evidence? Have you gone to the pound to rescue the descendants of the dogs on the street at the time and interviewed? Have you test results from the Olympics? Affidavits from legit testers with no personal agendas?

The real answer here, as with others, is that you have nothing to offer in support of your allegations, just prejudice and ill-founded rumour.

I claim its an opinion, but there is no ones opinion or no one's evidence that would satisfy you. That's the beauty of the flat earth society membership. Evidence and judgements are dismissed as conspiracies. There is simply no evidence that could be persuasive.

Those who believe Michelle de Bruin was a drugs cheat. What point of theirs gives you most pause for thought?

Red21

leeroybrown wrote: »

This thread could go around in circles for another 2000 posts and we'd still have the same group of people (me included) who think she's a drug cheating embarrassment to sport and the nation, and another who think she's somehow clean and a national superstar. The arguments aren't going to change.

Yes, but those who think she's a national superstar must also consider Eric de Bruin a national superstar, I mean forget about jack Charlton, Eric took the best female swimmer in Ireland at the time and turned her into the best female swimmer in the world :pac::pac::pac: the man should be hailed as a national hero as we where up with the world superpowers in the medals table for the first wk in Atlanta 96'.
If you're out there Michelle just tell the truth, it may take some time but i'm sure most of us could find it in our hearts to forgive.

mathepac

Nodin wrote: »

So you're an expert who was party to what happened at the time?

If someone makes allegations of wrong-doing the normal expectation is that they produce evidence in support of their allegations. In the absence of any evidence the normal thing in civilised western society is that they withdraw their allegations, sometimes with an apology. or face defamation charges.

Unfortunately as this is the Interweb it comes down to who can shout loudest for the longest time, with the mindless mob high-fiving each other for posting non-evidence-based statements and further polarisation of opinion with no middle ground.

You have no evidence because in the 16 years since the olympics none has surfaced, anywhere, and that's what's so sad here. It's not justice, it's simply mob-rule and prejudice.

Under mosts systems of justice, the accuser produces evidence in support of their claims and bears the burden of proof. The accused doesn't have to open his or her mouth or make one statement in their defence because the presumption of innocence until proven guilty still prevails (except in the Scotch system).

stepbar

On the face of it, yes; she was our greatest Olympian.

But her career prior to meeting her husband and the various attempts to dodge drug testing would suggest that one could validly question this statement.....

Nodin

mathepac wrote: »

If someone (..........)still prevails (except in the Scotch system).

Thats nothing to do with what was asked.

You stated -

Your opinion as someone who is not an expert and who was not
party to the what happened at the time, counts for nothing

Are you an expert who was party to what happened at the time?

mathepac

Morgans wrote: »

I claim its an opinion, but there is no ones opinion or no one's evidence that would satisfy you. That's the beauty of the flat earth society membership. Evidence and judgements are dismissed as conspiracies. There is simply no evidence that could be persuasive.

Those who believe Michelle de Bruin was a drugs cheat. What point of theirs gives you most pause for thought?

Point me to evidence you or your cohort have produced. Despite repeated requests you have come up with nothing - diddly, zero, nada, squat.

As the accuser surely you'd think it's appropriate to have something, anything to hang your accusations on. As the defendant if you like, I don't have to produce anything, just ask you to back up your accusations. Shouting loudly while ganging up is not evidence of anything other than mob-rule.

titan18

mathepac wrote: »

If someone makes allegations of wrong-doing the normal expectation is that they produce evidence in support of their allegations. In the absence of any evidence the normal thing in civilised western society is that they withdraw their allegations, sometimes with an apology. or face defamation charges.

Unfortunately as this is the Interweb it comes down to who can shout loudest for the longest time, with the mindless mob high-fiving each other for posting non-evidence-based statements and further polarisation of opinion with no middle ground.

You have no evidence because in the 16 years since the olympics none has surfaced, anywhere, and that's what's so sad here. It's not justice, it's simply mob-rule and prejudice.

