The world governing body for swimming, FINA, was insistent last night that Irish Olympic swimmer Michelle de Bruin has serious charges to answer in relation to a doping test on her in January.
The damaging nature of the drug test charges levelled against de Bruin became clearer yesterday afternoon at a press conference by the swimmer and her legal representatives in Dublin.
In a statement expanding on what has become an international controversy, de Bruin said she faces three charges:
circumventing regulations on the way a random dope test is to be taken, by taking advantage of a banned procedure;
using a banned substance;
altering the outcome of a test by using "a substance and a method to alter the integrity" of a urine sample submitted to drug testers.
De Bruin said she was disgusted that the laboratory in Barcelona which tested the sample of her urine had described it "as having a very strong whiskey odour". She added that the laboratory said the content of alcohol in the sample is in no way compatible with human consumption.
FINA has yet to make a specific statement on the charge which appears to relate to the detection of an illegal substance. However, de Bruin revealed that FINA had ordered a long-term analysis of her testosterone profile to determine her levels of the hormone over a greater period of time.
The governing body declined to elaborate further on the precise nature of the serious charges made against de Bruin, but stuck firmly to its assertion that a doping test submitted by the swimmer last January showed signs of "obvious manipulation."
If any of the charges is proved, it could be sufficient to end de Bruin's career. All of the charges carry serious sanctions, with the manipulation of a urine sample carrying a penalty up to lifetime suspension from the sport.
FINA issued a brief statement yesterday morning alleging the manipulation of the sample. The organisation's honorary secretary, Mr Gunnar Werner, speaking from Australia, said last night: "There are of course many rumours but we have a procedure to follow and would wish to avoid speculation. What we have reported is that there has been obvious manipulation and we will say nothing more explicit than that at this time."
De Bruin and her lawyers have until May 18th, the date of a meeting of the FINA doping commission, to decide whether to proceed with further analysis of the other half of the urine sample in question. This part of the sample sits in a sealed container in a laboratory in Barcelona and may hold the key to de Bruin's future.
At a tense press conference in her solicitor's office, de Bruin said she was "stunned" when informed this week of the charges being made against her. "I am innocent of these charges, I am appalled at the manner in which they have been leaked into the public domain and I intend fully defending them, if necessary, all the way to the International Sports Court in Switzerland."
She added that she had no intention of "taking this lying down" or being bullied by any organisation or media interest. Up to 100 media personnel, including several international television crews, filled the small room set aside for the press conference as de Bruin read a 16-minute statement.
She described in detail how the sample in question was taken at her home in Kilkenny on January 10th by a couple authorised by FINA, Mr and Mrs Al and Kay Guy. In accordance with procedures, the sample was divided in two and the "A sample" was tested in Barcelona later the same month.
De Bruin said the report of this test had been in FINA's possession since February 5th, yet FINA had not notified the Irish governing body, the IASA, until Monday of this week.
"All athletes live in fear of the situation I now find myself in," she said. "Doping control regulations require the athlete to effectively prove his or her innocence even where logical explanations clearly show the allegations are unfounded."
Ms de Bruin's father, Mr Brian Smith, claimed FINA had made the mistake and his daughter was paying for it.
The swimmer's solicitor, Mr Peter Lennon, said his client was entitled to know the specific nature of the charges against her, but to date FINA had refused to supply the relevant information.
Mr Guy last night refused to be drawn on the controversy, saying it was a matter for Ms de Bruin, the IASA and FINA.
"We deplore this leak to the media and have every sympathy for Michelle at this time," he told The Irish Times. "She is entitled to her privacy and dignity at this stage rather than this circus which seems to be happening."
"We are merely agents for the IDTMA (International Doping Testing Management Association) and it would not be appropriate for us to comment. There is a forum and a time . . . "