SOBOLEVA OUT OF BEIJING


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

Postby Daisy » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:02 am

What I don't understand here is why wouldn't each athlete use clean urine taken from their own body? Or is it easy to detect that the urine is not fresh and has been stored in a freezer from when the athlete was clean?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mark » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:03 am

peach wrote:
mark wrote:
I believe he issued a statement to France Agence Presse and I find the French version even stronger than the translation,

Cette décision détruit les espoirs de nos athlètes de participer aux Jeux Olympiques.

Dashes is quite a mild translation of détruit which is more literally destroys and carries an overtone of intention on the part of IAAF.


Actually, I'd slightly disagree...I mean, it COULD mean "destroy" but can also mean "put paid to" or "write off"...which are both quite neutral. I would never have used "dashes" as a translation, though.

I don't think we can read too much into that, just from that one sentence.



I concur there is ambiguity in the citation. However there are so many ways to express the latter interpretation without recourse to ambiguity which is why I sense an implication therein.

The point is less one of semantics of what was said as one of what was not said. I would feel rather more reassured if the Federation came out and stated it was very concerned about the allegations and expressed a zero tolerance stance towards doping and promised a thorough investigation and renewed commitment to drug free sport.

That is what I would hope to hear from a Federation in the circumstances.
mark
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Canada

Postby peach » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:06 am

mark wrote:I concur there is ambiguity in the citation. However there are so many ways to express the latter interpretation without recourse to ambiguity which is why I sense an implication therein.


Again, I agree, but the problem is that you have so many factors here- did the person make the original statement in French, does he speak good enough French if he did, is it just a ropey translation of the Russian to French and then to English ? I could not say it was an intentional implication at all.

But yeah, it's just semantics...

Ah, I do LOVE a linguistic debate of a Thursday afternoon...
peach
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:10 am

Postby Jacksf » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:15 am

I'm just saying that defense is not really a good defense, i.e., it could be true and yet meaningless.
And don't the Russians have regular out of competition testing anyway?
Jacksf
 
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:21 am

Worth noting(if someone else hasn't already) the deadline for submitting track entries for the Games is today.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby EPelle » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:24 am

odelltrclan wrote:
Russia:s head trainer just stated on television that the athletes had all passed the same tests in 2005 and 2006. He is disgruntled that the IAAF has sprung this on them at the last minute. None of the athletes are appealing at this very instance. He speaks of the Russians being targeted by the IAAF, with the IAAF having an agenda to take out the Russians [at all costs]. He also wonders how the IAAF didn:t bust the athletes at any point but now.


That is a scathing comment if true. The trainer should be much more careful with his words. This would seem to imply knowledge by the heads of the sport of a coerced effort to cheat the system by falsifying urine tests . . . "we got away with it before . . . why can't we now"

They also passed tests in 2007, meaning that the 2008 Russian Championships values differed from any other ones, not that on the surface the 2005 and 2006 seasons were years where they were doping but got away with it.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:29 am

One would suspect that the Russian women will undergo a more serious physical inspection in Beijing than others, since providing a sample with somebody else's urine requires some kind of delivery system.

Maybe we're headed for a day whereby one has to pee just before the competition as well? This first sample wouldn't need to be tested, just to void the bladder of anything that might previously have been in there, whether it belonged or not.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Swoosher » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:32 am

gh wrote:One would suspect that the Russian women will undergo a more serious physical inspection in Beijing than others, since providing a sample with somebody else's urine requires some kind of delivery system.

Maybe we're headed for a day whereby one has to pee just before the competition as well? This first sample wouldn't need to be tested, just to void the bladder of anything that might previously have been in there, whether it belonged or not.


Or you just bribe the poor local official who's job it is to test you. I guess they get paid pretty bad - and the offer from an athlete or coach to look the other way in exchange for some money might not seem a bad option?
Swoosher
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:48 am

Postby BruceFlorman » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:44 am

gh wrote:
EPelle wrote:.... He speaks of the Russians being targeted by the IAAF, with the IAAF having an agenda to take out the Russians [at all costs]. He also wonders how the IAAF didn:t bust the athletes at any point but now.

