Michelle Smith Olympics 1996

Elmo

question: in the history of the Olympic games have any teams every made allegations of drug taking so soon after a win and so publicly?

I always felt regardless of the drug taking that they came across a sore losers, there is nothing to suggest that the wins could have been legit at the time.

clairewithani

Elmo wrote: »

question: in the history of the Olympic games have any teams every made allegations of drug taking so soon after a win and so publicly?

I always felt regardless of the drug taking that they came across a sore losers, there is nothing to suggest that the wins could have been legit at the time.

Regardless of the drug taking. Seriously? That's the whole point.

Virgo77

Not Sure.

Avatar MIA

Elmo wrote: »

I always felt regardless of the drug taking that they came across a sore losers...

Are YOU high right now?

Pretty much everyone accepts it wasn't a clean victory - therefore meaningless.

Elmo

my point is in cases where drug taking was the cause of success, has there ever been a press conference clearly point the finger at an athlete from another athlete?

Utdfan20titles

The reason they so publicly questioned her was because it was obvious she was on drugs

Mattie500

Janet Evans was deprived of her moment.... I applaud her honesty in retrospect (but at the time I thought she was a sore loser)... Those medals and that individual are not something we should celebrate.

Water John

She is now one of the top barristers in the country, especially in the area of defamation.

Elmo

Mattie500 wrote: »

Janet Evans was deprived of her moment.... I applaud her honesty in retrospect (but at the time I thought she was a sore loser)... Those medals and that individual are not something we should celebrate.

I am not suggesting otherwise. I just find it strange that we've never really seen that type of honesty from other athletes. I could be wrong because I don't follow the Olympics following wins.

So the question remains have any athletes ever following a win from another athlete had a press conference suggesting the winner took drugs.

I am not suggesting the win was a win.

Water John

Sonia had a much clearer reason to shout foul, with three unknown Chinese running off into the distance and never seen again.
Also, dogs in the street knew Szabo was not clean.

Avatar MIA

Water John wrote: »

She is now one of the top barristers in the country, especially in the area of defamation.

I doubt she wants this dragged up again.

mansize

Water John wrote: »

Sonia had a much clearer reason to shout foul, with three unknown Chinese running off into the distance and never seen again.
Also, dogs in the street knew Szabo was not clean.

She had a stellar record- I never heard the accusations levelled at Szabo at any meaningful level

Saipanne

Our greatest Olympian.

mansize

The Olympics are a joke. All these athletes that appear with a relatively short success record and churn out multiple golds...

Water John

Yeah Avatar, people be careful what they write.
Listening to Ger Hartman on radio yesterday describing how Paula Radcliffe and himself found a heap of stuff in the trash of the Romanians training at altitude.
TMK Szabo tested positive at one point.

I still love athletics and the Olympics. Personal profiles I think will reduce positives. Genetics will be the next hurdle.

Avatar MIA

Saipanne wrote: »

Our greatest Olympian.

Technically yes. In reality no.

brick tamland

I might be imagening this but in my head Lewis called Johnson out in 88 right after the race


Re Smith. Very few more obvious dopers. 3 chinese girls probably worse all the same

Saipanne

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Technically yes. In reality no.

Technical schmecnical. If she was caught juicing she would have lost the medals, no?

Our. Greatest. Olympian.

mansize

Water John wrote: »

Yeah Avatar, people be careful what they write.
Listening to Ger Hartman on radio yesterday describing how Paula Radcliffe and himself found a heap of stuff in the trash of the Romanians training at altitude.
TMK Szabo tested positive at one point.

I still love athletics and the Olympics. Personal profiles I think will reduce positives. Genetics will be the next hurdle.

Radcliffe greatly improved when she moved to longer distance

Avatar MIA

Saipanne wrote: »

Technical schmecnical. If she was caught juicing she would have lost the medals, no?

Our. Greatest. Olympian.

She was banned from swimming for tampering with a urine sample. She's not great in my eyes. Same with your man with the hopped up (or was that down) horse.

