LEGENDARY RTÉ SPORTS commentator Jimmy Magee says Michelle Smith should have been included in the Olympic Torch relay on Irish soil this summer.
Smith won three gold medals and one bronze at the 1996 Games in Atlanta, making her Ireland’s most successful Olympian.
Advertisement
She was banned from swimming for four years in 1998, however, because a drug sample was said to have been tampered with.
“I want to emphasise this: Michelle Smith has three gold medals and one bronze medal and they were never taken away, they were never withdrawn. Do you know why? Because she never failed a dope test. Never, ever,” Magee said on Newstalk this morning. “She should have been on the flame relay.
“There’s a certain type of invasive journalism and that’s the way they want to work. You can go out and find dirty stories about anybody, you know that. Michelle Smyth is now a barrister and she studied for the bar. And in all Ireland she was no 3 in the bar examination. Do you think she took something for that?”
Magee — who is promoting his new book Memory Man — added that he thinks the case against seven-time Tour de France champion, Lance Armstrong is ‘nonsense’. The former US Postal team leader has decided against continuing his fight against doping charges and looks set to be stripped of the titles. Magee however reckons the Texan was clean throughout his reign at the front of the peloton.
“There’s certain journalists have been chasing Lance Armstrong for years. He won seven Tours de France and let me just say: in 1993 he won the world road race championship. I was there on a rainy day and he was 19 and everyone said he’s the future. Well he had just won the world championship so he was the present as well but what’s he going to do in the future.
“But 18 months later he got cancer, testicular cancer, and it spread and they said he’d never really be well again. Forget about sport. But he got well. Clearly he had to take a lot of stuff to get well but he got well. And not only did he return to ride the Tour but he won it seven times. And when he won it the fifth time or the sixth time people started to say he must be on something, this can’t be right. I feel it’s nonsense.
“In years to come when people at pub quizzes are asked who was the first man to win seven Tours de France, they will still answer Lance Armstrong,” he told the station’s morning show.
Normal rubbish about michelle on here.
Have a look at her swim times people, 3 to 4 seconds outside any Olympic times, not even Personal bests were hit.
4 to 6 hrs a day in the pool for 3 years.
The US didn’t perform on the day, been crying about it since.
Rant over.
@LittleJim you should take your own advice and have a look at the trajectory of her times throughout her career and what exactly is generally physically possible for a female swimmer at that point of her career. The improvement in her performances were statistically improbable.
You show me some facts Miguel, and I’ll gladly look.
Show me even a pic of this “tainted sample”. You won’t find it becuase it was reported in the US where they “forgot” to bring it back with them.
Even the Olympic council there said “Stop Crying!!” (not actual quote)
Little Jim I believe that some pools are faster than others based on the water viscosity. So not only were M Smiths times faster than before but she possibly achieved that in a slow pool.
If you compare the Barcelona olympics to the atlanta games you will see the Barcelona pool gave much faster times even though it was 4 years earlier.
This makes the fact that she improved in a slower pool more of a question
Jim, I’m not even talking about the tainted sample. I’m talking about how unlikely it was for a female competitor of her age and her previous times to achieve such rapid improvement in time for Atalanta. Quite simply, it defies everything we know about human physiology and the sport. Draw your own conclusions.
That’s the point Jim. It’s highly improbable that a trained athlete who couldn’t run better than a 4:20 mile by the age of 25 would by the age of 27 be able to run 3:55.
Sans a healthy regime of Androstenedione, that is.
For an intelligent man he is starting to sound deluded. All those other athletes that missed a medal due to the winner being pumped up on drugs is a disgrace. M Smith was clearly on something with the ridiculous improvement in the season up to and including the olympics. Unsurprisingly I think her husband may have had form in the discus for steroid abuse. Her 4 year ban for corrupting a sample says it all really.
Come on, Les. Passing In-competition tests doesn’t mean she wasn’t ploughing the gear into her for a couple of years beforehand under the watchful eye of her clean-as-a-whistle hubby/fella/bloke
I know all about the husband and his Dodgy dealings. But if you remember the American swimmer kicking up the massive fuss, no doubt that threw the spotlight on her even further, yet they still found nothing.
True. She did make STAGGERING progress over the previous couple of years which was deffo suspicious. Apropos of nothing, I saw her in a restaurant in late 1998 and she looked quite….er, manly, wavy strawberry blonde tresses notwithstanding.
Have a look at her times in her previous career, and then in the build-up to her medals, and all of that in the context of what is possible and has historically taken place in the field of women’s swimming. Let’s just say, given all the evidence, some improvements like that are statistically improbably. So improbable, in fact, they take a suspension of disbelief.
such crap about what is “statistically probable” how do you know it wasnt her strong will driving her on? or that her hours and hours of training wasnt responsible for her times peaking?
They each need to be looked at on their own merits, Mark. There is ostensibly no reason to believe that each new world record has been set due to performance enhancing drugs. No-one is implying that.
@ Mark O’Brien
The issue is not Michelle breaking world records, the issue is Michelle improving her own times to a physiologically impossible degree. Please, try not to be so stupid.
No one who is found guilty of tampering with a drugs sample (an extremely serious charge) should be invited to carry the Olympic torch. It goes against the basic ideals of the movement.
Fool should be sacked, calls himself a sports Journalist. Failing a test is total red herring, she contaminated the test herself so that it could not be processed. This along with the overwhelming circumstantial evidence should be enough for any right minded sports follower. To put this in context, Marion Jones went to prison for a similar offense, I would like to see the same happen to Michelle Smith.
The shame and disgrace she brought upon Irish sport, the win at all costs and blatant cheating is a terrible example to young athletes.
If she came clean and told the truth might be a start to her rehabilitation but she still lies about it to this day, so shame on anyone who supports her!
I’d love to know what contribution G has made to Irish sport to entitle such pontificating. Firstly Smith doesn’t continue to lie about anything, she doesnt even talk about it as far as I’m aware. In fact she was offered the chance to carry the flame but declined as she did not wish to have to deal with accusations from the likes of G. Her achievements in Atlanta still rank as some of my best sporting memories. And as for disgracing Irish sport. There are far more qualified candidates out there than Michelle Smith…
Well Ciaran, you are obviously not a proper supporter of sport, I watched the Atlanta games but in my heart of hearts I knew I was watching a cheater, I hoped I was wrong but sadly my instinct proved correct. How anyone can claim joy at those Atlanta medals is beyond me.
