Doping in XC skiing

Page 43 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Expressen has a bit more info. I think these are supposed to be the lowest and peak values over the past 3 seasons.

GENTS

Åkare 1.
1) 147-164
2) 45-49
3) 0,4-0,89
4) 108

Åkare 2.
1) 141-155
2) 41-44
3) 0,5-0,7
4) 114

Åkare 3.
1) 150-164
2) 44-48
3) 0,8-1,08
4) 101

Åkare 4.
1) 143-166
2) 44-47
3) 0,72-1,13
4) 109

Åkare 5.
1) 136-147
2) 39,5-44
3) 0,77-1,06
4) 78-89

Åkare 6.
1) 146-147
2) 42,8-43,8
3) 0,8-1,07
4) 96

Åkare 7.
1) 146
2) 41
3) 0,97
4) 86

Åkare 8.
1) 143-152
2) 40,6-42,6
3) 0,98-1,17
4) 90

Åkare 9.
1) 165-177
2) 46-49
3) 1,1-1,2
4) 113

LADIES

Åkare 1.
1) 119-149
2) 37-41
3) 0,46-1,48
4) 99

Åkare 2.
1) 127-146
2) 41-43,9
3) 0,63-1,42
4) 98

Åkare 3.
1) 137-154
2) 40,5-46
3) 0,69-1,08
4) 99

Åkare 4.
1) 145
2) 43
3) 1,02
4) 84

Åkare 5.
1) 142
2) 43,9
3) 0,7
4) 91,8

Åkare 6.
1) 136
2) 40,5
3) 0,67
4) 86

Average hematocrit over three years.
Men: 44.
Women: 41.

http://www.expressen.se/sport/langdskidor/har-ar-blodvardena-pa-de-svenska-vm-akarna/
 
Wow, that last quote is difficult to read. Even in Swedish it was difficult to understand, but it's more like: if you're manipulating your blood values, you're not going to go down that much.
 
Apr 4, 2010
2,420
0
0
blueskies said:
And recent success is still because of doping? The domination in XC and biathlon is far, far more significant today than it was in 1995.
No, it's because almost every race is a mass start these days and Northug is the best sprinter. If you would have a season with no mass start I promise you that sweden would have more wins than Norway among the men. Russia and other countries would also benefit from this.
 
Dec 31, 2011
211
0
0
Walkman said:
No, it's because almost every race is a mass start these days and Northug is the best sprinter. If you would have a season with no mass start I promise you that sweden would have more wins than Norway among the men. Russia and other countries would also benefit from this.
Awesome!

And how can we make a 1-2-3-4 in a ladies world championship race?

I repeat that.. 1-2-3-4

That's unprecedented !

..oh wait

it's been done before.

Damn, that was Norway too.

And this is possible because......?
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
0
dukoff said:
Awesome!

And how can we make a 1-2-3-4 in a ladies world championship race?

I repeat that.. 1-2-3-4

That's unprecedented !

..oh wait

it's been done before.

Damn, that was Norway too.

And this is possible because......?
coz women's xc skiing is a tiny tiny sport with about 30 full time pros, 20 of which are from norway :rolleyes:
 
Dec 31, 2011
211
0
0
workingclasshero said:
coz women's xc skiing is a tiny tiny sport with about 30 full time pros, 20 of which are from norway :rolleyes:
Ok. So our women are excused because it's a tiny sport everywhere else than in Norway.

But for the men, Sweden and Norway has together taken 50 out of 84 olympic xc gold since 1924 because..?
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
dukoff said:
Yes the documentary provides evidence of the doping culture. But it also gives factual evidence that in Lahti no Norwegian had >170, only one Swede at 175. For Thunder Bay there is confirmed no unnatural values for Norwegian or Swedish skiers.

Dæhlie has held for years the world record in VO2max at 96.0. He also has naturally high blood values, though with his VO2max he would not need 192 to beat Smirnov at 192. I could speculate Dæhlie has a mean Hb of 155 which I'm sure he would push to 170 with altitude training.

Hb is NOT horse power, VO2max is!
Who is to say that Daehli's "world record" was achieved clean? If you read Rusko's book, it documents top Finnish skiers getting up to 90 ml/kg/min which we now know was blood-doping assisted.

