The questioners were gentle with Michelle de Bruin. Jean Pierre Morand, counsel for FINA, led the swimmer through a series of none-too-probing questions. "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 give 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"

And all the while the three judges scurried frantically through their papers comparing the answers to the evidence.

New elements were introduced to Ms de Bruin's account of what had happened on January 10th, 1998 when the testers came to call. For the first time in public she said that she had needed three visits to the toilet to produce 70 millilitres of urine. Previous discussion and later evidence from the Guys had contended that the urine was given on two separate occasions.

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 Philippe 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 confirmed 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 that she was back. Al Guy would later say that his estimate of her absence being between four and six minutes was conservative.

There was, too, a hint of what was to come later, the excruciatingly intimate detail of the process of an athlete urinating in front of a tester.

Michelle de Bruin was questioned also on the issue of missed drug tests and previous problems with out-of-competition testing. She claimed never to have received a letter relating to these perceived problems. She had actually received a letter "thanking me on FINA's behalf".

The panel consisting of three lawyers 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."

Did she have whiskey in the house? Did Kay Guy tell her she couldn't see the flow of urine? No on both counts.

On previous visits from the Guys had she got on reasonably well with them?

"Yes."

Could she see anything in them that would lead her to believe that they had the motive to do anything to her sample? "The first time I met them was when they came to test me. In terms of motive it is irrelevant. Mr Morand has the burden of proof."

But could she think of any reason, given the chance to express it?

"I don't know the Guys well enough. A cause for concern would be Mr Guy's comments on a UTV programme and other comments where he said athletes were only interested in the money they make and the drugs they take."

She said that when her beaker of urine was on the table she had turned her back to prepare herself a carbohydrate drink and the sample had not been in her sight for perhaps half a minute.