In appearance, Monica Bonfanti looks more like an Olympic swimmer than a forensic criminologist with a speciality in studying the impact effects of bullets. She was central, however, to proceedings in the Court of Arbitration for Sport early yesterday morning which dealt a further, minor blow to the case of the de Bruin team.

Bonfanti was in court to present the report of the University of Lausanne laboratory which was commissioned by CAS to come to an independent verdict on whether or not the canisters used to transport Michelle de Bruin's urine samples had been tampered with.

Bonfanti testified that last Friday (April 30th), along with colleagues Professor Pierre Margot and Eric Stffer, she had, in the presence of Peter Lennon (de Bruin's solicitor) and counsel for FINA, performed various tests on canisters.

Since April 20th the forensic laboratory examined a small number of the Versapak canisters used in the case, trying to ascertain if they could be opened without marking them. This included use of the boiling method and various other ways which they considered would effect entry.

She testified that in all cases tool marks were left on the upper cap even if they were only visible under microscope or under various types of light. Use of the boiling method left minor whitening and small distortions in the plastic which could not be removed.

She stipulated that the laboratory had not been provided with enough canisters to complete a comprehensive study of the subject, but concluded that on the basis of observations, the de Bruin canister showed "no signs of opening".

"We couldn't see traces on the B sample of Michelle de Bruin," she added.

She concluded that, within the limits of the experiment, it was impossible to illicitly open and close the canisters without trace.

In cross-examination Peter Lennon, acting for the appellant, attempted to diminish the impact of the report by highlighting the limits of what he was shown last Friday.

"There were no tests carried out on Michelle de Bruin's canister on April 30th in my presence."

"You were there. If you wanted that you only had to ask," replied Bonfanti sharply.

Lennon pressed the point, provoking an even more spirited response. "Excuse me, Mr Lennon, when we do experiments we do them by ourselves. If you are there to observe or not it makes no difference to us. You can ask us to perform any test. Why didn't you ask? Professor Margot asked you if you wanted to see something more, at the end we asked you."

Following testimony from Bonfanti, the de Bruin team attempted to introduce testimony from Dr David Brown, an English scientist who claims to have opened Versapak testing kits without leaving marks. The court took a negative view of this development, suggesting that Lennon had agreed to the commissioning of an Independent report, had withdrawn Brown as a witness, and was now attempting to reintroduce him as a rebuttal witness, the independent report not having been to his liking.

Lennon conceded that he had no written report from Brown to enter into the record. Ruling against the introduction of the expert, court chair Yves Fortier noted "we are disturbed that calling Dr Brown would be unfair to FINA. This has to be a level playing field".

The court proceeded to hear evidence from the two final witnesses in the case - Jeff Hatton of Versapak UK Ltd and Staffan Sahlstrom of International Doping Tests and Management.

In both cases, Lennon made considerable use of the fact that despite the fact that there was hearsay evidence of a problem (breachable by boiling) with the Versapak kit in question as far back as 1997, Versapak had merely phased in a new model and had not actively recalled all models in the field.

Lennon asked Hatton why, after he became aware of rumours of a case in Hungary involving breach by boiling, he had remained of the opinion that the kits could be used?

"Because, if the chain of custody was correct, we had confidence in our product. We have faith that it is tamper evident, we are happy that tamper evidence is still applicable."

Hatton pointed out that Versapak had performed tests of their own on a dozen of the kits and all had shown signs of marking.

Lennon read from a letter which Versapak had sent to customers suggesting they use other Versapak products - like tamper tape and secure hold-alls - to heighten security. Hatton conceded that IDTM had not taken up this option. "They were suggested as accessories. The product was still tamper evident."

Sahlstrom testified that the mission summary which Al and Kay Guy stated they filled out when they left the de Bruin household on January 10th, 1998, had been sent to his office by mail with the remainder of the doping control form. He could not give a precise date as to when he had received it.

Lennon asked if it was possible that the mission summary had been concocted by Al and Kay Guy some time after the laboratory report had become known. Sahlstrom replied that he received acknowledgements in relation to the summary by January 27th and, therefore, it must have been received before then. The Guys testified that they posted it on the day of the test.

Sahlstrom said he had total confidence in his testers and had no problems with the manner in which they acted. He said that they had behaved correctly in not raising the subject of the smell of whisky with Michelle de Bruin at the time.

Lennon asked how much urine were testers expected to collect. "I think the guide says approximately 75 millilitres," replied Salstrom.

"And how much was collected, Mr Salstrom?"

"70 millilitres."

"70 millilitres is not approximately 75 millilitres, is it Mr Sahlstrom?" said Lennon. There was laughter in court at which point chairman Yves Fortie intervened.

"You have many arguments, Mr Lennon. That was not one of your good ones."

There was extensive questioning over the procedures for transporting urine samples from point of collection to laboratories and detailed examination of an incident in November 1997 when a sample of de Bruin's took almost two weeks to arrive in the laboratory.

Sahlstrom also said that he didn't regard Al Guy's involvement in the 1983 incident where John Treacy was illegally entered for the World Championship a serious matter.

The court then broke for lunch and upon resumption there was brief testimony from a recalled witness, Dr Jordi Segura, regarding additional documentation which he had secured from his laboratory.