First Up

Mattie500 wrote:

Janet Evans was deprived of her moment.... I applaud her honesty in retrospect (but at the time I thought she was a sore loser)... Those medals and that individual are not something we should celebrate.

Janet Evans finished miles back. She was beaten by several others as well as Smith.

Its also worth remembering that the same Evans once went to court to prevent a drug test being processed.

mansize

Water John wrote: »

Yeah Avatar, people be careful what they write.
Listening to Ger Hartman on radio yesterday describing how Paula Radcliffe and himself found a heap of stuff in the trash of the Romanians training at altitude.
TMK Szabo tested positive at one point.

I still love athletics and the Olympics. Personal profiles I think will reduce positives. Genetics will be the next hurdle.

Szabo didn't test positive- non performance enhancing banned drugs were found in her car at a time her brother was driving it- that's all

Pherekydes

mansize wrote: »

Szabo didn't test positive- non performance enhancing banned drugs were found in her car at a time her brother was driving it- that's all

Non banned performance enhancing drugs is what you mean.

Actovegin. Though there's no suggestion she took any. At all.

Water John

Yeah, Actovegin in the car, for some one else and she retires.

'Routine' search by French police on the motorway.

walshb

Elmo wrote: »

question: in the history of the Olympic games have any teams every made allegations of drug taking so soon after a win and so publicly?

I always felt regardless of the drug taking that they came across a sore losers, there is nothing to suggest that the wins could have been legit at the time.

You are spot on. The U.S. were about as anti sport as you could get right after Michelle beat them. To behave like they did so quickly, and knowing nothing at the time was disgraceful.

walshb

brick tamland wrote: »

I might be imagening this but in my head Lewis called Johnson out in 88 right after the race


Re Smith. Very few more obvious dopers. 3 chinese girls probably worse all the same

Lewis implied in an interview shortly after the race that something was not right. Lewis knew well what that was. He was being decimated by a man that was not in his league!

walshb

mansize wrote: »

The Olympics are a joke. All these athletes that appear with a relatively short success record and churn out multiple golds...

All them? Ridiculous and kind of shameful tarnishing!

skallywag

walshb wrote: »

Lewis implied in an interview shortly after the race that something was not right.

How astute of him, considering he failed 3 drug tests himself during the US trials for the same Olympics ...

walshb

skallywag wrote: »

How astute of him, considering he failed 3 drug tests himself during the US trials for the same Olympics ...

None were Performance Enhancing. Read up on it and educate yourself on that situation and its circumstances and findings. Lewis was 100 percent clean and natural. Officially and correctly allowed compete in Seoul.

Oh, a little hint. There's a whole lot more to the story than the stale and one sided Guardian article!

skallywag

Perhaps so, but it still doesn't read very well in all fairness ...

An extract from an article in the Guardian ...

Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.

The admission is a further embarrassment for the United States Olympic Committee, which had initially denied claims that 114 positive tests between 1988 and 2000 were covered up. It will add weight to calls by leading anti-doping officials and top athletes for an independent inquiry into the US's record on drug issues.

Last week Dr Wade Exum alleged that a ban imposed on Lewis after positive tests for three stimulants had been overturned by the USOC when the athlete said he had ingested them mistakenly in a herbal supplement.

Lewis received only a warning after officials ruled that his positive tests were due to "inadvertent" use. Some scientists believe the substances could have been a masking agent for more serious drugs, such as anabolic steroids.

'Ingested mistakenly' ? OK perhaps. But how about Contador then, does one also then swallow his claim about eating a dodgy piece of meat? The mind just boggles at what to believe and what not.

walshb

skallywag wrote: »

Perhaps so, but it still doesn't read very well in all fairness ...

An extract from an article in the Guardian ...

Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.

The admission is a further embarrassment for the United States Olympic Committee, which had initially denied claims that 114 positive tests between 1988 and 2000 were covered up. It will add weight to calls by leading anti-doping officials and top athletes for an independent inquiry into the US's record on drug issues.

Last week Dr Wade Exum alleged that a ban imposed on Lewis after positive tests for three stimulants had been overturned by the USOC when the athlete said he had ingested them mistakenly in a herbal supplement.

Lewis received only a warning after officials ruled that his positive tests were due to "inadvertent" use. Some scientists believe the substances could have been a masking agent for more serious drugs, such as anabolic steroids.

'Ingested mistakenly' ? OK perhaps. But how about Contador then, does one also then swallow his claim about eating a dodgy piece of meat? The mind just boggles at what to believe and what not.

Like I said, the article is one sided. The actual hard facts surrounding the incident show clearly that Lewis was not a cheat, and was officially cleared to compete. There are several hard facts. But just one. The three tests were for the 100/LJ and 200 at the 1988 trials. The results for each were 2ppm, 4 ppm and 6 ppm. All ridiculously low, but more importantly below the threshold that would trigger a fail. He did not even fail the tests in an official capacity, but of course that is not acknowledged by keyboard warriors. He was investigated and rightly cleared.There are other pertinent facts, and only someone who really dislikes Lewis, or is stupid could come up with the conclusion that those tests in 1988 showed a cheater.

Oh, and the claim by Exum that Lewis had a ban overturned by USOC is complete rubbish. There was no ban. Lewis only ever received a letter notifying him of the test findings. There was no ban by any organisation on Lewis.

deandean

Speaking as someone who followed this saga closely - I was in Atlanta at the time and I saw Michelle winning two of her medals.

The difference is, almost all the other competing countries were far more experienced in dealing with allegations of drug use among their athletes, as well as dealing with problems such as the occasional positive test result.

Other countries have closely integrated team of coaches, medics, PR people, lobbyists and have a well-oiled system for dealing with the likes of a complaint from Jan Evans.

Look at how Lance A. and his team went on the offensive whenever anyone said Boo in his general direction.

With Michelle, unfortunately she was on her own. Her coach already had a dirty bib. Her country dropped her. Her purity wasn't up there with Kerrygold butter any more.

Personally, I feel really sorry for how the 1996 Olympics worked out for Michelle. My overriding memory is that she was about 6" shorter than most of the other swimmers when they were on the starting blocks but by Jimini she was a brilliant and devoted swimmer.

I wish her all the best in her new career.

Avatar MIA

deandean wrote: »

Speaking as someone who followed this saga closely - I was in Atlanta at the time and I saw Michelle winning two of her medals.

The difference is, almost all the other competing countries were far more experienced in dealing with allegations of drug use among their athletes, as well as dealing with problems such as the occasional positive test result.

Other countries have closely integrated team of coaches, medics, PR people, lobbyists and have a well-oiled system for dealing with the likes of a complaint from Jan Evans.

Look at how Lance A. and his team went on the offensive whenever anyone said Boo in his general direction.

With Michelle, unfortunately she was on her own. Her coach already had a dirty bib. Her country dropped her. Her purity wasn't up there with Kerrygold butter any more.

Personally, I feel really sorry for how the 1996 Olympics worked out for Michelle. My overriding memory is that she was about 6" shorter than most of the other swimmers when they were on the starting blocks but by Jimini she was a brilliant and devoted swimmer.

I wish her all the best in her new career.

That's a damning indictment of the Olympics - Poor Ireland with their weak drug abusing defence team. :rolleyes:

marienbad

deandean wrote: »

Speaking as someone who followed this saga closely - I was in Atlanta at the time and I saw Michelle winning two of her medals.

The difference is, almost all the other competing countries were far more experienced in dealing with allegations of drug use among their athletes, as well as dealing with problems such as the occasional positive test result.

Other countries have closely integrated team of coaches, medics, PR people, lobbyists and have a well-oiled system for dealing with the likes of a complaint from Jan Evans.

Look at how Lance A. and his team went on the offensive whenever anyone said Boo in his general direction.

With Michelle, unfortunately she was on her own. Her coach already had a dirty bib. Her country dropped her. Her purity wasn't up there with Kerrygold butter any more.

