Log in:  

Register

Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE's)

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE's)

30 Apr 2018 12:18

Parker wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
samhocking wrote:I don't even think TUE's are an issue today. What were there last year? Less than 20 in total across UCI Road, Track, BMX, MTB & Indoor UCI sanctioned competition?
No matter how many times this stat gets corrected, it keeps getting quoted. This refers solely to TUEs issued by the UCI. The UCI is not the sole agency issuing TUEs in cycling.

There is an elite testing pool of about 1300 cyclists. They can only get a TUE from the UCI.
Not quite. It seems the word only has a different meaning in Aigle.
Please note that the UCI automatically recognizes TUEs decisions made by the following NADOs.

This means that if a rider’s TUE has been delivered by a NADO listed below, he/she does not need to apply to the UCI for recognition of that TUE, insofar as the TUE is still valid. The TUE is automatically recognised by the UCI, without further action required by the Rider.

• NADO of the French Community of Belgium
• Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport
• Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage
• Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte
• Antidoping Switzerland
• Antidoping Denmark
• NADO Vlaanderen
• National Anti-Doping Agency Austria
• Anti-Doping Norway
• UK Anti-Doping
• South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport
• United States Anti-Doping Agency
• Swedish Sports Confederation
• Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland
• International Paralympic Committee
• Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
• NADO Italia
• Sport Ireland
• Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland
• Anti-Doping Agency of Serbia
• Slovenian Anti-Doping Organisation
• Finnish Anti-Doping Agency
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,748
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

30 Apr 2018 12:19

Robert5091 wrote:
saganftw wrote:just let people dope already


I hate to tell you this, but I think some already do ... :D

Some? My guess would be some rarely don't :(
Shut up, Jens!
glassmoon
Member
 
Posts: 1,424
Joined: 19 May 2012 08:56

Re: Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE's)

30 Apr 2018 12:32

fmk_RoI wrote:
Parker wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
samhocking wrote:I don't even think TUE's are an issue today. What were there last year? Less than 20 in total across UCI Road, Track, BMX, MTB & Indoor UCI sanctioned competition?
No matter how many times this stat gets corrected, it keeps getting quoted. This refers solely to TUEs issued by the UCI. The UCI is not the sole agency issuing TUEs in cycling.

There is an elite testing pool of about 1300 cyclists. They can only get a TUE from the UCI.
Not quite. It seems the word only has a different meaning in Aigle.
Please note that the UCI automatically recognizes TUEs decisions made by the following NADOs.

This means that if a rider’s TUE has been delivered by a NADO listed below, he/she does not need to apply to the UCI for recognition of that TUE, insofar as the TUE is still valid. The TUE is automatically recognised by the UCI, without further action required by the Rider.

• NADO of the French Community of Belgium
• Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport
• Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage
• Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte
• Antidoping Switzerland
• Antidoping Denmark
• NADO Vlaanderen
• National Anti-Doping Agency Austria
• Anti-Doping Norway
• UK Anti-Doping
• South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport
• United States Anti-Doping Agency
• Swedish Sports Confederation
• Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland
• International Paralympic Committee
• Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
• NADO Italia
• Sport Ireland
• Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland
• Anti-Doping Agency of Serbia
• Slovenian Anti-Doping Organisation
• Finnish Anti-Doping Agency



That's not about applying for a new TUE though, that's about recognition of previously granted TUEs when you are not part of the UCI registered testing pool. For example, a rider with a TUE for insulin that was granted by their NADO who was added to the RTP afterwards would have this TUE automatically recognised if it were from one of those bodies.

The issue with the UCI number is there is no way to know if it includes renewals or not and what constitutes a renewal as far as I'm aware. As he's the obvious example, once Wiggins was given a first TUE for triamcinolone, does every subsequent TUE count as a renewal or a new application? I've not been able to find a satisfactory answer and this could mean that the number of active TUEs (for want of a better phrase) is many times the UCI quoted number.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,306
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE's)

30 Apr 2018 12:47

King Boonen wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
Parker wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
samhocking wrote:I don't even think TUE's are an issue today. What were there last year? Less than 20 in total across UCI Road, Track, BMX, MTB & Indoor UCI sanctioned competition?
No matter how many times this stat gets corrected, it keeps getting quoted. This refers solely to TUEs issued by the UCI. The UCI is not the sole agency issuing TUEs in cycling.

There is an elite testing pool of about 1300 cyclists. They can only get a TUE from the UCI.
Not quite. It seems the word only has a different meaning in Aigle.
Please note that the UCI automatically recognizes TUEs decisions made by the following NADOs.

This means that if a rider’s TUE has been delivered by a NADO listed below, he/she does not need to apply to the UCI for recognition of that TUE, insofar as the TUE is still valid. The TUE is automatically recognised by the UCI, without further action required by the Rider.

• NADO of the French Community of Belgium
• Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport
• Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage
• Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte
• Antidoping Switzerland
• Antidoping Denmark
• NADO Vlaanderen
• National Anti-Doping Agency Austria
• Anti-Doping Norway
• UK Anti-Doping
• South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport
• United States Anti-Doping Agency
• Swedish Sports Confederation
• Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland
• International Paralympic Committee
• Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
• NADO Italia
• Sport Ireland
• Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland
• Anti-Doping Agency of Serbia
• Slovenian Anti-Doping Organisation
• Finnish Anti-Doping Agency



That's not about applying for a new TUE though, that's about recognition of previously granted TUEs when you are not part of the UCI registered testing pool. For example, a rider with a TUE for insulin that was granted by their NADO who was added to the RTP afterwards would have this TUE automatically recognised if it were from one of those bodies.

The issue with the UCI number is there is no way to know if it includes renewals or not and what constitutes a renewal as far as I'm aware. As he's the obvious example, once Wiggins was given a first TUE for triamcinolone, does every subsequent TUE count as a renewal or a new application? I've not been able to find a satisfactory answer and this could mean that the number of active TUEs (for want of a better phrase) is many times the UCI quoted number.
It makes understanding the UCI's figures difficulty. Do they count TUEs they recognise as TUEs issued? And as you say, the numbers are already squiffy. Consider Novo Nordisk's 15 insulin TUEs, which are presumably multi-year in duration and so spread over several years in the table, if in the table at all. Ditto the issue of renewals, are they new TUEs, reported in the stats, or something else? So what value are the numbers: they don't relate to the whole of the sport, just the RTP element and we don't really know what they include.

One value they have is distraction: the real issue with TUEs is often with things that don't need a TUE. IC use of certain products, where there's thresholds, or OOC use of other products without the need for a TUE. Banning TUEs doesn't change Froome's Vuelta fail, does it even impact the Jiffy Bag?
Last edited by fmk_RoI on 30 Apr 2018 12:48, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,748
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

30 Apr 2018 12:47

RedheadDane wrote:
*Side note: Alex Dowsett is the only nutter in the peloton with haemophillia, right?


He is the only one I am aware of. If there are others, they certainly aren't as vocal about their condition.
User avatar Catwhoorg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,991
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 11:00
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE's)

30 Apr 2018 12:52

fmk_RoI wrote:It makes understanding the UCI's figures difficulty. Do they count TUEs they recognise as TUEs issued? And as you say, the numbers are already squiffy. Consider Novo Nordisk's 15 insulin TUEs, which are presumably multi-year in duration and so spread over several years in the table, if in the table at all. Ditto the issue of renewals, are they new TUEs, reported in the stats, or something else? So what value are the numbers: they don't relate to the whole of the sport, just the RTP element and we don't really know what they include.

One value they have is distraction: the real issue with TUEs is often with things that don't need a TUE. IC use of certain products, where there's thresholds, or OOC use of other products without the need for a TUE. Banning TUEs doesn't change Froome's Vuelta fail, does it even impact the Jiffy Bag?


If we assume that it was triamcinolone acetonide in the jiffy bag and that is was administered after midnight then no, it doesn't as no TUE would be required.

As you say, TUE debates are a good distraction though.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,306
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

30 Apr 2018 14:41

Catwhoorg wrote:
RedheadDane wrote:
*Side note: Alex Dowsett is the only nutter in the peloton with haemophillia, right?


He is the only one I am aware of. If there are others, they certainly aren't as vocal about their condition.


NOTE! Just in case anyone wonders where this came from.
This is a reply to a post that was deleted as per my request. It is not there anymore, it has gone to the eternal threads of incredibly stupid posts.
Aka The Ginger One.
User avatar RedheadDane
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,436
Joined: 05 May 2010 13:47
Location: Viking Land! (Aros)

Re:

01 May 2018 15:46

El Pistolero wrote:TUEs should be canned all-together. Join the paralympics if you have asthma or diabetes. Most TUEs are fabrications anyway.

I agree, riders like Wellens, Mathieu VdP and Dumoulin all have stated as well it's better to get rid of TUEs because the abuse of it is too easy.

Of the current peloton Gilbert and Van Avermaet have often been accused of TUE abuse, Van Aert as well. Which other riders have used the TUE excuse a bit too often?
The sadness of the world has different ways of getting to people, but it seems to succeed almost every time
User avatar Bardamu
Member
 
Posts: 605
Joined: 13 Jul 2016 20:36
Location: Paris

Re: Re:

02 May 2018 06:26

Bardamu wrote:
El Pistolero wrote:TUEs should be canned all-together. Join the paralympics if you have asthma or diabetes. Most TUEs are fabrications anyway.

I agree, riders like Wellens, Mathieu VdP and Dumoulin all have stated as well it's better to get rid of TUEs because the abuse of it is too easy.

Of the current peloton Gilbert and Van Avermaet have often been accused of TUE abuse, Van Aert as well. Which other riders have used the TUE excuse a bit too often?

All of Vacansoleil. I've never heard that accusation with regards to GVA.
User avatar El Pistolero
Veteran
 
Posts: 16,201
Joined: 16 Jul 2010 21:53

Re: Re:

02 May 2018 10:03

El Pistolero wrote:
Bardamu wrote:
El Pistolero wrote:TUEs should be canned all-together. Join the paralympics if you have asthma or diabetes. Most TUEs are fabrications anyway.

I agree, riders like Wellens, Mathieu VdP and Dumoulin all have stated as well it's better to get rid of TUEs because the abuse of it is too easy.

Of the current peloton Gilbert and Van Avermaet have often been accused of TUE abuse, Van Aert as well. Which other riders have used the TUE excuse a bit too often?

All of Vacansoleil. I've never heard that accusation with regards to GVA.

+1
chapeau to them
Shut up, Jens!
glassmoon
Member
 
Posts: 1,424
Joined: 19 May 2012 08:56

03 May 2018 12:50

WRT Westra's claim that "Every rider of note provided a medical certificate for the Classics and other big competitions."

First, if this is true, what happened to Fabian Cancellara's medical certificates? When Fancy Bears released his TUEs, they weren't there, were they?

Second, in 2014, Mario Zozoli gave a presentation on TUEs and glucocorticoids. According to him, in the period 2009-2014, the UCI issued 122 TUEs for glucocorticoids. He also provided a breakdown showing how glucocorticoid TUEs were spread over the year:
Image
(Note: the bars add up to more than 100%, so either the chart has been mislabelled and this relates to all the 122 glucocorticoid TUEs, or there's something else going on, possibly to do with the period of validity of a TUE, or just incompetence.)

If we take Zorzoli's numbers as right, the UCI were issuing 20 to 25 glucocorticoid TUEs a year and, of those 20 to 25 glucocorticoid TUEs, five or six each year were being issued in April. Does that square with Westra's claim that "every rider of note provided a medical certificate for the Classics"?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,748
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

03 May 2018 19:37

fmk_RoI wrote:Image
(Note: the bars add up to more than 100%, so either the chart has been mislabelled and this relates to all the 122 glucocorticoid TUEs, or there's something else going on, possibly to do with the period of validity of a TUE, or just incompetence.)

If we take Zorzoli's numbers as right, the UCI were issuing 20 to 25 glucocorticoid TUEs a year and, of those 20 to 25 glucocorticoid TUEs, five or six each year were being issued in April. Does that square with Westra's claim that "every rider of note provided a medical certificate for the Classics"?


Also, what happened to October?
mojomonkey
Junior Member
 
Posts: 81
Joined: 06 Sep 2012 17:28

Re: Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE's)

03 May 2018 19:38

King Boonen wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:It makes understanding the UCI's figures difficulty. Do they count TUEs they recognise as TUEs issued? And as you say, the numbers are already squiffy. Consider Novo Nordisk's 15 insulin TUEs, which are presumably multi-year in duration and so spread over several years in the table, if in the table at all. Ditto the issue of renewals, are they new TUEs, reported in the stats, or something else? So what value are the numbers: they don't relate to the whole of the sport, just the RTP element and we don't really know what they include.

One value they have is distraction: the real issue with TUEs is often with things that don't need a TUE. IC use of certain products, where there's thresholds, or OOC use of other products without the need for a TUE. Banning TUEs doesn't change Froome's Vuelta fail, does it even impact the Jiffy Bag?


If we assume that it was triamcinolone acetonide in the jiffy bag and that is was administered after midnight then no, it doesn't as no TUE would be required.

As you say, TUE debates are a good distraction though.


The way it works in terms of new TUE applications is based on what level of athlete you are. If you are an international level athlete or if you've entered in an international event you must submit your TUE Application to your Inrternational Federation (UCI), which is responsible for accepting applications and granting TUEs, not your NADO/NGB.

If you are a national or lower level athlete, you submit your TUE Application to your NADO.

So in pro cycling, only your domestic pro/semi-pro would apply to NGB. If they wanted to race outside their country and required a new TUE, that would go to UCI. Every World Tour rider would submit TUE applications to UCI.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,732
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Re:

03 May 2018 20:55

mojomonkey wrote:
Also, what happened to October?


Haha, god Zorzoli is a hack.
hazaran
Member
 
Posts: 418
Joined: 14 Jul 2015 00:37

04 May 2018 06:49

lol @Apr (classics, pre-giro) and jun(pre-tour)
User avatar Dekker_Tifosi
Veteran
 
Posts: 23,749
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:52
Location: Roermond, the Netherlands

Re: Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE's)

04 May 2018 08:21

samhocking wrote:
King Boonen wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:It makes understanding the UCI's figures difficulty. Do they count TUEs they recognise as TUEs issued? And as you say, the numbers are already squiffy. Consider Novo Nordisk's 15 insulin TUEs, which are presumably multi-year in duration and so spread over several years in the table, if in the table at all. Ditto the issue of renewals, are they new TUEs, reported in the stats, or something else? So what value are the numbers: they don't relate to the whole of the sport, just the RTP element and we don't really know what they include.

One value they have is distraction: the real issue with TUEs is often with things that don't need a TUE. IC use of certain products, where there's thresholds, or OOC use of other products without the need for a TUE. Banning TUEs doesn't change Froome's Vuelta fail, does it even impact the Jiffy Bag?


If we assume that it was triamcinolone acetonide in the jiffy bag and that is was administered after midnight then no, it doesn't as no TUE would be required.

As you say, TUE debates are a good distraction though.


The way it works in terms of new TUE applications is based on what level of athlete you are. If you are an international level athlete or if you've entered in an international event you must submit your TUE Application to your Inrternational Federation (UCI), which is responsible for accepting applications and granting TUEs, not your NADO/NGB.

If you are a national or lower level athlete, you submit your TUE Application to your NADO.

So in pro cycling, only your domestic pro/semi-pro would apply to NGB. If they wanted to race outside their country and required a new TUE, that would go to UCI. Every World Tour rider would submit TUE applications to UCI.

Yes, we are well aware of this. It was covered several posts ago and isn't the issue that was being discussed.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,306
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re:

04 May 2018 09:18

Dekker_Tifosi wrote:lol @Apr (classics, pre-giro) and jun(pre-tour)
The UCI have made no secret of the fact that there is and has been a problem WRT TUEs and the Classics. Here's McQuaid, for instance:
“I do remember having a discussion with Zorzoli and he told me that at the Classics there were riders who were looking to win or do well and were taking corticosteroids during that period on a TUE. He felt that it wasn’t a genuine TUE but that it was just to help them.”
McQuaid went on:
“We felt it [the TUE system – ed.] was being abused during the Classics. It wasn’t the case that it was being abused in general. If a rider asks for a TUE a couple of days before a Grand Tour then you have to wonder. It seemed to be prevalent in the Classics.”

When asked why the Classics and not the Grand Tours, McQuaid said: “I don’t know. The Grand Tours were more when allergies come into play with the summer. That doesn’t happen in the Classics.”
The issue here isn't that TUEs are clearly being abused for the Classics - it's the scale of the problem. Westra says it's every rider of note with a doctor's note. Does the evidence support this claim?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,748
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

04 May 2018 09:54

fmk_RoI wrote:
Dekker_Tifosi wrote:lol @Apr (classics, pre-giro) and jun(pre-tour)
The UCI have made no secret of the fact that there is and has been a problem WRT TUEs and the Classics. Here's McQuaid, for instance:
“I do remember having a discussion with Zorzoli and he told me that at the Classics there were riders who were looking to win or do well and were taking corticosteroids during that period on a TUE. He felt that it wasn’t a genuine TUE but that it was just to help them.”
McQuaid went on:
“We felt it [the TUE system – ed.] was being abused during the Classics. It wasn’t the case that it was being abused in general. If a rider asks for a TUE a couple of days before a Grand Tour then you have to wonder. It seemed to be prevalent in the Classics.”

When asked why the Classics and not the Grand Tours, McQuaid said: “I don’t know. The Grand Tours were more when allergies come into play with the summer. That doesn’t happen in the Classics.”
The issue here isn't that TUEs are clearly being abused for the Classics - it's the scale of the problem. Westra says it's every rider of note with a doctor's note. Does the evidence support this claim?


Bolded bit - Luckily there's no evidence of anyone doing that. Especially not three years in a row
Wiggo's Package
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Re: Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE's)

04 May 2018 11:11

King Boonen wrote:
samhocking wrote:
King Boonen wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:It makes understanding the UCI's figures difficulty. Do they count TUEs they recognise as TUEs issued? And as you say, the numbers are already squiffy. Consider Novo Nordisk's 15 insulin TUEs, which are presumably multi-year in duration and so spread over several years in the table, if in the table at all. Ditto the issue of renewals, are they new TUEs, reported in the stats, or something else? So what value are the numbers: they don't relate to the whole of the sport, just the RTP element and we don't really know what they include.

One value they have is distraction: the real issue with TUEs is often with things that don't need a TUE. IC use of certain products, where there's thresholds, or OOC use of other products without the need for a TUE. Banning TUEs doesn't change Froome's Vuelta fail, does it even impact the Jiffy Bag?


If we assume that it was triamcinolone acetonide in the jiffy bag and that is was administered after midnight then no, it doesn't as no TUE would be required.

As you say, TUE debates are a good distraction though.


The way it works in terms of new TUE applications is based on what level of athlete you are. If you are an international level athlete or if you've entered in an international event you must submit your TUE Application to your Inrternational Federation (UCI), which is responsible for accepting applications and granting TUEs, not your NADO/NGB.

If you are a national or lower level athlete, you submit your TUE Application to your NADO.

So in pro cycling, only your domestic pro/semi-pro would apply to NGB. If they wanted to race outside their country and required a new TUE, that would go to UCI. Every World Tour rider would submit TUE applications to UCI.

Yes, we are well aware of this. It was covered several posts ago and isn't the issue that was being discussed.


Sorry thought you were discussing the number of TUEs UCI granted annually. For athletes requiring life-long TUE, the initial TUE (a new pro) is typically granted for 12 months by UCI, then renewed for 10 years the next year with a medical review every 5 years. Therefore 15 TUEs might only see a renewal once or twice in the whole career of a Novo Nordisk rider and wouldn't skew the figures much at all. Most would be carried over from when they were lower level athletes anyway, so not even renewed by UCI in most riders international careers.
Last edited by samhocking on 04 May 2018 11:16, edited 1 time in total.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,732
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE's)

04 May 2018 11:16

samhocking wrote:
King Boonen wrote:
samhocking wrote:
King Boonen wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:It makes understanding the UCI's figures difficulty. Do they count TUEs they recognise as TUEs issued? And as you say, the numbers are already squiffy. Consider Novo Nordisk's 15 insulin TUEs, which are presumably multi-year in duration and so spread over several years in the table, if in the table at all. Ditto the issue of renewals, are they new TUEs, reported in the stats, or something else? So what value are the numbers: they don't relate to the whole of the sport, just the RTP element and we don't really know what they include.

One value they have is distraction: the real issue with TUEs is often with things that don't need a TUE. IC use of certain products, where there's thresholds, or OOC use of other products without the need for a TUE. Banning TUEs doesn't change Froome's Vuelta fail, does it even impact the Jiffy Bag?


If we assume that it was triamcinolone acetonide in the jiffy bag and that is was administered after midnight then no, it doesn't as no TUE would be required.

As you say, TUE debates are a good distraction though.


The way it works in terms of new TUE applications is based on what level of athlete you are. If you are an international level athlete or if you've entered in an international event you must submit your TUE Application to your Inrternational Federation (UCI), which is responsible for accepting applications and granting TUEs, not your NADO/NGB.

If you are a national or lower level athlete, you submit your TUE Application to your NADO.

So in pro cycling, only your domestic pro/semi-pro would apply to NGB. If they wanted to race outside their country and required a new TUE, that would go to UCI. Every World Tour rider would submit TUE applications to UCI.

Yes, we are well aware of this. It was covered several posts ago and isn't the issue that was being discussed.


Sorry thought you were discussing the number of TUEs UCI granted annually. For athletes requiring life-long TUE, the initial TUE (a new pro) is typically granted for 12 months by UCI, then renewed for 10 years the next year with a medical review every 5 years. Therefore 15 TUEs might only see a renewal once or twice in the whole career of a Novo Nordisk rider and wouldn't skew the figures much at all. Most would be carried over from when they were lower level athletes anyway, so not even renewed by UCI in most riders international careers.
Samsplaining...
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,748
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: davebqvst and 22 guests

Back to top