The Olympic swimming champion, Michelle de Bruin, may take her case to the European Court of Human Rights if her appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport is unsuccessful, her solicitor has said.
Mr Peter Lennon yesterday drew parallels between Ms de Bruin's case and other cases in which Irish people were wrongly accused of offences in other jurisdictions.
Speaking at a press conference in Dublin yesterday, Mr Lennon outlined the defence he would be presenting on behalf of his client at the appeal, which he expected would take place in Lausanne in four to six weeks' time.
"The facts of this case are that FINA [the governing body for world swimming] did not rely on the evidence of their own doping control officers," he said. "The burden of proof shifted to FINA and they didn't like that. Yet FINA then decided the case on the reverse burden of proof, not having had any regard to any evidence."
He said that FINA, having lost on the burden of proof issue, should have taken the "manly" decision and given Ms de Bruin the benefit of the doubt. It was "absolutely bizarre" that they had failed to produce any acceptable evidence.
Mr Lennon claimed that an addition was made to the doping control form for Ms de Bruin's test which was of crucial importance in the case. He declined to give further details.
He also dealt with a question directed to Ms de Bruin regarding the amount of time she was out of sight of the doping control officers on the day of the test in January. He said an article in yesterday's Irish Times was "full of significantly misleading and untruthful information".
The doping control officers indicated that Ms de Bruin was out of their sight for about a minute, he said. "It takes a minute to go up the stairs, and tell your husband, `I'm back, I'm not going to the airport, I'm about to have a doping control test carried out'."
Asked about the amount of damages he would be seeking on behalf of his client, Mr Lennon said the only precedent in this type of case had resulted in an award of about £4,000.
Mr Lennon was asked how it was that he maintained that Ms de Bruin's sample had been adulterated after it was taken away when the doping control officers, Mr Al and Ms Kay Guy, had noticed a "strange smell" in the kitchen of the de Bruin home where the test was carried out in Co Kilkenny.
He replied by asking why the testers had not stopped their test and started again, as they were empowered to do.
"They chose not to inform Michelle of the fact that they found a smell of alcohol in the kitchen simultaneously - when no one else did - and they drove on their merry way back to Dublin via Kilkenny without making any mention of it to an athlete whom they had been asked specifically to test on this day.
"No one has produced any evidence that Michelle physically tampered with this sample, and that is what is required under the law regarding the burden of proof," he said.
Mr Lennon said he had no opinion "one way or another" on who had actually tampered with the sample.
