The following is the text of the statement issued by Michelle de Bruin at her press conference yesterday:
I would like to thank you all for coming here today and I am sorry that yet again I have to deal with further unfounded slurs and allegations that have been made against me.
I am in a difficult position meeting you today because I am not aware of a number of important facts concerning the issue by FINA of a notice to me on the 27th of April.
All of you are aware that over my career I have been tested on numerous occasions in competition and believe that I have been tested out of competition on more occasions than any other swimmer in recent history.
I have no difficulty with testing procedures and indeed have no difficulty with out-of-competition testing and accept that it is a vital part in the continued campaign to abolish the use of banned substances and drug enhancing products in sport generally.
As some of you may know, I specifically asked to be included in the Sydney 2000 testing programme which started at the European championships in Seville. At those championships I provided a blood sample for the programme.
As you may be aware I had intended taking part in the World Swimming Championships in Australia in January but was unable to do so as a result of injuries I received in a road traffic accident in Carlow late last year.
Naturally I had been training in preparation for the World Championships and up to the time of my accident was in good form and felt reasonably confident about my prospects at the meeting.
An out-of-competition doping control test was carried out at my home in Kells, Co Kilkenny, at 10.45 a.m. on the 17th of November 1997 at 11.35 a.m.
This sample was taken by Mr and Mrs Guy, who are the nominated international sampling officers and they were in possession of the appropriate authorisations from FINA and the appropriate collection order.
That sample was taken and it had a specific gravity of 1.020 and had a Ph value of 6 and the amount of urine that was taken by the international sampling officer was 130 millilitres of urine.
That sample was taken strictly in accordance with FINA's own regulations and was submitted, I assume, by the sampling officers in accordance with the collection order to the Municipal Institute of Medical Investigation Laboratory in Barcelona.
I have received no notification from FINA or any third party with regard to any irregularity in relation to that particular sample.
At 8.14 a.m. on the 10th of January 1998, Mr and Mrs Guy again presented themselves at my home for the purposes of carrying out an out-of-competition doping control test.
Myself and Erik were, in fact, preparing to leave our house to go to Dublin when they announced their arrival.
I had urinated that morning when I woke up and when Mrs Guy indicated to me that they wanted to take the sample I told her that I would have some difficulty as I did not appear to have any water or other liquid in my bladder for the purposes of giving her a sample.
This, as you will probably realise, is a regular occurrence when sampling officers call unannounced and we agreed that I would drink a significant amount of water and that they would wait to take the sample which I duly did.
I am not certain when the sample was taken because they did not complete the sampling time on the doping control form but I think it was probably about an hour and three-quarters when I was in a position to provide them with a urine sample.
At the time that I gave the sample Mrs Guy was present with me and difficult as it is for me to describe how the sample is taken, I think it is important that I do so at this stage.
The FINA regulations require the athlete to undress so that the athlete is naked from the middle of her back to below her knees and in competition, as some of you may know, there can be mirrors installed on the wall behind the athlete's posterior.
The sampling officer watches as the urine is passed into the beaker that they provide and after that the sample is divided by me for the sampling officers in accordance with FINA's own regulations.
Both the sampling officers and myself watched the procedures being carried out and once the procedures have been carried out I sign the doping control form and approve the testing procedure.
It should be noted that FINA's own regulations require that approximately 75 ml of urine is passed in order for a proper sample quantity to be made available to the testing laboratory. Given the circumstances that I have already outlined, the quantity of urine that I passed for the sample was 70 ml.
The specific gravity of the sample is of significance and, indeed, of crucial importance in my opinion, with regard to the presence of banned substances or other enzymes or reactors in the samples, and the IOC and other organisations recommend that where the specific gravity of the sample is less than 1.015 the sample does not pass the required specific gravity levels that enable a proper analysis be carried out.
The specific gravity of the sample that I gave to Mr and Mrs Guy on the 10th of January 1998 had a density of 1.015, which is at the minimum limit required.
FINA's own doping control forms point out that if the first sample that the sampling officers take does not meet the required specific gravity, a second sample would be taken and a second doping control form will be used. Both samples must be submitted to the testing laboratory.
Testing specific gravity of urine samples is something that clearly is of importance from both the athlete's point of view and the International Association's point of view.
I again would like to point out that the beaker used and the subsequent vessels used by Mr and Mrs Guy for dividing the sample and submitting it to the laboratory in Barcelona were provided by them and were not provided by me and I am not aware of what procedures are used by international doping tests and management to ensure the sterility or non-contamination of these beakers.
On the 27th of April, FINA faxed the Irish Amateur Swimming Association in accordance with their rules and the Irish Amateur Swimming Association sent me a copy of the fax communication that day.
I was stunned by the content of the fax from FINA but more importantly was horrified with the content of the anti-doping analysis report, which had issued (sic) by the laboratory in Barcelona for a number of reasons.
1. The sample taken on the 10th of January 1998 arrived in Barcelona on the 14th of January 1998 and appears to have been tested by the laboratory at sometime between the 14th of January 1998 and the 30th of January 1998, yet the analysis report was only furnished to me on the 27th of April 1998.
2. The report itself discloses that it has been in the possession of FINA since the 5th of February 1998 and yet again I received no notification of FINA's view of the anti-doping analysis report until their fax of the 27th of April 1998.
FINA in their notification of the 27th of April 1998 accuse me of having committed offences according to their Rules DC1.2(b), DC2.1 and DC3.1(b).
I think it is important that you should be aware of the specific offences that I am charged with, having regard to the lack of information that I have been given to meet the offences as charged.
Firstly, I am accused of having taken advantage of a banned procedure.
Secondly, I am accused of using a banned substance, including those listed in Appendix 1 to FINA's guidelines, as well as all metabolites of any substances on the list and related substances.
Thirdly, I am accused of using a substance and a method which altered the integrity and validity of the urine sample used in doping control.
The medical section of FINA's rules, and in particular their 19982000 Year Hand Book, then refer to a greater explanation of the techniques which are banned and the banned substances which are referred to in their FINA guidelines for doping control, which also include help notes for athletes, competitors, coaches, doctors and escorts.
In first instance, FINA's own doping control regulations require that when they received an adverse report on an A sample, the competitor and the competitor's federation should be informed as soon as possible and arrangements for testing the B sample should also be made as soon as possible. I fail to understand why FINA have waited from the 5th of February 1998 until the 27th of April 1998 to inform me of the facts which they believe give rise to offences under FINA's Rules.
My solicitors have indicated that we did not want to debate this particular issue in public and were prepared to abide by FINA's rules, and in particular their Doping Control Rule 6.8, which provides that confidentiality would be observed by all persons connected with doping control until such time as the competitor is sanctioned in accordance with FINA Rules.
This has not proved possible as I believe the FINA communication and the anti-doping analysis report have been leaked to a member of the press and I have therefore been left with no option but to deal with this matter outside the rules of confidentiality in order to protect my good name and reputation.
All athletes live in fear of the situation that I now find myself in. Doping control regulations require the athlete to effectively prove his or her innocence, even where logical explanations clearly show that the allegations are unfounded.
FINA's rules specifically refer to a competitor being sanctioned when they are found to have a positive result. FINA also provide that before any final decision is made in the case of doping control, a fair hearing will be granted to the athlete and possibly other persons concerned.
The rules provide that if FINA find in an athlete's body tissue or fluid a banned substance or any of its metabolites, the onus will shift to the athlete of establishing why she or he should not be sanctioned to the full extent provided for under the rules.
The doping control regulations for out-of-competition doping tests provide again a reference to a "positive" result. The regulations provide that if an athlete is found to have an adverse report and subsequently a positive result, sanctions will be applied by FINA as if it were during a competition.
To date I have been given no indication of an adverse report by FINA but have been charged with having committed offences as I have said already. If FINA believe that their doping control reports are an adverse finding letter, then their adverse finding letter is most unusual and, to put it mildly, bizarre.
The first, and most important point, is that FINA provide that an adverse finding letter will contain the name of the banned substance and the athlete will be invited to explain to FINA or his or her own federation why that substance was in his or her urine.
The analysis report that I have received states that the results that the laboratory have obtained from the sample with the use, I should say, of mass spectrometer measurements which suggest, in the laboratory's opinion, the administration of some metabolic precursor of testosterone.
The use of the word testosterone is clearly highly emotive and something that clearly the laboratory were concerned about.
I am concerned about the use of the word "testosterone" but I am more concerned with the laboratory's indication to FINA in their own anti-doping analysis report that longitudinal follow up was recommended.
My solicitors have asked FINA for copies of any other anti-doping analysis reports that they have in their possession, given that a further out-of-competition doping test was carried out at my home on the 12th of March 1998.
Longitudinal follow up is exactly what it says and it requires the athlete to be tested on a minimum of three occasions before a detailed report of the longitudinal follow up and analysis can be provided. This has not happened in this case.
Some of you will be familiar with the reasoning why some athletes would attempt to use testosterone, which is one of the anabolic andronic steroids, and in FINA's regulations is a class one prohibited substance.
FINA's doping control medical code is that of the IOC, which was passed on the 31st of January 1997.
All of us here in this room have testosterone in their bodies and that is why the IOC have long recognised that there must be a presence of testosterone to epitestosterone in a ratio greater than 6:1 in the urine of a competitor before an offence is committed.
The IOC also provide that unless there is evidence that the ratio has been exceeded due to a physiological or pathological condition, that ratio level is the acceptable one upon which they would expect to act.
What is also clear from the FINA analysis is that my T/E ratio did not exceed the limits, as if it had, I would have been charged with that specific offence.
The second offence, and perhaps the most startling one with which I am charged, is referred again today in the press release from FINA, where they say that the IOC-accredited laboratory conducting the analysis have reported that there are unequivocal signs of adulteration and that the results of the analysis was also compatible with physical manipulation.
This seems to me to be quite extraordinary in a situation where an out-of-competition dope test is carried out by, I assume, qualified sampling officers who themselves have available regulations and penalties that can be imposed on the athlete where the athlete attempts to interfere or adulterate or manipulate physically the sample.
I have already said that Mrs Guy was present at all times when the samples were being taken and both Mr and Mrs Guy were also present when the samples were divided, etc. in accordance with FINA's rules.
I am however disgusted with the result and the manner in which it is communicated by the laboratory in Barcelona to FINA, where they describe the sample and I quote "as having a very strong whisky odour". I am not certain how many whisky experts were used by the laboratory and were this not the most serious challenge to my career and my credibility, it would be mildly amusing.
They say that there are unequivocal signs of adulteration and that there is a content of alcohol in the sample which is in no way compatible with human consumption.
Most importantly, however, they are reporting that the sample had a very low specific gravity of 0.983g/ml which they say is compatible with physical manipulation. You will recall that the specific gravity reported by the sampling officers of the urine sample when it was completed by them had a specific gravity of 1.015.
My solicitors, who will deal with any specific questions that you may have, in so far as is possible and without detracting from my vigorous defence of these charges, have written to FINA and have asked them simply to put before me a number of facts which may help me in identifying the specific charges of which I am accused.
I have also asked them to provide me with details of any other analysis or reports that they have in their possession, concerning their out-of-competition test which was carried out on the 12th of March 1998. Unfortunately, both Mr Marculescu and Mr Werner are in Australia and are unable to deal with the matter at this time but I hope that they will deal with it promptly when they return to the offices in Lausanne.
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.
I have no intention of taking this lying down and I have no intention of being bullied by any organisation, national or international or any media interest, national or international.
I respect the support that you have given me in the past, I hope I have not let you down and I hope that my good name and reputation, and the good name and reputation of Ireland will win out at the end of this unfortunate saga.