I ready an article today that Bary Bonds was going to appear before the BALCO grand jury and in the article it stated this:
"Athletes that already have appeared before the grand jury include track star Marion Jones and her boyfriend, 100-meter world record-holder Tim Montgomery, four Oakland Raiders and Olympic champion swimmer Amy Van Dyken.
An appearance before the grand jury, or being subpoenaed to testify, does not mean an athlete is a target of the probe."
Has anyone heard as to why Amy was subpoenaed or her reaction to being subpoenaed? This whole bay area steriod thing is getting interesting...
I’m with LBJ on this one. And I don’t see the McCarthyism reference as much of a stretch.
When I see comments like “If she is innocent, she needs to tell her story if for nothing else than to salvage her reputation…” and “they … owe us an explanation as to why they are part of this investigation.” I don’t see it as a stretch at all.
Amy and any others do not NEED to tell me their story and she owes me no explanation. If she wants comment that’s fine if she chooses not to, well that’s fine too. As far as I’m concerned her reputation is intact, she is still the extraordinary American swimmer who cried tears of joy on the Olympic podium and who darn near flew out of the pool with excitement when she won gold. And, yes, she is the same Amy who spit some pool water into a competitor’s lane.
As for the rumor that Don Van Dyken (Amy’s dad) contacted Swiminfo to have the article removed. True or not, I as a father would do the exact same thing if someone published something about my daughter that I felt was inaccurately reporting. It’s just that Don has a lot more clout than I do.
I weigh in with Mr. Hall on this one. I would NEVER point my finger at a great swimmer like Amy Van Dyken. without full knowledge of her guilt. Having said that, I think it is time she clears the deck regarding these allegations and innuendo. She needs to do this for the good of swimming, herself and future athletes.
Gary’s web sight eloquently points out the horrible ramifications to illegal drug use and I found his insight enlightening and frankly, a breath of fresh air. Good job Mr. Hall!
Nonsense.
Many people were called before the McCarthy hearings that had nothing whatsoever to do with "UnAmerican" activities. This is a grand jury inquest into a matter and Ms. Van Dyken may only have some information that they want. She may not even have that. To even imply at this stage that she may be guilty is total crap. Also, to demand that she not stand on her right to say nothing is crap as well.
She may or may not have any information or involvement with this sad, sad episode of athletic history. But please let's not cannibalize our own until guilt has been proved.
-LBJ
What is the old saying about leaving innuendo hang on the wall long enough and sooner or later it will become the picture. Perceptions tend to become reality in many peoples minds when they are not addressed. Perceptions like this serve no good for Amy, swimming, the USA or anyone else. But, Amy has a constitutional right to remain silent and I fully support that right.
The McCarthy hearings are a pretty good stretch from this issue.
Although he is a terrific swimmer, I don't think that Gary Hall is someone who should implying that Van Dyken is guilty here, especially given his 1998 FINA suspension for knowingly using a banned substance.
"These athletes being called in to testify, if they are clean, owe us an explanation as to why they are part of this investigation."
I'm not looking to dig up any old dirt here, but I don't think Gary holds any moral sway in that area. As far as we know, Van Dyken has no charges against her and we don't know what she was asked about. Who can blame her father for coming to her defense?
"I invite Amy to tell her side of the story here on my web site."
Seems more like Hall's concern here is how to get his name back in the spotlight.
Two things need to be remembered here:
1. Most witnesses called before a grand jury are NOT targets or believed to be guilty of wrongdoing. They're simply believed to have information that could be useful. Prosecutors, in fact, are often reluctant to call witnesses who are suspected of wrongdoing, because of fifth amendment/immunity concerns.
2. Grand jury witnesses are commonly asked by the government not to speak publicly about their testimony or the subject of the investigation (athough they're not generally subject to secrecy rules), so as not to prejudice the investigation.
If that is the case than she should say so and not send her father to have Swiminfo.com take the article off the sight and threaten legal action. I don't think she is guilty of anything, but this whole idea of Gary Hall saying something that is "total crap" is way out of line. He, as well as all of us, is entitled to his opinion. I really wonder if someone else had said what needed to be said in the first place, would there be such an uproar?
It's amazing to me how whenever Gary does anything people see that he has alterior motives. When Race Club was announced a month or so ago many people were on here jumping on Gary about that, it was exclusive, sexist, anti-American, etc...
When it was RUMORED a few years ago he might move to Australia to train and make a living swimming, people on here called him a traitor or similar statements. Some on here wished he would leave the country as he was bad fo USA Swimming.
If you look at his record not only with swimming but more importantly the message he sends to milllions of diabetics around the world, he is doing great things on both fronts. I think he truly believes he is on a mission to bring hope and educate about this horrible disease that has stricken so many people.
You probably see that I am from AZ and am speaking up for a friend. Truth be known, I don't know Gary at all (know his father somewhat), and have no personal agenda here. I am just getting sick of so many "righteous" people on here jumping on his case for everything he does or is even rumored to do.
Look at his record of results in and out of the pool. Yes he did some immature things in the early 90's but how many of us regret saying or doing things in our late teens or early 20's? I think if you truly looked unbiased at what he does, you will see that he is doing more for a sport that we all love and trying to promote it in a way that a larger mass of Americans might become interested in it.
Not looking to Gary-bash here, as he has done some terrific things recently, most especially with the Diabetes issues as you pointed out, but you need to look up the definition of "Chutzpah" to put his comments in perspective given his history with banned substances.
To refresh your memory, it was not exactly the early 90's. Hall tested positive for a banned substance twice, at the Atlanta Olympics in '96 for which he received a warning (the ban wasn't in effect until after the completion of the games) and again in '98 around the time of the goodwill games, for which he received a three month suspension.
I'm no fan of Van Dyken either, but the note on Hall's website is an attack on her character that I'd expect to see in the tabloids.
