Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [aravilare] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
wbattaile wrote:
He is married to one of the IMC podium finishers in JM's AG.


As JayPeeWhy's best friend in the whole world (just kidding) I must say, from the beginning, this had zero to do with Claire's placing. She had her Kona slot. This was, from the beginning, the absolute questioning of the legitimacy of the first place racer by other podium members and outside observers who questioned her in this race and previous events. I assure you, his pursuit of the truth here had very little to do with where his wife stood on the podium. She was going to suffer with him in Kona either way that this went.

Brent
\

Which is why, of course, he disclosed his conflict of interest in the very beginning because it didn't matter. Oops, oh wait.


There was a ton of behind the scenes stuff going on, of which I am not privy, and he put a good amount of it together. I don't see where his conflict of interest is. His wife did not win the AG. She is still going to Kona. Curious...did he do something wrong in bringing this to light?

Did I do something wrong in finding the Vancouver results from 2014?

This is a pattern of behavior (race behavior only, apparently) that if multiple people hadn't put it all together, would have resulted in Marla Zucht (sp) NOT going to Kona in a spot she earned. Having put it five IM attempts in to qualify for Kona myself (which I finally did at IMC, and I have GPS to back it up :) ) I know how hard she must've worked to get there. That fact, that the rightful 3rd placer got her spot to Kona, is the important part of this outcome. And for that I think JayPeeWhy should be commended.

Brent


His wife was involved in that AG, it's reasonable for people to expect him to disclose it. It's definitely in his interest to preface his comments since JM is pretty obviously guilty.


It was in the other thread (I was pretty sure it was, but others confirmed it - I didn't pay attention since I know the Youngs) but in every discussion JPY and I have had in regards to this - every one - NEVER was Claire's placing discussed. So, with it already disclosed early, I'm glad we got it all cleared up!

Brent


It was. Unfortunately, that entire thread was deleted and is now invisible to new readers...

Good - he's done the right thing with responsible research and made sure he had all the facts before he brought this forward. A less honorable way to do it would to have been to post as we were behind the stage at results when we would have done something emotional, like accusing someone of conflict of interest...

Brent

DFRU - Detta Family Racing Unit...the kids like it and we all get out and after it...gotta keep the fam involved!
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [walie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
walie wrote:
aravilare wrote:
Runout wrote:
He not only disclosed it, he pointed out that his wife was the 'short, crazy one in the middle' in the photo showing the 5 podium finishers in the F40-44 AG. That's a fact, Jack.


Yep, can you link the post? Oh wait...


Pretty sure that everyone who is reading this thread has read the other thread as well. Don't know why you're still grasping at this.

Do you have some mental disability? Everyone who didn't read ST daily for the last few days is going to just see this thread? GTFO of your microcosm and recognize that most people don't read ST daily, or even weekly.
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [aravilare] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
aravilare wrote:


Yep, can you link the post? Oh wait...


And what about your agenda? What are you trying to prove here? Can't you just let it go and move on? ..... Ggggeeeeeeeezzzz......
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [aravilare] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You actually bring up a point worth discussing.
It's clear you felt that because he had an association with one of the other women in the age group that this was a "conflict of interest".
While I agree it's necessary to disclose that information I think it's fair for him to reveal relevant information about the "case".
Who better to shine a light on rule benders then those who are there, witness it first hand and are effected by it?
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [dfru] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dfru wrote:
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
wbattaile wrote:
He is married to one of the IMC podium finishers in JM's AG.


As JayPeeWhy's best friend in the whole world (just kidding) I must say, from the beginning, this had zero to do with Claire's placing. She had her Kona slot. This was, from the beginning, the absolute questioning of the legitimacy of the first place racer by other podium members and outside observers who questioned her in this race and previous events. I assure you, his pursuit of the truth here had very little to do with where his wife stood on the podium. She was going to suffer with him in Kona either way that this went.

Brent
\

Which is why, of course, he disclosed his conflict of interest in the very beginning because it didn't matter. Oops, oh wait.


There was a ton of behind the scenes stuff going on, of which I am not privy, and he put a good amount of it together. I don't see where his conflict of interest is. His wife did not win the AG. She is still going to Kona. Curious...did he do something wrong in bringing this to light?

Did I do something wrong in finding the Vancouver results from 2014?

This is a pattern of behavior (race behavior only, apparently) that if multiple people hadn't put it all together, would have resulted in Marla Zucht (sp) NOT going to Kona in a spot she earned. Having put it five IM attempts in to qualify for Kona myself (which I finally did at IMC, and I have GPS to back it up :) ) I know how hard she must've worked to get there. That fact, that the rightful 3rd placer got her spot to Kona, is the important part of this outcome. And for that I think JayPeeWhy should be commended.

Brent


His wife was involved in that AG, it's reasonable for people to expect him to disclose it. It's definitely in his interest to preface his comments since JM is pretty obviously guilty.


It was in the other thread (I was pretty sure it was, but others confirmed it - I didn't pay attention since I know the Youngs) but in every discussion JPY and I have had in regards to this - every one - NEVER was Claire's placing discussed. So, with it already disclosed early, I'm glad we got it all cleared up!

Brent


It was. Unfortunately, that entire thread was deleted and is now invisible to new readers...


Good - he's done the right thing with responsible research and made sure he had all the facts before he brought this forward. A less honorable way to do it would to have been to post as we were behind the stage at results when we would have done something emotional, like accusing someone of conflict of interest...

Brent

Da fuck? Reasonable ethical standards would dictate people disclose their biases upfront. It doesn't invalidate anything but not saying anything is definitely a bad sign.
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [aravilare] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
aravilare wrote:

In the interest of honesty and transparency, can you disclose what affiliation you have with the people that the guilty party cheated?

What, all of them?

Married to one. Not married to the others. It was mentioned very early in I think, and numerous times later on but it was in passing. 'my wife came third' or something similar. I have never met Julie Miller.

Powered by - Wave Physiotherapy | PB+J Coaching
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Aug 27, 15 21:31
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [aravilare] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
wbattaile wrote:
He is married to one of the IMC podium finishers in JM's AG.


As JayPeeWhy's best friend in the whole world (just kidding) I must say, from the beginning, this had zero to do with Claire's placing. She had her Kona slot. This was, from the beginning, the absolute questioning of the legitimacy of the first place racer by other podium members and outside observers who questioned her in this race and previous events. I assure you, his pursuit of the truth here had very little to do with where his wife stood on the podium. She was going to suffer with him in Kona either way that this went.

Brent
\

Which is why, of course, he disclosed his conflict of interest in the very beginning because it didn't matter. Oops, oh wait.


There was a ton of behind the scenes stuff going on, of which I am not privy, and he put a good amount of it together. I don't see where his conflict of interest is. His wife did not win the AG. She is still going to Kona. Curious...did he do something wrong in bringing this to light?

Did I do something wrong in finding the Vancouver results from 2014?

This is a pattern of behavior (race behavior only, apparently) that if multiple people hadn't put it all together, would have resulted in Marla Zucht (sp) NOT going to Kona in a spot she earned. Having put it five IM attempts in to qualify for Kona myself (which I finally did at IMC, and I have GPS to back it up :) ) I know how hard she must've worked to get there. That fact, that the rightful 3rd placer got her spot to Kona, is the important part of this outcome. And for that I think JayPeeWhy should be commended.

Brent


His wife was involved in that AG, it's reasonable for people to expect him to disclose it. It's definitely in his interest to preface his comments since JM is pretty obviously guilty.


It was in the other thread (I was pretty sure it was, but others confirmed it - I didn't pay attention since I know the Youngs) but in every discussion JPY and I have had in regards to this - every one - NEVER was Claire's placing discussed. So, with it already disclosed early, I'm glad we got it all cleared up!

Brent


It was. Unfortunately, that entire thread was deleted and is now invisible to new readers...


Good - he's done the right thing with responsible research and made sure he had all the facts before he brought this forward. A less honorable way to do it would to have been to post as we were behind the stage at results when we would have done something emotional, like accusing someone of conflict of interest...

Brent


Da fuck? Reasonable ethical standards would dictate people disclose their biases upfront. It doesn't invalidate anything but not saying anything is definitely a bad sign.

OK, I think that it is established that he put it out there early. So, you are reaching for something. Not sure what it is. I hope you find it. There's really nothing to hide for him or his wife in this - she was going to Kona either way. So good luck with whatever the motivation here is. I think he has been very fair with this in being factual only.

Brent

DFRU - Detta Family Racing Unit...the kids like it and we all get out and after it...gotta keep the fam involved!
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
aravilare wrote:

In the interest of honesty and transparency, can you disclose what affiliation you have with the people that the guilty party cheated?[/quote

What, all of them?

Married to one. Not married to the others. It was mentioned very early in I think, and numerous times later on but it was in passing. 'my wife came third' or something similar. I have never met Julie Miller.

Thank you for responding, best wishes.
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [dfru] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dfru wrote:
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
aravilare wrote:
dfru wrote:
wbattaile wrote:
He is married to one of the IMC podium finishers in JM's AG.


As JayPeeWhy's best friend in the whole world (just kidding) I must say, from the beginning, this had zero to do with Claire's placing. She had her Kona slot. This was, from the beginning, the absolute questioning of the legitimacy of the first place racer by other podium members and outside observers who questioned her in this race and previous events. I assure you, his pursuit of the truth here had very little to do with where his wife stood on the podium. She was going to suffer with him in Kona either way that this went.

Brent
\

Which is why, of course, he disclosed his conflict of interest in the very beginning because it didn't matter. Oops, oh wait.


There was a ton of behind the scenes stuff going on, of which I am not privy, and he put a good amount of it together. I don't see where his conflict of interest is. His wife did not win the AG. She is still going to Kona. Curious...did he do something wrong in bringing this to light?

Did I do something wrong in finding the Vancouver results from 2014?

This is a pattern of behavior (race behavior only, apparently) that if multiple people hadn't put it all together, would have resulted in Marla Zucht (sp) NOT going to Kona in a spot she earned. Having put it five IM attempts in to qualify for Kona myself (which I finally did at IMC, and I have GPS to back it up :) ) I know how hard she must've worked to get there. That fact, that the rightful 3rd placer got her spot to Kona, is the important part of this outcome. And for that I think JayPeeWhy should be commended.

Brent


His wife was involved in that AG, it's reasonable for people to expect him to disclose it. It's definitely in his interest to preface his comments since JM is pretty obviously guilty.


It was in the other thread (I was pretty sure it was, but others confirmed it - I didn't pay attention since I know the Youngs) but in every discussion JPY and I have had in regards to this - every one - NEVER was Claire's placing discussed. So, with it already disclosed early, I'm glad we got it all cleared up!

Brent


It was. Unfortunately, that entire thread was deleted and is now invisible to new readers...


Good - he's done the right thing with responsible research and made sure he had all the facts before he brought this forward. A less honorable way to do it would to have been to post as we were behind the stage at results when we would have done something emotional, like accusing someone of conflict of interest...

Brent


Da fuck? Reasonable ethical standards would dictate people disclose their biases upfront. It doesn't invalidate anything but not saying anything is definitely a bad sign.


OK, I think that it is established that he put it out there early. So, you are reaching for something. Not sure what it is. I hope you find it. There's really nothing to hide for him or his wife in this - she was going to Kona either way. So good luck with whatever the motivation here is. I think he has been very fair with this in being factual only.

Brent

The other thread has been deleted.
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [aravilare] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
aravilare wrote:

The other thread has been deleted.

As your previous post related to jpy... Funny, eh, how things can be deleted sometimes ;)
Glad you find what you were looking for.
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [playmobil31] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
playmobil31 wrote:
aravilare wrote:


The other thread has been deleted.


As your previous post related to jpy... Funny, eh, how things can be deleted sometimes ;)
Glad you find what you were looking for.

Nope.
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [playmobil31] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is it really that hard to ignore him?
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spudone wrote:
GrimOopNorth wrote:
mbwallis wrote:
Fair enough. At this point I'm just interested in what the organizations (USAT, ITU, WTC, etc.) are going to do about it, if anything. There's a history there, and a ban had better be forthcoming.


Not to mention examining the results and discerning whether, on the balance of probabilities, foul play occurred, and issuing a DQ if they believed it had occurred.

When there's a demonstrated pattern of repeated course cutting, the penalty should be a lengthy ban from competition, not just a DQ for a particular race. To me, it is on par with doping.
I would say there is a substantial difference. If a cheater mends their ways, they can race on a level playing field, whereas I imagine a doper can retain some of the benefits from doping for quite a long time.
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy:

I just got off the road after 8 hours to find a missing thread.

What was obvious to the girls on the podium in Whistler? What was their conversation? What did they know that we can use?

The thing I've been pondering is that the officials missed the fact that Julie beat the pro men in Vancouver for a couple of splits, but no one caught it until now.

What was obvious on that podium that we can use to prevent future cheating?
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [Pancks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pancks wrote:
Is it really that hard to ignore him?

Don't feed the troll.

Swim. Overbike. Walk.
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [Pacific John] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For questionable performances (especially those netting a podium, KQ, WCQ, BQ, etc.) it would be great to see the burden shifted to the athlete to validate their performance as a condition of qualifying.

Lost your chip, better make sure your Garmin is working. Forgot to start your Garmin, make sure your number is visible and pose extra-pretty for the race photogs.


__________________________________________________
Powered by: Hat Tip - the power of thanks
http://hattip.com http://locations.hattip.com
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [Pacific John] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
when you're racing at the pointier end, you generally have a pretty acute sense of your own pacing, and are pretty aware of your competition, too. sometimes people just have great days, and sometimes somebody you don't know comes out of nowhere to win.
i'm sure most of the girls would be thinking, "i don't remember her passing me," or "i don't recognize her," or "i know that i should have run X given that course in this weather" or whatever. but it's a bit of a stretch for most of us to go from that to thinking that someone outright cheated - it's not usually where our minds go, first. you might assume a mistake on the athlete's part, or course volunteers misdirecting someone, or the timing being screwed up. i'm sure the first though was . . . "huh, that's weird."

it's also usually the case that after a big race you're tired and overwhelmed, and the results are often in a messy format (uncorrected for waves, 'gun vs chip' times, and so on). even after the fact, some of the results we've seen (like the world's results) have been a bit hard to read. it's only in the clear light of day when we sit down with a cup of tea and look over a few different races that something is clearly wrong.

i could imagine a way in which chip timing companies might be able to program their machines to 'beep' when an age-grouper put in a performance that deviated massively from the mean (or broke a world record!) or something, but maybe this process is always going to be at least somewhat retrospective.

-mike

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [JayPeeWhy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JayPeeWhy wrote:
So far we have had a DQ from Ironman Canada in 2015 and a stripping of results from the Vancouver Half Iron in 2014

There has been a lot of speculation regarding the performance of Julie Miller at the ITU Long Course World Championship in China in 2014.

A run that decimated all in her age group - 1hr 23m 43s (some 6 minutes faster than anyone else in her AG over just 20km) and a run that decimated most of the pro / elite female field (she had the 4th Fastest Female time compared to all Elite/ Pro Women - beating Andrea Hewett (NZ) and Laura Bennett (USA)

The lady who came 2nd in the 40-44 Age Group, thereby losing the right to call herself a World Champion, is Victoria Hill who was representing Great Britain. Victoria is a super consistent athlete and a great runner. Following the recent DQ's and after a year of uncertainly she has decided to come forward with her version of events at that World Championship race.

Here's what she had to say:

Quote:

At the time in Weihai, the result was always a mystery. Julie had clearly crossed the line in front of me..... I only clocked [saw] her on our last lap. I knew I was catching her, there was no way she is a faster runner than me. At the finish, the results said I had won which of course she challenged. She had crossed the line in front of me so I accepted I had come 2nd. The results were a debacle, it took ages for them to do our awards ceremony and then it transpired that her chip had been lost/something went wrong with it. I had no reason to think otherwise.

When the results finally came out on the website, it showed that she had come off the bike after me and then ran a faster time than me. I always knew this was wrong as I know for a fact no girl past me on the run. As this part is my strength, I normally do the passing on the run so would be well aware of another female passing me. The results only got published on line the next day and I never challenged it. In hindsight, of course I should have done but I just assumed she had come off the bike well in front of me and that I could not quite get her on the run. It was a 3 lap bike and a 4 lap run so somewhere she obviously ....


The third placed girl is also in contact with Victoria and they are looking to pursue the matter with ITU.

.

I think the discussion needs to be turned more towards this (and no the credibility of JayPeeWhy, ref last 2 pages of this new thread). Thanks for posting the above. I also posted in the previous IMC-thread regarding JM's run in Weihai. 1:23 for 20K - running only slightly slower than most ELITE men - Craig Alexander had the by far fastest split that day with 1:09. This seems highly unlikley - as backed up by the post from JayPeeWhy above.

Just out of curiosity I found a map of what seems to be the 2014 Weihei Run-course. A 4-loop 5k: http://www.triathlon.org/...ts/LD_run_course.jpg

For me the run-split is evidence enough - pretty much in line with the bike-splits of lap 3+4 in Vancouver Half 2014. It is more than hard to believe that JM could run 1:23 for 20k on the back of a 4 hrs bike@just under 30 km/h. I am all for keeping the faith that I one day may truly perform to my potential and bust out a huge PR for a run-split in IM/HIM, but I think that this is just not realistic at the very pointy end of the field.