Personally, I feel really sorry for how the 1996 Olympics worked out for Michelle. My overriding memory is that she was about 6" shorter than most of the other swimmers when they were on the starting blocks but by Jimini she was a brilliant and devoted swimmer.

I wish her all the best in her new career.

Do you think she was on something in Atlanta ?

walshb

Avatar MIA wrote: »

That's a damning indictment of the Olympics - Poor Ireland with their weak drug abusing defence team. :rolleyes:

At that time Smith was alone, and nothing proven at all. Pure sour grapes sore losers discrediting her wins. Wins that were not near the times of Evans (400 free).

Personally I think Smith probably did dope in 1996. I am always baffled as to why she kept going after 1996? Surely she'd have thought how lucky to escape 1996. Get out before you get done. She carried on and then gets done for tampering. Was it arrogance or ignorance, or both?

Avatar MIA

walshb wrote: »

Personally I think Smith probably did dope in 1996. I am always baffled as to why she kept going after 1996? Surely she'd have thought how lucky to escape 1996. Get out before you get done. She carried on and then gets done for tampering. Was it arrogance or ignorance, or both?

I fully agree with the above paragraph, she'd have been heralded a hero for evermore.

However, just because the Americans could only guess she'd cheated doesn't mean they didn't have a right to complain. Her improvements were unprecedented.

My own opinion is that Michelle wasn't alone in cheating, all 8 competitors in the finals may have cheated. We'll never know.

We do know Michelle felt the need to tamper with her sample in '98. No sane person would think Michelle was clean in '96, go through a firestorm of accusations then decide, "Hmmm If they think I'm a cheat I may as well cheat, even it subsequently puts at risk the genuineness of my 3 gold medal victories."

In hindsight I don't get your dislike of what the Americans did. Their suspicions were most likely correct.

marienbad

walshb wrote: »

At that time Smith was alone, and nothing proven at all. Pure sour grapes sore losers discrediting her wins. Wins that were not near the times of Evans (400 free).

Personally I think Smith probably did dope in 1996. I am always baffled as to why she kept going after 1996? Surely she'd have thought how lucky to escape 1996. Get out before you get done. She carried on and then gets done for tampering. Was it arrogance or ignorance, or both?

If you lose to a cheat sour grapes are perfectly reasonable . I always figured the reason she kept going was the arrogance of her coach . If they got away with it in Atlanta no reason why they couldn't do it again and again ..

walshb

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I fully agree with the above paragraph, she'd have been heralded a hero for evermore.

However, just because the Americans could only guess she'd cheated doesn't mean they didn't have a right to complain. Her improvements were unprecedented.

My own opinion is that Michelle wasn't alone in cheating, all 8 competitors in the finals may have cheated. We'll never know.

We do know Michelle felt the need to tamper with her sample in '98. No sane person would think Michelle was clean in '96, go through a firestorm of accusations then decide, "Hmmm If they think I'm a cheat I may as well cheat, even it subsequently puts at risk the genuineness of my 3 gold medal victories."

In hindsight I don't get your dislike of what the Americans did. Their suspicions were most likely correct.

I am speaking about the actual time. The U.S were a disgrace, as were several Irish. To sully her name without a shred of proof is disgraceful. I'd say the same about any nation or athlete. It's completely classless and nasty. Not at all surprising. The Australians too. Never a sporting nation in the sense of winning well.

To this day she has never been shown to have cheated in 1996. Still officially a 3 time gold medalist.

walshb

marienbad wrote: »

If you lose to a cheat sour grapes are perfectly reasonable . I always figured the reason she kept going was the arrogance of her coach . If they got away with it in Atlanta no reason why they couldn't do it again and again ..

But at that time she was not shown to have cheated. At least have the decency and class and respect to wait. They didn't, and for that they were a disgrace. And, as my post above mentions, she was not shown to have cheated in 1996.

Avatar MIA

walshb wrote: »

I am speaking about the actual time.

Do you think they decided to pick on Michelle just because they lost? Have they ever done this before or since. There was reason to question her victories.

walshb wrote: »

To this day she has never been shown to have cheated in 1996. Still officially a 3 time gold medalist.

