Sir, - I am deeply concerned about the Michelle de Bruin controversy for a number of reasons, but primarily because the raging debate appears to me to be largely irrelevant and to miss the salient issue.
There is virtually unanimous agreement on the two main issues involved: (i) the taking, by athletes, of performance enhancing drugs is abhorrent and unacceptable; (ii) there must be effective measures put in force to eradicate it and to eliminate from competition athletes who transgress.
Gary O'Toole (at all times patently honest and honourable) in his article in the Sunday Independent of August 9th clearly sets out his distress, explains his longstanding doubts about Michelle de Bruin's latter-day achievements, and unequivocally supports the FINA ban on her for allegedly tampering with the urine sample taken in the early part of this year.
But there is an even more important principle at stake, a principle which applies whether it is Michelle Smith de Bruin who is involved, or any other athlete. That is the principle of the presumption of innocence. The ignoring or whittling down of this principle has terrifying implications far beyond this case.
As far as I am concerned, the one, straightforward issue in the matter is: has it been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Michelle de Bruin at any time took performance-enhancing illegal substances?
As I understand the facts, she has been tested time out of number for drug abuse, and no test has shown that she did; and the tampered urine sample also showed no trace of illegal substances (apart from alcohol).
I shall (as I think we all should) leave aside for the moment, until all the facts are clarified, the matter of tampering with a sample, which in itself is an offence. The obvious question - why tamper with a sample except for nefarious reasons? - raises the equally obvious question: why tamper with a sample which is drug-free?
Michelle de Bruin has been convicted and condemned (i) because her performances in the pool improved, over a relatively short period, to an extraordinary extent and (ii) because she allegedly tampered with a sample (which is hotly disputed) in a manner which is not known and for a reason which has not been explained.
I, no more than anybody else (except the de Bruins) do not know whether or not Michelle de Bruin took performance-enhancing drugs. I do know that the rise and rise of her performances in the pool give rise to legitimate questions. But I also know that to condemn and disgrace her without reasonable proof is outrageous.
So far as I am concerned, the guilty parties are FINA and the other sporting bodies. They have a duty to stamp out the scandal of the use of performance-enhancing drugs. This they have signally failed to do. - Yours, etc., Vincent Drum,
Church Road,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.