There's also too much focus on the measured Hb value which can easily be lowered with plasma expanders. Once the Hb limits were established starting in 1997, plasma expanders were still allowed until 2001. It is the total Hb mass that counts for performance - someone with an Hb of 170 g/l may have more total Hb than someone with an Hb of 198 g/l. All it takes is a well timed bag of saline.

Hb of 170 or 175 is not normal. Today's "no start" limit is 170 and in recent years we've seen only a few skiers get caught with this rule - Hoffman of Austria and Vylegchanin of Russia come to mind. Besides, the Thunder Bay world champs were effectively at sea level.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Trond Vidar said:
Agree. Norwegian leaders/coaches from that time seem very defensive these days.
and i wonder why the 2 new contributors suddenly appearing in the thread trying to undermine the swedish documentary.
 
Dec 31, 2011
211
0
0
Tubeless said:
Hb of 170 or 175 is not normal. Today's "no start" limit is 170 and in recent years we've seen only a few skiers get caught with this rule - Hoffman of Austria and Vylegchanin of Russia come to mind. Besides, the Thunder Bay world champs were effectively at sea level.
There is not anymore an upper Hb limit, there are only individual limits based on the biopassport.

It's not a valid argument that only a few got caught with the 170 rule, since people with natural high values have dispensation. People from the 90s with a mean of 16+ would if competing in later years have had a dispensation, which they obviously didn't need when the limit was 185 and 175.

And 17 is not an abnormal value. It's an abnormal mean value yes, but still something like 5% of people have this as their mean value. As you can see from a distribution curve based on 17000 individuals:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/6068/screenshot2013030201573.png

About 25-30% have a mean value of 16 and can reach 17.6 with a 10% variation. This is easily achievable, as shown here for people at 3500m;

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/6238/screenshot2013030206131.png

The question is, with a limit of 185, how come in Lahti 1997 no Swede or Norwegian attempt to maximize this opportunity?
- It would be extremely easy to do and control with EPO.
- But it's also impossible (to most) to do naturally.

But they didn't. Bengt Saltin commented the Lahti-list in the documentary, of people above 170:
"There are many countries represented with high values. Also Finns are in that group, and in fact one of the Swedes [Lars Håland 175]"
How come they were so conservative, while other nations pushed 180, 190 and 200?

This document is extremely important. Because it's a leaked test I value it very highly, as it can not be manipulated by FIS. It is screening tests, so the numbers are about 1.0 g/dl too high. But the important detail is that this evidence is 100% consistent on indicating countries that have been caught doping were pushing 185 to the limit and beyond, while 100% consistent indicating countries that have not been caught doping did NOT push this limit.

It just doesn't make sense that countries should be conservative with the 185 limit at the time. It may look sensible today, because we know the limits were later lowered to 175, then to 170. But it would not make much sense at the time.

Thunder Bay is impossible to discuss, because we have no data, other than that FIS confirmed no Swede or Norwegian was above 175 there.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
dukoff said:
Ok. So our women are excused because it's a tiny sport everywhere else than in Norway.

But for the men, Sweden and Norway has together taken 50 out of 84 olympic xc gold since 1924 because..?
Congratulations for always figuring out how to beat the competition. Norway is easily #1 in cross-country skiing - and managed to sort out what to do when faced with competitors who were blood-doped to the gills in the 1990s.

I know it's hard to admit that skiers (and coaches) will do whatever they can get away with. In the 1990's everyone knew there was no way to get caught for doping with EPO and Hgh. Until 1997 there was no Hb limit, and until 2001 you could get around the Hb limit by using plasma expanders. Everyone knew everyone else was doping. FIS was fully aware what was going on - and felt they simply could not do anything about it. Not very different from what happened in cycling.

Can you tell us how Daehli, Alsgaard & Ulvang (and other countrymen of yours) were able to overcome the 5-7% performance advantage obtained by the Italians, Finns, Russians and others during the wild 1990's? Superior ski grinding?
 
Dec 31, 2011
211
0
0
Tubeless said:
Congratulations for always figuring out how to beat the competition. Norway is easily #1 in cross-country skiing - and managed to sort out what to do when faced with competitors who were blood-doped to the gills in the 1990s.

