Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [Pat0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pat0 wrote:
DomerTriGuy wrote:
realtalk wrote:


Okay, so you're still innocent and your supplement was contaminated? Then tell us what supplement it is. Admitting to ingesting contaminated salt tabs but not giving any info beyond that very general statement and a loophole that has gotta be closed. Admitting you ingested a banned substance by contamination and receiving a 6-month suspension is essentially a plea deal. Oh, the suspension is already over? Funny, because the news flash came out yesterday... That is laughable. I feel terrible for the athlete that is sticking to her guns but getting a 2-year ban because she did not admit fault. At least there's some integrity to this claim of contamination. The 6-month suspension (that is already over) is a cowards deal and does nothing for the anti-doping cause.

Maybe I missed it but who got a "deal"? The athlete doesn't get to choose their punishment. Proving the tab was contaminated was all they did which would show the salt they say was expected to be clean was in fact contaminated. Whether you believe that or not is up to you.

So one admitted fault and one didn't? You mean one happened to have proof and the other didn't have the same? They're both saying the same thing but one had a bottle still sealed; you don't have one admitting guilt and not the other.

But you go ahead and keep being angry at the world.

Exactly. No one got a "deal" and he called it the cowards deal? Please. This is misinformation at its finest. She got a lesser penalty because she could prove that the drug was in an unopened package of salt tabs. That's all.


PLEASE tell me how she proved this!!! That's all I'm asking. An unopened package of salt tabs is a simply an unopened package of salt tabs. If they are unopened...she did not take those salt tabs. Additionally, the test did not say that she was taking Ostarine though salt tabs. It just said she was taking Ostarine. Give me some Facts PeteO so we can be friends. That's all i'm asking for...
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [realtalk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
realtalk wrote:

You must show me the link that shows this 'proof' with some facts. A statement saying that she provided proof is just that, a statement saying she provided proof. But it does nothing to establish the validity of the statement because there's no facts! She 'conclusively proved' that tabs in her possession were contaminated...okay, go on! How did she prove this? The salt tabs in her possession were contaminated. Okay, were these also the salt tabs she was taking? Was she even taking salt tabs? These should all be simple answers but noone knows. If she has conclusively proved this then there should be supporting facts. Tell us the facts. Cmon GomerTriGuy!
Must I? Maybe try the first post...many of your questions have already been answered in the original article. But maybe they're all on the take and it's a big conspiracy.

At least you are showing your maturity resorting to name calling (and lack of creativity/intelligence with it).
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [realtalk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 


PLEASE tell me how she proved this!!! That's all I'm asking. An unopened package of salt tabs is a simply an unopened package of salt tabs. If they are unopened...she did not take those salt tabs. Additionally, the test did not say that she was taking Ostarine though salt tabs. It just said she was taking Ostarine. Give me some Facts PeteO so we can be friends. That's all i'm asking for...[/quote]

Ok, the first article I read about this stated that she provided the bottle of pills she had been taking. Other bottles from the same batch number were sourced and also tested which confirmed the contamination.
I am not saying she is innocent, she took a substance from what appeared to be a non main stream company which contained 'botanical substances' which the company states were meant to promote endurance. That is a risky thing to do for an athlete as these types of ingredients are never tested and can be potent enhancers in their own right and many can have similar effects and chemical composition to mainstream ped's and trigger positive results. Any and every pro athlete would/should know this. She chose to take that risk and got pinged.
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [realtalk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
realtalk wrote:
Pat0 wrote:
DomerTriGuy wrote:
realtalk wrote:


Okay, so you're still innocent and your supplement was contaminated? Then tell us what supplement it is. Admitting to ingesting contaminated salt tabs but not giving any info beyond that very general statement and a loophole that has gotta be closed. Admitting you ingested a banned substance by contamination and receiving a 6-month suspension is essentially a plea deal. Oh, the suspension is already over? Funny, because the news flash came out yesterday... That is laughable. I feel terrible for the athlete that is sticking to her guns but getting a 2-year ban because she did not admit fault. At least there's some integrity to this claim of contamination. The 6-month suspension (that is already over) is a cowards deal and does nothing for the anti-doping cause.

Maybe I missed it but who got a "deal"? The athlete doesn't get to choose their punishment. Proving the tab was contaminated was all they did which would show the salt they say was expected to be clean was in fact contaminated. Whether you believe that or not is up to you.