And I hope the gold medals keep her warm at night, for most (evidently not all) they may as well be tin medals.

walshb

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Do you think they decided to pick on Michelle just because they lost? Have they ever done this before or since. There was reason to question her victories.




And I hope the gold medals keep her warm at night, for most (evidently not all) they may as well be tin medals.

Yes, they did pick on her just because they lost. And there are plenty of sour grapes examples with many countries, including our own. Beijing 2008 LHW boxing final springs to mind.

skallywag

walshb wrote: »

To this day she has never been shown to have cheated in 1996. Still officially a 3 time gold medalist.

Yes, you are of course correct, but to be honest I don't think any athlete is deserving of any retrospective respect if they subsequently are exposed to having cheated. The damage is then done, and rightly so. I would apply the same logic to another of our sporting greats from 87.

Avatar MIA

walshb wrote: »

Yes, they did pick on her just because they lost.

What about her vastly improved times and marriage to an already discredited coach? Any bearing whatsoever?

Regardless, they were proved that she was a cheater. That the technology/protocols weren't in place in '96 is of little consolation.

walshb

skallywag wrote: »

Yes, you are of course correct, but to be honest I don't think any athlete is deserving of any retrospective respect if they subsequently are exposed to having cheated. The damage is then done, and rightly so.

That's fair, and a point that is hard to disagree with. But in 1996 she won the 3 races. Nothing extraordinary. Good times, but not exceptional. She may have been doped. But she still trained her ass off and did the business. I wouldn't her for the Atlanta wins. Nobody had shown that she cheated to win in Atlanta.

marienbad

walshb wrote: »

But at that time she was not shown to have cheated. At least have the decency and class and respect to wait. They didn't, and for that they were a disgrace. And, as my post above mentions, she was not shown to have cheated in 1996.

Come on - were we not incensed with the Chinese and Sonia - did we wait ?

If you follow enough sport ( and I know you do) you know well in advance with a fair degree of certainty who is cheating and who is not , be it Armstrong Smith Johnson Christie etc.

The way we in Ireland somehow or other thought we were above all that is simply baffling.

Avatar MIA

walshb wrote: »

She may have been doped. But she still trained her ass off and did the business.

Okay, I'm out.

walshb

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What about her vastly improved times and marriage to an already discredited coach? Any bearing whatsoever?

Regardless, they were proved that she was a cheater. That the technology/protocols weren't in place in '96 is of little consolation.

They are fair points, and the points that were raised. One of our best ever sports analysts, Gary O'Toole raised those very points.

Could a credible defence be offered for her progress? Absolutely. That is every bit as important as the assertion that she got away with it because the procedures/technology and protocols weren't in place in 1996. She was tested by the standards at that time. She was compliant.

walshb

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Okay, I'm out.

Why? She may have. If not then she won fair and square due to dedication . That is what I meant. If she doped in 1996 then she doesn't deserve the wins.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

But at that time she was not shown to have cheated. At least have the decency and class and respect to wait. They didn't, and for that they were a disgrace. And, as my post above mentions, she was not shown to have cheated in 1996.

Pretty sure she came from nowhere pre Atlanta and there were murmurings already.

You don't just rock up from nowhere and win multiple golds by being clean. The other swimmers knew she wasnt clean.

marienbad

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Pretty sure she came from nowhere pre Atlanta and there were murmurings already.

You don't just rock up from nowhere and win multiple golds by being clean. The other swimmers knew she wasnt clean.

As far as I recall she didn't even get out of the heats in Barcelona four years earlier . But she did meet her coach there .

Some improvement

walshb

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Pretty sure she came from nowhere pre Atlanta and there were murmurings already.

You don't just rock up from nowhere and win multiple golds by being clean. The other swimmers knew she wasnt clean.

They didn't know. They may have had suspicions.

But, was she alone? Were others cheating, and if so how come she (an average world swimmer) won? Was it a case that the opposition weren't on their game?

We need to consider the very real possibility that she progressed through fair means. She was still a deal slower than all 3 WRs at the time.