The Sample
Dr Jordi Segura is head of the municipal laboratory in Barcelona which tested and analysed Michelle de Bruin's January 1998 sample.
Dr Segura performed an analysis of de Bruin's January 10th sample on January 15th 1998. The steroid profile at the time showed testosterone precursor.
During the counter-analysis of the B sample on May 21st, 1998, Dr Segura said that he had attempted to show the specific data relating to the steroid profile to Peter Lennon, de Bruin's solicitor. He said that Mr Lennon declined to view the data and would only consider information relating to alcohol and manipulation. Mr Lennon later asserted that this was a lie.
The January 15th test was superseded by technology on February 4th when the Winter Olympics opened in Nagano, Japan. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) used a new variant of mass spectrometry analysis of urine in Nagano called isotope ratio mass spectrometry. Dr Segura subsequently applied it in Barcelona to the de Bruin sample. It was legal to do this for supporting evidence. It told him that the unidentified testosterone precursor was in fact androstenodione.
Three of de Bruin's samples, from November 1997 to March 1998, had shown evidence of this testosterone precursor. The highest concentration occurred in the disputed January 1998 test. Did Dr Segura take this as evidence that the precursor had been recently administered?
"Yes it was taken before the sample was given. The time scale is not easy to say, but results of the profile suggest it was taken in the previous 10 to 12 hours."
He was asked if the addition of alcohol prevented him from getting an exact measure of the concentration.
"The alcohol in itself doesn't cause a problem, but indicates the sample has been diluted. The real concentration in the original could be almost double."
Michael Beloff QC, a member of the CAS panel, asked if the addition of alcohol would be of benefit to an athlete attempting to cheat. "Yes," said Dr Segura.
The Drug
The word androstenodione had been referred to in previous discussions merely as the substance "A". Early in Dr Segura's evidence, Peter Lennon had objected strenuously to Dr Segura being permitted to continue with his evidence on the basis that the drug was about to be named and such a turn of events would be prejudicial to his client.
The gamble of seeking to have the hearing held in public came into sharp focus at that juncture. Legal experts felt that Lennon had encouraged it in order to raise the stakes if the name of the drug was disclosed.
Jean-Pierre Morand, acting for FINA, baited Lennon: "But Mr Lennon when you begged us to have the hearing in public, you knew this was coming."
"I never begged," said Lennon.
Androstenodione is a banned testosterone precursor used on it's own or more commonly "stacked" with other steroids in order to improve strength and durability. It recommends itself to cheating athletes by the speed with which it passes through the system and its ability to synthesise other drugs, thus saving the liver.
The Specific Gravity
In the early days of the case much was made by the de Bruin defence of the apparent difference in the specific gravity reading taken by Al Guy in Kellsgrange House, Kilkenny, on January 10th 1998 and the reading taken by Dr Segura in the Barcelona laboratory five days later. The defence asserted that this proved the urine was different. FINA contended that the difference was usual given that Mr Guy had tested with a dipstick/indicating strip and the laboratory had tested with a highly-calibrated machine. Jean-Pierre Morand asserted: "Is it not the case Dr Segura that in Mr Lennon's presence in Barcelona on the 21st of May, you tested the B sample with the dipstick method used by Mr Guy. . . The measurement in Kilkenny and in Barcelona when effected with the same method produced identical results."
Dr Jordi Segura: "Yes." What had been a strength of the de Bruin case thus became a weakness.
The Canisters
Monica Bonfanti presented the report of the University of Lausanne laboratory which had been commissioned by the CAS for an independent verdict on whether or not the canisters used to transport de Bruin's urine samples had been tampered with.
Bonfanti testified that on Friday, April 30th, she had, in the presence of Lennon and counsel for FINA, performed various tests on canisters. They had been testing various canisters since April 20th, trying to ascertain if they could be opened without marking them. Bonfanti 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. The boiling method left minor whitening and small distortions in the plastic. The laboratory had concluded that on the basis of observations the de Bruin canister showed "no signs of opening."
Peter Lennon queried the tests carried out in his presence.
"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.
The Testers
Al And Kay Guy gave evidence separately. Kay Guy was asked to leave the room while her husband testified.
Peter Lennon sought to press Al Guy on his qualifications.
"I have 18 years of experience with dope testing," said Al Guy conceding that he had not undergone any of the five stages of training outlined in an IDTM document.
Mr Guy supplied a chronology of the trip to Kilkenny on the morning of January 10th, offering an almost minute-by-minute account of all that transpired after they arrived. He testified that de Bruin was out of his sight for at least four to six minutes after she opened the gate to her residence.
Afterwards, Al and Kay Guy had consulted each other as to whether they had both smelled whiskey. They had. They mentioned this in their mission summary. The urine sample was kept in their fridge for the weekend following previous problems with DHL deliveries to Barcelona at weekends. It was sent by courier on Monday morning.
Kay Guy's cross-examination followed similar lines. At one stage, Lennon attempted to force her to state categorically whether or not she had seen de Bruin interfere with her vagina on the morning on January 10th. Mrs Guy, seeking to stress that she couldn't see everything, refused at length to provide a one-word answer. Finally, prompted by Michael Beloff, she allowed that that de Bruin might have effected such an action but she hadn't seen it as her view was hindered by the blue fleecey top Ms de Bruin was wearing.
She was questioned also about the whiskey odour.
"When you consulted with your husband was it not beholden on you to go back and confront the de Bruins."
"No we had taken the sample. That was our mission. Time was as the essence. We wanted to facilitate Michelle getting to the airport. We put it in the report."
The Swimmer
Michelle DE Bruin's cross-examination by FINA's Jean-Pierre Morand was brief and sour.
"You are part of the Team 2000 for Irish swimming."
"No I am not."
"You have been to how many tests since 1996?"
"I don't know, I gave the records to my solicitor."
"Hmm. In a programme it said that in 1996 you submitted a blank location form (regarding her whereabouts for testing)."
"No I didn't."
De Bruin introduced new elements to her account of what had happened on January 10th, 1998. For the first time she claimed that she had needed three visits to the toilet to produce 70 millilitres of urine. Previously it had been thought that the urine was given in two tranches. Al and Kay Guy continued to insist that de Bruin had only visited the toilet twice.
De Bruin said that on the morning of January 10th she was up early as she had to travel to Dublin to meet a French swim coach called Phillippe who needed her signature on a document to enable her to swim for his club in Paris later in the year. She had been preparing to leave the house when Al Guy called her name and stated the reason for the early morning visit.
She suggested that she had been out of the sight of the Guys for "less than a minute" while she ran upstairs to tell Erik de Bruin of the change of plan. Al Guy would later insist that his estimate of four to six minutes was conservative.
The three-lawyer panel questioned her briefly and pointedly.
Why had she given all her documents to lawyers?
"Because I feared for their security."
"The Guys said you were out of sight for four to six minutes"
"That is incorrect."
De Bruin's testimony took no more than 20 minutes.