So one admitted fault and one didn't? You mean one happened to have proof and the other didn't have the same? They're both saying the same thing but one had a bottle still sealed; you don't have one admitting guilt and not the other.

But you go ahead and keep being angry at the world.

Exactly. No one got a "deal" and he called it the cowards deal? Please. This is misinformation at its finest. She got a lesser penalty because she could prove that the drug was in an unopened package of salt tabs. That's all.



PLEASE tell me how she proved this!!! That's all I'm asking. An unopened package of salt tabs is a simply an unopened package of salt tabs. If they are unopened...she did not take those salt tabs. Additionally, the test did not say that she was taking Ostarine though salt tabs. It just said she was taking Ostarine. Give me some Facts PeteO so we can be friends. That's all i'm asking for...

This has already been covered ad nauseam in previous posts.

- Unopened package of salt tabs is important because, they tested positive for Ostarine, and they weren't tampered with because the bottle was unopened. Likewise an opened package could always be subject to tampering by the athletes themselves, hence why the unopened package is so important in reducing the ban to 6 months.

- Athletes don't test positive for salt tabs, they test positive for trace molecules that are in salt tabs or other supplements. She tested + for Ostarine. It was latter shown that the likely cause for Ostarine in her body was the result of ingestion of tainted salt tabs.


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The part that i dont understand is that if it was sorta proven that the pills were tainted, why wasn't the ban completely lifted? I mean it sounds like they gave her a slap on the wrist because she ate what she could prove as bad pills. So was it simply "you should know better...but because it was proven tainted and we are this far along, we'll just say that the ban was "time served" " (IE, the amount of time she sat and didnt race)?

I guess I'm asking, if she proved it was tainted and/or they accepted it, why wasn't she completely free from an "doping" charge?

Is it because she should have known the pills were tainted and not taken them????

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
B_Doughtie wrote:
The part that i dont understand is that if it was sorta proven that the pills were tainted, why wasn't the ban completely lifted? I mean it sounds like they gave her a slap on the wrist because she ate what she could prove as bad pills. So was it simply "you should know better...but because it was proven tainted and we are this far along, we'll just say that the ban was "time served" " (IE, the amount of time she sat and didnt race)?

I guess I'm asking, if she proved it was tainted and/or they accepted it, why wasn't she completely free from an "doping" charge?

Is it because she should have known the pills were tainted and not taken them????

That is a great question and one I certainly can't answer but hope to hear the answer of as well. What you described seems to be the exact same outcome you describe in the Cleb case back in September.


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Should the salt pill be putting out batch code numbers that are possibly contaminated? Even if it is a sports supplement only they should be issuing a contaminated product recall.

I totally agree with your assessment. Salt pills are de facto common aids used in triathlon. As long as the athlete wasn't negligent in choosing a shady manufacturer she has a reasonable expectation of product quality and safety. Since she has shown that there is batch contamination then it follows she shouldn't receive a ban. What if the contaminated product was a gu pack or gatoraid?
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [mcmetal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mcmetal wrote:
realtalk wrote:
As surprising as it may sound, professional athletes are expected to strictly monitor any and every substance that goes into their body. That is why many high level athletes don't take supplements and if they do, they take it from a reputable manufacturer. You'll notice that none of the athletes list what manufacturer supplement was contaminated with the illegal substance. You'd think that this would be public information, and if the athlete was in fact innocent, to warn other athletes of potential products to steer clear from, but none will mention what caused them to fail the test. Why? These two doping bans are the 6th and 7th triathlon doping bans from USADA...ever. They should be required to publicize the supplement that caused the failed test; if it was an honest mistake, they've nothing to hide. If the manufacturer of the supplement screwed up, WHO IS THE MANUFACTURER? Until this is known, the athlete is the one who screwed up because they put it in their body.


What you suggest is simply not feasible unless perhaps you are one of the highest paid athletes. Are you expecting everyone to bring a mobile lab with them and test out samples of everything before they even eat food at a restaurant? Even local water supplies are known to contain prescription drugs in them. It's easy to armchair quarterback this stuff but athletes are people too and you can't expect them to live in quarantined bubble all year round.

I'll give you a do-over on this rebuttal since you clearly have no idea how testing works. Go do a little research and then we can have another go at this. I'd also recommend that you move away from Flint, MI, ASAP! If you're getting your prescription drug fix from the local water supply...oy, I don't even know what to say on that.