Sure: if your previous PR was - for instance - 1:30 for a HIM run split - achieving a 2min PR is actually quite a bit of an improvement. Going 5-6 sec faster every K may not sound that incredible, but IMO the difference of 4:15/k and 4:10k is pretty noticable.. Still - this is well within the realm of possibility. What is not within the realm of possibility is - as far as I'm concerned - going from a 4:45/pace to 4-4:15min/K for a HIM-run split. This just does not happen over night, no matter how good a day you had. One thing is going from 6:30min/K to 5:45 min/K - which in itself would be a huge improvement. However, gains will be more easily obtained the slower your starting-speed was. When approaching speeds at 4min/k and below for a HIM-split you are so close to the really pointy end of your own potential, I just dont believe it can happen from one month to another. I should note that I dont have any good grounds to establish JMs normal running ability (partly becaue all of her results are now being questioned), but for example se ran:

- 1:39 in Vancouver half where it seems she cut the bike. This is approx 4:40min/k.

- 3:01 for 2015 ITU Long Dist (30k run) - this is approx 6:00/k - allthough on the back of a longer bike than your normal HIM.

Based of this alone she would have to cook up one heck of an explanation for me to believe she ran 4:10/k on the back of a 120k bike in Weihai..

Sure - course-profiles would also affect this picture, but the unlikleyness of her run split in ITU 2014 is supported by comparing her run split to other racers in the various events - she chrushed it compered to everyone else in Weihai. Not so much the other events. Also - the run course in Weihai - where she has by far her fastes run-pace - seems to be quite hilly: http://www.triathlon.org/...un_Profile_Graph.jpg
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [iron_mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As was in the other thread, if someone at a race challenges race results either at the race, or like on ST, they basically get attacked.

I know in a race I did a while back I looked at the race results and a guy beat me who had a 20 minute swim. I know everyone in my AG and no one
can swim a 20 minute swim. This was at the level of only 1 or 2 swam in the entire race. Harpers kid swam about this. So I go over and talk to the timer and I got nothing but crap. That I was
a poor sport. He is the best. I was shocked. Never had I had a timing company challenge me with clearly a result that was not possible. His bike time was fine,
and his run time was fine. I went to the USAT official to file a protest and he just did not want to do it. I even challenged the person on the podium
asking had he ever swam a 20 in an Olympic 1.5K before and he said yes.

I left with nothing but everyone supporting him saying he is the best and I was just a poor sport.

The next day magically his times were adjusted. They added 5 minutes to his swim. Took 5 minutes off his bike. No other person had
an issue with the timing system. Clearly he started in the wrong wave which was 5 minutes before. But the "system" covered for him.

I went back and forth with the USAT official and the end result from the USAT side was because they could not "prove" anything, they could do nothing.
Unless you have a timing mat at the start of the swim, I person can start in an early way and there is basically nothing one can do about it.

So I can clearly see why folks do not want to bring up issues they see with results. They are at the risk of being attacked for being the messenger.

.

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Julie has a delusional friend: http://www.kristaguloien.net/...79e80cf2de902a762586

2018 Races:
Oceanside 70.3, Oceanside, CA, April 7th | Ironman Texas, The Woodlands, TX, April 28th | Finland 70.3, Lahti, Finland, June 30th | Jonkoping 70.3, Jonkoping, Sweden, July 8th | Waco 70.3, Waco, TX, October 28th

Gear: Dimond Bikes | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [GMAN19030] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ironic that the writer of that blog's tag line is "Sports do not build character. They reveal it!"
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [GMAN19030] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It would be interesting to see if she has full race splits for IMC 2013. How long does sportstats keep that data?
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [GMAN19030] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oh man, that's tough to read. sad.

-mike

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [GMAN19030] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Everything she wrote sounds reasonable on the surface. Once she digs a little deeper Krista will be disappointed.

The problem is it's not easy to get reliable, incontrovertible evidence. Anyone who comments on her post would be at risk of being a cyber bully with ulterior motives. Even on this thread, just pointing out past results has an individual's character and motives questioned.
Last edited by: gregf83: Aug 28, 15 5:23
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [msk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
msk wrote:
It would be interesting to see if she has full race splits for IMC 2013. How long does sportstats keep that data?

IIRC she "lost" her chip for the run at that race too.

Hugh

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.
Quote Reply

Prev Next