I know it's hard to admit that skiers (and coaches) will do whatever they can get away with. In the 1990's everyone knew there was no way to get caught for doping with EPO and Hgh. Until 1997 there was no Hb limit, and until 2001 you could get around the Hb limit by using plasma expanders. Everyone knew everyone else was doping. FIS was fully aware what was going on - and felt they simply could not do anything about it. Not very different from what happened in cycling.

Can you tell us how Daehli, Alsgaard & Ulvang (and other countrymen of yours) were able to overcome the 5-7% performance advantage obtained by the Italians, Finns, Russians and others during the wild 1990's? Superior ski grinding?
Yes I can tell you; "natural selection".

Instead of my words, I will quote Bjorn Ferry from a couple of weeks ago:
"I think I train harder and better than the Norwegians, I don't believe there is something we are missing there. But the recruitment in Norway is exceptional. Their very best athletes chose cross country. In sweden both Football and Ice hockey are more popular and typically recruits our strongest athletes."
Norway is as we all know the only country with xc as the undisputed most popular sport. Not only do we have an immense base of young skiers where many started skiing from 2 years old, but the most physically talented typically chose cross country. In other countries, xc get perhaps an athlete no 5, no 10, or 20? How important is this factor? Well you can only imagine if from any era, we would lose our top skier, or our top 2 skiers. We would almost be without any medals.

I think this is extremely under-estimated. Quite honestly I'm not particularily proud of Norways performance in xc, but it's great to watch and win of course. We expect Gold, and better damn well get most of the golds, for this very reason.

A clean top 8 finisher will finish at a race time of about +4%. A clean top 20 finisher will finish at a race time of about +10%. (consider individual starts of course)

The question of how a doper can be beaten is then from what genetic and physiological base performance does he start? If he is a top 10, competing against Norways best, even if doped, it may easily be an even race. Now that's not taking into account all the advantages Norway has with funding, large support teams etc. So there are many factors where you can stretch these calculations further, but it's not really necessary to make the point.

And in the 90s it was also very special. We were awarded the 1994 olympics in 1988. This had a lot of positive effects with many organizational structures initiated for professional athletics. These developments fueled by the obvious determination of everyone involved focused on the home olympic event paid off greatly, in particular research projects on ski preparation and altitude training. These particular things made us strong enough in the 90s to still win a good share.

But still I see the natural selection as the factor that makes by far the biggest difference. A factor that existed in 1924, in the 90s, and today. This is what keeps us consistently above the competition. Why else would we be better? It's not really much other reason that can make sense.

Still it will not always be enough. Our women were not at all much successful in the 90s. You will not at all times have athletes that are exceptionally gifted, like Dæhlie and Alsgaard. On the women's side, we were missing this in the 90s, or we may have been faced with a competition that were more talented, specially when doped. It will fluctuate, but because of the nature of this factor described, it will keep hitting back and work again and again.
 
May 26, 2009
502
0
0
dukoff said:
The question is, with a limit of 185, how come in Lahti 1997 no Swede or Norwegian attempt to maximize this opportunity?
- It would be extremely easy to do and control with EPO.
- But it's also impossible (to most) to do naturally.

This document is extremely important. Because it's a leaked test I value it very highly, as it can not be manipulated by FIS. It is screening tests, so the numbers are about 1.0 g/dl too high. But the important detail is that this evidence is 100% consistent on indicating countries that have been caught doping were pushing 185 to the limit and beyond, while 100% consistent indicating countries that has not been caught doping did NOT push this limit.

It just doesn't make sense that countries should be conservative with the 185 limit at the time. It may look sensible today, because we know the limits were later lowered to 175, then to 170. But it would not make much sense at the time.
I don't find this odd at all. Why would they be pushing the limits at a single world cup event when you have the World Championships coming up in a month? If I've understood correctly there's a limited amount of blood that can be withdrawn and used so why would they waste in a world cup event, especially if the athletes had knowledge of the upcoming blood screening.
So perhaps they were on their normal EPO routine getting their Hb up to about 16-17 and then hiked it up with a blood transfusion just before the WChamps to achieve 18-19. Then lower it for a possible test with a saline infusion.