Also, you can call me Joe Montana of armchair qb's because I'm married to one of these athletes and it really pretty darn easy! Any professional athlete would completely disagree with you on the expectations and responsibilities that come along with racing...and it's really not that hard to monitor what goes into your body. Are restaurants putting Ostarine next to the Salt and Pepper these days?
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [Pantelones] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's what i don't understand. By the athlete having an 2nd unused package, said athlete likely did *some* due diligence of trying to do the *right* thing. If said supplement was advertising X Y and Z ingredients and all were legal then I don't understand the process. Like if what they are advertising is legal but under the table providing some unknown tainted supplement, what level of expectation is on the athlete? Do they have to do science project on every ingredient they put in their body?

Eggs? Bread? Supplements? Water? Coffee? Broccoli?

So I'm still confused by the ruling. It seems they understand it was tainted but still said "shame on you"?

Kinda seems like a process of the full brunt of all responsibility is on athletes 100% of time...ok cool, but how does an athlete find out if X is tainted or not tainted?

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [realtalk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm married to one of these athletes and it really pretty darn easy! Any professional athlete would completely disagree with you on the expectations and responsibilities that come along with racing...and it's really not that hard to monitor what goes into your body

----

I'm curious, what monitoring procedures do y'all follow? Is it only using "trustworthy" products from trusthworthy companies?

Asking in all seriousness because I'm trying to figure out the actual degree of certainty you go to to know exactly what goes in your mate's body. Because well that seems to be the deal- it's on the athlete.

So curious to what degree you actual know everything you ingest is clean and how you actually know. Is it simply no supplemements?

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [mungub50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Proven guilty is strong and I don't believe technically correct.

They were both found to have unintentionally ingested ostarine... something they passively ingested due to contamination. Proven definitively in Lauren's case. It was slightly less definitive in Beth's case. She only had "3 pill packs" and they did find some contamination in separate packages but not in every package. What's even crazier is that Beth's B sample urine test was contaminated with someone else's urine. Makes you question the entire process.
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
O am also curious about our opinion of the 2nd athlete; who did not prove the salt tabs were contaminated? What do we think here?
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [R2] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
is the 2nd athlete the one that had an issue with proving how tainted supplement got in her system? Governing body asked for evidence and she didn't give enough for them to justify? Is that the cliff notes version?

If you can't prove it, not really sure what the issue is. But if athlete can show x product is not what it says and is found to be tainted by the governing body, I'm still unsure why the ban was not lifted and given "free" pass all together?

I mean isn't that how it should work? If you can provide evidence in that manner then shouldn't that clear you?

But If you cant provide that type of evidence that the governing body agrees with, well the ruling is what it is?

I'm not being unfair or judgemental am I?

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thank you... you just reached the conclusion that the onus is completely on the athlete to account for everything they have ingested... whether unwittingly or otherwise. The BEST case scenario is a 6mth ban under the current rules EVEN if you unintentionally ingested something and were able to provide evidence as to the source of the banned substance.

I'm shocked that this isn't more of a wake-up call to all pros and elite amateurs...
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [R2] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So again my question is, if product says it contains XYZ and all are legal. How are athletes suppose to check? How does an athlete check for actual tainted products? I don't think I've seen that under the FAQ at usada's website. Maybe it's been recently added, if so could we get it linked here?


ETA: the answer seems to be use products that are "trustworthy". But again my question is, is that the only answer to YOU the athlete KNOWING said product is clean? That is my issue in this. Do you really know or just hope/assume because they are "reputable"?

ETA #2- so it goes back to my issue. If athlete did everything they could to not take tainted supplement but then was essentially able to show how/why they were found to have banned substance? Why isn't that case completely thrown out?

Like isn't that how it should work? If athlete is found to have x product in their system and it can be verified by the doping controls the product is tainted, why was it still a 6 month ban?

I'm at a loss for why wada threw out the tainted beef doping issue but still gave athlete 6 month ban for using tainted product. So is there something else to the story? Was it the wrong kind of supplement found?

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Last edited by: B_Doughtie: Feb 9, 17 22:28
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And full disclosure I don't know any of these athletes, had to be told 2nd athlete was married to fast triathlete. My reaction "oh yeah I heard her on a podcast once....didn't know that was her".

Im more trying to figure out how athletes are suppose to KNOWINGLY PROVE everything they ingest is clean. Seems it's more on sociatal assumption that known/reputable companies will do enough to not taint their product. But the athlete actually has no way of actually verifying that said product is made up of only x y z legal product and doesn't contain tainted ingredient F.

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Last edited by: B_Doughtie: Feb 9, 17 22:33
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
An athlete should look up the exact product on the wada or their national anti doping website. If they can't find it then the other option (which the websites state may or may not be safe) to look up every individual ingredient In that product. The first option is the safest, the second a little less safe, and if ALL the ingredients dont show up wada actually states the product may or may not be safe to take. This is because X ingredient isn't regulated. So basically take at own risk. This is exactly what Laura would have found when she searched the ingredients in neurolytes. She chose to take it anyway, for this reason she has to have a ban. If it was paracetamol or another product that came up as green tick then maybe she would have a leg to stand on, it isn't.
Last edited by: chrisb12: Feb 10, 17 0:37
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If I were a female triathlete intentionally taking ostarine (because it sounds like ostarine is the "perfect" drug--builds muscle and reduces fat without the unpleasant side-effects that testosterone has on females) and I received a report of a positive test for it, here's how I'd react:
  • I would already know that ostarine is illegally put into a number of supplements.
  • I would already know that rules allow for a retroactive 6-month suspension if I can establish that the ostarine came from a contaminated supplement.
  • I would already know that an amateur female triathlete received such a suspension for that exact reason.
  • I would hire the same attorney who represented the aforementioned amateur.
  • Then I would go to my closet and dig out the two jars of salt-tab supplements I had purchased before I started my ostarine dosing. I would have picked these supplements based on them sounding "a little shady", with a name like "Classified Nutrition", suggesting that "we won't tell you everything that's in them." That they contain Rhodiola Rosea would have helped that decision, as "the internet" believes Rhodiola to reduce fat and help endurance (the same things that ostarine does).
  • I would open one bottle and dump out half the contents, and then send both bottles to Ironman and report I had been taking it.
  • I would hope that people would ignore the fact that I'm sponsored by a well-respected triathlon salt-tab company who presumably gives me all the salt tabs I need (which, at $22 per 100, are not cheap for hard-training athlete).
  • I would sit back and hope hope hope that the Classified Nutrition bottles tested positive for ostarine.

  • And if I had put even more care into my doping program, I wouldn't even have to hope that the Classified Nutrition bottle contained ostarine--I would already know that because I would've already had it tested and found that it had. I would've tested 4-5 different brands, under the guise of "making sure they're not contaminated", and then picked the one that came back positive.

Preposterous? A crazed conspiracy theory? I'm not suggesting that any of the athletes banned for ostarine did anything of the sort. But we need to acknowledge that such a plan would rank maybe a 2/10 on the scale of charades and deviousness used to avoid a doping conviction.

Which is why we need to largely stop looking at alibis for determining doping convictions and suspension lengths. Instead, we need to look at applying rules fairly and consistently. And in these cases, given what we know, it sounds like those rules were applied fairly. Barnett established (to the satisfaction of Ironman (and maybe usada?)) that her two bottles of salt tabs were contaminated, so received a 6-month retroactive ban. Gerdes established (again, to the satisfaction of Ironman and maybe usada) that she had not intentionally ingested ostarine, so her suspension was reduced to 2 years (from the standard 4). I would guess that Barnett's case and maybe the "we almost found trace elements of contaminants" influenced Ironman's decision to lower it to 2 years.

So it sounds like the rules were applied fairly. Which doesn't mean the 6-month retroactive ban for contaminated supplements is a great rule. It's a huge loophole in that can be easily exploited, but it's built in to protect the truly innocent. I'm not sure what a better rule would be.

