View Full Version : Amy Van Dyken

Dennis Tesch
December 4th, 2003, 06:47 PM
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...

Phil Arcuni
December 4th, 2003, 07:29 PM
She was subpoenaed for the same reason the other athletes were subpoenaed -- she has had contact with BALCO in the past. The prosecuters want to establish a history of dealings with athletes. I hear they are going to make a tax case - just like they did with Al Capone.

It is pretty clear that not all athletes associated with BALCO took illegal supplements - BALCO has legit products, also. Whether Ms. Van Dyken is one of those we can't tell, and I don't think establishing which athletes took illegal supplements is a focus of the prosecution.

She did not make the news when she appeared because the reporters at the court did not recognize her - she was identified from later photographs, I think.

Related, there were no positives for THG from the retests of the Swimming World Championships samples, according to FINA.

December 4th, 2003, 07:43 PM
seems to me, I saw a brief new flash on the USA Swimming site just this week about her testimony, or maybe, about her being called to testify.

Rob Copeland
December 4th, 2003, 11:03 PM
There is an article in swiminfo.com, dated November 28th.

"FLASH! Amy Van Dyken Linked to THG Drug ProbeBy Phillip Whitten"

Phil Arcuni
December 5th, 2003, 10:02 AM
For some reason that article is missing from the archives - others are there, but not that one.

December 5th, 2003, 11:19 AM
Something to note,

FINA went back and retested all the samples from the World Champs this summer. Zero came back positive for THG. Way to go swimmers (AP story yesterday, look it up if you want).

Regarding Van Dyken, when she was an elite swimmer, THG had not yet been produced.

December 6th, 2003, 11:57 AM
I was wondering the same thing. I saw the artilcle on Amy on Swim Info and it was there for 1 day only then it was gone and u could not find it again anywhere. I have not had the experience of not being able to find an article again. What's up with this one.

December 6th, 2003, 05:46 PM
do you realise how many illegal drugs the fish in our rivers and seas are subjected to against their wishes?....they swim still pretty fast compared to me...none drug user....

December 9th, 2003, 05:30 PM
Has anyone heard more information about Amy?

Rob Copeland
December 9th, 2003, 05:59 PM
Amy appeared in San Francisco court Nov. 13, testifying before the federal grand jury investigating Balco Laboratories.

I havenít seen anything since the reports of her court appearance. However, Amy has not been suspected of drug use and is an outspoken proponent of swimming drug free.

December 9th, 2003, 06:05 PM
I'm so glad to hear that! I remember during the olympics she was very vocal about being drug free. I'm glad she is not involved!

December 10th, 2003, 12:16 PM
This is from gary hall jr.'s website www.garyhalljr.com (I find this to be immature and out of line):

Gary writes:

Hundreds of news organizations throughout the world including CNN, ESPN, and Knight Ridder Publications report that BALCO laboratory president Victor Conte and his company stand accused of producing the designer steroid tetrahydrogestrinone, or THG, a charge Conte has denied.

An investigation is currently underway that already has one Olympic gold medal swimmer involved. Amy Van Dyken was called to testify before the U.S. federal grand jury alongside athletes that have tested positive for the previously undetectable designer steroid THG.

THG is a synthetic form of testosterone and has reportedly been detected in the urine samples of a number of track and field athletes and members of the Oakland Raiders football team.

Swiminfo.com posted the announcement that van Dyken was called to testify and then removed the article one day later. Sources tell me that Amy's father called the publication threatening to sue the news source for inaccurately reporting the same information that has been plastered across news publications around the world.

It may be premature to say, "Amy van Dyken! She's a cheater!" but her being called to testify does raise suspicion. These athletes being called in to testify, if they are clean, owe us an explanation as to why they are part of this investigation. Published articles state that that "Van Dyken, who reportedly was also a client of Conte's, is a close friend of Bill Romanowski, one of the Oakland Raiders who reportedly tested positive for THG." Amy declines comment on her relationship with Conte and her father threatens to sue Swiminfo for reporting world wide news? Further suspicion.

To be fair, I will hold judgment until the investigation is complete. I simply want to know what her involvement is. Declining comment only makes things look worse. I would think that taking her position into consideration she would want to offer some explanation as to why she is involved in these federal grand jury hearings regarding illegal performance enhancing drugs. Women's Sports Foundation's "Sportwoman of the Year", shouldn't she be sportsmanlike and come clean to her fellow swimmers with information on her involvement? If she is innnocent, she needs to tell her story if for nothing else than to salvage her reputation and defend herself from these stories that make her look guilty as hell. If she is guilty, then she needs to start by offering an apology to the swimming community and rest of the world that she has lied to. The investigation is not over and it will reveal it's findings soon enough.