Under mosts systems of justice, the accuser produces evidence in support of their claims and bears the burden of proof. The accused doesn't have to open his or her mouth or make one statement in their defence because the presumption of innocence until proven guilty still prevails (except in the Scotch system).

Considering the amount of athletes in a load of sports who never tested positive, but had doped, the innocent until proven guilty doesn't work too well for sport imo.

There's plenty against Smith that you can show she was doping tbh

Red21

mathepac -are you saying that irrespective of how many gold medals De Bruin won it's irrelevent? let's just say she won all the gold medals at the games would you continue to say, feck that, she didn't fail a test so fair is fair.

-When she peaked her times remained fairly static for the first six years of her career, are you saying that irrespective of how far below the medal winning times she was throughout these years it's irrelevent? let's say it took her half the day to swim a length of the pool would you continue to say, feck that, she produced the medal winning times at the games so fair is fair.

Feisar

Can doping have that much of an effect though? Like if your 10th in the world, can it put you in first? As a hypothetical question. I don't think drug use can do that much to a persons abilities. And you have to consider that the competition will be using as well. So it's not like there's one cheat pumped up to the gills and the rest clean as a whistle.

mathepac

Nodin wrote: »

Thats nothing to do with what was asked....

In your opinion. In my opinion, which counts for a lot more because it is informed and supportable, it is the very essence of what this thread is all about.

Nodin wrote: »

... Are you an expert who was party to what happened at the time?

It doesn't matter that I'm not. I can just sit here until kingdom come and ask you for evidence to back up your ill-founded opinion and accusations, secure in the knowledge that you have none because it doesn't exist

You're the one throwing out accusations of wrong-doing. Show some, any, evidence of wrong-doing from the 96 olympics (statements from officials, tests from the 96 olympics, affidavits from witnesses, etc.) otherwise you're just another no-account member of the mob, screaming for blood, because that's what mobs do.

Morgans

mathepac wrote: »

Point me to evidence you or your cohort have produced. Despite repeated requests you have come up with nothing - diddly, zero, nada, squat.

As the accuser surely you'd think it's appropriate to have something, anything to hang your accusations on. As the defendant if you like, I don't have to produce anything, just ask you to back up your accusations. Shouting loudly while ganging up is not evidence of anything other than mob-rule.

Flat Earth Society answer. There is no decent point that the other side have.

You call it mob-rule, it was clear at the time that the swimming community (then and now) didnt believe she was clean, Gary O'Toole on RTE being a fantastic commentator, but others like Nick O'Hare have commented then and since, the journalists that followed the sport at the time didnt believe she was clean, including those known to be interested in drugs in sport (Humphries and Walsh) the authorities of Irish sport (was it John Treacy who said that her legacy to Irish sport was good anti-doping policy) didnt believe that she was clean, that she was subsequently found to have tampered an out of competition sample with testosterone, and the 4 year ban confirmed by Court of Sports Arbitration.

Mob-rule indeed. Uninformed opinions. That you supercede.

She didnt fail a test at the 96 Olympics. If you think that is enough to convince you she was clean during the olympics, I believe you not to be looking at the full picture. Best of luck to you.

The only people I feel sorry for are her family who embarrassed themselves by coming out to defend her on RTE. I feel she should apologise to them. The rest of country can wonder all they want.

Feisar

OK Christ I've looked up a few Google pictures and frick she is muscular!

Now I also read this evening that Zoe Smith (British weightlifter) was getting a load of crap on Twitter etc for looking like a man for having too much muscle. (i.e. some lads are insecure but anyway)

Look at these two pics, one a swimmer and the other a weightlifter.

http://thestar.smgmedia.topscms.com/images/39/8f/68fdcbd14ec5bc270272c9a29a05.jpeg

http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Zoe-Smith-sets-new-record-in-58kg-Weightlifting.jpg

Look at the lats and shoulders on Michelle!