I have written before that fans of the sport are not bound by the decisions of usada and Ironman--that we are free to continue to support/cheer for a suspended athlete, and we are free to not support a non-suspended athlete. And that's where a person's likeability and alibi will come into play, and that is just human nature. Since the dawn of man individuals who are liked are more likely to receive the benefit of the doubt, and that's not going to change anytime soon.
Last edited by: AlwaysCurious: Feb 10, 17 0:39
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [chrisb12] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chrisb12 wrote:
An athlete should look up the exact product on the wada or their national anti doping website. If they can't find it then the other option (which the websites state may or may not be safe) to look up every individual ingredient In that product. The first option is the safest, the second a little less safe, and if ALL the ingredients dont show up wada actually states the product may or may not be safe to take. This is because X ingredient isn't regulated. So basically take at own risk. This is exactly what Laura would have found when she searched the ingredients in neurolytes. She chose to take it anyway, for this reason she has to have a ban. If it was paracetamol or another product that came up as green tick then maybe she would have a leg to stand on, it isn't.
I am thoroughly confused by this post. If Lauren had looked on the site, Neurolytes was not yet on there (it's on there because of this finding now) so that wouldn't have triggered her not to take it. Looking at the ingredients that were listed and comparing them to known substances wouldn't have either. So what are you saying she should have done differently?
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [chrisb12] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Again, thx for these details.

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [realtalk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
realtalk wrote:
Getting back to threshold levels; they're set to filter out the 'accidental contamination' and false positives by triggering the alarm only at levels that are more or less...blatantly intentional. For Ostarine to show up on a test it would take levels that are taken consistently and not accidentally.

I don't want to put words into your mouth but it sounds like you're saying it's basically impossible for Gerdes and Barnett (or whoever claims supplement contamination) to pop positive purely from the "cross-contaminated" supplement... that they would actually have to be dosing with Ostarine in those cases.

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [Sean H] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sean H wrote:

This is the same company that advertises that one of their products increases VO2 max and anaerobic threshold. Which means it is either a PED or fools gold.


Honest question.... have you read this:

http://firstendurance.com/...nHPProtoResearch.pdf

blog
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [stevej] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevej wrote:
Sean H wrote:


This is the same company that advertises that one of their products increases VO2 max and anaerobic threshold. Which means it is either a PED or fools gold.



Honest question.... have you read this:

http://firstendurance.com/...nHPProtoResearch.pdf

I had not. So it's a "herb" that increases vo2 max and anaerobic threshold. How is it not a PED then? Because it's an herb? How do we define PED?
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [Sean H] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sean H wrote:
stevej wrote:
Sean H wrote:


This is the same company that advertises that one of their products increases VO2 max and anaerobic threshold. Which means it is either a PED or fools gold.



Honest question.... have you read this:

http://firstendurance.com/...nHPProtoResearch.pdf

I had not. So it's a "herb" that increases vo2 max and anaerobic threshold. How is it not a PED then? Because it's an herb? How do we define PED?

I don't see it as a supplement that DIRECTLY increases vo2 max or anaerobic threshold. Can you increase them without a good training plan? I don't think so. It doesn't directly boost performance. I see it as a supplement that assists with recovery and helps keep you "fresh" which then allows you to train harder day in, day out, which then could lead to better performance.

blog
Quote Reply
Re: Two pro women receive doping bans [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
B_Doughtie wrote:
So again my question is, if product says it contains XYZ and all are legal. How are athletes suppose to check? How does an athlete check for actual tainted products? I don't think I've seen that under the FAQ at usada's website. Maybe it's been recently added, if so could we get it linked here?


ETA: the answer seems to be use products that are "trustworthy". But again my question is, is that the only answer to YOU the athlete KNOWING said product is clean? That is my issue in this. Do you really know or just hope/assume because they are "reputable"?

ETA #2- so it goes back to my issue. If athlete did everything they could to not take tainted supplement but then was essentially able to show how/why they were found to have banned substance? Why isn't that case completely thrown out?

Like isn't that how it should work? If athlete is found to have x product in their system and it can be verified by the doping controls the product is tainted, why was it still a 6 month ban?

I'm at a loss for why wada threw out the tainted beef doping issue but still gave athlete 6 month ban for using tainted product. So is there something else to the story? Was it the wrong kind of supplement found?

Reading your various posts, I think the important point that you are missing, is that right or wrong, the rules currently state that an athlete is responsible for everything that goes into their bodies. Period.

If you start saying "Oh, if you can show it -might- have been an accident, its OK then", wow, you are opening the door to a lot of doping where athletes will be able to find excuses, knowing in advance that a product contains a banned substance, thus use that as an excuse if they get popped....etc.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, why would a professional athlete, who should be intimately aware of the rules, use a non-mainstream product that hardly anyone has ever heard of, with no idea of how trustworthy the company is, etc. Doesn't make sense.
Quote Reply

Prev Next