dukoff said:
But the important detail is that this evidence is 100% consistent on indicating countries that have been caught doping were pushing 185 to the limit and beyond, while 100% consistent indicating countries that has not been caught doping did NOT push this limit.
So don't count that one norwegian but you coun't that one finn? :) I clearly see your logic here: none of the male norwegians were pushing the limit so that proves that the norwegians didn't dope. Also, this means that a certain Mika Myllylä, who btw also wasn't mentioned, didn't push the Hb limits and was clean as a whistle. Oh wait.. :)

One interesting fact I noticed:
Lahti 1997 30km:
Smirnov won with 1:15:28
Alsgaard was 8. with 1:17:09

Trondheim 1997 30km:
Alsgaard 3. with 1:06:49
Smirnov 42. with 1:10:46

How did that happen? Neither was mentioned (Smirnov's 198 was from '95) on the documentary concerning the Hb limits in Lahti, so neither was pushing the limits so both were 'clean' :)
Ok, Trondheim was a Freestyle race but even looking at the 50K C race Smirnov was 19. with 9min behind the winner.
 
May 26, 2009
502
0
0
Tubeless said:
The non-scientific rule of thumb to convert Hb (as grams/liter of blood) to Hct (as % of blood cells) is to multiply by 3.

So Smirnov's HB of 19.8 g/l would be an Hct of 59.4%.
Thanks. The comment from the (norwegian coach?) in the documentary was interesting. He was very suprised by such high values and said that those values were very dangerous (this we of course know from cycling). I wonder if top norwegian athletes from the 90's start having health problems when they get older or if the permanent effects have been minimal. (This of course concerns all the other top-skiers too)
 
Jul 5, 2010
462
0
0
MrRoboto said:
Men's skiing is a tiny sport too.
Still, I think the typical ratio between men and women in Swedish and Norwegian national championships is around 5 to 1. And since the sport is tiny, that will make an impact in the "pressure" for athletes to train hard. Norway has got some pressure, most countries don't. Kowalczyk is pretty impressive in this regard.
 
Feb 27, 2013
63
0
0
RdBiker said:
Thanks. The comment from the (norwegian coach?) in the documentary was interesting. He was very suprised by such high values and said that those values were very dangerous (this we of course know from cycling). I wonder if top norwegian athletes from the 90's start having health problems when they get older or if the permanent effects have been minimal. (This of course concerns all the other top-skiers too)
The comment was from a doctor, who's been involved in the training programs of Ingrid Kristiansen and Grete Waitz, which is ironic, since I'm pretty certain that most of you need to be convinced that those two were doping as well, if you are convinced that norwegian male skiers such as Kristen Skjeldal and Håvard Solbakken were doping.

The doctor has after the program stated that he didn't like the way SVT approached the athletes and accused them, and that he has no idea if blood doping occured in norwegian skiing, but that he would like to know more about the effects of the altitude training that was done.

There were no norwegian male skiers with extraordinary high values on the list he commented on, and the list was presented under false premises.

There is zero evidence for wide spread doping in norwegian skiing during the 90s.

Feel free to believe what you want based on speculation, but don't present it as factual.
 
May 26, 2009
502
0
0
blueskies said:
The comment was from a doctor, who's been involved in the training programs of Ingrid Kristiansen and Grete Waitz, which is ironic, since I'm pretty certain that most of you need to be convinced that those two were doping as well, if you are convinced that norwegian male skiers such as Kristen Skjeldal and Håvard Solbakken were doping.

The doctor has after the program stated that he didn't like the way SVT approached the athletes and accused them, and that he has no idea if blood doping occured in norwegian skiing, but that he would like to know more about the effects of the altitude training that was done.

There were no norwegian male skiers with extraordinary high values on the list he commented on, and the list was presented under false premises.

There is zero evidence for wide spread doping in norwegian skiing during the 90s.

Feel free to believe what you want based on speculation, but don't present it as factual.
Hahaha :) I don't think there's anything I can say that will make you believe the norwegians were (and are) doped and there's probably nothing you can say that will make me believe they were/are clean :) I was just wondering if having such high Hb values posed healt problems later on in life.

So no hard feelings, and personally I've got nothing against any norwegian skiers. I think they're great athletes. And even though I'm convinced that Dählie was doping I still think he is a great champion and probably would've won if everyone were clean (maybe more maybe less).
My problem with doping is that younger and younger athletes have to face the question of whether to dope or not. (So that I don't **** you off, let's say this happens only in certain countries :) ) I don't want to see the day when 12-year-olds have to take pills and injections to make it. But that's quite off topic.
 
Feb 27, 2013
63
0
0
RdBiker said:
Hahaha :) I don't think there's anything I can say that will make you believe the norwegians were (and are) doped and there's probably nothing you can say that will make me believe they were/are clean :) I was just wondering if having such high Hb values posed healt problems later on in life.

So no hard feelings, and personally I've got nothing against any norwegian skiers. I think they're great athletes. And even though I'm convinced that Dählie was doping I still think he is a great champion and probably would've won if everyone were clean (maybe more maybe less).
My problem with doping is that younger and younger athletes have to face the question of whether to dope or not. (So that I don't **** you off, let's say this happens only in certain countries :) ) I don't want to see the day when 12-year-olds have to take pills and injections to make it. But that's quite off topic.
There's plenty you can say to convince me they were doping, but not if it's pure speculation, or your personal conviction.

It's much better if people are honest that they are convinced someone is doping rather than pretending there's actual evidence, which there isn't. At least nothing that has been presented.

I have many problems with doping, probably every problem one can have, but I also have a problem with groundless accusation and the "LALALA don't want to hear" attitude which is so prevalent on both sides. When a documentary is full of factual errors, it should be pointed out regardless of lenience. It's simply unintelligent to be that certain unless there's a degree of conclusive evidence. It's the mind set of conspiracy theorist.

Are you convinced that Per Elofsson was doping as well?
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
dukoff said:
Yes I can tell you; "natural selection".

Instead of my words, I will quote Bjorn Ferry from a couple of weeks ago:


Norway is as we all know the only country with xc as the undisputed most popular sport. Not only do we have an immense base of young skiers where many started skiing from 2 years old, but the most physically talented typically chose cross country. In other countries, xc get perhaps an athlete no 5, no 10, or 20? How important is this factor? Well you can only imagine if from any era, we would lose our top skier, or our top 2 skiers. We would almost be without any medals.

I think this is extremely under-estimated. Quite honestly I'm not particularily proud of Norways performance in xc, but it's great to watch and win of course. We expect Gold, and better damn well get most of the golds, for this very reason.

A clean top 8 finisher will finish at a race time of about +4%. A clean top 20 finisher will finish at a race time of about +10%. (consider individual starts of course)

The question of how a doper can be beaten is then from what genetic and physiological base performance does he start? If he is a top 10, competing against Norways best, even if doped, it may easily be an even race. Now that's not taking into account all the advantages Norway has with funding, large support teams etc. So there are many factors where you can stretch these calculations further, but it's not really necessary to make the point.

And in the 90s it was also very special. We were awarded the 1994 olympics in 1988. This had a lot of positive effects with many organizational structures initiated for professional athletics. These developments fueled by the obvious determination of everyone involved focused on the home olympic event paid off greatly, in particular research projects on ski preparation and altitude training. These particular things made us strong enough in the 90s to still win a good share.

But still I see the natural selection as the factor that makes by far the biggest difference. A factor that existed in 1924, in the 90s, and today. This is what keeps us consistently above the competition. Why else would we be better? It's not really much other reason that can make sense.

Still it will not always be enough. Our women were not at all much successful in the 90s. You will not at all times have athletes that are exceptionally gifted, like Dæhlie and Alsgaard. On the women's side, we were missing this in the 90s, or we may have been faced with a competition that were more talented, specially when doped. It will fluctuate, but because of the nature of this factor described, it will keep hitting back and work again and again.
It does not sound like you've followed what happened in cycling. That's EXACTLY what the defenders of Lance Armstrong were saying - natural talent, best training methods, Chris Carmichael as coach, singular focus.

Your arguments may work in times when the differences between top skiers are 1-2% (typical spread between 1st and 20th) - but not in the 1990's when the easy availability of EPO gave skiers an unnatural boost, which could be as much as 10% if you weren't scared of dying in your sleep.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
RdBiker said:
Thanks. The comment from the (norwegian coach?) in the documentary was interesting. He was very suprised by such high values and said that those values were very dangerous (this we of course know from cycling). I wonder if top norwegian athletes from the 90's start having health problems when they get older or if the permanent effects have been minimal. (This of course concerns all the other top-skiers too)
I am not aware of any scientific study, but there are no known reports of long-term health issues from EPO use. The most typical health issue at an older age for cross-country skiers is heart rhythm problems which can develop when the total blood volume drops 20-30% from the peak training days to sedentary life after racing.

But this issue is not (necessarily) related to doping, although EPO can significantly boost total blood volume - and cause the heart to stretch beyond its natural size. Once the blood volume drops, the heart's muscles / tissue can have a hard time making the adjustment, it's like a balloon that used to be sprang tight, and then shrinks due to loss or air.
 
Dec 31, 2011
211
0
0
Tubeless said:
It does not sound like you've followed what happened in cycling. That's EXACTLY what the defenders of Lance Armstrong were saying - natural talent, best training methods, Chris Carmichael as coach, singular focus.

Your arguments may work in times when the differences between top skiers are 1-2% (typical spread between 1st and 20th) - but not in the 1990's when the easy availability of EPO gave skiers an unnatural boost, which could be as much as 10% if you weren't scared of dying in your sleep.

1-2% between 1st-20th is simply not correct. I have ran these numbers over a number of years, it's not something I just take out of thin air. Which, no offense, but I think you did, as yours are incorrect. Here is for 50k olympics since 1924 to 1992, difference 1st to 8th:
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/912/screenshot2013030216245.png
Check the 15k from few days ago, similar numbers.

You can not compare this situation to cycling. Cycling is a top sport in a number of countries, so such natural selection can not be argued to exist. XC is completely unique in this respect. The position xc has in Norway compared to everywhere else is a completely different system to analyze.

There are many ways to analyze this, but it really doesn't take much more complexity than to imagine that in other countries, a "similar Dæhlie" would chose a different sport. How to analyze the imaginary situation he instead chose xc? You take Dæhlie away, and analyze that field instead. The thing is that the difference between no 1 and 2, in any country is substantial. What would TDF have looked like without Armstrong, without Contador? Take away any single athlete, and everything is turned on it's head.

The only way this argument would have little significance is as you rightly suggest, if the difference from 1st to 20th would be something like 1-2%. But that is simply not correct.

I know very well what happened in cycling. I read Tyler's book, and to be honest I'm a big conspiracy theorist on probably more fields than you can guess. But in all matters I hate opinion and care for two things deeply; the truth, and evidence for it. And in lack of conclusive evidence, the balancing of what exists.

An argument like "that's what Armstrong said", or "this was the wild 90s" are not exactly good "data points".
 
Dec 31, 2011
211
0
0
RdBiker said:
So don't count that one norwegian but you coun't that one finn? :) I clearly see your logic here: none of the male norwegians were pushing the limit so that proves that the norwegians didn't dope. Also, this means that a certain Mika Myllylä, who btw also wasn't mentioned, didn't push the Hb limits and was clean as a whistle. Oh wait.. :)
To be scientific one can not consider a screening value from 90s below the limits 185/165 to indicate doping. As we shown before due to the screening device this represents true values of 175/155. In 2001 limits were lovered, but they also changed from cappilary testing to venous testing and changed the procedures, and introduced dispensations allowing for outliers.

So one are forced to look at extreme values. Additionally one can of course make a judgement on a nations average values, if enough individuals, as this should be expected to be quite close to the mean. That is, for men it should be around 165 on the screening test (real value 155). 175 average would be quite suspect.

I wish we could interpret it more, but these were crude tests that served well the purpose they were performed for.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Strange that norwegians arent winning every race with 2-3 minutes now that they dont have to compete against the EPO monsters anymore. Did everyone else learn how to prepare skis at exactly the same time they had to stop doping?
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
0
MrRoboto said:
Men's skiing is a tiny sport too.
yes but still about 10x bigger than women's.

dukoff said:
Norway is as we all know the only country with xc as the undisputed most popular sport.
this is nowhere even close to being true. :rolleyes:


football is much much MUCH bigger, i would think handball is bigger too among kids.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts