Re: Re:
Di Luca runs a 'pro' style bike shop. If the sport crashed and burned so would his lively hood!
pastronef said:
Di Luca runs a 'pro' style bike shop. If the sport crashed and burned so would his lively hood!
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
^bingo.
Rasmussen still works in procycling as a reporter, and seems to enjoy it. No way is he gonna blab about motors. Why would he.
Jaksche, Floyd, Dekker, similar story. All of them clear motives to open up (to varying extents) about their doping, but zero motives to blab about motors. In fact, quite the opposite, they have plenty of motives to *not* blab about it:
- many of your friends are still in the sport making a living out of it (Floyd, Dekker, Jaksche, Ras);
- who's gonna believe you anyway?
- you yourself are still involved the sport one way or another (Ras, Di Luca) or thinking about becoming involved in the future (Jaksche, Dekker), so why would you blab now and put yourself on the shame list;
- if you cant prove it 100% you open yourself up to lible suits;
- even if you're not interested in cycling anymore (Floyd) you still have a public life to live, so why shame and discredit yourself by blabbing about motors;
- if, as some have suggested, motors are related to match fixing and betting maffia, you are definitely gonna think twice before blabbing about it.
- For someone like Floyd, blabbing about motors could be absolutely fatal for his whistleblower case; Ras, similarly, has financial interests to protect which could be damaged by blabbing about motors.
In that light, it's surprising that we've heard so much about motors already.
Look at tennis, I've never heard a single thing about EPO. Ever. If the large pro-tennis community can keep that hidden, certainly the comparatively small pro-cycling community can keep motors hidden.
Rasmussen still works in procycling as a reporter, and seems to enjoy it. No way is he gonna blab about motors. Why would he.
Jaksche, Floyd, Dekker, similar story. All of them clear motives to open up (to varying extents) about their doping, but zero motives to blab about motors. In fact, quite the opposite, they have plenty of motives to *not* blab about it:
- many of your friends are still in the sport making a living out of it (Floyd, Dekker, Jaksche, Ras);
- who's gonna believe you anyway?
- you yourself are still involved the sport one way or another (Ras, Di Luca) or thinking about becoming involved in the future (Jaksche, Dekker), so why would you blab now and put yourself on the shame list;
- if you cant prove it 100% you open yourself up to lible suits;
- even if you're not interested in cycling anymore (Floyd) you still have a public life to live, so why shame and discredit yourself by blabbing about motors;
- if, as some have suggested, motors are related to match fixing and betting maffia, you are definitely gonna think twice before blabbing about it.
- For someone like Floyd, blabbing about motors could be absolutely fatal for his whistleblower case; Ras, similarly, has financial interests to protect which could be damaged by blabbing about motors.
In that light, it's surprising that we've heard so much about motors already.
Look at tennis, I've never heard a single thing about EPO. Ever. If the large pro-tennis community can keep that hidden, certainly the comparatively small pro-cycling community can keep motors hidden.
Re:
I've read several things about EPO, test, and other enhancements in tennis, but only from people on the fringe of the sport, no ex players. Johny Temper did say something one time when Nadal and Federer were having a 5 hour battle. It was years ago so even my paraphrase will be rough, but he said something to the effect of: these guys can still be at their best even five hours in. They have something that we didn't have.
Good point about crime organizations. If they are involved, it would be wise to be silent.sniper said:
I've read several things about EPO, test, and other enhancements in tennis, but only from people on the fringe of the sport, no ex players. Johny Temper did say something one time when Nadal and Federer were having a 5 hour battle. It was years ago so even my paraphrase will be rough, but he said something to the effect of: these guys can still be at their best even five hours in. They have something that we didn't have.
Cheers, jmdirt. Interesting about Temper. I'll look into that.
All in all, the suggestion that "if motors were being used by pros we would have heard about it by now" fails on two levels:
1. We have in fact heard about it (more than e.g. about EPO in tennis);
2. The fact we've heard less about it than we have about regular doping can easily be accounted for by a range of social, economical, psychological and historical arguments.