As for your other point, smith lied throughout the whole process bringing as many legal challenges as she could to the findings of an honest drug enforcement panel. she has still not come clean and admitted what she did.
Come off it! I don’t agree with jimmy on what he’s saying here, but to say he’s the worst commentator ever shows your complete inability to see talent. His commentary on Katie Taylor would move a grown man to tears.
Personally don’t know or care enough to comment on the Smith case. But jimmy is completely wrong when it comes to talking about lance. He hasn’t a clue. Lance was also using the drugs before he got cancer as well.
Everyone who has an autobiography out always comes out with some controversial statement. Jimmy was on the Late Late Show recently as well as several other shows. It’s called self promotion. I disagree with his views on this issue strongly.
Jimmy is exactly right.
Michelle Smith is one of greatest Olympian’s and she has never been given that recgonition.
She done everything she was asked in Atlanta and was never found guilty.
@ Barry… Finally!!! I agree. When people judge Michelle Smith they should remember that she was the most tested athlete during the Atlanta Olympics and was never failed , and if we can’t believe the people that do the drugs testing during the Olympic games then why should we believe ANY athletes that win gold medals during any of the games are sincere? In fact why watch at all? A fellow competitor of Michelle Smith during those Olympics, a USA competitor, kicked up a stink when Michelle won.. this also happened when one of the Korean swimmers this year in London beat a girl from the USA in the swimming.. The Koreans denied it but it tainted her win which wasn’t fair.. What happened after with the drugs sample is another story…
The same issue arises with Florence Griffith-Joyner, ‘Flojo’, she never failed a drugs test during her career but she came out if nowhere at the 1988 Olympic Games and blew the competition out of the water, excuse the pun. There have always been question marks over her staggering progression late in her career, just like Michelle.
We saw at London all these teenagers destroying the competition in the pool. Surely progression late into one’s twenties is possible but Michelle was abnormally better than her previously ragtag career pre-1996.
Lucille your comment displays staggering naivety. Most athletes don’t fail tests during competition for a start, it’s afterwards when they are hinted down that they do. Al and Kay Guy were the two testers that smith evaded to such an extent they had to nab her at 7am for a urine sample. Which she then mixed with southern comfort. Hardly the behaviour of the innocent now is it. She was cheating 100% at the Olympics and to disbelieve that makes anybody a fool
Apparently were all ageists and chemical analysts suddenly. Jimmy Magee is to boxing what Mícheál Ó Muircheartaigh is to GAA, both fountations of knowledge in their field. Michelle Smith NEVER failed a dope test despite a media frenzy caused by a faltering US competitor making accusations in a US held competiton.
Comparing Jimmy Magee to Mícheál Ó Muircheartaigh is just so wrong. Ó Muircheartaigh is simply class, whereas Jimmy should at best be allowed to captain a pub quiz team.
I’d have to be on drugs to buy his book tbh.
I know no more than you do Gerry, only the facts as the stand, I try not to jump on conclusion generated bandwagons. And Peter, that is just down-right stupid, hard luck little fella.
Ciaran, you’re talking nonsense. As I said above, look at Smith’s previous times, her radical improvements and what is actually physically possible and has actually taken place in the history of female swimming. It is simply improbable.
As to never failing a test: well that’s completely irrelevant because the dopers are 10 years ahead of the testers, according to the head of Wada. In fact, the same man effectively said athletes have to be stupid to get caught.
Again, the fact these athletes are passing tests is simply irrelevant. The tests just aren’t good enough.
@Peter, the fact she never get close to a world record is a red herring and, also, irrelevant. It is about what is statistically possible for a woman of her previous times at that stage of her career.
@Miguel
The reason you can’t answer a direct question is because the stastistics you are quoting are just stastistics & to be honest complete bullshit, a new training regime,diet,maturing & ambition can drive a world class athlete beyond what people expected. She was 26ish when she won,hardly a washed up hasbeen. It always surprises me the lack of support she received, she was found guilty of nothing & yet you condem her so strongly because her times improved which according to you are impossible for a lady her age. The ‘weir wolf’ went & trained with a cycling club & he has said that this type of training is the reason he won gold medals, the high performance training for our boxers paid huge dividends one example is paddy Barnes, didn’t score a point in 08 yet this time against the same opponent he lost on a count back. In your own words the dopers are 10 years ahead so fcuk knows who who has been bold.
Yes Peter. Training regime,diet,maturing & ambition. And a husband who’d been done for PEDs. And a tampered OOC drug test. AND they STILL found traces of Androstenedione in her whiskey piss. What reason would they have to discredit her? She kept her Olympic golds after all.
Wake up and smell the coffee FFS.
Quit following some bollix notion of the flag at all costs when the truth is a far better standard, and a true champion is a better reflection on the nation than a sulphurous phantom.
@Peter, the reason I can’t answer a direct question is because I don’t want me, or the Journal, to be sued. Her times defied everything we know about swimming and human physiology. We can believe in the as-yet proven facts of human physiology or we can bury our head in the sand. Take your pick.
“Her times defied everything we know about swimming and human physiology”…. Ye Shiwen is 16yrs old & she clocked 7seconds of her previous competition time & split faster than phelps in her last 100meters, so by your rationale she must be eating the PEDs. Well done yourself!
@Peter You clearly know nothing about libel laws – consider the fact that David Walsh’s book LA Confidential was pulped initially; it wouldn’t be now. And, whatever about Ye (who came under rightful suspicion herself) people have different physiologies! Usain Bolt can run faster than you… therefore some swimmers can swim faster than others. Christ man, that’s the most stupid point made yet.
Not only that, Peter, as well as already having times that were more conducive to that kind of improvement, Ye was at EXACTLY the age where female swimmers make such improvements: 16. In her mid-twenties, Smith/De Bruin most certainly wasn’t. Honestly, if you actually read up on this properly, you wouldn’t be making some of the comments you are.
If people continue to deny facts and rationality in order to peddle a view they simply find favourable, it’s either stupid or blind. Sorry, but take your pick.
As I asked you before, did Michelle smith cheat using PEDs to win her Olympic medals, you told me that I do not understand libel laws,I do. You told me that you were afraid that the journal & yourself would be sued. I’m of the opinion that if you won’t back up your claims then you should whist or just leave it as your opinion & not insult a person who does not share your view my friend.
I’ve laid out the facts. You’ve chosen to ignore them. A female swimmer improvement her times by that extent in her mid-20s is quite simply unprecedented. Again, take from that what you will. I know what I believe.
As regards libel, why would no publisher print David Walsh’s book on Lance Armstrong in 2005? Oh, it’ll likely get a printer now, I can tell you.
You have laid out your interpretation of the ‘facts’ & that is all you have done, just because you are an employee of the journal does not make your interpretation correct. Also, just because something is unprecedented does not make it impossible. I respect your opinion however your attitude to a different opinion is what i find bizarre.
Peter, this is a lot more than my “interpretation”. This is scientific evidence. While I apologise for calling you “stupid” I find your opinion – not interpretation – on the manner flabbergasting. I can’t understand how any rational or logical person can see it that way. Essentially, you’re saying that Smith is a biological freak. In these cases, such instances don’t tend to be the case.
Miguel you are easily flabbergasted & please don’t imply that I think Michelle smith is a ‘biological freak’ your words, sweet Jesus Miguel she didn’t grow an extra tit, she knocked a few seconds off her PB & beat a few average swimmers to win a few medals.
Sorry, but this is much more than “knocking a few seconds off her personal best” and therein lies your problem. Quite simply, if you have had a proper appreciation of the history, context, facts, stats and – yes – science, you would realise her improvements, at her age, were genuinely a freak occurrence in swimming.
I do not have a problem Miguel I have an opinion & it is as simple as that, she was a lot better pre Atlanta than you give her credit for. While I appreciate the case against her I give her the benefit of the doubt that surrounds her achievements, I know it’s difficult for you to comprehend my view on the subject & in my humble opinion your execution conveying this difficulty has an air of pomposity attached to it.
It’s hard not to have an air of pomposity when someone keeps denying reality. How would you respond if someone kept telling you the earth was flat in such headstrong fashion? That’s what this is tantamount to. The times really are that stark. Sure, it’s an opinion, but an opinion that goes against all available evidence. Anyway, I’ll leave you to enjoy your ignorance. Keep waving the flag.
Not justifying her but she was probably just a ‘better’ cheat than all the other cheats in her finals!
However stupid thing for him to say and he should be fired
Great time for the Magee….but his gaffes are nothing new. Remember the comments at the 1980 Moscow Olympics: “ah yes, the international bird of peace…the pigeon.”
I believe the fact she has never been stripped of her medals makes it worse. We have these ‘contaminated’ medals on our medals table with an asterisk beside them.
Tyler Hamilton explains in his book how he beat the testers: he knew how long it took for the stuff to leave his system, say 12 hours, and the testers in the mid-90s always called before 10am. So, 10:01 was a busy time…
Of course suspected and admitted dopers test clean in competition – the doping is to fuel the training, not the big day performance.
There are a few issues that trouble me over the Michelle smith story. Firstly regardless of what any one thinks happened she is our greatest Olympian. Secondly in the finals in 1996 she never got close to beating any of the world records. She was approx 4 secs outside the world records in the events except the 200 IM where she was 2.3 secs slower. In each final there were swimmers who if they had equalled their personal best they would have won gold instead. And finally I’d like to know how she managed to tamper with the sample given that the sample taker was supposed to stay with her for the duration. Did the person taking the sample do their job properly?
Paul , I believe that some pools are faster than others based on the water viscosity. So not only were M Smiths times faster than before but she possibly achieved that in a slow pool.
If you compare the Barcelona olympics to the atlanta games you will see the Barcelona pool gave much faster times even though it was 4 years earlier.
This makes the fact that she improved in a slower pool more of a question
LMAO here, so from this tread iv learned there is “fast” pools and “slow” pools, a little like “soft” going and “hard” going at horse races, like em, some horses preform better when the going is “soft” and some prefer it better when the going is “hard”, then maybe Michelle preformed better in the “slow” pools, and the other swimmers were “fast” pool swimmers, mystery solved !!!
Jimmys heart is in the right place, sure Michelle should b acknowledged for her, achievements in 96, she beat them at their own game, but to include Armstrong in that sentiment, is too much of a stretch for me, I know I’m lookin at it wit green tinted glasses, but so b it. The Armstrong story has a green aspect too , one paddy after him, mr kimmage, an paddy mcquaid minding him like a member of his own family, for a small country were stuck in everything.
Lance has done some good deeds in his life, but if he will not fight, why should you or anyone else do what he won’t do for himself? I am as disappointed in his surrender as I am in the doping charges.
I do agree with the point that just because someone excels in a sport over a long time doesn’t mean they are on performance enhancers all the time.
Every sport/discipline produces a great, far better than the rest at the time, person every so often.
Micheal Jordan, Pele, Ali, Schumacher, tiger woods etc etc.
Everyone in sport, especially at underage is trying to teach by example. What kind of example would it have set by allowing Michelle Smith carry the flag. Cheating is ok..
Thank God she didn’t – cheating is never ok.
People have to remember that WADA wasn’t even set up till 1999. And that the IOC and UCI were so far behind when it can to testing for banned substances or masking agents it wasn’t even funny. Along with the UCI’s 50% rule they practically let them dope… To quote Tyler Hamilton. “they had their doctors, we had ours. Ours were better.”
What confuses me is that why didn’t they get her to take another test and make sure for this one she couldn’t tamper with it? Surely that would clear things up completely. Then they could test her so many times over a short period. She couldn’t really complain if she tampered with a test and raised suspicion. She tampered with a test but unless she is found guilty of using drugs, its all speculation. You can’t assume someone is guilty of one charge because they did something else. If that was the case, half of us would be in jail. He who hasn’t sinned and all that…..
There’s a reason why tampering with your drug test is punished so severely. If you can’t work it out for yourself, then there’s no point in trying to explain it to you.