It is to laff! Given the amount of bucks the Russians kicked in to buy (err, host) the '13 Worlds, if anything I'd expect the IAAF to target them for kid-glove treatment.

Does the IAAF really work in a monolithic and well-coordinated manner? It would hardly surprise me if there are competing factions there... just like in most every other human organization that I've known.

I think that there has been some friction between the IAAF and the ARAF over the doping issue of late, but they’ve managed to keep it fairly discreet until now. You may recall my posts regarding Lysenko and Khoroshikh (link). They waived testing of their B-samples and instead fingered the federation’s former head coach, Valery Kulichenko. The federation subsequently fired him, but the IAAF wanted a criminal prosecution, before they’d consider reducing the suspensions for the two throwers. It appears, however, that Kulichenko had enough dirt on other folks in high places that the ARAF backed off, leaving Lysenko & Khoroshikh out in the cold. Tatiana had made some very thinly veiled threats toward the federation back in the wintertime, but nothing seemed to come of it. Now I wonder if there might be a connection to today’s events.
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby pauluk63 » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:47 am

Just looking at the impact that this would have on the 1500m over the past 3 champs alone!
1500m- world championships

2003 (taking Tatyana Tomashova & Süreyya Ayhan out who was 2nd as well)

1 (3) Hayley Tullett
2 (4) Yekaterina Rozenberg
3 (5) Jackline Maranga

2005 (taking Tatyana Tomashova & Olga Yegorova (2nd) & Yelena Soboleva (4th))

1 (3) Bouchra Ghézielle
2 (5) Maryam Yusuf Jamal
3 (6) Natalia Rodríguez

2007 (taking out Yelena Soboleva 2nd)

1 (1) Maryam Yusuf Jamal
2 (3) Iryna Lishchynska
3 (4) Daniela Yordanova
pauluk63
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:54 am

Postby Swoosher » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:51 am

pauluk63 wrote:Just looking at the impact that this would have on the 1500m over the past 3 champs alone!
1500m- world championships

2003 (taking Tatyana Tomashova & Süreyya Ayhan out who was 2nd as well)

1 (3) Hayley Tullett
2 (4) Yekaterina Rozenberg
3 (5) Jackline Maranga

2005 (taking Tatyana Tomashova & Olga Yegorova (2nd) & Yelena Soboleva (4th))

1 (3) Bouchra Ghézielle
2 (5) Maryam Yusuf Jamal
3 (6) Natalia Rodríguez

2007 (taking out Yelena Soboleva 2nd)

1 (1) Maryam Yusuf Jamal
2 (3) Iryna Lishchynska
3 (4) Daniela Yordanova



Ghezielle has tested positve for EPo...you could remove her as well from your 2005 list
Swoosher
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:48 am

Postby The Captain » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:52 am

Ghezielle is banned for EPO ...
The Captain
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:25 am
Location: St. Andrews

Postby nevetsllim » Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:04 am

2005 Worlds
1 (5) Maryam Jamal
2 (6) Natalia Rodriguez
3 (7) Anna Jakubczak

2006 Euros
1 (3) Daniela Yordanova
2 (5) Lidia Chojecka
3 (7) Nataliya Tobias
nevetsllim
 
Posts: 6261
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:54 am

Postby rasb » Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:06 am

Wow....As many of you have expressed, this is a mixed emotion time for me.
With the 3 Russians and 2 Romanians, that's 5 gone from the 1500 metres already. Will they even try or dare to replace with others? Is this just the tip of the iceberg? Sad day for our Sport, even though it's good we're catching some of them.
How many of the all-time World sub 4 minute women eventually tested positive? Or is it more like how many didn't?
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby pauluk63 » Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:13 am

The Captain wrote:Ghezielle is banned for EPO ...


sorry totally forgot! the list is endless, womens 1500 is clealry an event to cheta through!
pauluk63
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:54 am

Postby EPelle » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:08 am

Looks like this last one was a DNA swab from inside the cheeks taken at the Russian OT.

