General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 6
 
 
2008-07-22 3:05 PM
in reply to: #1549637

User image

Master
1718
1000500100100
Loughborough, England
Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
newleaf - 2008-07-22 8:10 PM

My dad has been such an inspiration to me, that I hope he is never shown to have robbed a bank, and I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, the thing that will always bother me is this: My Dad is so obsessive about every aspect of financial preparation (stocks, mutual funds, doing late-night research, etc.), it's hard for me to see how he could have avoided utilizing something like robbing a bank that can make such a huge difference in one's financial standing. I saw one study showing that robbing banks can increase one's net worth by 54% - now, this was a small study, and not in professional bank robbers, so an amateur like my dad probably wouldn't get that degree of benefit, but still, it would make a significant difference. But if you're obsessing over the daily price of a stock, or five basis points, how can you ignore something that many others are doing that increases net worth 20-50%?

Please don't shoot me - save your bullets for when you rob the bank, I love my Dad and he's changed my life in such a positive way, that I hope it's shown that he has never robbed a bank.

LMAO!  Fantastic Laughing



2008-07-22 3:08 PM
in reply to: #1549637

User image

Master
1359
10001001001002525
South of SLC
Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
newleaf - 2008-07-22 12:10 PM

y2kdad99 - 2008-07-22 2:07 PM Lance has been such an inspiration to so many cancer patients that I hope he is never shown to have doped, and I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, the thing that will always bother me is this: Lance was so obsessive about every aspect of TDF preparation (pre-riding the course, nutrition, wind tunnel testing, etc.), it's hard for me to see how he could have avoided utilizing something like EPO that can make such a huge difference in this sport. I saw one study showing that EPO can increase some aspects of cycling performance by 54% -- now this was a small study, and not in pro cyclists, so a pro probably wouldn't get that degree of benefit, but still, it would make a significant difference. But if you're obsessing over a few mm of position, or a few gms of weight, how can you ignore something that many (most?) of your opponents are using that increases performance 20-50%? Please don't shoot me -- I'm a Lance fan, and as I said, he has changed so many cancer patients' lives in positive ways, that I hope he's never shown to have doped.

My dad has been such an inspiration to me, that I hope he is never shown to have robbed a bank, and I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, the thing that will always bother me is this: My Dad is so obsessive about every aspect of financial preparation (stocks, mutual funds, doing late-night research, etc.), it's hard for me to see how he could have avoided utilizing something like robbing a bank that can make such a huge difference in one's financial standing. I saw one study showing that robbing banks can increase one's net worth by 54% - now, this was a small study, and not in professional bank robbers, so an amateur like my dad probably wouldn't get that degree of benefit, but still, it would make a significant difference. But if you're obsessing over the daily price of a stock, or five basis points, how can you ignore something that many others are doing that increases net worth 20-50%?

Please don't shoot me - save your bullets for when you rob the bank, I love my Dad and he's changed my life in such a positive way, that I hope it's shown that he has never robbed a bank.



That was great.

Mike
2008-07-22 3:34 PM
in reply to: #1539152

Veteran
381
100100100252525
Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France

Remember, Hgh IS NOT detectable.

 

 

2008-07-22 3:37 PM
in reply to: #1549930

User image

Master
1718
1000500100100
Loughborough, England
Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
Actually it is.  Go to the WADA site if you want info on the test for HGH.
2008-07-22 3:39 PM
in reply to: #1539152

Veteran
381
100100100252525
Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
wow
2008-07-22 4:17 PM
in reply to: #1549637

User image

Regular
122
100
Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
newleaf - 2008-07-22 2:10 PM

My dad has been such an inspiration to me, that I hope he is never shown to have robbed a bank, and I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, the thing that will always bother me is this: My Dad is so obsessive about every aspect of financial preparation (stocks, mutual funds, doing late-night research, etc.), it's hard for me to see how he could have avoided utilizing something like robbing a bank that can make such a huge difference in one's financial standing. I saw one study showing that robbing banks can increase one's net worth by 54% - now, this was a small study, and not in professional bank robbers, so an amateur like my dad probably wouldn't get that degree of benefit, but still, it would make a significant difference. But if you're obsessing over the daily price of a stock, or five basis points, how can you ignore something that many others are doing that increases net worth 20-50%?

Please don't shoot me - save your bullets for when you rob the bank, I love my Dad and he's changed my life in such a positive way, that I hope it's shown that he has never robbed a bank.



Nice!! But what if most of your Dad's peers are bank robbers?



2008-07-22 4:38 PM
in reply to: #1539152

User image

Extreme Veteran
426
10010010010025
Dearborn, Michigan, USA.
Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
Interesting thread, and one that ought be treated delicately.

Here are the facts we know about Lance Armstrong. These are the facts, and they are indisputable:

-He has won the Tour de France 7 times consecutively, the first person to do so.
-He survived cancer and has been a philanthropist for the cancer cause.
-His efforts have benefitted the cancer cause through an increase in awareness and fund raising.
-His training was rigorous and his preparation dilligent. Some depictions suggest it may have been to a greater degree than other teams/athletes.
-Lance Armstrong has never tested positive for a banned, performance enhancing drug. There is a popular media report of one implication being waived as it was attributed to a topical treatment for saddle sores.

Those are the facts and they are indisputable.

Throughout this thread there has been speculation about possible motives for defamation of Armstrong's character and acheivements: Jealousy, conspiracy, subterfuge.

Beyond those speculations exists a set of accuisations or "implications" reported in popular media and largely based on anecdotal accounts. It's trial by media and whether the accounts are truthful or not, exagerated, embellished, understated or entirely accurate is secondary to the fact that they are serious claims made in a gulf of legal and factual, substantiated findings administered by the organizations with commensurate authority over such affairs.

As such Armstrong's accomplishments should be publicly regarded as peerless. Bottom line: Innocent until proven otherwise.
2008-07-22 4:49 PM
in reply to: #1550172

User image

Master
1359
10001001001002525
South of SLC
Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
I hope everyone here knows who Tom Demerly is...if you do not, check out his website. He writes tons on cycliing in many publications. He also posts and is one of the most respected members of the Slowtwitch.com community. He is a standout in a business and sport of studs.

I would suggest to everyone here that you can attack his logic, but know that his reputation in our sport and others is as close to spotless as they can get.

Mike

Edited by Rollin' Thunder 2008-07-22 4:50 PM
2008-07-22 5:18 PM
in reply to: #1549637

User image

Member
1699
1000500100252525
Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
newleaf - 2008-07-22 2:10 PM
  • .......
  • My dad has been such an inspiration to me, that I hope he is never shown to have robbed a bank, and I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    However, the thing that will always bother me is this: My Dad is so obsessive about every aspect of financial preparation (stocks, mutual funds, doing late-night research, etc.), it's hard for me to see how he could have avoided utilizing something like robbing a bank that can make such a huge difference in one's financial standing. I saw one study showing that robbing banks can increase one's net worth by 54% - now, this was a small study, and not in professional bank robbers, so an amateur like my dad probably wouldn't get that degree of benefit, but still, it would make a significant difference. But if you're obsessing over the daily price of a stock, or five basis points, how can you ignore something that many others are doing that increases net worth 20-50%?

    Please don't shoot me - save your bullets for when you rob the bank, I love my Dad and he's changed my life in such a positive way, that I hope it's shown that he has never robbed a bank.



    Well, considering it is in this thread, I have to ask some questions.

    Did most of your Dad's coworkers get convicted of robbing banks?

    Did most of your Dad's peers in the same industry get convicted of robbing banks?

    Did a French newspaper publish photo's that make it appear like your Dad robbed banks?

    None of that can prove your Dad robbed banks, but if the answer is yes to all of those questions, I think he probably did.
    2008-07-22 5:46 PM
    in reply to: #1539152

    User image

    Expert
    713
    500100100
    WV
    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France

    I have been following the discussion.  A few things have not been mentioned  or barely touched in all this: 1) the declaration process of drug testing, 2 the obsessive nature of the drug testing agencies to prove LA guilty 3) the reliability of the labs and the testing procedures used, and 4) the pain threshold of Lance.

    1)      All athletes are able to make declarations of drugs that are in their system when submitting to drug testing…including banned substances that are being used for legitimate medical purposes, ie.  Cortisone injections.  They have to have the paperwork to back it up.   One thing, we have never been privy to are those declarations.  Remember, he was still undergoing treatment for cancer approx. 5 years after Oct 1996.  Lance may have received EPO, hGH, or other "performance enhancing substances" during his recovery from cancer and chemotherapy treatments but was able to declare them and passed as a result.   Also, the levels he may have been taking did not cause his various marker levels to go outside the norms so again he passed. 

    2)      It amazes me that the LA frozen “B” samples are still being used to test the reliability of new drug testing procedures.  If that’s not obsessive, I don’t know what is.  I read Landis' book, Falsely Positive.  He describes how during the first phone call between the USADA lawyers, his lawyers, and he that a deal was offered to him.  He would get a 6 months suspension and be back for TDF 2007 if he gave up big names, ie Lance.  He said he couldn’t because he never saw and never heard anything regarding LA doping.    The other obsessive issues relates to the close relationship that these labs all seem to have with that one French paper who seems to always get the scoop…L’Equipe.  That is not ethical medical practice by any stretch. 

    3)      I would question the reliability of any lab and the tests. I have read research articles regarding the reliability of testing to detect certain drugs in urine and blood.  They weren’t too impressive.  The tests are neither reliable nor foolproof.  It comes down to skill and care of the technician performing the test.  Unless the same person is performing the test time and time again in the exact manner each time, I question the intra-tester reliability.  I still even question the inter-tester reliability based upon consistency in the method used. The WADA organization utilizes 500 different labs around the world.  I am sure they are close but close only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes.  Also, after reading  a few books about doping and performance enhancing drugs (I teach a drug testing section), There is not a consistent norm as to what is considered illegal.  The doping agencies in the various countries have different standards as to what is considered illegal.  Also, the doping agencies are also self-governed.  They answer to know one.  They is no oversight organization to keep them honest.  They have been known to make up their own rules as they see fit.

    4)      Pain tolerance.  Pain tolerance is individualistic.  The message I get from reading about TDF success is the athlete’s ability to suffer and push through the suffering better than the rest of the field.  Lance is physiologic freak that has been discussed in articles, TV, etc...   He has a high pain threshold in general due to the feakish physiological makeup.    Landis’ AVN of the hip helped to increase his pain tolerance.   Think of the pain you feel when you really push yourself up a steep climb.  Now, put that in the perspective of climbing in the Alps, could you really continue that long?  There is a lot to be said for working at high levels despite the pain…10% physical 90% mental isn’t that they saying?

    Sorry for the length.

    2008-07-23 3:42 AM
    in reply to: #1550376

    User image

    Master
    1718
    1000500100100
    Loughborough, England
    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France

    Are you sure that Lance was still receiving treatment for cancer up to 5 years after Oct 96?

    He had regular checkups until the 5 year mark (which is when he was officially declared cancer free) but I don't think that he was receiving any treatment during this time.  This 5 year period was just when, if the cancer was going to come back, it was most likely that it would, hence the reason for regular checkups and why LA celebrates this 5 year mark.



    2008-07-23 4:44 AM
    in reply to: #1549637

    Subject: ...
    This user's post has been ignored.

    Edited by CHR15 TREE 2008-07-23 4:48 AM
    2008-07-23 12:18 PM
    in reply to: #1548886

    Extreme Veteran
    790
    500100100252525
    Rocklin
    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
    ChicagoMan65 - 2008-07-22 9:01 AM

    eberulf - 2008-07-22 10:42 AM

    I think LA probably doped. The entire sport of cycling has been dirty at the top. I like LA, and give him a break because he has raised so much money and awareness for cancer research. Even if he did dope, so did his competition, and they didn't have to go through cancer treatements during their prime.

    That said, I also think many of the examples defending LA are inappropriate, especially comparing greats from other sports like Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan or Muhammed Ali. Doping was not prevalent in those sports at their peak. Why not compare LA to other greats, such as Barry Bonds or Marion Jones? They both dominated their sport and neither ever failed a test until Bonds was dumb enough to take amphetamines in 2006. Jones may have been tested even more than LA in her career. I don't understand why people keep saying LA never failed a drug test, when so many other athletes passed drug tests and later were caught. He supposedly failed when an old sample from 1999 was tested with a new method to find EPO. I agree it was not proof in a legal sense because of the method of testing, but it is certainly increases the doubt in my mind.

    I also don't think my opinion based on those observations make me a troll.


    Right on.


    Actually you are quite wrong...steriods were prevelant in the 90's for both basketball and baseball. Even worse, there were plenty of guys confirmed/busted for using coke to get up for games (Lawrence Taylor, Steve Howe, Dwight Gooden...need I go on). The argument that domination = cheating is weak, conclusory, and unprovable.

    This argument is my biggest pet peeve about LA. Did he dope...not in my mind until its proven by facts (i.e. failed drug test of a B sample tested by anyone other than the French). He's just too good...what a weak argument...see the Meryx discussion above.

    I hope he didn't...and screw Lemond that sell out.
    2008-07-23 1:17 PM
    in reply to: #1551205

    Expert
    713
    500100100
    WV
    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
    tridantri - 2008-07-23 2:42 AM

    Are you sure that Lance was still receiving treatment for cancer up to 5 years after Oct 96?

    He had regular checkups until the 5 year mark (which is when he was officially declared cancer free) but I don't think that he was receiving any treatment during this time.  This 5 year period was just when, if the cancer was going to come back, it was most likely that it would, hence the reason for regular checkups and why LA celebrates this 5 year mark.

    No I am not sure.  We will never know what he was on and for how long after.  It is a possibility that no one has ever acknowledged.  Personally, I know that I will be on my cancer related drugs until 5 years for some and for the rest of my life for other to keep cancer at bay.  Since I am early in this process....I am hoping to get "the Lance Effect".



    Edited by Dr Hammer 2008-07-23 1:26 PM
    2008-07-23 2:04 PM
    in reply to: #1539152

    Master
    1826
    100050010010010025
    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France

    So reading through this thread, and reading NLs great response.. the only argument I see put forth for why LA doped is that he was a cyclist, and others did it. This is the weakest argument of all, you are stating guilty by association.. association through the sport in which  he is competing.

    From hence forth, Bonds, Clemens, Jones all did not dope because most of their peers have not been busted for doping. I don't care what the tests say.. it just has to be that they didn't do it, because others weren't doing it 

    2008-07-23 2:46 PM
    in reply to: #1553009

    Not a Coach
    11473
    5000500010001001001001002525
    Media, PA
    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
    slake707 - 2008-07-23 3:04 PM

    From hence forth, Bonds, Clemens, Jones all did not dope because most of their peers have not been busted for doping. I don't care what the tests say.. it just has to be that they didn't do it, because others weren't doing it 

    ???????????

    The 'tests' say none of those athletes ever doped either.  They got 'caught' because someone else ended up fingering them.  Only Jones has actually admitted it (right before she was about to be sentenced for perjury).  So Bonds & Clemens are innocent until proven guilty too.



    2008-07-23 3:00 PM
    in reply to: #1553212

    Extreme Veteran
    790
    500100100252525
    Rocklin
    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
    JohnnyKay - 2008-07-23 12:46 PM

    slake707 - 2008-07-23 3:04 PM

    From hence forth, Bonds, Clemens, Jones all did not dope because most of their peers have not been busted for doping. I don't care what the tests say.. it just has to be that they didn't do it, because others weren't doing it 

    ???????????

    The 'tests' say none of those athletes ever doped either.  They got 'caught' because someone else ended up fingering them.  Only Jones has actually admitted it (right before she was about to be sentenced for perjury).  So Bonds & Clemens are innocent until proven guilty too.



    Actually, Bonds admitted to using "the clear," but claimed he didn't know what it was ("gee, why at 35 am I gaining all this muscle and head circumference? Must be the flaxseed oil!"). That's a big difference. Clemmons maintains his innocence...we'll see. Jones...well, those were her words saying yes I did it.
    2008-07-23 3:00 PM
    in reply to: #1551216

    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
    CHR15 TREE - 2008-07-23 2:44 AM
    newleaf - 2008-07-22 8:10 PM

    My dad has been such an inspiration to me, that I hope he is never shown to have robbed a bank, and I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    However, the thing that will always bother me is this: My Dad is so obsessive about every aspect of financial preparation (stocks, mutual funds, doing late-night research, etc.), it's hard for me to see how he could have avoided utilizing something like robbing a bank that can make such a huge difference in one's financial standing. I saw one study showing that robbing banks can increase one's net worth by 54% - now, this was a small study, and not in professional bank robbers, so an amateur like my dad probably wouldn't get that degree of benefit, but still, it would make a significant difference. But if you're obsessing over the daily price of a stock, or five basis points, how can you ignore something that many others are doing that increases net worth 20-50%?

    Please don't shoot me - save your bullets for when you rob the bank, I love my Dad and he's changed my life in such a positive way, that I hope it's shown that he has never robbed a bank.

     

    Your forget to mention your Father's older, but not quite so successful 'colleague', who used to be a financial whizzzzz. Who, despite claiming to have never robbed a bank himself, says there is no way your Dad could have got where he is today without robbing a bank. He says that your Dad, over a beer one night (or was it a telephone heart to heart), had actually admitted to robbing banks.

    This colleague is so bitter that your Dad made more money than him he will tell anybody who even slightly shows and interest in cycling erm I mean finance.

     

    Although I am loathe to post anything in this thread, I just have to say.....

    well played sir [golf clap]



    Edited by ChrisM 2008-07-23 3:00 PM
    2008-07-23 3:30 PM
    in reply to: #1552598

    Member
    1699
    1000500100252525
    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
    aggiecatcher - 2008-07-23 12:18 PM

    ChicagoMan65 - 2008-07-22 9:01 AM

    eberulf - 2008-07-22 10:42 AM

    I think LA probably doped. The entire sport of cycling has been dirty at the top. I like LA, and give him a break because he has raised so much money and awareness for cancer research. Even if he did dope, so did his competition, and they didn't have to go through cancer treatements during their prime.

    That said, I also think many of the examples defending LA are inappropriate, especially comparing greats from other sports like Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan or Muhammed Ali. Doping was not prevalent in those sports at their peak. Why not compare LA to other greats, such as Barry Bonds or Marion Jones? They both dominated their sport and neither ever failed a test until Bonds was dumb enough to take amphetamines in 2006. Jones may have been tested even more than LA in her career. I don't understand why people keep saying LA never failed a drug test, when so many other athletes passed drug tests and later were caught. He supposedly failed when an old sample from 1999 was tested with a new method to find EPO. I agree it was not proof in a legal sense because of the method of testing, but it is certainly increases the doubt in my mind.

    I also don't think my opinion based on those observations make me a troll.


    Right on.


    Actually you are quite wrong...steriods were prevelant in the 90's for both basketball and baseball. Even worse, there were plenty of guys confirmed/busted for using coke to get up for games (Lawrence Taylor, Steve Howe, Dwight Gooden...need I go on). The argument that domination = cheating is weak, conclusory, and unprovable.

    This argument is my biggest pet peeve about LA. Did he dope...not in my mind until its proven by facts (i.e. failed drug test of a B sample tested by anyone other than the French). He's just too good...what a weak argument...see the Meryx discussion above.

    I hope he didn't...and screw Lemond that sell out.


    I am quite wrong? Did Babe Ruth play in the 90's? Did Muhammed Ali box in the 90's? I was not aware of so much steroid use in the 90's for basketball either. As I am quite wrong, please provide quite a list of steroid users in basketball who were the peers of Michael Jordan. I cannot quite remember anyone like Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp, Gary Payon, Clyde Drexler, Akeem Olajuwon or Scottie Pippen getting busted for steroids.

    2008-07-23 3:45 PM
    in reply to: #1553212

    Master
    1826
    100050010010010025
    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
    JohnnyKay - 2008-07-23 3:46 PM
    slake707 - 2008-07-23 3:04 PM

    From hence forth, Bonds, Clemens, Jones all did not dope because most of their peers have not been busted for doping. I don't care what the tests say.. it just has to be that they didn't do it, because others weren't doing it

    ???????????

    The 'tests' say none of those athletes ever doped either. They got 'caught' because someone else ended up fingering them. Only Jones has actually admitted it (right before she was about to be sentenced for perjury). So Bonds & Clemens are innocent until proven guilty too.

    Haha.. I hate when facts get in the way.. see the media has done so much to sway me.. that I thought they had actually tested positive on a test 

    2008-07-23 4:20 PM
    in reply to: #1553419

    Extreme Veteran
    790
    500100100252525
    Rocklin
    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
    Babe Ruth did things that were simply ridiculous. Mohammed Ali doesn't fall into that class in my mind, but that's subjective (look at Babe Ruth's numbers...its pretty wild). I'm just not an Ali fan (too young), I liked Foreman.

    I was there in the 90's around professional athletes in the big three (NFL, NBA, and MLB) and playing minor league baseball. I saw plenty of drug use in the minors (amphetamines, steroids, pot, never saw coke but know it was used). I was even falsely accused during my minor league days by teamates...I took it as a compliment to my hard off-season work.

    The NFL was heavily using steroids as early as the 70's (see Lyle Alzado, John Matuzak, etc.). Was Howie Long's dominance from steroids? Well, he played on a team with admitted steroid abusers. What about Jerry Rice? We know that Lawrence Taylor was coked up during games in the 90's and he was dominant, so therefore all other dominant defensive players were on illegal performance enhancers? I think that logic is entirely flawed. What about illegal use of pain killers, numbing shots, etc.?

    By the way, the NBA and MLB did not test for Steriods in the 80's or 90's. The 40 man roster of MLB teams (which is the 25 man active, plus 15 top minor leaguers) did not drug test at all unless the player was arrested for use up until recently.

    I have never heard of any real proof re NBA players, so I can't comment on NBA players use, but Karl Malone was the subject of steroid rumors for years. Since this multiple-time all-star was never tested, we will never know. I thought he was great by the way. He was big and dominant, and thus he used...come on.




    2008-07-23 4:29 PM
    in reply to: #1539152

    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
    All the evidence on either side of this arguement is circumstantial. You either choose to believe Lance or believe the French press.
    2008-07-23 4:52 PM
    in reply to: #1553618

    Master
    1359
    10001001001002525
    South of SLC
    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
    aggiecatcher - 2008-07-23 2:20 PM

    Was Howie Long's dominance from steroids? Well, he played on a team with admitted steroid abusers.


    I think Howie must be dirty -- he has such a large melon.

    Mike
    2008-07-23 6:44 PM
    in reply to: #1553707

    Extreme Veteran
    790
    500100100252525
    Rocklin
    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
    Rollin' Thunder - 2008-07-23 2:52 PM

    aggiecatcher - 2008-07-23 2:20 PM

    Was Howie Long's dominance from steroids? Well, he played on a team with admitted steroid abusers.


    I think Howie must be dirty -- he has such a large melon.

    Mike


    "It's like Sputnik"
    2008-07-23 7:18 PM
    in reply to: #1553294

    Sneaky Slow
    8694
    500020001000500100252525
    Herndon, VA,
    Subject: RE: Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France
    ChrisM - 2008-07-23 4:00 PM
    CHR15 TREE - 2008-07-23 2:44 AM
    newleaf - 2008-07-22 8:10 PM

    My dad has been such an inspiration to me, that I hope he is never shown to have robbed a bank, and I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    However, the thing that will always bother me is this: My Dad is so obsessive about every aspect of financial preparation (stocks, mutual funds, doing late-night research, etc.), it's hard for me to see how he could have avoided utilizing something like robbing a bank that can make such a huge difference in one's financial standing. I saw one study showing that robbing banks can increase one's net worth by 54% - now, this was a small study, and not in professional bank robbers, so an amateur like my dad probably wouldn't get that degree of benefit, but still, it would make a significant difference. But if you're obsessing over the daily price of a stock, or five basis points, how can you ignore something that many others are doing that increases net worth 20-50%?

    Please don't shoot me - save your bullets for when you rob the bank, I love my Dad and he's changed my life in such a positive way, that I hope it's shown that he has never robbed a bank.

     

    Your forget to mention your Father's older, but not quite so successful 'colleague', who used to be a financial whizzzzz. Who, despite claiming to have never robbed a bank himself, says there is no way your Dad could have got where he is today without robbing a bank. He says that your Dad, over a beer one night (or was it a telephone heart to heart), had actually admitted to robbing banks.

    This colleague is so bitter that your Dad made more money than him he will tell anybody who even slightly shows and interest in cycling erm I mean finance.

     

    Although I am loathe to post anything in this thread, I just have to say.....

    well played sir [golf clap]

    Ha, I missed that.  Well done. 

    New Thread
    General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France Rss Feed  
     
     
    of 6