So you’re saying that upon catching someone who’s tried to fake their drug test, then we should just say to them, “aha! Caught you. Nice try. Ah sure go on, I’ll give you another chance to cheat.” Are you actually serious?
Poor Jimmy seems to see the best in everyone so I’m not too surprised by the comments, also the media coverage won’t hurt the book sales.
My main issue with the two cases is that the sports bodies in both cases were slow and ineffective. Neither person was really convicted, in the end they were only officially slandered.
Governments around the world need to legislate for “professional” sports competitors and make a database of banned substances for which criminal offences can be brought (for supply and consumption)
If you can get jail for not having a tv license why not for disgracing your nation and sport. Not to mention the physical harm caused
A decent man,but I found his wafflings about anything but the fight i was watching during his commentary’s of the Olympic boxing very annoying.In all probability based on the facts I have seen,Armstrong & Smith cheated there way to victory.
Time for a drug test Jimmy ?
Sorry to see Jimmy selling his integrity for the sake of a few bob. I always admired him and his professionalism.
Maybe he is like Gaybo after all.
god why do we have to drag the past up again!!!! let sleeping dogs be , no wonder we never progress enough dwelling on what might have been , retire jimmy….gracefully.
What a ridiculous standpoint to take, given the reams and reams of information about Armstrong, his donations to the UCI and relationships with its chairmen, his MO within the peloton, the Andreus, his failed tests for cortisone in 99 and EPO in Switzerland in 01, his tip-offs re: drug tests, the standing down of a drug bust at the team hotel just as the french police were about to enter, his relationship with dope guru Ferrari and their pre-season sessions in the canaries, the testimonies of teammates (what do they have to gain?), his endless stream apologias for drug cheats, his threatening of Lemond. But no, he never failed a drug test. It’s common knowledge that you have to be pretty stupid or sloppy to fail these tests the dopers are so far ahead. etc. etc. et-groaning-cetera.
But why bother with all that crap when you seem to be happy with the criteria for passing a drug test whereby an athlete simply gives a vial of Jameson to the tester?
I certainly agree that the “case” against Armstrong was a nonsense. He never officially failed a dope test. { I believe totally he was a dirty rider – but technically there is no proof.) And the riders who now take those wins from him on the record books have ALL failed test except 1 – Kloden – who was the first lieutenant to several dirty and SELF-CONFESSED! dopers.
Similarly the evidence and arguments against Michelle Smyth were all circumstantial and conjecture.
I agree with Jimmy – even if I believe Armstrong and Smyth are not squeaky clean.
Should be called the selective memory man.. Has he forgotten that she tampered with her urine , for f**k sake what more evidence do her deluded defenders need .
Michelle Smith was never stripped of her Olympic medals.
I met her several times and formed the opinion that she is a decent human being of high principle.
She is a high achiever as witnessed by her career since the Olympics and has even written legal textbooks.
Her big improvement in swimming at the time of the Olympics was attributed to a new training regime to develop her upper body.
I read a lot of opinionated gossip in the comments above but fail to see any facts or authority.
You’re some boy insulting from behind a keyboard miguel. Improbable doesnt mean impossible, and im not implying drug use in the paralympics but it runs parallel to the point that is being made about how it is improbable that an athlete can improve their times so much.Look at the 5000 meters almost if not all the athletes broke the previous world record in turn beating all their P.B by big margins. Before its said I am not implying drug use im pointing out that its possible to beat your previous times!!
Mark, you’re spectacularly missing the point. Of course it’s possible to beat your best times. No-one’s disputing that. What is highly unlikely is making ridiculous, unprecedented leaps at an age when female swimmers have passed their peak
Lee Chin: 'It does remind you yourself at times, ‘Jesus, am I next or whatever?'
34 mins ago
0
FreeBoost
Milne and Barron join Munster early on loan deal from Leinster
1 hr ago
20
silent treatment
'He wouldn't talk to me' - Bryson on playing final Masters round with McIlroy
14 Apr
26
Sign in or create a free account
To continue reading create a free account
Or sign into an existing account
Your Cookies. Your Choice.
Cookies help provide our news service while also enabling the advertising needed to fund this work.
We categorise cookies as Necessary, Performance (used to analyse the site performance) and Targeting (used to target advertising which helps us keep this service free).
We and our 168 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device. Selecting Accept All enables tracking technologies to support the purposes shown under we and our partners process data to provide. If trackers are disabled, some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you. You can resurface this menu to change your choices or withdraw consent at any time by clicking the Cookie Preferences link on the bottom of the webpage .Your choices will have effect within our Website. For more details, refer to our Privacy Policy.Privacy Policy
We and our vendors process data for the following purposes:
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
Cookies Preference Centre
We process your data to deliver content or advertisements and measure the delivery of such content or advertisements to extract insights about our website. We share this information with our partners on the basis of consent. You may exercise your right to consent, based on a specific purpose below or at a partner level in the link under each purpose. Some vendors may process your data based on their legitimate interests, which does not require your consent. You cannot object to tracking technologies placed to ensure security, prevent fraud, fix errors, or deliver and present advertising and content, and precise geolocation data and active scanning of device characteristics for identification may be used to support this purpose. This exception does not apply to targeted advertising. These choices will be signaled to our vendors participating in the Transparency and Consent Framework.
Manage Consent Preferences
Necessary Cookies
Always Active
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
Targeting Cookies
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
Functional Cookies
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
Performance Cookies
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Store and/or access information on a device 113 partners can use this purpose
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development 149 partners can use this purpose
Use limited data to select advertising 117 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Create profiles for personalised advertising 84 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Use profiles to select personalised advertising 84 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Create profiles to personalise content 39 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Use profiles to select personalised content 35 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Measure advertising performance 138 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Measure content performance 63 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources 78 partners can use this purpose
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Develop and improve services 86 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Use limited data to select content 37 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
Use precise geolocation data 49 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification 27 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Ensure security, prevent and detect fraud, and fix errors 95 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Deliver and present advertising and content 102 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Match and combine data from other data sources 73 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Link different devices 54 partners can use this feature
Always Active
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Identify devices based on information transmitted automatically 92 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
Save and communicate privacy choices 72 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
Jimmy’s retirement is long, long overdue.
Normal rubbish about michelle on here.
