Michelle de Bruin has alleged major breaches of procedure by FINA, the world swimming governing body, and the testing laboratory in the administration of a doping test on the athlete last January.
In a detailed rebuttal of the charges against her arising from FINA's finding that she was guilty of manipulating the urine test, Ms de Bruin said there was no evidence of there being any banned substance in either the A or the B sample she submitted.
The head of the IOC Laboratory in Barcelona, which carried out the test, had accepted that the introduction of alcohol into the A and B sample had not affected his sampling procedures, she told a press conference yesterday.
"He was therefore able to carry out all the required tests on the A and B sample that he would have been able to do were the sample not adulterated. Having carried out those tests there was still no evidence of there being any banned substances present."
Ms de Bruin said the doping control officers had, unknown to her or FINA, altered the form on which their report was submitted. This had happened after the test was carried out in her home last January.
"The suggestion [made at a meeting of the doping control panel in Lausanne last month] that I was given my parts of the doping control forms before all the necessary information on the form was completed is an utter nonsense."
Ms de Bruin said it was "patently untrue" for the panel to suggest that the sample had not been manipulated in the testing laboratory. This would be raised by her solicitors at the appeal.
The laboratory should have disposed of the samples after a maximum period of 90 days. Instead, FINA asked the laboratory to reopen the samples which were held by them, "contrary to any good laboratory practice and procedures and certainly contrary to the rules of natural justice and fair play".
"Despite its efforts" FINA had been unable to get the laboratory to issue a doping analysis report confirming the presence of any banned substance. "The laboratory in this case, on the last reanalysis of my samples, used a method which is not accepted by FINA and the IOC, yet despite this released the results of this unacceptable method into the public domain in a clear effort to further tarnish my good name and reputation."
Ms de Bruin also accused the chairman of the FINA doping panel, Mr Harm Beyer, of making public comments in advance of the hearing which indicated that he "knew" that she and her husband were "guilty". In spite of this, she said, he refused to stand down in the face of claims by Ms de Bruin's lawyer that he was biased.
The doping control officer had also made statements regarding drug-users in a nationally-televised programme before the panel hearing but was allowed to continue in his post.
Ms de Bruin said her case would be appealed immediately to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, where she expected to be "thoroughly vindicated".
