Wednesday was a day Michelle de Bruin always knew would come. Ever since she had the temerity to beat America's best in their own back yard in Atlanta, she was only too well aware there would be those unwilling to overlook the suspicion of steroids that made waves wherever she went.

By her side, as always, was her husband Erik, as he has been ever since they fell in love on a blind date in Barcelona at a previous Olympic games. Her controversial coach had first-hand experience of performance-enhancing drugs and the punishments that go with it.

They had been together on that balmy night in Georgia when the whispers had first surfaced at the Olympic swimming complex.

Whispers of a cheating couple representing a country that didn't even possess an Olympic-size pool.

Her success had to be secondhand, her awesome strength, her explosion on to the scene from nowhere, it just didn't happen naturally, the beaten and their brethren bayed.

Sadly, no one ever made an attempt to prove such outrageous allegations, because one day they knew they would gain their revenge. Michelle de Bruin became the most tested swimmer of all time . . . negative results that should have protected her were not what the opposition wanted to see.

A leaked confidential document was much more like it. Here was the proof. A banned substance, and alcohol found in a urine sample taken under FINA regulations from the triple Olympic champion.

The report went on to state that the test had shown unequivocal signs of adulteration - in short, it had been got at.

If proved, a life ban would be the only punishment. The doubters were about to have their day.

Michelle de Bruin deserves better than that. So far she has been found guilty of nothing. And while she announced the fight to clear her name, the silence from her sports governing body was deafening.

There are many questions that need to be answered by FINA before it sits in judgment.

The test results came from a sample. A sample, that, with a specific gravity of 0.983 grammes per millilitre should have been thrown away rather than worked on, being under the legitimate level of 1.015.

Why did that not happen?

A sample that FINA felt had been tampered with, despite the fact that it was taken from de Bruin's home only after two licensed testers had signed the confidential seal to say everything was above board.

So just who did the tampering?

Another of the findings included traces of alcohol, possibly whiskey, due to its strong smell . . . how scientific!

And then there is the case of the timing of these test results that were available in early February, but leaked only this week. Why weren't official procedures adhered to?

Why was Michelle de Bruin forced to come forward before she had had the opportunity of supervising the testing of the other sample, the "B" sample, next month?

Why does it appear that the opponents of the de Bruins feel confident enough to condemn her with nothing proved, risking libel without a second thought? Why does FINA have nothing to say about the leaking of a confidential document, flying in the face of its own protocol?

Why?

Because the sport is out of control and so too are those who find it easy to hide behind the faceless bureaucracy of archaic amateurism.

Too many are on the Round the World Gravy Train that stops off at the Olympics, the World and Commonwealth games - great locations for all-expenses-paid holidays.

As Michelle de Bruin launched her defence, an open court in Germany decides the fate of former East German coaches who systematically doped their swimmers in the 1970s and 1980s. FINA was really on top of that one.

In China, a bunch of cheats have retreated into the swimming shadows to lick their wounds after having been exposed at the recent World Championships. FINA cannot quite decide how to proceed with a country critical to the wider ambitions of the International Olympic Committee.

Banning the Chinese and upsetting Olympic Games boss Juan Antonio Samaranch isn't part of the strategy. Neither is answering questions about other positive tests that have been sat on until FINA feels the time is right and the swimmer expendable.

The politics is the real problem when you dissect performances such as Michelle de Bruin's. Unknown Irish girls are not allowed to win gold medals at Olympic Games.

The cynics will have you believe there is no way that someone who works twice as hard as any of her competitors, introduces a rigorous training programme based on field athletics - and finds true ambition and purpose in a partnership with a man she fell in love with - is a natural citizen of the sporting world.

But then those same commentators have stood by and admired many others without a Chinese whisper within earshot. Had Michelle de Bruin been American, and decided not to marry an athlete who had been punished for previous misdemeanours, the world would not have bothered with the fact that she had dramatically improved her performances. She would have been hailed as a true champion.

Guilt by association is a dangerous game to play, and one not worthy of true Olympians. Sour grapes won't get in my way, as, after many months of protracted argument, I expect to toast the innocence of Ireland's Golden Girl.

Mark Saggars is a sports journalist with Sky television in Britain