Have a look at her swim times people, 3 to 4 seconds outside any Olympic times, not even Personal bests were hit.
4 to 6 hrs a day in the pool for 3 years.
The US didn’t perform on the day, been crying about it since.
Rant over.
Oh jeez I must buy the book buy the book but the book it must be controversial buy the book. Douchbag
@LittleJim you should take your own advice and have a look at the trajectory of her times throughout her career and what exactly is generally physically possible for a female swimmer at that point of her career. The improvement in her performances were statistically improbable.
You show me some facts Miguel, and I’ll gladly look.
Show me even a pic of this “tainted sample”. You won’t find it becuase it was reported in the US where they “forgot” to bring it back with them.
Even the Olympic council there said “Stop Crying!!” (not actual quote)
Little Jim I believe that some pools are faster than others based on the water viscosity. So not only were M Smiths times faster than before but she possibly achieved that in a slow pool.
If you compare the Barcelona olympics to the atlanta games you will see the Barcelona pool gave much faster times even though it was 4 years earlier.
This makes the fact that she improved in a slower pool more of a question
Jim, I’m not even talking about the tainted sample. I’m talking about how unlikely it was for a female competitor of her age and her previous times to achieve such rapid improvement in time for Atalanta. Quite simply, it defies everything we know about human physiology and the sport. Draw your own conclusions.
Poor ould Jimmy….memory slipping a bit…
….there’s whiskey in the jar…piddle de i..
I can make my own mind up lads, you keep repeating what you read in the sun.
John, seriously, wtf!
Oh, I should be long gone from this thread, BUT….
Scattered, I thought you were being sarcastic, water can be wetter!! Ffs…
Miguel, some day the human body will break the four minute mile barrier!
Oh wait…
John…
As if I’d bother….
@Little Jim
She contaminated her sample with whiskey when cornered for a sample in her home….. A sign of innocence? I think not…
That’s the point Jim. It’s highly improbable that a trained athlete who couldn’t run better than a 4:20 mile by the age of 25 would by the age of 27 be able to run 3:55.
Sans a healthy regime of Androstenedione, that is.
Keep up.
Very well said Nivag. The point many people miss.
For an intelligent man he is starting to sound deluded. All those other athletes that missed a medal due to the winner being pumped up on drugs is a disgrace. M Smith was clearly on something with the ridiculous improvement in the season up to and including the olympics. Unsurprisingly I think her husband may have had form in the discus for steroid abuse. Her 4 year ban for corrupting a sample says it all really.
Then tell me how Michelle smith was the most tested athlete at Atlanta 96..and didn’t fail 1test.
Come on, Les. Passing In-competition tests doesn’t mean she wasn’t ploughing the gear into her for a couple of years beforehand under the watchful eye of her clean-as-a-whistle hubby/fella/bloke
I know all about the husband and his Dodgy dealings. But if you remember the American swimmer kicking up the massive fuss, no doubt that threw the spotlight on her even further, yet they still found nothing.
True. She did make STAGGERING progress over the previous couple of years which was deffo suspicious. Apropos of nothing, I saw her in a restaurant in late 1998 and she looked quite….er, manly, wavy strawberry blonde tresses notwithstanding.
Have a look at her times in her previous career, and then in the build-up to her medals, and all of that in the context of what is possible and has historically taken place in the field of women’s swimming. Let’s just say, given all the evidence, some improvements like that are statistically improbably. So improbable, in fact, they take a suspension of disbelief.
Poor Les – so naive.
Michelle Smith is as guilty as OJ Simpson.
such crap about what is “statistically probable” how do you know it wasnt her strong will driving her on? or that her hours and hours of training wasnt responsible for her times peaking?
…and monkeys might fly out of my butt.
@Mark O’Brien
I suppose some of us can believe in fairy tales, and some of us can believe in, well, reality.
I suppose the 150 odd world and paralympic records broken at the paralympics were drugs too then?
They each need to be looked at on their own merits, Mark. There is ostensibly no reason to believe that each new world record has been set due to performance enhancing drugs. No-one is implying that.
@ Mark O’Brien
The issue is not Michelle breaking world records, the issue is Michelle improving her own times to a physiologically impossible degree. Please, try not to be so stupid.
No one who is found guilty of tampering with a drugs sample (an extremely serious charge) should be invited to carry the Olympic torch. It goes against the basic ideals of the movement.
Fool should be sacked, calls himself a sports Journalist. Failing a test is total red herring, she contaminated the test herself so that it could not be processed. This along with the overwhelming circumstantial evidence should be enough for any right minded sports follower. To put this in context, Marion Jones went to prison for a similar offense, I would like to see the same happen to Michelle Smith.
The shame and disgrace she brought upon Irish sport, the win at all costs and blatant cheating is a terrible example to young athletes.
If she came clean and told the truth might be a start to her rehabilitation but she still lies about it to this day, so shame on anyone who supports her!
I’d love to know what contribution G has made to Irish sport to entitle such pontificating. Firstly Smith doesn’t continue to lie about anything, she doesnt even talk about it as far as I’m aware. In fact she was offered the chance to carry the flame but declined as she did not wish to have to deal with accusations from the likes of G. Her achievements in Atlanta still rank as some of my best sporting memories. And as for disgracing Irish sport. There are far more qualified candidates out there than Michelle Smith…
Well Ciaran, you are obviously not a proper supporter of sport, I watched the Atlanta games but in my heart of hearts I knew I was watching a cheater, I hoped I was wrong but sadly my instinct proved correct. How anyone can claim joy at those Atlanta medals is beyond me.
As for your other point, smith lied throughout the whole process bringing as many legal challenges as she could to the findings of an honest drug enforcement panel. she has still not come clean and admitted what she did.
Jimmy is a daft old waffler, and he is talking through his a**e here. Time to put him out to graze, RTE is littered with these dinosaurs.
Ah go away Jimmy, it is bad enough listening to you commentating on the TV, don’t want to be reading you drivel too, worst commentator ever.
Come off it! I don’t agree with jimmy on what he’s saying here, but to say he’s the worst commentator ever shows your complete inability to see talent. His commentary on Katie Taylor would move a grown man to tears.
Ah Jimmy, come on now. Don’t be messing putting your Legend status on the line at this late stage.
Personally don’t know or care enough to comment on the Smith case. But jimmy is completely wrong when it comes to talking about lance. He hasn’t a clue. Lance was also using the drugs before he got cancer as well.
yep.
*pictures this and cringes*
Everyone who has an autobiography out always comes out with some controversial statement. Jimmy was on the Late Late Show recently as well as several other shows. It’s called self promotion. I disagree with his views on this issue strongly.
Jimmy is exactly right.
Michelle Smith is one of greatest Olympian’s and she has never been given that recgonition.
She done everything she was asked in Atlanta and was never found guilty.
@ Barry… Finally!!! I agree. When people judge Michelle Smith they should remember that she was the most tested athlete during the Atlanta Olympics and was never failed , and if we can’t believe the people that do the drugs testing during the Olympic games then why should we believe ANY athletes that win gold medals during any of the games are sincere? In fact why watch at all? A fellow competitor of Michelle Smith during those Olympics, a USA competitor, kicked up a stink when Michelle won.. this also happened when one of the Korean swimmers this year in London beat a girl from the USA in the swimming.. The Koreans denied it but it tainted her win which wasn’t fair.. What happened after with the drugs sample is another story…
Were you supplying her with the “gear”?
The same issue arises with Florence Griffith-Joyner, ‘Flojo’, she never failed a drugs test during her career but she came out if nowhere at the 1988 Olympic Games and blew the competition out of the water, excuse the pun. There have always been question marks over her staggering progression late in her career, just like Michelle.
We saw at London all these teenagers destroying the competition in the pool. Surely progression late into one’s twenties is possible but Michelle was abnormally better than her previously ragtag career pre-1996.
Lucille your comment displays staggering naivety. Most athletes don’t fail tests during competition for a start, it’s afterwards when they are hinted down that they do. Al and Kay Guy were the two testers that smith evaded to such an extent they had to nab her at 7am for a urine sample. Which she then mixed with southern comfort. Hardly the behaviour of the innocent now is it. She was cheating 100% at the Olympics and to disbelieve that makes anybody a fool
Rofl
this fossil should be sent out to pasture
Apparently were all ageists and chemical analysts suddenly. Jimmy Magee is to boxing what Mícheál Ó Muircheartaigh is to GAA, both fountations of knowledge in their field. Michelle Smith NEVER failed a dope test despite a media frenzy caused by a faltering US competitor making accusations in a US held competiton.
So u think her sample wasn’t tampered with deliberately then, tell us more !
its easy to be a fountain of knowledge when 3 researchers are feeding you lines and stats. do you honestly think reporters are that smart
I’m sure it was an accident that whiskey got in her test, sure didn’t the 9/11 pilots just want a birds eye view of NY and accidently lost control!
Comparing Jimmy Magee to Mícheál Ó Muircheartaigh is just so wrong. Ó Muircheartaigh is simply class, whereas Jimmy should at best be allowed to captain a pub quiz team.
I’d have to be on drugs to buy his book tbh.
I know no more than you do Gerry, only the facts as the stand, I try not to jump on conclusion generated bandwagons. And Peter, that is just down-right stupid, hard luck little fella.
Ciaran, you’re talking nonsense. As I said above, look at Smith’s previous times, her radical improvements and what is actually physically possible and has actually taken place in the history of female swimming. It is simply improbable.
As to never failing a test: well that’s completely irrelevant because the dopers are 10 years ahead of the testers, according to the head of Wada. In fact, the same man effectively said athletes have to be stupid to get caught.
Again, the fact these athletes are passing tests is simply irrelevant. The tests just aren’t good enough.
@miguel
Have you read Paul Francis a few posts down?
@Peter, the fact she never get close to a world record is a red herring and, also, irrelevant. It is about what is statistically possible for a woman of her previous times at that stage of her career.
@Miguel add to this the whiskey-in-the-test and you have a non-analytical positive, as it’s known in the relevant circles.
@Miguel
Are you 100% saying that Michele smith took performance enhancing drugs to win her Olympic medals ?
@Peter. I’m saying you should assess the evidence properly and draw your own conclusions.
@Miguel
The reason you can’t answer a direct question is because the stastistics you are quoting are just stastistics & to be honest complete bullshit, a new training regime,diet,maturing & ambition can drive a world class athlete beyond what people expected. She was 26ish when she won,hardly a washed up hasbeen. It always surprises me the lack of support she received, she was found guilty of nothing & yet you condem her so strongly because her times improved which according to you are impossible for a lady her age. The ‘weir wolf’ went & trained with a cycling club & he has said that this type of training is the reason he won gold medals, the high performance training for our boxers paid huge dividends one example is paddy Barnes, didn’t score a point in 08 yet this time against the same opponent he lost on a count back. In your own words the dopers are 10 years ahead so fcuk knows who who has been bold.
Yes Peter. Training regime,diet,maturing & ambition. And a husband who’d been done for PEDs. And a tampered OOC drug test. AND they STILL found traces of Androstenedione in her whiskey piss. What reason would they have to discredit her? She kept her Olympic golds after all.
Wake up and smell the coffee FFS.
Quit following some bollix notion of the flag at all costs when the truth is a far better standard, and a true champion is a better reflection on the nation than a sulphurous phantom.
@Peter, the reason I can’t answer a direct question is because I don’t want me, or the Journal, to be sued. Her times defied everything we know about swimming and human physiology. We can believe in the as-yet proven facts of human physiology or we can bury our head in the sand. Take your pick.
@Peter and, by your rationale, the laws of physics are “just statistics”. Well done.
@miguel
With all your evidence & with the laws of physics on your side I’m sure a judge would award you your costs in any libel case…..
@ nivag
Outstanding comment, bravo.
“Her times defied everything we know about swimming and human physiology”…. Ye Shiwen is 16yrs old & she clocked 7seconds of her previous competition time & split faster than phelps in her last 100meters, so by your rationale she must be eating the PEDs. Well done yourself!
@Peter You clearly know nothing about libel laws – consider the fact that David Walsh’s book LA Confidential was pulped initially; it wouldn’t be now. And, whatever about Ye (who came under rightful suspicion herself) people have different physiologies! Usain Bolt can run faster than you… therefore some swimmers can swim faster than others. Christ man, that’s the most stupid point made yet.
Not only that, Peter, as well as already having times that were more conducive to that kind of improvement, Ye was at EXACTLY the age where female swimmers make such improvements: 16. In her mid-twenties, Smith/De Bruin most certainly wasn’t. Honestly, if you actually read up on this properly, you wouldn’t be making some of the comments you are.
@miguel
Smugness is boring & you my friend are as smug as they come.
That’s it Peter. Ignore the facts again, with a personal attack.
I don’t think so Miguel. I find the word stupid is an unpleasant word to use against anybody & you seem to use it a lot when you are commenting.
@Peter
If people continue to deny facts and rationality in order to peddle a view they simply find favourable, it’s either stupid or blind. Sorry, but take your pick.
@miguel
As I asked you before, did Michelle smith cheat using PEDs to win her Olympic medals, you told me that I do not understand libel laws,I do. You told me that you were afraid that the journal & yourself would be sued. I’m of the opinion that if you won’t back up your claims then you should whist or just leave it as your opinion & not insult a person who does not share your view my friend.
I’ve laid out the facts. You’ve chosen to ignore them. A female swimmer improvement her times by that extent in her mid-20s is quite simply unprecedented. Again, take from that what you will. I know what I believe.
As regards libel, why would no publisher print David Walsh’s book on Lance Armstrong in 2005? Oh, it’ll likely get a printer now, I can tell you.
@miguel
You have laid out your interpretation of the ‘facts’ & that is all you have done, just because you are an employee of the journal does not make your interpretation correct. Also, just because something is unprecedented does not make it impossible. I respect your opinion however your attitude to a different opinion is what i find bizarre.
Peter, this is a lot more than my “interpretation”. This is scientific evidence. While I apologise for calling you “stupid” I find your opinion – not interpretation – on the manner flabbergasting. I can’t understand how any rational or logical person can see it that way. Essentially, you’re saying that Smith is a biological freak. In these cases, such instances don’t tend to be the case.
Miguel you are easily flabbergasted & please don’t imply that I think Michelle smith is a ‘biological freak’ your words, sweet Jesus Miguel she didn’t grow an extra tit, she knocked a few seconds off her PB & beat a few average swimmers to win a few medals.
Sorry, but this is much more than “knocking a few seconds off her personal best” and therein lies your problem. Quite simply, if you have had a proper appreciation of the history, context, facts, stats and – yes – science, you would realise her improvements, at her age, were genuinely a freak occurrence in swimming.
I do not have a problem Miguel I have an opinion & it is as simple as that, she was a lot better pre Atlanta than you give her credit for. While I appreciate the case against her I give her the benefit of the doubt that surrounds her achievements, I know it’s difficult for you to comprehend my view on the subject & in my humble opinion your execution conveying this difficulty has an air of pomposity attached to it.
It’s hard not to have an air of pomposity when someone keeps denying reality. How would you respond if someone kept telling you the earth was flat in such headstrong fashion? That’s what this is tantamount to. The times really are that stark. Sure, it’s an opinion, but an opinion that goes against all available evidence. Anyway, I’ll leave you to enjoy your ignorance. Keep waving the flag.
You need to get out more miguel !
Not justifying her but she was probably just a ‘better’ cheat than all the other cheats in her finals!
However stupid thing for him to say and he should be fired
Great time for the Magee….but his gaffes are nothing new. Remember the comments at the 1980 Moscow Olympics: “ah yes, the international bird of peace…the pigeon.”
I believe the fact she has never been stripped of her medals makes it worse. We have these ‘contaminated’ medals on our medals table with an asterisk beside them.
Tyler Hamilton explains in his book how he beat the testers: he knew how long it took for the stuff to leave his system, say 12 hours, and the testers in the mid-90s always called before 10am. So, 10:01 was a busy time…
Of course suspected and admitted dopers test clean in competition – the doping is to fuel the training, not the big day performance.
There are a few issues that trouble me over the Michelle smith story. Firstly regardless of what any one thinks happened she is our greatest Olympian. Secondly in the finals in 1996 she never got close to beating any of the world records. She was approx 4 secs outside the world records in the events except the 200 IM where she was 2.3 secs slower. In each final there were swimmers who if they had equalled their personal best they would have won gold instead. And finally I’d like to know how she managed to tamper with the sample given that the sample taker was supposed to stay with her for the duration. Did the person taking the sample do their job properly?
Greatest olympian, really? I think you mean, person with the most medals. Big difference I think.
Paul , I believe that some pools are faster than others based on the water viscosity. So not only were M Smiths times faster than before but she possibly achieved that in a slow pool.
If you compare the Barcelona olympics to the atlanta games you will see the Barcelona pool gave much faster times even though it was 4 years earlier.
This makes the fact that she improved in a slower pool more of a question
LMAO here, so from this tread iv learned there is “fast” pools and “slow” pools, a little like “soft” going and “hard” going at horse races, like em, some horses preform better when the going is “soft” and some prefer it better when the going is “hard”, then maybe Michelle preformed better in the “slow” pools, and the other swimmers were “fast” pool swimmers, mystery solved !!!
Jimmy Magee, Gay Byrne, Eamon Dunphy, Larry Gogan………jeez RTE give us a break.
You forgot Mike Murphy.
And Marian Finucane.
Jimmys heart is in the right place, sure Michelle should b acknowledged for her, achievements in 96, she beat them at their own game, but to include Armstrong in that sentiment, is too much of a stretch for me, I know I’m lookin at it wit green tinted glasses, but so b it. The Armstrong story has a green aspect too , one paddy after him, mr kimmage, an paddy mcquaid minding him like a member of his own family, for a small country were stuck in everything.
I say allow drugs. It’s as much a part of sport as in an engine to F1, or selected breeding is to horse racing.
I wonder will you still say that when the athletes grow tusks.
@Mairtin – Yes, and that’s why F1 and horse racing aren’t real sports.
Loving narrow mindness eoin!
Lance has done some good deeds in his life, but if he will not fight, why should you or anyone else do what he won’t do for himself? I am as disappointed in his surrender as I am in the doping charges.
I do agree with the point that just because someone excels in a sport over a long time doesn’t mean they are on performance enhancers all the time.
Every sport/discipline produces a great, far better than the rest at the time, person every so often.
Micheal Jordan, Pele, Ali, Schumacher, tiger woods etc etc.
michelle smith shoud have been the olympic torch
Time to call it a day Jimmy!!!
Everyone in sport, especially at underage is trying to teach by example. What kind of example would it have set by allowing Michelle Smith carry the flag. Cheating is ok..
Thank God she didn’t – cheating is never ok.
People have to remember that WADA wasn’t even set up till 1999. And that the IOC and UCI were so far behind when it can to testing for banned substances or masking agents it wasn’t even funny. Along with the UCI’s 50% rule they practically let them dope… To quote Tyler Hamilton. “they had their doctors, we had ours. Ours were better.”
What confuses me is that why didn’t they get her to take another test and make sure for this one she couldn’t tamper with it? Surely that would clear things up completely. Then they could test her so many times over a short period. She couldn’t really complain if she tampered with a test and raised suspicion. She tampered with a test but unless she is found guilty of using drugs, its all speculation. You can’t assume someone is guilty of one charge because they did something else. If that was the case, half of us would be in jail. He who hasn’t sinned and all that…..
There’s a reason why tampering with your drug test is punished so severely. If you can’t work it out for yourself, then there’s no point in trying to explain it to you.
So you’re saying that upon catching someone who’s tried to fake their drug test, then we should just say to them, “aha! Caught you. Nice try. Ah sure go on, I’ll give you another chance to cheat.” Are you actually serious?
Poor Jimmy seems to see the best in everyone so I’m not too surprised by the comments, also the media coverage won’t hurt the book sales.
My main issue with the two cases is that the sports bodies in both cases were slow and ineffective. Neither person was really convicted, in the end they were only officially slandered.
Governments around the world need to legislate for “professional” sports competitors and make a database of banned substances for which criminal offences can be brought (for supply and consumption)
If you can get jail for not having a tv license why not for disgracing your nation and sport. Not to mention the physical harm caused
ahhh seriously jimmy !!!!! u need counselling silly man
A decent man,but I found his wafflings about anything but the fight i was watching during his commentary’s of the Olympic boxing very annoying.In all probability based on the facts I have seen,Armstrong & Smith cheated there way to victory.
Time for a drug test Jimmy ?
Sorry to see Jimmy selling his integrity for the sake of a few bob. I always admired him and his professionalism.
Maybe he is like Gaybo after all.
Says a lot about rte that this joke still gets a gig , what a cosy little club there in d4
god why do we have to drag the past up again!!!! let sleeping dogs be , no wonder we never progress enough dwelling on what might have been , retire jimmy….gracefully.
maggeebag
Best comment yet.
About time someone spoke the truth.
Well said Jimmy
Bring Michelle back
Michelle Smith failed the same number of drug tests as Marion Jones.
It’s staggering to read threads like this , 16 years on people still think she was innocent. Some Craic.
I always thought this was Jimmy Magee.
http://www.thehunterslair.com/uploads/monthly_08_2012/post-3861-0-18981300-1343995767.jpg
Disagree with Jimmy Magee, sure, but try to refrain from the idea that his comments are a product of his age.
Let them all take drugs and then we’ll see ho the best is…. Or who can take the most drugs nd still perform…
What a ridiculous standpoint to take, given the reams and reams of information about Armstrong, his donations to the UCI and relationships with its chairmen, his MO within the peloton, the Andreus, his failed tests for cortisone in 99 and EPO in Switzerland in 01, his tip-offs re: drug tests, the standing down of a drug bust at the team hotel just as the french police were about to enter, his relationship with dope guru Ferrari and their pre-season sessions in the canaries, the testimonies of teammates (what do they have to gain?), his endless stream apologias for drug cheats, his threatening of Lemond. But no, he never failed a drug test. It’s common knowledge that you have to be pretty stupid or sloppy to fail these tests the dopers are so far ahead. etc. etc. et-groaning-cetera.
But why bother with all that crap when you seem to be happy with the criteria for passing a drug test whereby an athlete simply gives a vial of Jameson to the tester?
FFS.
I certainly agree that the “case” against Armstrong was a nonsense. He never officially failed a dope test. { I believe totally he was a dirty rider – but technically there is no proof.) And the riders who now take those wins from him on the record books have ALL failed test except 1 – Kloden – who was the first lieutenant to several dirty and SELF-CONFESSED! dopers.
Similarly the evidence and arguments against Michelle Smyth were all circumstantial and conjecture.
I agree with Jimmy – even if I believe Armstrong and Smyth are not squeaky clean.
Should be called the selective memory man.. Has he forgotten that she tampered with her urine , for f**k sake what more evidence do her deluded defenders need .
Nivag your comment is typical of the level of discussion on this topic
Care to expand, Martin?
Your comment is just as opinionated if not more so as you blithely ignore the FACT that she chucked whiskey into her urine sample.
Lance Armstrong could also, amongst other things, be described as a high achiever.
No, it is self explanatory
Ahh Tommy Tiernan. “Some people don’t like drugs in sport, I say shut the fcuk up”
Michelle Smith was never stripped of her Olympic medals.
I met her several times and formed the opinion that she is a decent human being of high principle.
She is a high achiever as witnessed by her career since the Olympics and has even written legal textbooks.
Her big improvement in swimming at the time of the Olympics was attributed to a new training regime to develop her upper body.
I read a lot of opinionated gossip in the comments above but fail to see any facts or authority.
A double Androstenedione and whiskey on the rocks for Bus Man, please, bar keep.
You’re some boy insulting from behind a keyboard miguel. Improbable doesnt mean impossible, and im not implying drug use in the paralympics but it runs parallel to the point that is being made about how it is improbable that an athlete can improve their times so much.Look at the 5000 meters almost if not all the athletes broke the previous world record in turn beating all their P.B by big margins. Before its said I am not implying drug use im pointing out that its possible to beat your previous times!!
Mark, you’re spectacularly missing the point. Of course it’s possible to beat your best times. No-one’s disputing that. What is highly unlikely is making ridiculous, unprecedented leaps at an age when female swimmers have passed their peak