I invite Amy to tell her side of the story here on my web site.

Tom Ellison
December 10th, 2003, 01:14 PM
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.

Garyís 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!

Tom Ellison
December 10th, 2003, 01:32 PM
Gary's correct sight is:


Leonard Jansen
December 10th, 2003, 01:35 PM

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.


Tom Ellison
December 10th, 2003, 01:49 PM
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.

December 10th, 2003, 01:57 PM
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.

Rob Copeland
December 10th, 2003, 04:57 PM
Iím with LBJ on this one. And I donít see the McCarthyism reference as much of a stretch.

When I see comments like ďIf she is innocent, she needs to tell her story if for nothing else than to salvage her reputationÖĒ and ďthey Ö owe us an explanation as to why they are part of this investigation.Ē I donít 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 thatís fine if she chooses not to, well thatís fine too. As far as Iím 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 competitorís lane.

As for the rumor that Don Van Dyken (Amyís 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. Itís just that Don has a lot more clout than I do.

Bert Bergen
December 10th, 2003, 06:04 PM
Gary Hall, at his mouthy finest. He should stick to that quality training program he's working on down there.

December 10th, 2003, 06:36 PM
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.

Sam Perry
December 10th, 2003, 07:20 PM
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.

December 10th, 2003, 09:00 PM
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" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=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.

Phil Arcuni
December 10th, 2003, 09:40 PM
Only if you are in archery or marksmanship is *pot* a performance enhancing substance. Lumping it with steroids is disengenuous, and all of you that use the term 'banned substance' without explanation should be ashamed. One is cheating, the other is foolish.

Hall should not expect anything from Van Dyken, and neither should we - there is no indication that she is guilty of *anything.* She has every right to be quiet, and I would not expect her to divulge grand jury evidence.

Mr. Van Dyken should also be ashamed about trying to muzzle the free press (if true). The information on Swiminfo was all over the country and published many places, and his daughter is a public figure who has made several strong and public statements about doping.

I am disappointed that Swiminfo responded to threats in the way it apparently did.

Mr. Van Dyken should also be ashamed about raising a daughter that spits in her opponent's lane.

December 10th, 2003, 10:06 PM
The point isn't over whether pot is a performance enhancing substance, the point is that it was banned and he knew it was banned. He was caught and got away with a warning due to a technicality and then got caught again and suspended.

Bert Bergen
December 10th, 2003, 10:15 PM
Beware of hypocracy. For the same reasons that Gary can say what he wants and you can say what you want, I can do the same. My opinion is that in such a sensitive situation where NONE OF US knows the truth or circumstances, Hall has NO standing to ask/demand that Van Dyken come out and defend herself. Why does he think she needs to? What does he know? By tearing down a former Olympian, without any facts regarding her status in this case, how is he promoting our sport for the "larger mass of Americans"? He is helping to fuel the recent frenzy about steriod abuse that is tearing apart (rightfully, both cases) the USATF and soon MLB. He simply isn't helping.

Sam Perry
December 10th, 2003, 11:23 PM
I'm not going to bring in direct quotes from Bert, but the statement :"By tearing down a former Olympian" seems a tad hypocritical. I think he has MANY quotes on many threads where he himself has torn down said former olympian we are referring to. If you have a problem with a former olympian fine, state it. But don't come on here and complain of someone else doing it as if it is not right when you are doing it throughout many threads here.

December 11th, 2003, 12:34 AM
Maybe she doesn't give a rats ass what any of us think and therefore could care less what we say, think or do. She doesn't owe anybody anything.

Bert Bergen
December 11th, 2003, 01:27 AM
Yeah, my voice is heard by the millions of people tuning in to the riveting USMS Discussion Forums every day. I am a mover and a shaker.

I am not a Race Club fan (as mentioned in ONE other thread) and Gary Hall is not my favorite, though I applaud his efforts with the diabetes cause. He IS heard however, and should stay out of this. Just an OPINION.

December 11th, 2003, 12:19 PM
This is to Mr. Perry:

I have been one of the biggest supporters of Gary Hall(s) on this website. I think that swimming needs more of him. But this was a mistake on his part.

However, Gary's comments are NOT hypocritical. When he was suspended, he was open and honest about it, and he did not choose to be silent. Again, that does not make his current comments about Ms. Van Dyken acceptable, but it certainly was not hypocritical.