Those results didn:t compare with the earlier ones taken last season in april-may and august-september on the seven athletes.

Valentina Vasilyevichs learned of the IAAF suspicions in june. The IAAF had made queries about the seven athletes in question last season, but didn:t act on their suspicions until june - nine months after the second series of tests were performed. This is one area of concern for the Russian execs, as they wondered what took so long for the IAAF to analyse. Vasilyevichs turned to the IAAF on the eve of the Russian Championships and asked what should be done now that the IAAF had alerted the Russian federation. Nothing was done at that moment, and Vasilyevichs states he wanted to get more information from the IAAF for the case, and nothing was done. He wanted to know if the seven athletes should (or not) be permitted to compete. The Russians did remove one athlete from competition due to a positive "A"-test, though no elaboration is provided as to which one.

The IAAF responded to Vasilyevich that there were no foundations for either them or the Russian federation to remove any of the athletes at that moment - nine months after the second sample was collected. Each of the athletes in question appeared in Kazan and five of them were selected into the Olympics.

The following day, after the end of the Russia Olympic Trials (21-july), smear tests from inside of each of the seven athletes cheeks were volontarily taken without coercion - a fact Vasilyevich stated was an evidence of the atheltes innocence (why volonteer for something which would ultimately bust them?).

The testers reported to Vasilyevich that the tests demonstrated that the true DNA of each of the seven athletes did not correspond to the tests from 2007-april and 2007-may.

Vasilyevich questions why a test on DNA takes so long to complete ("six to eight months?") He shed a bit of humour on the issue and asks, "Has the idea to compare tests become alien to someone in IAAF relatively recently?"

Among other things Vasilyevich points out and discusses, he was most interested in why the IAAF removed the seven athletes instead of disqualifying them all-together. He states the implication of a disqualification is a direct link to CAS, something they are not afforded with a removal. The removal is a sign of suspicision; the disqualification would have been an evidence of guilt.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby BruceFlorman » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:30 am

I’m pretty sure that “Vasilyevich” is a patronymic, not a last name – i.e. Valentin Vasilyevich (son of Vasily) Balakhnichev.

I’m at work now and don’t have time to do a real translation – and gh wouldn’t let me post it here anyway, due to copyright issues. But here’s the original Russian interview: http://www.allsport.ru/index.php?id=16645

And here are links to a pair of automatic translations. If you view them side-by-side, you can get a pretty good idea about what was really said.

Babel Fish translation: here

Google translation: here
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby BruceFlorman » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:38 am

One quick excerpt though:
- Does WADA know about the suspension of Russian athletes from participating in the Olympic games based upon DNA indicators?
- I asked one person who’s in the central office of WADA, the same question. He replied: "We know that the IAAF began an experiment, and we support this experiment."

So evidently this is a "trial balloon" in some sense.
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby EPelle » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:43 am

Bruce, due to a time constraint, I didn:t have time to translate, either. I paraphrased and condensed. Feel free to provide more insight.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:52 am

EPelle wrote:Vasilyevich questions why a test on DNA takes so long to complete ("six to eight months?") He shed a bit of humour on the issue and asks, "Has the idea to compare tests become alien to someone in IAAF relatively recently?"


I'm not sure what he means by this. IAAF could only do a DNA comparison with stored samples once they had the athletes actual DNA sample, i.e. the cheek swabs collected at their OT's. So these tests did not take 6-8 months to complete.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:55 am

he means, OBFUSCATE-OBFUSCATE-OBFUSCATE!!!
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Daisy » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:56 am

gh wrote:he means, OBFUSCATE-OBFUSCATE-OBFUSCATE!!!


If that's the best he can do they are in deep shit.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mark » Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:00 am

EPelle wrote:The following day, after the end of the Russia Olympic Trials (21-july), smear tests from inside of each of the seven athletes cheeks were volontarily taken without coercion - a fact Vasilyevich stated was an evidence of the atheltes innocence (why volonteer for something which would ultimately bust them?).


Would they have any grounds to refuse a cheek swab ? Besides which, I am not sure athletes would immediately understand the exact implications of the test. If you have to give blood and urine, even if you were cheating would you jump straight to the conclusion that it would be detectable from a swab.

