# Bob Roll Chimes In



## charoadie (Jul 19, 2005)

Those out there who still believe, want to believe, or suspend disbelief in order to believe in Floyd might want to check out Bob Roll's recently posted op ed piece on OLNTV.com. Apparently penned before the latest reports from the NYT saying Floyd's doc admitted the A sample showed exogenous testosterone (Roll says "One thing that has been underreported in the popular media is that no illegal substance has been found in Landis’ system"), the upshot of Bob's anti-French, anti-doping establishment diatribe is that he isn't going to believe it until he hears it from Floyd's lips.


----------



## almccm (May 3, 2003)

Oh the horrors. Bob Roll believes Floyd. How can anyone believe anyone else is being honest. 

After all we have a lot of speculation and innuendo to go on. Also, if there really is exogenous testosterone Floyd it must have gotten into Floyd's system with his full knowledge and cooperation. There are probably hundreds of incidents that can be dredged up from his past that support this belief that he is a totally unethical person.

Oh, could one of you guys point out one or two of them, and throwing the water bottle doesn't count.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Bob Roll's words:


> The newest American Tour de France champion has run afoul of the anti-doping establishment in Europe, just as Lance Armstrong had done -- both through no fault of their own. Their most egregious discretion being much better at racing a bicycle than their European contemporaries.
> 
> One thing that has been underreported in the popular media is that no illegal substance has been found in Landis’ system.
> 
> ...


----------



## almccm (May 3, 2003)

I'm with Bob. I think we need explanations that anyone can understand. I think we need to protect the privacy of the athlete until the process if followed completely. We can't keep smearing people and preventing them from earning a living because we think they might be cheating, maybe. None of the riders should have been prevented from starting the Tour unless there was credible evidence presented that they were cheating and appropriate charges filed. Floyd should not have to go through this mess publicly unless and until there is credible evidence presented, not rumors and speculation, and the appropriate governing body is ready to file formal charges.

Why is it unreasonable to wait for evidence?


----------



## Grampy (Apr 6, 2003)

I honestly believe that it is more likely, at least in my mind, that the lab spiked the test rather than Floyd took an illegal substance.
Isn't the lab that did the tests owned by a corperation that also ownes a major French newspaper? How about next year we have the National Enquirer do the lab work for the Tour of Georgia.......


----------



## cdimattio (Feb 26, 2006)

Bob makes a fine point about the serious repercussions and zero recourse for the falsely accused. Unfortunately the point seems to lose its force within the body of an anti-European, anti-doping establishment rant that borders on a conspiracy theory. 

“Their most egregious discretion being much better at racing a bicycle than their European contemporaries.” 

“Anti-doping authorities remain free to hurl any conjecture, opinion, or theory.” (In the current situation I would argue that applies to the media rather than the doping authorities.)

At least Roll finishes by creating some defensive doubt on Floyd’s behalf. It certainly sounds better than Floyd’s own words:


Q: Let me just get this straight. You are saying that you have never taken any performance-enhancing drugs or methods during this Tour or beforehand? That this is a total mistake? 

Landis: I am saying that I don't know what the explanation is for it. Whether it is a mistake or whether it is an occurrence from some other circumstances that go on during the race or something that I did. The explanation I am saying is that it is not from an exogenous outside source of testosterone. That is what I am saying. 

Q: Have you ever taken performance-enhancing drugs before? 

Landis: I will say no.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

You cant ust put "I will say no" out there without the rest of his answer.

You may alway want to watch the Larry King, he gave answer more to your liking there.


----------



## cdimattio (Feb 26, 2006)

Grampy said:


> I honestly believe that it is more likely, at least in my mind, that the lab spiked the test rather than Floyd took an illegal substance.
> Isn't the lab that did the tests owned by a corperation that also ownes a major French newspaper? How about next year we have the National Enquirer do the lab work for the Tour of Georgia.......


Aside from my own anti-French bias, I thought the The French National laboratory at Chatenay-Malabry is a government entity and was regarded as one of the premier labs in the World for drug testing.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

almccm said:


> I'm with Bob. I think we need explanations that anyone can understand. I think we need to protect the privacy of the athlete until the process if followed completely. We can't keep smearing people and preventing them from earning a living because we think they might be cheating, maybe. None of the riders should have been prevented from starting the Tour unless there was credible evidence presented that they were cheating and appropriate charges filed. Floyd should not have to go through this mess publicly unless and until there is credible evidence presented, not rumors and speculation, and the appropriate governing body is ready to file formal charges.
> 
> Why is it unreasonable to wait for evidence?



It isn't too hard to guess once the rider is pulled from remaining races at the end of the season and is suspended by the team.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

cdimattio said:


> Bob makes a fine point about the serious repercussions and zero recourse for the falsely accused. Unfortunately the point seems to lose its force within the body of an anti-European, anti-doping establishment rant that borders on a conspiracy theory.
> 
> “Their most egregious discretion being much better at racing a bicycle than their European contemporaries.”
> 
> ...



There's a big difference between Armstrong and Landis, and Bob Roll attempts to merge them together into one giant conspiracy theory. Armstrong never legally tested positive for a banned substance. The test of 6-year old samples fully knowing whose samples you are testing would never hold up, and it didn't, as subsequent independent report said. 

Landis, however, tested positive during an official test administered by Tour officials. Saying that he never tested for anything unnatural is ridiculous - EPO occurs naturally in your body too, but there's a big difference.

Bob Roll was making some insinuations about T-mobile riders, in particular Kloden and Honchar after their great time trial, implying a doping connection (with perhaps Ullrich?) during this year's telecast, while neither were involved in anything of sorts. Now to come around 180 degrees and claim that Floyd is innocent while he actually tested positive during a doping control is beyond hypocritical.

I believe one has to be consistent - either against doping regardless of nationality of offender, or be all for legalizing doping. You can't pick and choose who is guilty and who is innocent. This is not a popularity contest.


----------



## almccm (May 3, 2003)

My point is he shouldn't be suspended until and unless he is charged. You shouldn't be put in jail unless you are charged with a crime. Please explain how this is different. Please explain exactly what Floyd Landis has done to deserve having his reputation trashed. Bob is right, the athlete gets his career damaged even if he is later cleared. He will never even get an apology from the anti-doping agency. I suppose it's his fault just because he decided to race bikes.


----------



## carb850 (Oct 7, 2005)

55x11 said:


> There's a big difference between Armstrong and Landis, and Bob Roll attempts to merge them together into one giant conspiracy theory. Armstrong never legally tested positive for a banned substance. The test of 6-year old samples fully knowing whose samples you are testing would never hold up, and it didn't, as subsequent independent report said.
> 
> Landis, however, tested positive during an official test administered by Tour officials. Saying that he never tested for anything unnatural is ridiculous - EPO occurs naturally in your body too, but there's a big difference.
> 
> ...



I did not catch the prime time coverage every night but I only missed a couple. What insinuations did Roll make about T-mobile riders? I did not catch any of them.


----------



## almccm (May 3, 2003)

OK, let's assume at some point in your lifetime you had jaywalked. Now a police officer believes you have jaywalked recently; he isn't presenting any evidence but he's pretty sure he saw you in the middle of the block on one side of the street then, seconds later he saw you in the middle of the block on the other side of the street. You know you didn't jaywalk.

Now, you're a prominent person and some reporter asks you "have you ever jaywalked?" How are you going to answer the question? Does anything that happened long ago have any impact on the current accusation?

Let's assume you have never jaywalked in your life. You know that no one is going to believe that. How are you going to answer the question?

Seems to me like he was in a no win situation and he did what he thought was best. You might disagree. Tough, you're not him.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

Live Steam said:


> Can one sample be nearly three times different in 24 hours than a previous sample?
> 
> Can the body absorb, metabolize and convert any substance into a controllable sample that has been recorded to be a ratio of 11 to 1 of testosterone vs. epitestosterone -- almost three times the allowable ratio in one single day?


Bob could have looked it up. The answer is yes. Testosterone is eliminated from the blood stream in minutes to hours. The half-life for testosterone is so short that pharmaceutical companies had to monkey with the chemical to extend the half-life so steroids given therapeutically would remain in the body long enough to be useful.

