Michelle de Bruin could face a four-year ban from swimming if found to have used a performance-enhancing drug, her solicitor acknowledged yesterday.
But Mr Peter Lennon said his client was entitled to a fair hearing and to know what specific charges were being laid against her. The sport's world governing body, FINA, had so far refused to provide this information, which made it impossible to advise Ms de Bruin on the options before her, he told a press conference at his law firm's offices in Dublin.
Asked if the latest episode would make his client consider her future, Mr Lennon said the likely probability in a case of this nature was that the doping control panel, if it accepted the findings of the laboratory in Barcelona, would impose a ban.
"If it's a category one substance then that ban will probably be for four years with a retrospective cancellation of Michelle's results from the date of the analysis for a period of six months.
"That would have the effect of stripping Michelle of her gold medals and silver medals that she won at the European Championships in Seville." He agreed the case was likely to be decided ultimately by the International Sports Court in Switzerland, established two years ago to arbitrate on sports disputes.
Mr Lennon said FINA had been asked to say specifically what banned substance had been found in a sample of the swimmer's urine which had been tested in Barcelona, and why it had taken so long for Ms de Bruin to be notified of the result. The sample was taken and tested in January.
The reply from FINA had been unsatisfactory to say the least, he said. It had said that until a second sample taken at the same time in January was tested, Ms de Bruin's situation was "without tarnish or any impugnment".
That flew in the face of the fact that FINA had made a clear charge that Ms de Bruin had used a metabolic precursor of testosterone.
"Yet it appears that FINA are not prepared to indicate to us what that metabolic precursor is, and that presents us, as her legal team, with a significant difficulty," he said.
"Until we know what the product is, until we know whether in fact it is on the list of banned products, and until we know whether it is in fact a performance-enhancing drug, it is impossible to advise Michelle Smith de Bruin of the options that are available to her."
"If it is a doping control case our client is entitled to a fair hearing; to have a fair hearing she's entitled to know the charges that have been laid against her, not in general terms, but she's entitled to specifically know what type or form of drug she is alleged to have used," he said.
More importantly, she was also entitled to know in what circumstances she was alleged to have tampered with the sample.
It seemed to him to be an "extraordinary turn of events" for a laboratory in Barcelona "to say that they believe there was some physical interference with the sample when their own sampling agents collected the sample and have carried out the sampling arrangements in accordance with FINA's regulations."
Mr Lennon said a mistake could have been made, innocent or otherwise, with regard to the testing procedures. "We've made no accusation of any world plan to destroy Michelle's career or of anybody deliberately doing anything to the sample. What we have said is that we'd like to know what did happen to the sample."
Mr Lennon said the results of the test appeared to have been mischievously leaked by someone who knew it would have a "devastating effect" on his client. The doctrine of confidentiality with regard to doping controls should be sacrosanct.
When he had said there was no worldwide campaign to discredit Ms de Bruin, he had meant in relation to this particular event. "There has been a concerted attack on Michelle as we're all aware and that has continued unabated through the European Championships and indeed at every turn of the road that she's gone down.
"Michelle has said she's not going to take it lying down. We are fully prepared and accept that we will probably have to go to the sports court in Switzerland to deal with the doping control panel's findings if and when they make them, if they are adverse to Michelle." The findings of the laboratory were not being accepted at this stage. "We would need significant information from that laboratory as to how the test was carried out and more importantly what happened to the sample from the time it left Michelle's home in Kilkenny and the time it arrived in Barcelona."
