The case of Michelle de Bruin is set to go to the European Court of Human Rights if her appeal against a four-year ban from competitive swimming is lost, her solicitor has warned.
Mr Peter Lennon said he expected the appeal would be heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland within four to six weeks.
On Thursday FINA, the international governing body for swimming, found Ms de Bruin guilty of manipulating a urine sample taken during a doping test.
Outlining the case for the innocence of the Olympic swimming gold medallist, Mr Lennon drew parallels with other Irish people who were wrongly accused of offences in other jurisdictions.
At a press conference in Dublin, Ms de Bruin once again protested her innocence and threatened to sue FINA for "substantial damages" for what she termed a "blatant and mischievous" attempt to ruin her career.
Later she took her appeal to a wider audience with an appearance on Liveline on RTE radio. There she expressed the hope that her name would be cleared and she would go on to represent Ireland at the Sydney Olympics in the year 2000.
Ms de Bruin said FINA was engaging in a "deliberate effort" to end her international swimming career. Its decision was flawed "not only on the facts but also legally".
She declared: "I have always represented my country with pride. I have never cheated or lied and I haven't lied in this case either."
She was accompanied by her husband and coach, Mr Erik de Bruin, who declined to answer questions during the press conference.
Mr Lennon accused FINA of having no evidence to back up its decision, which was "farcical and bad on its face."
After the FINA Doping Commission which decided the swimmer's fate in Lausanne last month had shifted the burden of proof onto FINA, the swimming body had failed to take the "manly" decision and give Ms de Bruin the benefit of the doubt, he said.
Ms de Bruin also alleged major breaches of procedure by FINA and the testing laboratory in the administration of the doping test last January. There was no evidence of any banned substance in either the A or the B sample she submitted, she said.
Even the introduction of alcohol into the samples would not have prevented the testing laboratory from carrying out all the required tests, she claimed. "Having carried out those tests there was still no evidence of there being any banned substances present."
The doping control officers who carried out the test on Ms de Bruin, Al and Kay Guy, last night declined to comment until their legal advisers had seen the FINA judgment and Ms de Bruin's statement.
"We haven't seen Michelle's or Mr Lennon's statement, or the FINA judgment," Mrs Guy said.
Mr Straffan Sahlstrom, the head of the IDTM testing agency at the centre of the controversy, declined last night to comment on her statement. The agency had conducted the test "according to the rules and regulations" and its report to FINA included "everything we have to state," he said.