For transdermal patches, one study [A.B. Singh et al., The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 86, No. 6 2437-2445 (2001)] measured the serum half-life of testosterone at 2.1 hours, which means that in 24 hours the body would have reduced the testosterone level by a factor of 8 (*this is wrong. See eboil's correction below. The right number is a factor of more than 2700*)---far more than the factor of three Bob finds so incredible.


----------



## ebroil (Feb 10, 2003)

Fredke said:


> which means that in 24 hours the body would have reduced the testosterone level by a factor of 8---far more than the factor of three Bob finds so incredible.


I read the paper to which you're referring, and it does indicate that the half-life of transdermal testosterone (ie, the patch) is about 2.1 hours.

However, your math is off. If the half-life is 2.1 hours, then in 24 hours, roughly 11.4 half-lives will have elapsed. That means that the amount of testosterone will be reduced to 1/(2^11.4) = 1/2702 of the original amount.

So, essentially, the half life of testosterone is so short that if a rider puts on the patch for a few hours after a race, if he isn't tested until the next morning, say, 12 hours later, then there's almost no chance it will be detected.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

ebroil said:


> I read the paper to which you're referring, and it does indicate that the half-life of transdermal testosterone (ie, the patch) is about 2.1 hours.
> 
> However, your math is off. If the half-life is 2.1 hours, then in 24 hours, roughly 11.4 half-lives will have elapsed. That means that the amount of testosterone will be reduced to 1/(2^11.4) = 1/2702 of the original amount.
> 
> So, essentially, the half life of testosterone is so short that if a rider puts on the patch for a few hours after a race, if he isn't tested until the next morning, say, 12 hours later, then there's almost no chance it will be detected.


My bad. Somehow I did the math with an 8-hour half-life, not 2.1 hours. Your numbers are correct.


----------



## mtbcraig (Jul 28, 2006)

*Show me the Math*

OK so the 1/2 life is 2.1 hours. When tested his ratio was 11:1. I searched for "the patch" online and the biggest one I could find was 450 micrograms. * Note this was changed twice weekly. 

How much testosterone would one need to test at a level of 11:1 ratio?

The formula = 1/2 ^2.1

Floyd weighs 156 pounds


Craig Hobart 
San Diego


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

*One flaw in your argument*



Grampy said:


> I honestly believe that it is more likely, at least in my mind, that the lab spiked the test rather than Floyd took an illegal substance.
> Isn't the lab that did the tests owned by a corperation that also ownes a major French newspaper? How about next year we have the National Enquirer do the lab work for the Tour of Georgia.......


You seriously think they resisted the urge to taint a sample for the entire Armstrong era but just couldn't help themselves taking down one of the most popular winners in recent history?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

55x11 said:


> The test of 6-year old samples fully knowing whose samples you are testing would never hold up, and it didn't, as subsequent independent report said.


This is simply incorrect. The tests were performed on anonymous coded samples and the results were released. Several months later the L'Equipe reporter Rossier was able (with Armstrong's permission) to get Armstrong's medical files from the UCI. The medical files had the coded numbers of his samples and Rossier was able to match up the released results with these codes to find out several of Armstrong's sample were positive.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

I have to express my utter amazement at the skewed way many people are viewing the Landis test result.

It's not a French plot to remove an American winner. If the French despised America so much, why haven't they started with more obvious targets and renamed all their streets that celebrate America? The reason is that they don't have it in for the US or US riders. Just because a country disagrees with your country doesn't mean they will sabotage everything to do with you.

It's not a conspiracy, there is a very real possibility that Landis cheated, get over it!


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

carb850 said:


> I did not catch the prime time coverage every night but I only missed a couple. What insinuations did Roll make about T-mobile riders? I did not catch any of them.


He implied that the Gonchar win was questionable because he was involved in doping allegations a few years ago.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

ultimobici said:



> I have to express my utter amazement at the skewed way many people are viewing the Landis test result.
> 
> It's not a French plot to remove an American winner. If the French despised America so much, why haven't they started with more obvious targets and renamed all their streets that celebrate America? The reason is that they don't have it in for the US or US riders. Just because a country disagrees with your country doesn't mean they will sabotage everything to do with you.
> 
> It's not a conspiracy, there is a very real possibility that Landis cheated, get over it!


Absolutely. A sample positive...B sample likely positive (this coming from Landis' own team)...possible synth testosterone found. What else can you say? I'll wait till the B and synth are confirmed but if so there's no conspiracy...this is him holding a smoking gun. Guilty.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

ultimobici said:


> It's not a conspiracy, there is a very real possibility that Landis cheated, get over it!


Agree, most of the goofball conspiracy theorists here are way off base.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

hayaku said:


> You seriously think they resisted the urge to taint a sample for the entire Armstrong era but just couldn't help themselves taking down one of the most popular winners in recent history?


So you think that someone somewhere tainted an anonymous sample from that day's racing in the hopes that it was Landis (or possibly just tainted all the samples from that day)? And so they could not only harm the integrity of one or more riders...hopefully one of which was an American but at the same time taint the sport/event even more? Guess what...it's much more believable that Landis cheated. I believed Tyler too...he looked so honest & innocent...great stage win...courage/endurance/etc. He even looked us all straight on and said "I didn't". Fool me once...


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

mtbcraig said:


> How much testosterone would one need to test at a level of 11:1 ratio?


Normal serum testosterone is 300-1000 nanograms per deciliter. The average person has about five liters of blood, so that would be 15,000 to 50,000 nanograms or 15 to 50 micrograms. 450 micrograms of testosterone would be about exactly the amount needed to raise the serum T/E ratio from 1:1 to 11:1, but you'd have to get it into the body all at once, not slowly over a week.

There are testosterone creams and gels that are absorbed transdermally like patches, but faster and it's possible that Floyd used something like that.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

If you want to ride on a ProTour team, you have to accept a different standard of what is "reasonable." Fair or not, that's just the way it is.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

mohair_chair said:


> If you want to ride on a ProTour team, you have to accept a different standard of what is "reasonable." Fair or not, that's just the way it is.


Plus the riders have been supportive of all the measures introduced, basically wanting to be saved from themselves. Unfortunately you can't be saved from yourself unless yourself is willing to go along with it, in which case you wouldn't need to be saved in the first place.

Sport will never be clean and the organizers and everyone else should just get used to it and devise rules that keep things from getting out of hand but not kill the whole sport in pursuit of an unreachable goal. Even if it were possible to detect every drug that could be used cheating would still occur because the cleaner the sport became the more advantage could be gained from doping, and testing that can keep up with advances in doping will always be too expensive to make risk of detection anything but small.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

In high school biology, we rubbed testosterone cream on the foreheads of baby chickens to make them grow rooster combs. Worked equally for males and females.

Until FL shows up crowing at the sunrise, he must be innocent. 
There it is. Positive proof. 
It must be a vast conspiracy.


----------



## almccm (May 3, 2003)

My "I'm with Bob" was qualified. I don't believe there is a conspiracy. I do believe this is not being handled correctly. I keep asking what's wrong with waiting for evidence? What has Floyd done to deserve this level of distrust? 

Personally, I think this is all stems from Tyler's case. A lot of people defended Tyler for a long time and felt let down when all the evidence was in. However, this is much different than Tyler's case. I'm not a scientist but I think the only way you are going to get someone else's blood cells in your blood is through a transfusion or a lab error. I think a lab error is highly unlikely. I also think if you have a transfusion you would know it. This makes Tyler's continuing claims that he was innocent really suspect.

Now let's look at the testosterone level and the exogenous testosterone. Well there's lab error, Floyd did it, a combination of things going on in his body raised his testosterone, exogenous testosterone was introduced some other way and Floyd truly has no knowledge of it. Any of these can be true but, again, I will eliminate lab error. Nothing that Floyd has done prior to this incident or since the incident has been made public has given me a reason to believe he knowingly cheated. I see no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt. I also understand that when all the data is analyzed he may still be found guilty and stripped of his win. I hope that doesn't happen.


----------



## rule (Dec 2, 2004)

It can take only one person anywhere along the chain of custody to generate such a test result, including the rider of course.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Why eliminate lab error? They do occur and in this case the results and subsequent leaks raise more suspission than not.


----------



## Art853 (May 30, 2003)

Fredke said:


> There are testosterone creams and gels that are absorbed transdermally like patches, but faster and it's possible that Floyd used something like that.


If Floyd wanted a positive urine T/E test. It seems to be a simple analysis. Hard to believe someone would take such a high risk for such a questionable benefit.


----------



## mellowman (Apr 17, 2004)

Fredke said:


> Normal serum testosterone is 300-1000 nanograms per deciliter. The average person has about five liters of blood, so that would be 15,000 to 50,000 nanograms or 15 to 50 micrograms. 450 micrograms of testosterone would be about exactly the amount needed to raise the serum T/E ratio from 1:1 to 11:1, but you'd have to get it into the body all at once, not slowly over a week.
> 
> There are testosterone creams and gels that are absorbed transdermally like patches, but faster and it's possible that Floyd used something like that.


gel or cream. makes you wonder why Floyd was essentially taking a bath with all those water bottles on stage 17. guess he needed a little emulsifier to get the job done properly. :mad2:


----------



## category 4 (Aug 1, 2006)

It was obviously a conspiracy at the lab! The same thing happened to O.J., right? Right? Hey, when did those crickets get in here? Bob Roll is still the best, but he needs to stop drinking Lance's Cool Aid.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

Art853 said:


> If Floyd wanted a positive urine T/E test. It seems to be a simple analysis. Hard to believe someone would take such a high risk for such a questionable benefit.


Because of the short half-life he might have thought it would all wash out of his system before the test. The problem may have been that he didn't pee enough to clear his bladder in time.


----------



## almccm (May 3, 2003)

I'm willing to eliminate lab error because at some point you have to trust something. I am willing to believe that the labs are audited and that lab error is highly unlikely and that a test is done enough times and enough ways to catch an error. That may be wrong but you have to believe in something.

I am also willing to believe Floyd if he says he did not dope. I will continue believing him even if the results indicate otherwise. Even eliminating lab error there are other things that could cause the results that were seen. There were a lot of variables in play. Medications, alcohol, extreme physical effort, even a certain amount of anger or determination or whatever on Floyd's part that drove him to that win. I'm saying that even if you eliminate lab error the results aren't black and white. Welcome to the world of gray.


----------



## Bloatedpig (Apr 10, 2004)

*The French screw everything up*

The fact that the French are conducting the testing should be suspicious from the start. This is a "French" race, even though the talent from that country has stunk to high heaven since the 80's. They are lucky to even win a stage here or there let alone the whole damn thing. Hinault screwed Lemond in 1985, "oh please help me win this year and I'll help you next"...what a load of crap! He than tried to "steal" the tour in 86.........what a *****!! The fact that they are, and will always try to condem Lance as a doper with no proof is ridiculous. God, you can go back to the 2nd World War. Does anybody remember the Maginot Line? The French owe thier very exisistence to the USA. How could a country forget so soon about being liberated from the Natzi's? The French chose not to back the U.S.in the Middle East............The French for some reason see the U.S. as an enemy of sorts, "not another American winning the race!"

I think this is what Roll was getting at. Landis, dope or no dope was the strongest and most talented rider in the tour this year. A "patch" of testosterone given to any other rider on that stage wouldn't have made a damn difference. Until the French start to train correctly and have some true competitive riders that bring some sense of pride back to France, they will always try to undermine this country and it's superior athletes.

This is purely my opinion only. If you do not agree with me on any of my rantings remember that I don't give a crap.

Regards


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Bloatedpig said:


> The fact that the French are conducting the testing should be suspicious from the start. This is a "French" race, even though the talent from that country has stunk to high heaven since the 80's. They are lucky to even win a stage here or there let alone the whole damn thing. Hinault screwed Lemond in 1985, "oh please help me win this year and I'll help you next"...what a load of crap! He than tried to "steal" the tour in 86.........what a *****!! The fact that they are, and will always try to condem Lance as a doper with no proof is ridiculous. God, you can go back to the 2nd World War. Does anybody remember the Maginot Line? The French owe thier very exisistence to the USA. How could a country forget so soon about being liberated from the Natzi's? The French chose not to back the U.S.in the Middle East............The French for some reason see the U.S. as an enemy of sorts, "not another American winning the race!"
> 
> I think this is what Roll was getting at. Landis, dope or no dope was the strongest and most talented rider in the tour this year. A "patch" of testosterone given to any other rider on that stage wouldn't have made a damn difference. Until the French start to train correctly and have some true competitive riders that bring some sense of pride back to France, they will always try to undermine this country and it's superior athletes.
> 
> ...


Just because the French don't fall in line with US foreign policy does not mean that they perceive the US as an enemy. Check out Paris' street names when you next visit. Theres an avenue named after Franklin D Roosevelt, a metro station after him too which is on the Champs Elysee. Theres even a Place des Etats Unis. Hardly the attitude of a country that sees you as an enemy.

France had two riders in the top 10, with AG2R 4th in the team classification. When you bear in mind that since 98 they are acknowledged to have had the most stringent anti-doping regime of any cycling federation, it's not a bad showing.

Back with the ME issue, France has been proven right in it's assesment of the US rush to war in Iraq, one monumental f*ck up built on a pack of lies.


----------



## Kram (Jan 28, 2004)

I want to believe that he is inocent, but exogenous testosterone?? From beer? Whiskey?? Cortisone injection?? Lab error is highly unlikely; BOTH samples were positive. Conspiracy? Preposterous. It's going to take some kind of a miracle/genie/ CSI to get him out of this one.....


----------



## Bloatedpig (Apr 10, 2004)

*French reply*

Believe me.....I don't think this war was the right move as well. My point was that the unless the French perceive an endeavor to be "safe", they never seem to to be around. I am not a political person in the least but the downing of the World Trade Centers was one of the very low points in American History....and where are the French? Whatever thier convictions are, right or wrong, they aren't there for us, much like the Witch hunt of sorts with trying to prove, and the "leaking" of information regarding drug testing whenever Americans are involved.

On the other hand, if say the Eifel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe were leveled to the ground do you think we would be there for them? You bet your A$$ we would.

As far as the "they have roads named after............" small consolation for a country that could easily be speaking German today if not for the U.S. Army.

Regards


----------



## _hamilton (Jan 12, 2006)

Bloatedpig said:


> Believe me.....I don't think this war was the right move as well. My point was that the unless the French perceive an endeavor to be "safe", they never seem to to be around. I am not a political person in the least but the downing of the World Trade Centers was one of the very low points in American History....and where are the French? Whatever thier convictions are, right or wrong, they aren't there for us, much like the Witch hunt of sorts with trying to prove, and the "leaking" of information regarding drug testing whenever Americans are involved.
> 
> On the other hand, if say the Eifel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe were leveled to the ground do you think we would be there for them? You bet your A$$ we would.
> 
> ...


The war in Iraq had nothing to do with the twin towers. It was based on doctored WMD intelligence and lies. Gee, how is that war going? Perhaps the French were smart not to jump when Bush says"your either with us or your one of them".


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

In the end, after occupation, civil war, reconstruction, Iraq, and the middle east will be better off than under saddam. Things sure looked bad for germany and japan for awhile there also. Who knows, maybe with more help, things would have went better in the M.E. I just won;t call anything a failure, untgil it has failed. Right now, it seems it is still in progress.


----------



## newbiepeddler (Aug 5, 2006)

Bob Roll - This is my first day on the site and I've already determined that there are folks who have given the Landis matter some thought (you being one) and there are others who have no decent argument, counterpoint or an original thought, and end up cluttering this forum with sarcasm, clever comments like "get over it", "we need the wood" and "...get a clue..", name-calling, rolling eyes smilies, etc. Continue with your input. Intelligence will keep this site alive and interesting to those of us who dare to think.


----------



## newbiepeddler (Aug 5, 2006)

Amen Bloatedpig!!


----------



## newbiepeddler (Aug 5, 2006)

Holy desmo13, you should be a paid moderator. (There's so much nastiness on this site, I have to let you know that was a compliment)


----------