There is reference to one athlete being pulled from competition for a positive A sample. Can I ask again whether Yegorova actually ran in Kazan or could she be the +ve which would also make sense as the early reports did not mention her. I am intrigued to find out what was found in the athlete who has tested +ve.
mark
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Canada

Postby Jon » Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:07 am

mark wrote:There is reference to one athlete being pulled from competition for a positive A sample. Can I ask again whether Yegorova actually ran in Kazan or could she be the +ve which would also make sense as the early reports did not mention her. I am intrigued to find out what was found in the athlete who has tested +ve.
Yegorova won her heat of the 1500m, but didn't run the final.
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mighty Favog » Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:10 pm

Swoosher wrote:
gh wrote:One would suspect that the Russian women will undergo a more serious physical inspection in Beijing than others, since providing a sample with somebody else's urine requires some kind of delivery system.

Maybe we're headed for a day whereby one has to pee just before the competition as well? This first sample wouldn't need to be tested, just to void the bladder of anything that might previously have been in there, whether it belonged or not.


Or you just bribe the poor local official who's job it is to test you. I guess they get paid pretty bad - and the offer from an athlete or coach to look the other way in exchange for some money might not seem a bad option?
It might not even need that. A local who is a high-up USA Triathlon official described to me being rather starstruck by athletes she was given charge of to follow through to doping control in Kona a few years ago. She sounded like she would have done anything for them.

I don't think it's a bad day for track any more than it was a bad day for Congress on Tuesday when Ted Stevens got hit with indictments. Both groups are susceptible to corruption and every so often the garbage gets taken out. Same way this time too: not the crime but the hiding.

By the way, I was convinced in February that Soboleva was on something, because running 1:56.49i and 3:58.05i on back-to-back days was too good to be true, like an unending housing market boom. When I saw the Kazan results I literally said out loud "whatever the Russians are on, it's very good".
Mighty Favog
 
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:48 pm

Story from Moscow Times now posted to front page. "Pure politics" crys the coach!
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Mennisco » Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:55 pm

gh wrote:Story from Moscow Times now posted to front page. "Pure politics" crys the coach!


"This is pure politics," Sergei Vasilyev, the coach of the suspended athletes, said by telephone. "If these athletes, who are the main contenders for gold medals, are forced out of the games, the new favorites will automatically be the Chinese."

Really, now??

Is he spinning this one right out of control?
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Sinafan » Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:26 pm

The reactions are written in pure Soviet style: Deny everything and accuse the critics as enemies of the state.
I think the fact that a) Russia has obviously an organized doping system for their women and b) the officials are equally obviously not interested in ending that, should result in banning Russia from the next WC until they are willing to play according to rules.
Their female throws are essentially all rotten (SP gold in Athens, three hammer throwers including Lysenko, two discus throwers) and their pool of middle distance runners is being depleted now, too.
Sinafan
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:57 pm

Postby rasb » Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:38 pm

I wonder if the Coach's comments were made with the consent of the Russian Government. Gawd, this could get much more ugly.
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby Seeksreal » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:21 pm

What will it take to ban an entire team?
Seeksreal
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:31 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby Kurt Francis » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:25 pm

I agree with the Russians. This smacks of politics given the timing. The Russians ought to make life difficult for the IAAF.
Kurt Francis
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:28 pm

Kurt Francis wrote:I agree with the Russians. This smacks of politics given the timing. The Russians ought to make life difficult for the IAAF.


You're an engineer, yes? You should be able to pick out the significance of this:

Image
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby BruceFlorman » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:29 pm

BruceFlorman wrote:I’m at work now and don’t have time to do a real translation – and gh wouldn’t let me post it here anyway, due to copyright issues. But here’s the original Russian interview: http://www.allsport.ru/index.php?id=16645

Well don't tell my boss, but most of the things I've had to deal with today have been simple maintenance issues, so I "found the time" to do a full translation after all. :wink:

I know that gh doesn't want me posting full translations of copyrighted material here, but the senior editors at AllSport.ru know about my translations, since I send them copies via email, and they usually - but not always - post them to the "AllSport in English" section of their website. I'll be sending this one off to Andrey & Yevgeny shortly (I've always corresponded with them entirely in Russian, and it takes me much longer to compose original material in Russian than to translate someone elses writing from Russian to English), but I'm going to provide a link to a "domestic" copy here, since it's the middle of the night now in Moscow, and sometimes it takes a few days for them to act when I send them something. If gh really objects, he can always excise the link, and if Becca objects, she can pull it from her site too. But until one of them does, you can access it here:
http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/vie ... 32&t=15791
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby BruceFlorman » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:38 pm

Seeksreal wrote:What will it take to ban an entire team?

If Balco didn't get us kicked out, should this do it for them?
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:39 pm

What would be the political motivation for something like this? Why risk annoying the no. 2 athletics nation and hosts of the 2013 WCs? It's not in the interests of the IAAF to offend them. Realpolitik decrees they'd have to be pretty sure of their facts/pissed off before they acted on something like this.

If this becomes an even bigger stink expect reprisals.
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby rasb » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:43 pm

I wasn't thinking of a team getting kicked out --- more along the lines of an entire team (Nation) walking, or threatening to. Perhaps even more so if testing protocols have just now caught up to potential offenders.
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby Kurt Francis » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:43 pm

Mennisco wrote:
Kurt Francis wrote:I agree with the Russians. This smacks of politics given the timing. The Russians ought to make life difficult for the IAAF.


You're an engineer, yes? You should be able to pick out the significance of this:

Image


I'm a ME, not an EE. But, give me a few minutes...I'll see if I can decipher it based on my early EE training :D
Kurt Francis
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Kurt Francis » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:46 pm

Kurt Francis wrote:
Mennisco wrote:
Kurt Francis wrote:I agree with the Russians. This smacks of politics given the timing. The Russians ought to make life difficult for the IAAF.


You're an engineer, yes? You should be able to pick out the significance of this:

Image


I'm a ME, not an EE. But, give me a few minutes...I'll see if I can decipher it based on my early EE training :D


Stopwatch???
Kurt Francis
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Kurt Francis » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:49 pm

AthleticsInBritain wrote:What would be the political motivation for something like this? Why risk annoying the no. 2 athletics nation and hosts of the 2013 WCs? It's not in the interests of the IAAF to offend them. Realpolitik decrees they'd have to be pretty sure of their facts/pissed off before they acted on something like this.

If this becomes an even bigger stink expect reprisals.


I've seen the hatred on this board for East Europeans, particularly coming from posters in 2 countries (mine not included). Don't think that hatred for the US seen in many quarters isn't also directed at the East Europeans, Russia in particular. This is a georacialpolitical world we live in, and it permeats everything. Anyone who thinks differently has their head in the sand.
Last edited by Kurt Francis on Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Kurt Francis
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Madd Marine » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:16 pm

Mennisco wrote:
gh wrote:Story from Moscow Times now posted to front page. "Pure politics" crys the coach!


"This is pure politics," Sergei Vasilyev, the coach of the suspended athletes, said by telephone. "If these athletes, who are the main contenders for gold medals, are forced out of the games, the new favorites will automatically be the Chinese."

Really, now??

Is he spinning this one right out of control?


Ha!

Then on the other hand, I wouldn't be too surprised if some Chinese showed rather exceptional, sudden improvement at the Games. Having talked with a few guys here and there who have been on the circuit, they were of the opinion that politics is involved in some cases of enforcement and/or non-enforcement, with certain countries let off the hook and others generally having to take a body shot when caught. They felt that, yikes, US sprinters "might' be catching breaks here and there, and a percentage of E. Africans also, along with runners from smaller countries being let slide rather than the larger ones (mainly European) that you would expect to have influence and thus be able to skate when it comes to testing. If these guys were right, then it isn't only about money. I'm not behind the scenes, so who knows? Maybe Scully and Mulder should look into it. :wink:
Madd Marine
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:15 pm

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest