Log in:  

Register

Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

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: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

09 Aug 2018 12:10

Alpe73 wrote:So ... why not cut to the chase, here?

What’s was G’s “regimen” approaching and during the Tour?

Names of methods, names of drugs, frequency, duration, effect?

And why no positive tests? Who is protecting him? Why?


The lack of positive tests is almost meaningless. Drug testing in pro sport is largely a sham and a front to make the federations and WADA look like they're doing something about it, or a stick to beat countries who fall into the bad books like Russia. It's not meant to catch cheats unless they're too blatant or too stupid.

Watched any tennis lately? Obvious signs of serious doping everywhere, but almost no-one tests positive. How can this be?
Mamil
Junior Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Jan 2018 11:24

Re: Re:

09 Aug 2018 12:47

Saint Unix wrote:
King Boonen wrote:I get the feeling that this whole conversation is just an exercise in goal-post shifting and one true Scotsmanism.

The argument is that riders whose main focus is on the track can go from the track to doing well on the road, but historically speaking, successful road racers that founded their careers on their big engines used to be able to go to the track and win medals in pursuits, rather than the other way around.

Rather than goal post-shifting and one true Scotsmanism, using Coppi, Anquetil and Moser to argue that pursuit riders can do well in GTs is a strawman. The fact is that GT riders used to do well in pursuits, at least 50-60 years ago. Cycling has changed a hell of a lot since then, so in reality it's not really a discussion worth having either way.



I wasn't arguing that those guys doing both is proof of future GT winners, I provided several examples of riders who have done well in both, pursuit and ITT, and included the info on GT winners. I'm sure the original question was to name pursuit riders who have done well in ITT. There are long lists on here showing that many rider have done this.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,429
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

09 Aug 2018 12:50

Mamil wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:So ... why not cut to the chase, here?

What’s was G’s “regimen” approaching and during the Tour?

Names of methods, names of drugs, frequency, duration, effect?

And why no positive tests? Who is protecting him? Why?


The lack of positive tests is almost meaningless. Drug testing in pro sport is largely a sham and a front to make the federations and WADA look like they're doing something about it, or a stick to beat countries who fall into the bad books like Russia. It's not meant to catch cheats unless they're too blatant or too stupid.

Watched any tennis lately? Obvious signs of serious doping everywhere, but almost no-one tests positive. How can this be?


Thanks for addressing the last point of my query. Let’s set that aside for further debate later, then.

Since you’re convinced that GT is doping ... can you please have a go at the first two questions, please?

Thanks, in advance.
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 701
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

09 Aug 2018 22:24

I think we can quite reasonably infer - on the basis of what has emerged through the parliamentary inquiry, fancy bear leaks and an AAF - that corticosteroids, salbutomuol and testosterone patches are likely to be have been used.

We can also infer, on the basis of the first inference, that other substances are highly likely to have been utilised, although clearly we have no basis for stating precisely what.

The logical form for the argument is: if a, then b. i.e. if one is prepared to use one illegal method, one will also be prepared to utilise another illegal method.

Following the recent history of the sport and the CIRC report which came out a few years ago, micro dosing epo + blood doping are both highly probably methods that GT utilised.

https://pelotonmagazine.com/racing/circ-report-cycling-doping-uci-armstrong/

And then there is the weight loss stuff - for mine, a speculative judgement can be made about this, but I think this is less concretely justified than the other things, if only because although we can see many in the peloton looking super skinny, facts are that there is no concrete evidence that riders are using illegal weight loss drugs. Closest is Clebutoral traces found on Contador and Rogers.
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 854
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

Re:

10 Aug 2018 00:46

The Hegelian wrote:I think we can quite reasonably infer - on the basis of what has emerged through the parliamentary inquiry, fancy bear leaks and an AAF - that corticosteroids, salbutomuol and testosterone patches are likely to be have been used.

We can also infer, on the basis of the first inference, that other substances are highly likely to have been utilised, although clearly we have no basis for stating precisely what.

The logical form for the argument is: if a, then b. i.e. if one is prepared to use one illegal method, one will also be prepared to utilise another illegal method.

Following the recent history of the sport and the CIRC report which came out a few years ago, micro dosing epo + blood doping are both highly probably methods that GT utilised.

https://pelotonmagazine.com/racing/circ-report-cycling-doping-uci-armstrong/

And then there is the weight loss stuff - for mine, a speculative judgement can be made about this, but I think this is less concretely justified than the other things, if only because although we can see many in the peloton looking super skinny, facts are that there is no concrete evidence that riders are using illegal weight loss drugs. Closest is Clebutoral traces found on Contador and Rogers.


I agree ... we can be, quite reasonably ... suspicious. Somewhere between ‘vigilant doctor suspicious’ and ‘ ‘neurotic Othello suspicious.’ As you observe... there’s a lot we don’t know. What, how much, for how long, to what effect?

So what do we do with that uncertainty? Cheap inferences are a dime a dozen.
Alpe73
Member
 
Posts: 701
Joined: 27 Dec 2012 01:23

10 Aug 2018 02:15

Tony Martin was included in one of the lists earlier in this thread as an example of a track rider with a good result in a prologue on the road. I wasn't aware that Martin had been a track rider, but regarding the TT rider-->GC rider transformation, Martin is an interesting example of a failed attempt.

Back in 2009, riding his second GT ever, Martin was sitting in 8th place after the second rest day in the Tour de France. On stage 16, he lost 16 minutes. Two years later, Martin won Paris-Nice and there was again talk of him as a TDF contender: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tony-martin-ready-to-target-the-tour-de-france/. This time, he was in 6th place after 11 stages, before losing 9 minutes on stage 12. That was the end of talk about Martin as a GT GC contender.

The transformation that didn't work with Martin apparently did, however, with Thomas.
shalgo
Member
 
Posts: 1,488
Joined: 11 Aug 2010 13:57
Location: Pale Blue Dot

Re: Re:

10 Aug 2018 02:34

Alpe73 wrote:
The Hegelian wrote:I think we can quite reasonably infer - on the basis of what has emerged through the parliamentary inquiry, fancy bear leaks and an AAF - that corticosteroids, salbutomuol and testosterone patches are likely to be have been used.

We can also infer, on the basis of the first inference, that other substances are highly likely to have been utilised, although clearly we have no basis for stating precisely what.

The logical form for the argument is: if a, then b. i.e. if one is prepared to use one illegal method, one will also be prepared to utilise another illegal method.

Following the recent history of the sport and the CIRC report which came out a few years ago, micro dosing epo + blood doping are both highly probably methods that GT utilised.

https://pelotonmagazine.com/racing/circ-report-cycling-doping-uci-armstrong/

And then there is the weight loss stuff - for mine, a speculative judgement can be made about this, but I think this is less concretely justified than the other things, if only because although we can see many in the peloton looking super skinny, facts are that there is no concrete evidence that riders are using illegal weight loss drugs. Closest is Clebutoral traces found on Contador and Rogers.


I agree ... we can be, quite reasonably ... suspicious. Somewhere between ‘vigilant doctor suspicious’ and ‘ ‘neurotic Othello suspicious.’ As you observe... there’s a lot we don’t know. What, how much, for how long, to what effect?

So what do we do with that uncertainty? Cheap inferences are a dime a dozen.


Well, cheap inferences can run both ways.

True knowledge generally only emerges from the subject (i.e. the rider), and this - if it ever emerges - usually entails a confession at some later date, far from the immanence of the victory.

Lacking that, there actually isn't a neutral space; assuming cleaniness on the basis of a lack of true knowledge is not a neutral or objective position - it entails many inferences too (not necessarily cheap though). So, the only available road is epistemic uncertainty.

The point about GT is that quite a lot has already emerged about practices at Team Sky, which lend very considerable weight to the probability of doping. It's not 2012 anymore; the water under the bridge has already been revealed to be dirty.
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 854
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

Re: Re:

10 Aug 2018 09:35

Dan2016 wrote:
samhocking wrote:
mrhender wrote:Then why the comparisons you just performed above?
You can't have it both ways.


I am viewing Thomas as a doper in order to maintain my point, what's so complicated. If you're comparing Thomas the doper, to rider x in the past who was a doper, then any 'believable rider' is rather pointless. As Armstrong said, without doping for the Worlds he would never have won it and today if that race was ridden today, he said he wouldn't stand a chance as that level of cheating isn't possible today to make the difference anymore, so looking at riders palamares doping from the moment they entered the peloton and winning at a young age is pointless as Armstrong's Worlds proved. ie none of it is based on natural ability in reality, it's based on doping, even in their 20's.

(Sorry for the off topic)

Just curious, when did Armstrong admit that he doped for his Worlds win? Do you have a source for this please?

After he confessed everything I've only ever heard him maintain that he was completely clean for his Worlds win and that was proof of how naturally talented he really was. Never believed him of course, just curious as to when he admitted it.


In one of his podcasts, he was asked about his Worlds win and he was adamant the level of doping it took wouldn't be possible today. Iirc correctly he said "times were very different back then, let's just leave it at that"!
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,888
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

10 Aug 2018 09:44

Alpe73 wrote:
Mamil wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:So ... why not cut to the chase, here?

What’s was G’s “regimen” approaching and during the Tour?

Names of methods, names of drugs, frequency, duration, effect?

And why no positive tests? Who is protecting him? Why?


The lack of positive tests is almost meaningless. Drug testing in pro sport is largely a sham and a front to make the federations and WADA look like they're doing something about it, or a stick to beat countries who fall into the bad books like Russia. It's not meant to catch cheats unless they're too blatant or too stupid.

Watched any tennis lately? Obvious signs of serious doping everywhere, but almost no-one tests positive. How can this be?


Thanks for addressing the last point of my query. Let’s set that aside for further debate later, then.

Since you’re convinced that GT is doping ... can you please have a go at the first two questions, please?

Thanks, in advance.


Hegelian got in before me, and I pretty much agree with what he has suggested, so I won't repeat it. I'd probably just add that during the Tour a third week blood bag is likely to still be pretty standard, and recovery drugs are really important, be they legal or not. Must admit I'm not fully up on these, but peptides are highly likely to be be part of the story. Either way, you only have to look at a range of sports, from cycling to football to tennis, to see that super-human recovery abilities are widespread, and highly unlikely to be all achieved just with ice baths.

Other than that, again like Hegelian I'd point to what we already know about Sky, particularly in the context of the sport's extensive doping history, which points to a willingness to at the very least push the grey areas as far as they'll possibly go, and say as well that almost all past performances like Thomas' in the Tour have been proven or well-known to have been done by dopers. Really the odd and surprising thing would be if Thomas weren't doping, not if he was.
Mamil
Junior Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 11 Jan 2018 11:24

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

10 Aug 2018 10:13

Kerrison is in Telegraph a couple of days ago, explaining how he did it with Thomas. Some key things he discussed between pursuit numbers and tour numbers were:

2007 - 73kg
2008 - 75kg
2009 - 72kg
2011 - 71kg
2012 - 72kg
2013 - 69kg
2014 - 70kg
2015 - 68kg
2016 - 68kg
2017 - 67.8kg
2018 - 67.6kg

2012 Pursuit weight to 2018 Tour weight = 4.4kg weight loss over 6 years.

2012 - 30s power 834W
2018 - 30s power 774W

2012 - 4min power 513W
2018 - 4min power 508W

2012 - 20min power 413W
2018 - 20min power 428W

2012 - 4 Hour power 282W
2018 - 4 Hour power 304W

So basically this tallies up with what we know of Wiggins numbers too. Basically you loose 5-10W power for 5kg of upper body and overall muscle loss which for the pursuit compared to the road matches Wiggins numbers too. This is why GC winners today would need a period of adaptation in the gym to gain the upper body and leg power to find that 5-10W by gaining 5kg in muscle mass to reach the required 4min power.
Clearly the key to Thomas's transformation is his 4 hour power which unsurprisingly is vastly better between a 4km pursuit rider and GC winner. He's gained 22W over 4 hours and 15W over 20 mins and sacrifices his shorter numbers which are not so critical to be a GC rider. Basically Kerrison has simply pushed his training power curve from short endurance to longer endurance. Interestingly he says Thomas doesn't stay at Tour weight longer than necessary. The calorie count to the demands of each stage so Thomas doesn't gain weight during 3 weeks and before and after Tour he returns to being 70-71kg in order be robust enough for the demands of training without getting sick,
Last edited by samhocking on 10 Aug 2018 11:28, edited 1 time in total.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,888
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

10 Aug 2018 10:22

Mamil wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:
Mamil wrote:
Alpe73 wrote:So ... why not cut to the chase, here?

What’s was G’s “regimen” approaching and during the Tour?

Names of methods, names of drugs, frequency, duration, effect?

And why no positive tests? Who is protecting him? Why?


The lack of positive tests is almost meaningless. Drug testing in pro sport is largely a sham and a front to make the federations and WADA look like they're doing something about it, or a stick to beat countries who fall into the bad books like Russia. It's not meant to catch cheats unless they're too blatant or too stupid.

Watched any tennis lately? Obvious signs of serious doping everywhere, but almost no-one tests positive. How can this be?


Thanks for addressing the last point of my query. Let’s set that aside for further debate later, then.

Since you’re convinced that GT is doping ... can you please have a go at the first two questions, please?

Thanks, in advance.


Hegelian got in before me, and I pretty much agree with what he has suggested, so I won't repeat it. I'd probably just add that during the Tour a third week blood bag is likely to still be pretty standard, and recovery drugs are really important, be they legal or not. Must admit I'm not fully up on these, but peptides are highly likely to be be part of the story. Either way, you only have to look at a range of sports, from cycling to football to tennis, to see that super-human recovery abilities are widespread, and highly unlikely to be all achieved just with ice baths.

Other than that, again like Hegelian I'd point to what we already know about Sky, particularly in the context of the sport's extensive doping history, which points to a willingness to at the very least push the grey areas as far as they'll possibly go, and say as well that almost all past performances like Thomas' in the Tour have been proven or well-known to have been done by dopers. Really the odd and surprising thing would be if Thomas weren't doping, not if he was.

Also, it's been mentioned before, but the 2010 UCI suspicion index had Thomas in the 'worst' 10% of the peloton regarding doping. "Circumstantial evidence of possible doping was 'overwhelming". He was deemed more suspicious than Armstrong, Contador, Vinokourov, Wiggins, Schleck, Horner and a whole host of other confirmed dopers.

So there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence he was doping in 2010, and he has improved exponentially since then as a GT rider. Combined with the evidence of Sky abusing TUEs and painkillers, and ordering testosterone, it is anything but a 'cheap inference' to believe that he is still doping.
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,336
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

10 Aug 2018 11:23

UCI suspicion index, Testosterone, TUEs, Painkillers, Corticosteroids, EPO and blood bags applies and is easily available to pretty much any rider in any team that might want to transform to a GC winner so doesn't explain anything with Wiggins or Thomas. Clearly if you believe all that is still going on in the peloton 7 years later, none of that explains Thomas this year, something else must.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,888
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

10 Aug 2018 11:37

samhocking wrote:UCI suspicion index, Testosterone, TUEs, Painkillers, Corticosteroids, EPO and blood bags applies and is easily available to pretty much any rider in any team that might want to transform to a GC winner so doesn't explain anything with Wiggins or Thomas. Clearly if you believe all that is still going on in the peloton 7 years later, none of that explains Thomas this year, something else must.

I'm not really sure what this means. Of course it explains a lot. It shows there is 'overwhelming evidence' that he dopes, which was not the case for the vast majority of other WT riders at the time.

The point is not that Thomas is winning now by doing what he was doing eight years ago. It's that there is overwhelming evidence he was doping eight years ago when he wasn't very good, and overwhelming evidence that Sky have used PEDs. So the logically inference is that he is also doping now, when he is putting in much better performances.

From that inference we can begin to speculate as to what exactly he is doing. But its not a cheap inference to believe he is still doping. It's the only rational starting point for the discussion based on his and Sky's history.
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,336
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

10 Aug 2018 11:46

samhocking wrote:Kerrison is in Telegraph a couple of days ago, explaining how he did it with Thomas. Some key things he discussed between pursuit numbers and tour numbers were:

2007 - 73kg
2008 - 75kg
2009 - 72kg
2011 - 71kg
2012 - 72kg
2013 - 69kg
2014 - 70kg
2015 - 68kg
2016 - 68kg
2017 - 67.8kg
2018 - 67.6kg

2012 Pursuit weight to 2018 Tour weight = 4.4kg weight loss over 6 years.

2012 - 30s power 834W
2018 - 30s power 774W

2012 - 4min power 513W
2018 - 4min power 508W

2012 - 20min power 413W
2018 - 20min power 428W

2012 - 4 Hour power 282W
2018 - 4 Hour power 304W

So basically this tallies up with what we know of Wiggins numbers too. Basically you loose 5-10W power for 5kg of upper body and overall muscle loss which for the pursuit compared to the road matches Wiggins numbers too. This is why GC winners today would need a period of adaptation in the gym to gain the upper body and leg power to find that 5-10W by gaining 5kg in muscle mass to reach the required 4min power.
Clearly the key to Thomas's transformation is his 4 hour power which unsurprisingly is vastly better between a 4km pursuit rider and GC winner. He's gained 22W over 4 hours and 15W over 20 mins and sacrifices his shorter numbers which are not so critical to be a GC rider. Basically Kerrison has simply pushed his training power curve from short endurance to longer endurance. Interestingly he says Thomas doesn't stay at Tour weight longer than necessary. The calorie count to the demands of each stage so Thomas doesn't gain weight during 3 weeks and before and after Tour he returns to being 70-71kg in order be robust enough for the demands of training without getting sick,


What exactly is the point of measuring 4 hour power? How many TTs or climbs involve a four hour effort? Its almost impossible to test for objectively and, even if it would have been tested on an identical course, with identical conditions 6 years apart, there is not going to be a big enough sample size to mean anything.

Essentially, its a completely pointless and meaningless stat - and implying that a supposed 22w improvement over four hours is relevant in any way, suggests that you don't really understand the numbers that you are referencing.

It's just marketing by Sky to sucker in those who want to believe in miracles. :rolleyes:
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,336
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

10 Aug 2018 11:49

does anyone of the thread inhabitans seriously contemplate about possibility of G riding clean? :) Or we are discussing how ridiculously far he went doping-wise after being joined to Sky high-scale programme?

DFA123 wrote:Btw, determination is a completely different factor. Froome for example has incredible mental strength which has undoubtedly contributed to his prolonged period of success - and he is a worthy champion in that respect.

yes, determination is a different factor, but pure talent is not worth much without proper determination as well as determination should necessarily be fed up with talent in order to produce an extraordinary rider. plants must get a great watering to grow and produce fruits. and which is why froome, armstrong and thomas remain big worthy champions.
Last edited by dacooley on 10 Aug 2018 12:05, edited 1 time in total.
dacooley
Member
 
Posts: 1,670
Joined: 30 May 2015 15:37

10 Aug 2018 11:54

OK, DFA123, so you believe he is doping with something completely unknown to any other rider and their team then? Something that improves his performance even more than when he was taking EPO, Testosterone, Corticosteorids and blood bags as a domestique? That's not overwhelming evidence of doping, that's actually having no evidence to explain his transformation other than assuming there is a miracle substance that either does more than all of the above 7 years ago or adds something, not even EPO & Blood provided him 7 years ago?
Last edited by samhocking on 10 Aug 2018 11:57, edited 1 time in total.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,888
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

10 Aug 2018 11:57

samhocking wrote:Kerrison is in Telegraph a couple of days ago, explaining how he did it with Thomas. Some key things he discussed between pursuit numbers and tour numbers were:

2007 - 73kg
2008 - 75kg
2009 - 72kg
2011 - 71kg
2012 - 72kg
2013 - 69kg
2014 - 70kg
2015 - 68kg
2016 - 68kg
2017 - 67.8kg
2018 - 67.6kg

2012 Pursuit weight to 2018 Tour weight = 4.4kg weight loss over 6 years.

2012 - 30s power 834W
2018 - 30s power 774W

2012 - 4min power 513W
2018 - 4min power 508W

2012 - 20min power 413W
2018 - 20min power 428W

2012 - 4 Hour power 282W
2018 - 4 Hour power 304W

So basically this tallies up with what we know of Wiggins numbers too. Basically you loose 5-10W power for 5kg of upper body and overall muscle loss which for the pursuit compared to the road matches Wiggins numbers too. This is why GC winners today would need a period of adaptation in the gym to gain the upper body and leg power to find that 5-10W by gaining 5kg in muscle mass to reach the required 4min power.
Clearly the key to Thomas's transformation is his 4 hour power which unsurprisingly is vastly better between a 4km pursuit rider and GC winner. He's gained 22W over 4 hours and 15W over 20 mins and sacrifices his shorter numbers which are not so critical to be a GC rider. Basically Kerrison has simply pushed his training power curve from short endurance to longer endurance. Interestingly he says Thomas doesn't stay at Tour weight longer than necessary. The calorie count to the demands of each stage so Thomas doesn't gain weight during 3 weeks and before and after Tour he returns to being 70-71kg in order be robust enough for the demands of training without getting sick,


are these numbers before or after his morning 2Kg dump?
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,487
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

10 Aug 2018 11:59

A 2kg dump? You need to cut down on the pork pies! Most people have a 3-400g dump!
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,888
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

10 Aug 2018 12:02

samhocking wrote:OK, DFA123, so you believe he is doping with something completely unknown to any other rider and their team then? Something that improves his performance even more than when he was taking EPO, Testosterone, Corticosteorids and blood bags? That's not overwhelming evidence of doping, that's actually having no evidence to explain his transformation other than assuming there is a miracle substance that either does more than all of the above 7 years ago or adds something, not even EPO & Blood provided him 7 years ago?

No. So the rest of your post is just a pointless straw man rant. :rolleyes:

I suspect that he is using something for weight loss, which is readily available, but which works better on bigger riders. Same reason we are seeing Dumoulin and rise to the top. It might even be one of those grey area things like TUE abuse or sabutamol. Probably not much secret about it - just that you need a certain type of physique to benefit the most. Then having the best doctors and a lot of money to pay for top lawyers to shut down any case against you, ensures you are more or less untouchable.

Because even if the same products are available to everyone, doping isn't and never will be a level playing field. We've seen in the history of cycling - it's not so much about the availability of doping products - it's about having the financial clout and expertise to get away with using them.
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,336
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

10 Aug 2018 12:16

Well, Movistar are financially 4x bigger than Sky UK. If any company had the access to the most funds to pay for protection for a sponsors ROI, it would be Movistar, assuming UCI sells the best protection to the highest bidder like most rackets do.
Also, I would argue, If was Sky paying for UCI protection, how UCI handled my top rider, I would not be impressed with what I got for my money this year!
Last edited by samhocking on 10 Aug 2018 12:20, edited 1 time in total.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,888
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 16 guests

Back to top