The following is the full text of the statement made by Michelle de Bruin at a press conference in Dublin yesterday:
At the outset and having seen the reactions of certain members of the Press to the FINA press release yesterday, I would like to confirm again that I have never taken any banned substance at any time and the FINA Doping Panel found that in relation to the doping offence, of which they have found me guilty, that there was no evidence of there being any banned substances in either the A or the B Sample.
More importantly however, in the course of the lengthy hearing in Lausanne it was accepted by the Head of the IOC Laboratory in Barcelona that the introduction of alcohol into the A and B Sample had not affected his sampling procedures and that he was therefore able to carry out all of the required tests on the A and B Sample that he would have been able to do were the sample not adulterated and having carried out those tests there was still no evidence of there being any banned substances present.
When last I spoke about the doping case against me on the 29th of April, I indicated to you that I did not believe that I would get any satisfaction from FINA or from the Doping Panel hearing and on this I have proven to be correct.
It has been suggested by a number of you that myself and my husband should now quietly disappear and in some way apologise for having carried out a gross fraud on the Irish people and that I should not be allowed involve myself with young persons and with swimming in the future.
Whilst these reactions and statements are not unexpected, I do find them particularly distasteful when one considers that in all of the statements that have been made about me by FINA and in all of the analytical results that have been completed on my urine samples, I have never tested positive for the use of any banned substance.
You will all recall that you asked at the last Press Conference on the 29th of April whether or not we believed that there was a conspiracy against me or did we have any reason to suspect anybody of having manipulated the sample apart from myself.
In the course of the work that he did during this case, Peter Lennon has uncovered a significant body of evidence which was submitted to the Doping Panel hearing which leads one to the undeniable conclusion that it has been the intention of FINA subsequent to the Atlanta Olympics to ensure that by whatever method I should take no further part in swimming and particularly should not be allowed compete at the Sydney Olympics in the year 2000.
As Peter has said, you received a press release yesterday afternoon which was not of course the decision of the FINA Doping Panel which has been explained in some detail by my solicitor.
What also needs to be stated unequivocally now and on the record is what we discovered during the course of this particular case and what we will intend bringing to the attention of CAS on this Appeal.
1. The Doping Control forms
Those of you who have been involved with this case will be aware that the Doping Control Forms in this matter have provided significant comment with regard to what the Doping Control Officers found when the sample was taken in Kilkenny on the 10th of January 1998.
Doping Control Forms are clearly a crucial piece of evidence in any case that is subsequently brought against an athlete or swimmer for a breach of the Doping Control Regulations.
In this case the Doping Control Officers, subsequent to taking the sample at my home on the 10th of January 1998, without my knowledge or FINA's knowledge, altered the Doping Control Forms.
When this matter was brought to the attention of the Doping Control Panel it was taken extremely seriously by them and lead, as you are aware from our statements today to the Doping Control Panel discounting the written statements that had been made by the Doping Control Officials in this case.
The Doping Control Panel however concluded that whilst the tampering with the forms might indicate that the Doping Control Officers operated not with the utmost diligence but they then perceived on their part to provide an explanation as to why the Doping Control Forms were altered.
Their explanation holds no weight whatsoever and the suggestion that I was given my parts of the Doping Control Forms before all the necessary information on the Doping Control Form was completed, is an utter nonsense.
The suggestion made by the Doping Control Panel that one of the Doping Control Officers can give his indication of his attitude towards me in a television interview cannot be accepted by them as showing some preconceived bias on his part unless the full interview is made available to them, is again something that we will raise on the Appeal to CAS.
2. The IOC Laboratory
The Doping Panel found that the sample had not been manipulated in the laboratory and as you have heard no questions were raised during the Doping Panel Hearings by our side with regard to the role of the Laboratory in this case.
That is patently untrue and again is something that will be raised by our side at the hearing of the Appeal.
What is however of significance in this case is the role that this Laboratory has taken with FINA directly relating to me.
This Laboratory first commenced analysis of urine samples which I had given to FINA's Out of Competition Doping Control Company in February 1997. In particular, they received samples from the Doping Control Company on the 13th of February 1997; 7th May 1997; 13th August 1997 and the 1st of December 1997.
The 1st of December 1997 was the last Out of Competition Doping Control sample that they received prior to the sample taken on the 10th of January 1998. They also received the Doping Control Samples for the subsequent test that was carried out upon me by FINA's Doping Control Company on the 12th of March 1998.
As usual when the samples were analysed by the Laboratory, an Anti-Doping Analysis Report was sent to FINA setting out the results of the Laboratory's tests.
In each of those tests the Laboratory in Barcelona stated there was a complete analysis of the A Sample and that analysis showed the absence of any banned substances.
That being so and giving the laboratory whatever benefit of the doubt that I have not been given, my samples should after a maximum period of 90 days have been disposed of.
What we discovered in the course of this case was that the Laboratory in Barcelona retained all of the samples that had been sent to them going back to February 1997.
The laboratory in Barcelona deny that they had any knowledge of any Irish swimmers and that when they were being spoken to and communicated with by FINA, they were merely dealing with an out-of-competition swimming sample on someone who swam from Ireland.
On the 2nd of February 1998, Taffy Cameron, the head of the FINA medical committee, faxed FINA bureau following receipt of the A sample analysis from the laboratory in Barcelona.
In the course of that fax, Taffy Cameron asked FINA to point out to the laboratory in Barcelona that they had previously assessed a series of profiles from me some months previously and that therefore in view of the request that the Laboratory had made to carry out further longitudinal testing, it might not be necessary to carry out any more profiles.
Dr Cameron pointed out that if they were not able to establish from the earlier series of profiles a satisfactory result from FINA's point of view, that it would be necessary to inform me and the IASA of the adverse laboratory report.
On the 2nd of February, FINA faxed the laboratory in Barcelona to inform them that they had previously tested my samples three times in 1997 and passed them correspondence that they had had previously with the Laboratory in relation to me.
In the course of the discovery which Peter obtained in this case, a fax from FINA to the laboratory of Barcelona of the 4th of June 1997 was discovered in which I am regarded by FINA as one of three "problem" T/E ratio cases.
The laboratory then carry out a re-analysis of the T/E ratios from the earlier steroid profiles that they had and concluded on the 4th of June 1997 in a fax to FINA that they could not conclude that the abnormal variation of the T/E ratio in one of my samples was as a consequence of exogenous administration of testosterone.
The Laboratory then indicate to FINA that the concentration of testosterone is not high and does not point towards any testosterone administration by me.
The Laboratory in Barcelona still maintain that despite this correspondence and despite the discussion that they had with FINA Office that they were not aware of my identity and that they were merely aware of my sample numbers and the fact that they came from an Irish swimmer in Kells, County Kilkenny Ireland.
Not satisfied however with the fact that their own IOC Laboratory had now given them the answer that they did not want to hear, namely that I had not been guilty on their professional analysis of the introduction of exogenously of testosterone into my body tissue or fluids, FINA go back again to the same laboratory in February of this year with what can only be described as a most unbelievable request of any professional independent laboratory of the standing that this laboratory is alleged to have.
This Laboratory had already provided FINA with a complete analysis of the A sample showing the absence of any banned substances, yet on the 2nd of February 1998 FINA request the Laboratory to re-evaluate their own results to establish whether or not the steroid profile in my case was abnormal.
The Laboratory then, re-open my samples which are held by them contrary to any good laboratory practice and procedure and certainly contrary to the rules of natural justice and fair play and re-evaluate those A samples which they had previously given the all clear to.
The Laboratory on the 16th of February 1998 however indicated to FINA that an investigation of a new "non manipulated" sample with an isotopic ratio mass spectrometer would clarify the matter and they would be pleased to receive such a sample and any information that FINA might have had regarding the way in which the manipulation of the urine in this case may have happened.
The Laboratory in Barcelona having then received the sample of the 12th of March 1998 prepared to carry out a third analysis of all the samples using a method which is not recognised by the IOC, the organisation which accredited them and whose findings cannot be relied upon.
The Laboratory indicates to FINA on the 17th of April 1998 that they cannot stand over with full defensibility their results and indicate to FINA that they should use the evidence of administration of testosterone precursor as a supporting argument to interpret the reasons for the manipulation of Sample A074396 which is the 10th of January 1998 sample.
In the course of his cross examination at the hearing in Lausanne, the Head of the IOC Laboratory accepted:-
(a) That there had been no banned substances found in any of the samples which they had analysed and reanalysed for FINA. (b) That the Laboratory were aware of difficulties with the Versa Pak Sample kits and that the Head of the Laboratory was personally aware that these kits could be opened simply by placing the container in boiling water which would result in the lid popping off allowing the sample to be interfered with and then the lid to be re-closed without any knowledge of the interference with the container itself. (c) That Versa Pak have introduced a new type of seal which is metal and which is thought to be impregnable and despite being asked to do so by the Chairman of the Doping Panel the Laboratory were unable to disprove the fact that the bottles/sample containers in this case were of the old tamper type sold by Versa Pak to IDTM, the sampling company. (d) The introduction of alcohol in this case had not affected the laboratory's ability to carry out analysis and reanalysis of the samples. (e) That having regard to the specific gravity of the samples found by Mr Guy when he took the reading at my home in Kells on the 10th of January 1998 of a specific gravity of 1.015, that if the alcohol had been in the sample at that time it would not have had that specific gravity as the alcohol would have clearly affected that reading and that they would have expected to have found a similar reading to which they found when the sample was tested using a machine in the Laboratory in Barcelona. (f) That as head of an IOC Laboratory he would be quite concerned with a Sampling Officer who would alter a doping control form after the sample and collection process had been completed.
FINA will argue that the samples at all times remain their property. This is complete nonsense and they are aware that unless they specifically ask a laboratory for someone's samples to be kept beyond a 90-day period then those samples should be disposed of. FINA accept that they did not request the laboratory to store my samples.
Most laboratories in fact having completed an A Sample which was negative would dispose of the A Sample immediately as it clearly has been opened up in the laboratory and has been subjected to whatever atmospheric and other outside material that may come into contact with it and would only keep B samples and again only for a 90day period.
In this case the Laboratory in Barcelona has kept my samples without instruction from FINA but has acted on express instructions from FINA to carry out a re-evaluation of tests already concluded by them.
3. FINA
I firmly believe that there has been a concerted effort on the part of FINA to ensure that I did not swim again and to ensure that by whatever method available to them, a ban would be imposed.
The discovery documentation in this case showed that as an individual I have been subjected to the most out-of-competition doping control tests of any swimmer worldwide.
More importantly the discovery documentation has shown that even where FINA obtained results which confirmed that I had not taken any banned substances and that my T/E ratio was not excessive, they have continued in their quest to establish a case against me of having taken a banned substance.
Peter has already dealt with the very significant defects that have arisen out of the Doping Panel Hearing. The Chairman of the FINA Doping Panel, Harm Beyer, has publicly made statements concerning myself and my husband in what he now describes as his private knowledge or private suspicions about us.
Despite Harm Beyer's view as Chairman of the Doping Panel at the hearing in Lausanne that the issue of a Sampling Officer tampering with a Doping Control Form was extremely serious and was something that would be dealt with vigorously by FINA, their singular response has been to concoct some explanation as to how this innocently could occur and as a throwaway attempt to justify their position indicate that they disregarded any of the statements made by the Doping Control Officers concerning what happened in Kilkenny on the 10th January 1998 and subsequently while the samples were in their possession.
In FINA's mind it is clearly acceptable to use cocaine or marijuana or to take a known identified masking agent for a banned substance as against physically manipulating a sample, the manipulation of which has had no affect on the ability of FINA to carry out an analysis.
A four-year ban was not unexpected but having regard to the previous penalties and sentences which FINA have recently handed out, it further copper fastens my view that the motive here is not fair play or reasoned analysis of the facts of the case but a deliberate effort on the part of FINA to ensure that I do not represent this country at any further international swimming meets and in particular the Olympic Games in Sydney.
We now go on to the Appeal hearing at CAS and no doubt those who believe that my detractors should be championed and lorded for their performance to date will revel in the present position.
I will prove my innocence at the end of the day in this matter. I believe that the decision which has been made by FINA is flawed not only on the facts but also legally and unfortunately know now in my heart and soul that a total vindication in this case will not retract the damage that has been done to me by FINA in respect of an offence that I did not commit.
Ba mhaith liom no bhuiochas a ghabhail le Bord na Gaeilge agus pobal na hEireann as ucht an tacaiocht a thug siad dom agus an muinin a bhi acu ionam. Ta me broduil i gconai dul go dti comortaisi idirnaisiunta ar son mo thir fein agus ta suil agam go mbeidh me in ann e sin a dheanamh aris go gairid.
Summary
1. The introduction of alcohol into the A and B Samples did not affect the sampling procedures in this case and all of the required tests that FINA wanted to carry out on the Samples were carried out.
2. I had no motive for introducing alcohol or indeed any other masking agent into my sample as I have never tested positive for the use of any banned substance throughout my career and as the Laboratory have confirmed there was no banned substance the issue of motive does not arise.
3. Athletes are entitled to rely upon the proper completion of the Doping Control Forms by the Doping Control Officers which did not occur in this case.
4. The IOC Laboratory in this case has acted contrary to all good Laboratory practices and has acted on the express instructions of FINA in carrying out analysis and re-analysis of my samples going back as far as the 13th of February 1997.
5. Despite their efforts FINA have been unable to get the Laboratory to issue a Doping Analysis Report confirming the presence of any banned substance.
6. The Laboratory in this case on their last reanalysis of my samples used a method which is not accepted by FINA and the IOC yet despite this released the results of this unacceptable method into the public domain in a clear effort to further tarnish my good name and reputation.
7. The Laboratory accepted that there were problems with the Versa Pak sample kits.
8. The Laboratory indicated that based upon their examination of the facts of this case the alcohol would have to have been introduced after it was decanted from the beaker into the two sample bottles and not before having regard to the specific gravity readings.
9. The Laboratory accepted that a Sampling Officer who would alter a Doping Control Form after the sample and collection process had been completed would raise serious concerns in his mind about the officer.
10. The Chairman of the FINA Doping Panel has made comments publicly in advance of the hearing indicating that he knew myself and Eric de Bruin were guilty yet despite this refused to stand down on our application of bias against him.
11. The Doping Control Officer in this case made statements concerning drug users in a nationally televised programme previous to the Doping Control Panel Hearing yet despite this he was allowed continue as Doping Control Officer.
12. FINA having regard to the evidence presented concerning the Doping Control mission in this case and the role of the Doping Control Officials, disregarded any of the evidence of the Doping Control Officers given to them in their statements which formed the evidence against me in this case.
13. This case will now be appealed immediately to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne where I expect to be thoroughly vindicated.
14. I have instructed my solicitors to include a claim for significant damages against FINA for what can only be described as a blatant and mischievous attempt to ruin my swimming career and my international standing.
Michelle Smith de Bruin
Dated this 7th day of August 1998.