Jimoslimos

Feisar wrote: »

Can doping have that much of an effect though? Like if your 10th in the world, can it put you in first? As a hypothetical question. I don't think drug use can do that much to a persons abilities. And you have to consider that the competition will be using as well. So it's not like there's one cheat pumped up to the gills and the rest clean as a whistle.

It's not a magic pill, you still need to put in the training. How many are doping is anybody's guess. 10th in the world clean is a pretty decent achievement, regardless of whether the 9 ahead are clean.

Where the major gains are made are women doping with anabolic steroids, they have a much greater impact on female physiology. Which is the reason why it was women athletes from the Eastern bloc nations that dominated decades ago, and also why suspicion is directed at female Chinese athletes and not male ones.

Feisar

Jimoslimos wrote: »

It's not a magic pill, you still need to put in the training. How many are doping is anybody's guess. 10th in the world clean is a pretty decent achievement, regardless of whether the 9 ahead are clean.

Where the major gains are made are women doping with anabolic steroids, they have a much greater impact on female physiology. Which is the reason why it was women athletes from the Eastern bloc nations that dominated decades ago, and also why suspicion is directed at female Chinese athletes and not male ones.

True and I've just posted on that as you were posting. Flo Jo being a prime example but she never tested positive either.

mathepac

Morgans wrote: »

... She didnt fail a test at the 96 Olympics. ...

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Everything else is hearsay, rumour and opinion, most of it ill-informed.

All I wanted was someone in the "anti-camp" to state this and every other argument falls flat on its face. 94 irrelevant as is 98. There is no evidence she cheated in 96, so Eamo was right and I agree with Eamo, which makes me right ... again.

Quick mods close the thread; lock the gates I can see the flickering torches snaking their tortuous way up the hill and the glint of light on sharpened scythes and pitch-forks ...

Da da de dum, Da da de dum "I win again, I win again. ..."

Nodin

mathepac wrote: »

In your opinion. In my opinion, which counts for a lot more because it is informed (............)for blood, because that's what mobs do.

I'm afraid it does matter.

So you aren't an expert, weren't party to what went on at the time.

Doesn't that, by your own standard, mean your opinion "counts for nothing"?

mathepac

Nodin wrote: »

I'm afraid it does matter...

Not to me bud, not to me.

Nodin wrote: »

... So you aren't an expert, weren't party to what went on at the time...

There's an echo in here bud, an echo I say (say, say ...

Nodin wrote: »

... Doesn't that, by your own standard, mean your opinion "counts for nothing"?

You could of course read my detailed explanations already posted or maybe this will do instead

titan18

mathepac wrote: »

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Everything else is hearsay, rumour and opinion, most of it ill-informed.

All I wanted was someone in the "anti-camp" to state this and every other argument falls flat on its face. 94 irrelevant as is 98. There is no evidence she cheated in 96, so Eamo was right and I agree with Eamo, which makes me right ... again.

Quick mods close the thread; lock the gates I can see the flickering torches snaking their tortuous way up the hill and the glint of light on sharpened scythes and pitch-forks ...

Da da de dum, Da da de dum "I win again, I win again. ..."

In 1996, she was swimming faster times than in 1997 and 1998, when she was found to be doping.

notnumber

Nodin wrote: »

Theres a bit more to it than that....none of which makes her look better...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Smith

The allegations were never proven and today she remains Ireland's most successful Olympian.

Did Eammon write this wiki? anyway there you go never proven

mathepac

titan18 wrote: »

In 1996, she was swimming faster times than in 1997 and 1998, when she was found to be doping.

I've been saying it for years, that auld dope shtuff slows you down when you're swimming; it leaves you at great risk of drowning, even in the shallow end.

steelcityblues

Funny to hear her get a mention from Jon Kenny, when talking about individual medley performances at the Olympics. Good to know not everyone wants to airbrush simple history.