All in all, the suggestion that "if motors were being used by pros we would have heard about it by now" fails on two levels:
1. We have in fact heard about it (more than e.g. about EPO in tennis);
2. The fact we've heard less about it than we have about regular doping can easily be accounted for by a range of social, economical, psychological and historical arguments.
Hard to fathom people saying there can't be motor doping because the riders don't talk about it or that no one has owned up to it. For starters drug doping has long been accepted as normal because everyone did it but wouldn't admitting to using motors be the lowest of the low? A new low anyway. There is no pressure from the UCI or anyone else for that matter regarding motors either. If it wasn't for WADA the UCI would totally turn a blind eye to doping and we all know it. I can see why it hasn't broken out as a big thing in cycling. When you have so many drug cheats still in the pro ranks and in team management we would have to all be dreaming to think the culture has changed at all. It's called Omerta and cycling is infamous for it. Nothing changes in sport.
Re:
To the bolded we get some semi interesting quotes on this sitehttp://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com.au/p/players-talk-about-doping.html but players actually admitting doping is pretty scant outside of David Sebok.
To the sexual fantasies part I'll step up (while staying within forum rules), it involves a motorhorn, a whistle, a megaphone, a revolver, a set of cow bells and half a lamington. If you'd like to know more PM me
sniper said:
To the bolded we get some semi interesting quotes on this sitehttp://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com.au/p/players-talk-about-doping.html but players actually admitting doping is pretty scant outside of David Sebok.
To the sexual fantasies part I'll step up (while staying within forum rules), it involves a motorhorn, a whistle, a megaphone, a revolver, a set of cow bells and half a lamington. If you'd like to know more PM me
Re:
I won't speak for others, but I'm not saying that because we haven't heard much from the platoon, there isn't motor use. I'm just saying that its odd that we haven't heard more (assuming that motor use is as bad as some here think). Plus, I wonder why the guys who have admitted to doping wouldn't also admit to using a motor (assuming that they had). The example used this week being LA.Craigee said:
Re: Re:
We have a pro caught using a motor. We have amatuers caught using them. It aint hard to make the leap to the peloton using them!!
Cassani spoke about it, Gilbert's agent spoke about it, plenty have mentioned it. Heck the UCI pretend to test for it. There have been at least 2 tv programmes made about it.
This is a thing, make no mistake about it.
jmdirt said:
We have a pro caught using a motor. We have amatuers caught using them. It aint hard to make the leap to the peloton using them!!
Cassani spoke about it, Gilbert's agent spoke about it, plenty have mentioned it. Heck the UCI pretend to test for it. There have been at least 2 tv programmes made about it.
This is a thing, make no mistake about it.
Re: Re:
I'm late with with post but I don't follow Tienus' logic here.
Bassons says now, in october 2017 that there is no reason to believe motors haven't been used in pro racing.
And?
I could have said that. Every body could say that today. We know it exists and has been used at least by a few people at lower level. Of course nothing leads us to believe it has never been used in pro racing. But this doesn't undermine deviant point.
Bassons has been very vocal about cheating in sport for 20 years. He never talked aout motors until very recently. I think/hope no one here believes Bassons is Omerta.
In 2012/2013 during the whole Armstrong falldown he was often interviewed and was one of the only one to not follow the "everything is so much better now" line by saying that the speed were the same. Never at that time id he mention motors as a possile explanation.
He wrote a book in 2014 where he doesn't speak about motors at all.
Everything leads to the conclusion that he got aware of the possibility of mechanical doping as the rest of us, in 2015/2017. Despite being a pro in the 90's/early 2000's and knowing about the others form of cheating. Despite working in anti-doping for years. It's not because someone like Bassons or Betsy or Lemond gives his opinion NOW about motors that it means their opinion is gold. There didn't know a thing about it until 2 years ago, they're not insiders of what was/is going on then when it comes to motors.
Same can be told about Simeoni. He was perfectly ok doping for a time, working with Ferarri. There is no reason he wouldn't have know about motors if it was such an open secret as far as early 2000's. Yet he never said a thing aout it.
So either even the "better" whistleblower of that era are lying about mechanical doping. Either it was so secret that nobody knew exept the one or two user and it was very very far from being pervasive. Either it just didn't exist back then and this is why nobody report about it.
My opinion is the later (or option number two but we're still out of evidences, but not the 1st option)
Tienus said:
I'm late with with post but I don't follow Tienus' logic here.
Bassons says now, in october 2017 that there is no reason to believe motors haven't been used in pro racing.
And?
I could have said that. Every body could say that today. We know it exists and has been used at least by a few people at lower level. Of course nothing leads us to believe it has never been used in pro racing. But this doesn't undermine deviant point.
Bassons has been very vocal about cheating in sport for 20 years. He never talked aout motors until very recently. I think/hope no one here believes Bassons is Omerta.
In 2012/2013 during the whole Armstrong falldown he was often interviewed and was one of the only one to not follow the "everything is so much better now" line by saying that the speed were the same. Never at that time id he mention motors as a possile explanation.
He wrote a book in 2014 where he doesn't speak about motors at all.
Everything leads to the conclusion that he got aware of the possibility of mechanical doping as the rest of us, in 2015/2017. Despite being a pro in the 90's/early 2000's and knowing about the others form of cheating. Despite working in anti-doping for years. It's not because someone like Bassons or Betsy or Lemond gives his opinion NOW about motors that it means their opinion is gold. There didn't know a thing about it until 2 years ago, they're not insiders of what was/is going on then when it comes to motors.
Same can be told about Simeoni. He was perfectly ok doping for a time, working with Ferarri. There is no reason he wouldn't have know about motors if it was such an open secret as far as early 2000's. Yet he never said a thing aout it.
So either even the "better" whistleblower of that era are lying about mechanical doping. Either it was so secret that nobody knew exept the one or two user and it was very very far from being pervasive. Either it just didn't exist back then and this is why nobody report about it.
My opinion is the later (or option number two but we're still out of evidences, but not the 1st option)
Re:
It's amazing some think media aren't interested in discovering a scandal such as mechanical doping.
From what I know, many investigated.
There is a reason why nothing has really come out yet almost one year since Varjas gave his 1st intervew.
It's the same reason why the 60 minutes interview who was first promoted as a scandal as big as the Festina affair ended up being nothing very important.
It's the same reason why part of the journos have a very limited trust in what Varjas says now.
In a year, no one has been able to find an evidence to back up what Varjas says. Not a testimony, not an email. Nothing. Nada. Rien.
Maybe one day tho.
Meanwhile, it's not because media are not interested that nothing has been prooved yet. They are trying - or have been trying.
They are looking for proofs about the past and they are looking for proof about theses years. I believe every single one of Armstrong's ex-mechanics were questioned. Probably each one of his ex-teamate also (since he was the target of the 98 ten year deal accusation)
sniper said:
It's amazing some think media aren't interested in discovering a scandal such as mechanical doping.
From what I know, many investigated.
There is a reason why nothing has really come out yet almost one year since Varjas gave his 1st intervew.
It's the same reason why the 60 minutes interview who was first promoted as a scandal as big as the Festina affair ended up being nothing very important.
It's the same reason why part of the journos have a very limited trust in what Varjas says now.
In a year, no one has been able to find an evidence to back up what Varjas says. Not a testimony, not an email. Nothing. Nada. Rien.
Maybe one day tho.
Meanwhile, it's not because media are not interested that nothing has been prooved yet. They are trying - or have been trying.
They are looking for proofs about the past and they are looking for proof about theses years. I believe every single one of Armstrong's ex-mechanics were questioned. Probably each one of his ex-teamate also (since he was the target of the 98 ten year deal accusation)
Didn't Tom Boonen allude to motors having been used. Why would he say that if if it was not a fact? Doesn't he qualify as a pro to speak out?
Analogy:
Consider a classroom where some(198?) students are called in for a test. Its known for a pretty long time that its one of the toughest test and doing even 1 of the 21 questions takes a lot out of you. To ease that process, these guys started using medication. Slowly the test takers decided that they needed to test these students. Some got caught. New stuff came in. And even after 100 years this mental manipulation in this test to gain a competitive advantage(or levelling of the playing field) still happens.
Now, can some students bring in sheets of formulae to get away with? Sure. But its highly unlikely. Its too risky with all the CCTV footage and the scrutiny. Also any student can get up and say this student x has a cheat sheet, especially in this cut thoat world. They'll be caught red handed.
PS: I know people will allude to Omerta in this case as well. Draw your own conclusions, I guess.
Consider a classroom where some(198?) students are called in for a test. Its known for a pretty long time that its one of the toughest test and doing even 1 of the 21 questions takes a lot out of you. To ease that process, these guys started using medication. Slowly the test takers decided that they needed to test these students. Some got caught. New stuff came in. And even after 100 years this mental manipulation in this test to gain a competitive advantage(or levelling of the playing field) still happens.
Now, can some students bring in sheets of formulae to get away with? Sure. But its highly unlikely. Its too risky with all the CCTV footage and the scrutiny. Also any student can get up and say this student x has a cheat sheet, especially in this cut thoat world. They'll be caught red handed.
PS: I know people will allude to Omerta in this case as well. Draw your own conclusions, I guess.
Re:
Alluding to something doesn't make it "a fact"
I believe this was in relation to Cancellara on 2010 Tour de Flandres. This indeed qualify as a pro speaking out but only about the last 7-10 years. And very slightly. He doesn't provide new and relevant information. He doesn't qualify as a whistleblower. Unless I'm mistaken he just said he believes it's been used.
Some here claims it's been going on for 20 years, that the whole peloton knew about it for 20 years and that omerta is the reason we only hear about it know. This is what I'm very doubtfull about
veganrob said:
Alluding to something doesn't make it "a fact"
I believe this was in relation to Cancellara on 2010 Tour de Flandres. This indeed qualify as a pro speaking out but only about the last 7-10 years. And very slightly. He doesn't provide new and relevant information. He doesn't qualify as a whistleblower. Unless I'm mistaken he just said he believes it's been used.
Some here claims it's been going on for 20 years, that the whole peloton knew about it for 20 years and that omerta is the reason we only hear about it know. This is what I'm very doubtfull about
Re: Re:
Anyway, so Yeah, I think if Tennis is able to keep rampant blood doping since the early 70s under the lid, cycling can keep motors since the early 90s under the lid. And even then we've heard more about motors than about blood doping in tennis, despite the latter tracing back to the early 70s possibly late 60s (the Swedes were pioneers, and boom, there we have Borg).
And so it's not a surprise we've heard so little about motors. On the contrary. It's a surprise we've heard so much about it already.
StryderHells said:sniper said:
To the bolded we get some semi interesting quotes on this sitehttp://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com.au/p/players-talk-about-doping.html but players actually admitting doping is pretty scant outside of David Sebok.
To the sexual fantasies part I'll step up (while staying within forum rules), it involves a motorhorn, a whistle, a megaphone, a revolver, a set of cow bells and half a lamington. If you'd like to know more PM me
Anyway, so Yeah, I think if Tennis is able to keep rampant blood doping since the early 70s under the lid, cycling can keep motors since the early 90s under the lid. And even then we've heard more about motors than about blood doping in tennis, despite the latter tracing back to the early 70s possibly late 60s (the Swedes were pioneers, and boom, there we have Borg).
And so it's not a surprise we've heard so little about motors. On the contrary. It's a surprise we've heard so much about it already.
Bassons is an anti-doping representative who caught a motordoper. He is the second anti-doping member that I heard of who is speaking out on e-bikes publicly.
It was used at the world champs by the U23 pre race favourite riding for the Belgium national team. The Belgium federation was tipped that she was riding with a motor but they did nothing. Actually every insider in cyclocross seemed to have known for months.
I guess most of us heard about it in spring 2010 when Cassani made a video.
viewtopic.php?t=7745
A month later Durant made an excellent video of Cancellaras bike changes.
How can you think Bassons was not at least aware from 2010?
Again why the assumption they found out two years ago?
I think they are insiders, Bassons caught one and Lemond was ready at the 2015 tour with the police to do the same thing.
It wasn't, they mentioned Sastre winning the tour.
I think its going on for over 20 years but thats just my opinion and not a claim.
I dont recall anyone claiming here that the whole peloton knew about it for 20 years, do you have a link to a post?
Tienus,
You can keep acting as if you hadn't understood perfectly whant I mean.
Bassons didn't know anything about motors being used in pro level during his time in pro-cycling. If so, he would have alert about it earlier (just like he did with PED)
Lemond spend part of his life talking about ped (interstingly, he only went after people after his own generation but that's another story) Do you really believe he kept infos about mechanical doping in the 90's a secret in the hundreds of itw he gave since 2012? Of course not. He only started talking about it in 2015 when he met Varjas. Not before. Because he knew nothing about it before.
You are talking semantics
Bassons and Lemond are insiders about what was going on in the 80s/early 90s for Lemond and late 90s/early00s for Bassons. Yet they knew nothing about mech doping.
You can't just say "they are/were insiders. They are talking about motors now. So they have informations about motors in the 90s." It just doesn't work like that.
Is it so hard to understand?
Find me someone who give 1st hand informations about mechanical motors in the 90's, and then we're talking.
BTW : Bassons made very clear in this itw that you quote that he has zero knowledge about IF motors are used at the top pro level right now. He is just giving his opinion.
You can keep acting as if you hadn't understood perfectly whant I mean.
Bassons didn't know anything about motors being used in pro level during his time in pro-cycling. If so, he would have alert about it earlier (just like he did with PED)
Lemond spend part of his life talking about ped (interstingly, he only went after people after his own generation but that's another story) Do you really believe he kept infos about mechanical doping in the 90's a secret in the hundreds of itw he gave since 2012? Of course not. He only started talking about it in 2015 when he met Varjas. Not before. Because he knew nothing about it before.
You are talking semantics
Bassons and Lemond are insiders about what was going on in the 80s/early 90s for Lemond and late 90s/early00s for Bassons. Yet they knew nothing about mech doping.
You can't just say "they are/were insiders. They are talking about motors now. So they have informations about motors in the 90s." It just doesn't work like that.
Is it so hard to understand?
Find me someone who give 1st hand informations about mechanical motors in the 90's, and then we're talking.
BTW : Bassons made very clear in this itw that you quote that he has zero knowledge about IF motors are used at the top pro level right now. He is just giving his opinion.
Re:
Maybe Lemond kept quiet about motors because maybe he used them. Who are you to make the rules regarding whether certain types of doping happened? Please Refer to The Hitch's post about fanatic fans in denial.
absolutely_not said:
Maybe Lemond kept quiet about motors because maybe he used them. Who are you to make the rules regarding whether certain types of doping happened? Please Refer to The Hitch's post about fanatic fans in denial.
Recap
Deviant : It's strange nobody's come out yet, speaking out about motors in the 90's
You : look! Bassons is speaking out about motors!
Me : he is not "speaking out" about motors in the 90s/00s. He is giving an opinion about the possibility of mechanical doping being used at pro level. He has not relevant information about motors exept the one he caught a few weeks ago. Deviant is right. No one is speaking out about mech doping before 2008/2010. And it's odd.
How clear is that?
Deviant : It's strange nobody's come out yet, speaking out about motors in the 90's
You : look! Bassons is speaking out about motors!
Me : he is not "speaking out" about motors in the 90s/00s. He is giving an opinion about the possibility of mechanical doping being used at pro level. He has not relevant information about motors exept the one he caught a few weeks ago. Deviant is right. No one is speaking out about mech doping before 2008/2010. And it's odd.
How clear is that?
The only odd thing about motors in cycling is that *so much* has come out already.
Blood doping in tennis goes back to the 70s and virtually nothing has come out.
Seb Coe and many of his contemporaries probably blood doped but virtually nothing has come out apart from some rumors.
Or have a look at soccer and about how little has come out, with stories about doping in the 70s only coming out very recently, in many cases more than 30 years after the act.
etc.
In pro-cycling, the only reason we know so much about the regular doping is because of a historical event known as the Festina-scandal, and everything that happened afterwards. It's a historical coincidence and an anomaly in comparison to most other professional sports, where the historical norm is omerta.
Blood doping in tennis goes back to the 70s and virtually nothing has come out.
Seb Coe and many of his contemporaries probably blood doped but virtually nothing has come out apart from some rumors.
Or have a look at soccer and about how little has come out, with stories about doping in the 70s only coming out very recently, in many cases more than 30 years after the act.
etc.
In pro-cycling, the only reason we know so much about the regular doping is because of a historical event known as the Festina-scandal, and everything that happened afterwards. It's a historical coincidence and an anomaly in comparison to most other professional sports, where the historical norm is omerta.
The weirdest thing of all is that anyone would think that a sport famous for cheating was too stupid to think of cheating with mechanical doping before 2008. Really? Common sense please. I would say it would've been harder with the old steel bikes but today's carbon fibre bikes are perfect for it. My guess is the most likely earliest timing for mechanical doping would coincide with the introduction of carbon fibre bikes. Some here might say it was still possible earlier with steel bikes. I don't know.
Re:
Since then, the biggest advances haven't really been batteries. It's been the continual advances in electronics. You can buy off the shelf parts like an Arduino plus a motor driver and wireless communications modules all for under $100. That allows pretty much anybody to prototype a very smart, sophisticated hidden motor. Once the software is written and debugged all you have to do is design a circuit board using all the same chips as the Arduino and modules, minus the bits you don't need. Voila, a super smart hidden motor driver for less than $250, everything included!
https://store.arduino.cc/usa/arduino-motor-shield-rev3
https://store.arduino.cc/usa/arduino-nano
https://store.arduino.cc/usa/arduino-gsm-shield-2-integrated-antenna (for cell, or you could go bluetooth)
https://blog.adafruit.com/2016/10/05/fitness-hacking-bridging-ant-to-bluetooth/
Realistically, this has been achievable for roughly ten years. So, I'd put a cap of ~2007 on when ultra-sophisticated and hidden motors were first used.
John Swanson
Technically, LiMnO2 versions of Li Ion cells made hidden motors feasible in the mid 90's. In fact, they were developed with hand tools in mind. So that's probably a good lower limit of when they could have been used by racers.absolutely_not said:
Since then, the biggest advances haven't really been batteries. It's been the continual advances in electronics. You can buy off the shelf parts like an Arduino plus a motor driver and wireless communications modules all for under $100. That allows pretty much anybody to prototype a very smart, sophisticated hidden motor. Once the software is written and debugged all you have to do is design a circuit board using all the same chips as the Arduino and modules, minus the bits you don't need. Voila, a super smart hidden motor driver for less than $250, everything included!
https://store.arduino.cc/usa/arduino-motor-shield-rev3
https://store.arduino.cc/usa/arduino-nano
https://store.arduino.cc/usa/arduino-gsm-shield-2-integrated-antenna (for cell, or you could go bluetooth)
https://blog.adafruit.com/2016/10/05/fitness-hacking-bridging-ant-to-bluetooth/
Realistically, this has been achievable for roughly ten years. So, I'd put a cap of ~2007 on when ultra-sophisticated and hidden motors were first used.
John Swanson
John, great post. But could you specify 'hidden motors'.
Varjas has shown how to fit an old model crank assist motor nicely into a 1998 Trek bike.
And we have the first crank assist bike on youtube from 1979.
The only problem there was the big visible battery pack.
But the battery problem for crank assist would have been solved by the late 80s/early 90s already. Not 2007.
Also, iinm, You could work with geardriven motors in discwheels well before the 2000s.
Varjas has shown how to fit an old model crank assist motor nicely into a 1998 Trek bike.
And we have the first crank assist bike on youtube from 1979.
The only problem there was the big visible battery pack.
But the battery problem for crank assist would have been solved by the late 80s/early 90s already. Not 2007.
Also, iinm, You could work with geardriven motors in discwheels well before the 2000s.
Re: Re:
In this latest discussion, I'm just wondering why someone like LA wouldn't admit to using a motor if he had.
I know you have seen my (way too many) posts above, I have no doubt that motors have been used in the pro platoon. However, I don't think that its like doping where 98% of the platoon is/was in on it. Plus, I am very skeptical of some of the 'magic' motor designs (ie: I've yet to see a hub motor that would actually be raceable...that's not to say that there isn't a one that I just haven't seen).Benotti69 said:
In this latest discussion, I'm just wondering why someone like LA wouldn't admit to using a motor if he had.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 983
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram