Two of the three members of the doping panel who found Michelle de Bruin guilty of manipulating a urine sample have disputed claims made by the Olympic swimming gold medallist and her solicitor in her defence.
At a press conference on Friday, Ms de Bruin's solicitor, Mr Peter Lennon, said the change made to the form by the doping control officers, Mr Al and Mrs Kay Guy, was "crucially important" to the case. He declined to give details.
The only detail added to the doping control form after the urine test on Ms de Bruin was completed last January was the time of the test, according to both Mr Harm Beyer, the German judge who chaired the panel, and Mr Bernard J. Favaro, a Californian lawyer.
Mr Beyer said yesterday the addition of the extra information was "a minimal point". Mr Favaro said the addition was taken into account by the panel and deemed irrelevant.
Mr Ben Farid, an Algerian who was the third member of the doping control panel set up by FINA, swimming's world governing body, to consider Ms de Bruin's case, could not be contacted by The Irish Times. Efforts to contact Mr Len non last night were also not successful. Ms de Bruin is appealing FINA's decision to ban her from competitive swimming for four years.
Referring to the swimmer's contention that the plastic container in which her urine sample was stored could have been opened before testing, Mr Beyer said the panel had accepted this was "a theoretical possibility". He added: "In the decision of the panel, there was no sensible reason to include such a theoretical possibility in the judgment.
"When the sample arrived [to the laboratory] in Barcelona, the seals were untouched. When the B sample was opened, Mr Lennon himself was present and testified with his signature that the seal was not broken."