Contact Us

Vivid Seats

Google Search Steroid Nation

Google List

  • Count

EMail Tips

Notes

  • http://www.blogcatalog.com/
  • eXTReMe Tracker
  • SportsBlogs.org -- The People's Sports Network
  • Blogarama - The Blog Directory
  • Top Sports Blogs

Tip Jar

Change is good

Tip Jar

February 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28    
Blog powered by Typepad

« Big Papi -- David Ortiz -- enmeshed in steroid controversy | Main | California physician Ramon Scruggs pleads guilty »

06/02/2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61ab53ef011570b8cad6970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Danica Patrick gets caught in typical thinking" "It aint cheating unless you get caught":

Comments

betty

Her hair always looks like its on crack.

Jeff

PED's are amazing substances and should be mainstreamed so that people don't go to jail for private behavior. One thing about your blog is the tinge of self-congratulation. Chastising Danica for making fun of the wasteful argument on PEDs is a bit much.

If you are so concerned about artificial advantages, do you advocate against the use of corrective eyewear or Lasik? After all, superior natural eyesight is an athletic advantage much the same way as lower bodyfat is often advantageous. The same logical construct would apply between PEDs and corrective eyewear; both confer an artificial advantage. Please do a post. I would like to learn your opinion. Maybe you are against all artificial advancements.

Steroid Nation

There is a basic difference between PEDs and corrective lenses...PEDs are illegal or against the rules; horned-rim glasses are not. Last time we checked the rules specs are not illegal.

And that is the problem. People do not recognize the moral boundaries between what is deemed cheating and what is not cheating. One does not have to be 'self-congratulating' (which is an adjective that doesn't even fit into this post; 'pedantic' or 'preachy' does fit)

PEDs are simply molecules and compounds. Chemical structures do not contain moral constructs. Therefore we don't preach about the immorality of drugs, because that is not the issue.

The issue is that sporting societies and organizations have determined the rules. Athletes, trainers, coaches, doctors then endeavor to subvert the rules, and thus subvert the entire idea of a game. The cheating is the issue, and not the smoke screens about 'personal choice' etc. etc. Would it be Sammy Sosa's personal choice to hollow out his bat, then stuff it with cork? Should a boxer determine the personal choice of using brass knuckles in his gloves? Well, why the hell not since anyone can do anything they want and it is personal choice.

As long as we are on a soapbox, do not go with the 'no side-effects' argument that is absolutely specious. There is no drug without side effects. Any drug, like an anabolic steroid, that permeates in the cell nucleus to turn on and off genes is going to pack a huge punch, and produce serious side effects. So let's start the argument there too.

If the sporting agencies determined that PEDs were legal, and that the athletes should be exposed to the risks of chemical enhancement, that is fine. Just don't cheat, then act like children tossing harmless spitballs...it's OK until teacher catches us.

Righteous indignation switch off. LOL

People not going to jail for private behavior? Wonder if a dude whacked out on drugs like Benoit would be considered to be expressing his 'private behavior'?

Jeff

-There is a basic difference between PEDs and corrective lenses...PEDs are illegal or against the rules; horned-rim glasses are not. Last time we checked the rules specs are not illegal.And that is the problem. People do not recognize the moral boundaries between what is deemed cheating and what is not cheating. One does not have to be 'self-congratulating' (which is an adjective that doesn't even fit into this post; 'pedantic' or 'preachy' does fit)-

From a natural law perspective what matters is that PEDs are effectively the same as corrective lenses or surgery. Both change the natural performance basis of the athlete. So basically your argument rests upon the use of positive law, and requires ignoring the obvious hypocrisy of the logic under natural law. By this measure, we can conclude that if the agencies who determined the rules said that blacks need not apply, for any covey of reasons, then you would vigorously advocate for following the new “positive law.” Arguing that the rules should be followed because they are the rules is hardly an argument that others should respect. History has proven time and again that bad laws are constantly passed and enforced. The question is how can you vigorously advocate for rules that clearly allow some men to achieve an advantage over others, but deny other men similar enhancement.

Jeff

-The issue is that sporting societies and organizations have determined the rules. Athletes, trainers, coaches, doctors then endeavor to subvert the rules, and thus subvert the entire idea of a game. The cheating is the issue, and not the smoke screens about 'personal choice' etc. etc. Would it be Sammy Sosa's personal choice to hollow out his bat, then stuff it with cork? Should a boxer determine the personal choice of using brass knuckles in his gloves? Well, why the hell not since anyone can do anything they want and it is personal choice.-

You present a false analogy. Uniformity of equipment is easy to understand under natural law. Everyone can utilize the same specification equipment, or derivations thereof, and that can be a standard for participation. This is fundamentally different from allowing a genetically-gifted athlete to correct his eyesight via Lasik, but denying a genetically-weak man from fixing his physical defects, an inability to inefficiently process proteins, via PEDs. The hypocrisy of the latter position is overwhelmingly obvious: you give one man the ability to correct his deficiency but deny the same right to another.

In any case, I could care less about the rules in professional sports; the organizations have every right to determine what is the best way to run their businesses. However, what I do find problematic is the preachiness found among the commentariate and their appeals for greater police enforcement of laws against PEDs. Many commentators seem to believe that because professional leagues have outlawed PEDs, the rest of us should care or should not advocate the use of PEDs. They fail to understand that the public should not have peaceful and personal freedom of exchange impeded because some cro-magnon athlete is prohibited from using PEDs. The biggest problem for pro sports is the incentive structure of the salaries induces athletes to cheat. Match this to the uncomfortable fact that many athletes are low IQ/high impulsivity and you have a recipe for disaster. Perhaps instead of advocating against PEDs, the sports commentators could advocate that only men of certain intelligence, and future orientation, be allowed to play. Such a rule might go some way to solving the problem of PED usage.

-As long as we are on a soapbox, do not go with the 'no side-effects' argument that is absolutely specious. There is no drug without side effects. Any drug, like an anabolic steroid, that permeates in the cell nucleus to turn on and off genes is going to pack a huge punch, and produce serious side effects. So let's start the argument there too.-

Why do I care if steroids have side affects? I am not one to force my opinion on another. What is right for someone else may not be right for me. Moreover, those who advocate knowing what peaceful, non-violent behaviors are best for others, obviously know little about the human condition. In this regard, we an apply the maxim from Bastiate's “Broken Window Fallacy:” “There is that which is seen and that which is not seen.” In this case, those who argue against legal steroids, based on side affects, are not seeing the totality of the dynamic. They do not see, or acknowledge, the benefits that accrue to some and how no one but the individual can determine cost/benefit to his life.

-If the sporting agencies determined that PEDs were legal, and that the athletes should be exposed to the risks of chemical enhancement, that is fine. Just don't cheat, then act like children tossing harmless spitballs...it's OK until teacher catches us.-

Were steroids illegal in MLB back in 1999? If no, then shouldn't Barry Bonds be accorded respect for maximizing his training? Should other MLB stars be chastised for being so lazy as to not have not maximized their training?

-People not going to jail for private behavior? Wonder if a dude whacked out on drugs like Benoit would be considered to be expressing his 'private behavior'?-

I should have written, “non-violent private behavior.” Steroid usage is a private non-violent behavior that has been criminalized by cowardly politicians who seek out marginal behaviors against which to demonstrate their purity of purpose in protecting the public. Alcohol is legal and does far more damage than steroids ever could. Most people are just too lazy to workout, however, most people have the energy to lift a glass. The legal nature of alcohol and tobacco present a moral problem for those who advocate against legal steroids. But problems of logic are rarely reason enough for the communist-minded among us to throttle back their desire to dictate the peaceful choices of others.

Steroid Nation

Ha. These arguments stretch the bounds of logic so far, I do not think there are any boundaries left.

Why don't we all just play naked without spikes, gloves, bats, and forget the balls while we are at it. That's all unnatural.

I get the feeling that no matter what logic or analogy is used, it will not satisfy people who simply want to use steroid or PEDs. So we will have to agree to disagree. And I do respect the civil arguments presented.

All these concepts are relative. I would draw the line at 'natural'. Medicine is generally thought to correct symptoms, as in sports medicine. There is a performance division. Studies indicated which diets, exercise etc. are most productive in developing strength power etc.

Correcting eyesight is considered remedial.

The PEDs are producing superphysiologic level of hormones and growth factors. These levels enhance performance beyond the normal hormonal mileau. Eyesight can be corrected super-physiologically too, which should be illegal.

I can easily determine normal ranges. The argument would then flow that hormone levels above physiological (corrected for age and gender) wi artificial enhancement. I can check testosterone, LH, FSH, thyroid, HGH, hematocrit, etc. Anything driven beyond that level is enhanced and thus cheating.

There are no arguments that supersede that. If people want to become superhuman by used of superphysiological hormonal use, then that's the choice.

As far as private choice, I can respect that. However, then do not ask me or the others in society to pay for your cardiac procedures when your heart messes up. Do not charge me when the EPO sludges your blood into paint that clogs your arteries. Do not expect my insurance to cover your gynecomastia surgery. Pay for the side effects yourself.

And there are side effects. No denial. When violence is committed the law will come down hard without defense.

As you get older you understand the natural balance of things. When you enhance to super-human levels you will suffer mild to severe side effects. That not my opinion, and I wish it weren't true, but that is physiology and pharmacology and biochemistry. For every action, there is a reaction. Natural laws we cannot change.

As I said the molecules are not evil or good, they are simply molecules. If bodybuilders wanted to have 'enhanced competition' which allows open 'roiding I wonder if that would not be a more logical choice than the current covert and dangerous drug use. However, there has to be an honest discussion of effects and side-effects, no smokescreens.

thanks

betty

I see somebody is feeling good about himself after finishing Philosophy 101. Sophomore year, here he comes.

Jeff

--I see somebody is feeling good about himself after finishing Philosophy 101. Sophomore year, here he comes.--

I am sorry, but I am 35 years old and have been hired as turnaround CEO (the most demanding task in general management) by three separate companies since age 27. What you find is that by my age, most men have lost their vigor and drive. The loss of vitality is often seen as wisdom among the aging, but the two are distinct.

Jeff

--Ha. These arguments stretch the bounds of logic so far, I do not think there are any boundaries left.
Why don't we all just play naked without spikes, gloves, bats, and forget the balls while we are at it. That's all unnatural.--

Actually, I take no issue with the notions of rules, gloves, bats or any other instrument of organized sport. What I find comical is the clear violation of natural law. The rules are designed to reward the athletically gifted to such an extent that even when the less enabled man has a chance to catch-up, via superior eyesight, he is denied because the athletically gifted man is able to “correct” his problem (if memory serves, I also believe that NFL players must use an agent because so many players are of such low mental ability that they require strong direction in all matters civil. Therefore, in order to ensure no one gets screwed, everyone must have an agent. In this vein, those who have an intelligence advantage are even denied the opportunity to exercise such advantage in matters akin to signing the scorecard.) Under no circumstances, however, is the less gifted man allowed to address his lack of testosterone or protein synthesis. We have all known men who move better, are faster and gain muscle like a t-rex. How is it sporting for these men, with a physiological advantage, to be enabled to fix their eyesight, while denying the lessor man the chance to fix his body? That is a straightforward argument.


-I get the feeling that no matter what logic or analogy is used, it will not satisfy people who simply want to use steroid or PEDs. So we will have to agree to disagree. And I do respect the civil arguments presented.-

No, I am more than happy to follow anyone's logic and will strive to understand the opinions of others. I definitely do not respect the argument that, “the rules are the rules.” In fact, I don't even care if the rules violate any natural law. I just wish people would be honest. Honesty might be: we are going to ensure that dumbest individuals with the greatest natural physiology will be the cornerstone of our league. We are going to let these individuals amass great wealth, despite the likelihood they will blow it on consumption items. We are so committed to ensuring that these men are the cornerstone of our league that we will even allow them to fix their eyesight or any other problem that does not require higher androgen treatment. Under no circumstances are we interested in accommodating men who may have superior intelligence, greater future orientation, higher civic engagement, but as is likely the case given their civil nature, would require androgen treatment in order to compete with our chosen class. As a result we will risk the complete destruction of our league as productive members of society relate less and less to our athletes. In the end, however, we feel that accommodating androgen usage would result in bad press. We are confident that we can explain away our player population of rapists and thugs, but we are unsure of how we could explain to concerned parents that the intelligent man requires 150mg/T-Cypionate and 1.5mg/Arimidex/week in order to compete.

Of course, I would not expect any league to make such a truthful pronouncement, but 1/100th of that would go some way to ending the existing charade.


-All these concepts are relative. I would draw the line at 'natural'. Medicine is generally thought to correct symptoms, as in sports medicine. There is a performance division. Studies indicated which diets, exercise etc. are most productive in developing strength power etc. Correcting eyesight is considered remedial.-

If the average player in the NFL has a physiological profile X, and that profiles is 3 Sigma above the general population mean, then would not an average man who wished to play in the NFL have some argument that he needed remedy relative to the NFL population?


-The PEDs are producing superphysiologic level of hormones and growth factors. These levels enhance performance beyond the normal hormonal mileau. Eyesight can be corrected super-physiologically too, which should be illegal.-

What do you propose in situations where someone is on the 5th or 6th Sigma of any trait? Should that person be banned from participation? If there is an outer limit for eyesight corrective surgery (and I am not sure where the distinction is drawn been remedial and corrective if the issue is genetic or if the issue is environmental), then shouldn't someone who has natural eyesight superior to the outer level also be banned? If we are talking upper levels, then should they not be the same for everyone regardless of how they were arrived?


--I can easily determine normal ranges. The argument would then flow that hormone levels above physiological (corrected for age and gender) wi artificial enhancement. I can check testosterone, LH, FSH, thyroid, HGH, hematocrit, etc. Anything driven beyond that level is enhanced and thus cheating.--

So you have no problem with anyone using any of those compounds so long as they remain below the upper level? So let's say we work from a normal distribution, once again, what do you do with someone who is at the 5th Sigma without adulteration? How is it fair for that man to correct his -1 Sigma eyesight, but not far for the lessor man to adjust his hormone profile to 5 Sigma?


--There are no arguments that supersede that. If people want to become superhuman by used of superphysiological hormonal use, then that's the choice. It's donning a gorilla suit to impress the rest of we monkeys, but that's the choice. However, make no mistake, we can tell who is wearing the biggest suit.--

I am not impressed either. If memory serves me, most monkeys also have larger relative genital size, so the joke is on the gorillas.


--As far as private choice, I can respect that. However, then do not ask me or the others in society to pay for your cardiac procedures when your heart messes up. Do not charge me when the EPO sludges your blood into paint that clogs your arteries. Do not expect my insurance to cover your gynecomastia surgery. Pay for the side effects yourself.--

You have no argument with me. I would prefer not pay for anyone's actions be they from steroids, smoking, living, breathing, eating or whatever the case maybe. As for your insurance, you can easily avoid paying anyone's steroid related charges by choosing an insurer who does not cover such procedures. If there is no such insurer, then you can create your own insurance company and offer policies to like-minded individuals. I am sure, however, that you will find the risk premiums related to steroid abuse are dwarfed by the risk premiums related to mainstream behaviors like smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, stress, and urban living.

--And there are side effects. No denial. When violence is committed the law will come down hard without defense.--

Violence is not something I condone, nor tolerate.

--As you get older you understand the natural balance of things. When you enhance to super-human levels you will suffer severe side effects. That not my opinion, and I wish it weren't true, but that is physiology and pharmacology and biochemistry. For every action, there is a reaction. Natural laws we cannot change.--

I couldn't agree more. I believe those who abuse anabolic steroids are fools. But no more so than those who abuse alcohol or tobacco. My problem with the steroid talk is that governing body rules serve to provide the gifted with a secondary advantage and no one will acknowledge such; it's the lack of honesty that is disturbing (like failing to acknowledge the extraordinary stupidity of a great many athletes – thanks Wonderlic – and how those college athletes steal student positions from people who could actually do something with an education). In all other walks of life, we are constantly forced to allow the mediocre into the top level, but in sports it has to be pure, except for “remedial” conditions which can be fixed despite the fact that those conditions may or may not be the genetic cost of having superior athletic ability (maybe someone can run faster and jump higher, but pays the price in intelligence, eyesight, or some other characteristic around which he is allowed a work around thus improving his advantage).


-As I said the molecules are not evil or good, they are simply molecules. If bodybuilders wanted to have 'enhanced competition' which allows open roiding I wonder if that would not be a more logical choice than the current covert and dangerous drug use. However, there has to be an honest discussion of effects and side-eff3ects, no smokescreens.-

Unfortunately, it is fairly unlikely that “open” categories will created instead of the existing fraud. This is because of the negative incentives to openly admitting steroid usage. If more people would adopt a liberal view of PEDs, then the argument could be wide open. Instead the crusade will be similar to prohibition in the 1920s; a whole of collateral damage by trying to force men to adopt unrealistic behaviors.

Steroid Nation

Actually, we don't mind the controversy because all viewpoints should be represented. If we cannot post a rebuttal to any argument for PEDs, then we need to rethink our positions.

The argument for legal PEDs is a bit libertian.

We tried to get a project going to see how much a PED-legal sport would cost in medical terms. Still say it is interesting.

Jeff

--Actually, we don't mind the controversy because all viewpoints should be represented. If we cannot post a rebuttal to any argument for PEDs, then we need to rethink our positions. The argument for legal PEDs is a bit libertian. We tried to get a project going to see how much a PED-legal sport would cost in medical terms. Still say it is interesting.--

The only thing I can contribute is that all government laws are enforced at the barrel of a gun (von Mises). Unfortunately, this very true statement rings hyperbole. The encompassing nature of the statement is something far removed from the lives of decent peoples. Yet despite the insularity of the average person, most are but a few actions from the wrong side of totalitarianism. Our society is so replete with laws, with more restrictive and intrusive versions passing each year: "do this," "don't do that," "spend money here, not there," "think this way," "give us your rights so that we can protect you" Each of these laws carries with it the direct or indirect threat of imprisonment. The average person is helpless in the face of so many laws that overlap and are designed to add third, fourth and fifth jeopardies to any single offense. That latter effect is a tremendous injustice, because the multiple jeopardies enable prosecutors to create enormous charge banks against innocent men. Facing such a sheer threat and the added prospect of a jury eager to convict, innocent men are forced to plea for crimes they did not commit. Anyone who has worked in defense law knows this type of injustice is not uncommon.

For steroids, the question becomes: is it worth threatening people with guns in order to prevent the use of these substances? Is it worth throwing individuals in jail for the use or distribution of these substances? Is it worth sending someone to jail who used steroids because he lacked confidence in his existing self? A man who, rightly or wrongly, justifiably or not, lacked confidence but found some with PEDs and bodybuilding? Do we as a nation want to adopt a position that for every action found offensive by a plurality of uninformed people, we will unleash the totality of the world's largest prison and enforcement system? I think that any rational person is going to see that men with guns, backed by the courts, and backed by the prison system is an enormous reaction, if not overreaction, to the voluntary use of steroids.

If you wish to be frightened then test the police state in action. Go to the airport with $10,000 cash, and if questioned, refuse to divulge it's use or origin (note: you are not obligated to say anything). Refuse to answer questions. See what happens. See how governmental agencies assume powers never given to them and learn how helpless you are to do anything. Demand an attorney and watch as one is denied because while you are being held, you are not actually under arrest. You are in some stasis, a purgatory where you are intimidated, despite having done nothing wrong; despite exercising a right that the imbecile agents should cherish.

The machine is intimidating and overwhelming. Any look at history will show that once a central authority garners full control over the populace, terrible things can happen en masse. Once the central authority scales to a certain point, no one can resist. I assure you that millions upon millions of Germans despised the Nazis' but when the Nazi's controlled the legislature, the police and the courts, what is one man to do? The same in Cambodia, USSR, and China. Resisting a central authority is impossible, you have no choice to but to join or risk the suffering of your family. Today, we are not in that position, but we are like sheep granting ever more rights to the dustbin while giving our trust to men who will say anything to be elected. The words of our Founding Fathers are declared dead as if these men knew nothing of the dangers of a state overlord.

Steroids become relevant to this issue because they command significant visibility. They represent cheating and have become a blight on our sacred athletic past-times. They impugn sports which serve as a diversion into something that we hope is more pure than the difficulties of our daily lives. When we sit to watch the game, we sit and hope to see the best man win. We hope victory is achieved fairly and without cheating. Steroids undermine that purity and ruin a vestige of hope. For that reason the crusade against steroids commands visibility and attention far beyond their relative economic or criminal importance.

Once the public became outraged by steroid-abusing stars, quick thinking politicians latched onto the steroid crusade, not out of concern, but to be in the center. They use the crusade as propaganda to justify state action and totalitarian enforcement teeming with multiple jeopardies. Our politicians launch show trials that end with minor convictions or become huge events followed by dismissals when no one is looking. The crusade serves as the occasion for polished, but corrupt men of the legislature, to influence the guillible public into believing that learned and concerned men are watching for the good of mankind. But politicians do not care for the good of mankind. To the politician, the crusade has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with re-election. The crusade enables the politician to appear favorable because he is the one questioning the purity-destroying Roger Clemens. The crusade enables the politician to avoid answering how he failed to prevent the housing bubble, to avoid answering why he has enabled the NSA to spy on citizens, and it allows him avoid answering why he voted for seven years of military action in Iraq without a declaration of war. Steroids, are but a means to re-election and a re-election is assured when no questions of performance need be answered. For all the power we give to Congress now, it will change little. After the dust has settled, the only result of the new steroid laws will be precedent for ever greater intrusions into private lives. Steroids will continue to be circulated, men will continue to demand them. As enforcement tightens, the supply will diminish faster than demand. The result will be higher prices and greater incentives to bring product to the black market. However, unlike drugs that are smoked, the risks associated with an injectable are on a different level and include the mortality of the foolish men who take them. To downplay the risks, underground labs are likely to copy labels from big pharma. Evermore sophisticated firms in China and India are sure to ramp-up efforts to provide more materials and to devise methods of importation that are difficult to stop. But that is just the illict side. The downside to the steroid laws will be the collateral damage inflicted on aging men. Ordinary MDs and Endos will feel ever greater pressure to avoid TRT for fear of losing their licenses as increased enforcement turns even the slightest misstep into a grave offense. The result will be the hidden suffering from untreated patients. Depending on your perspective, the victims of the steroid crusade might not be the convicted black market distributors, but the man in the second half of his life whose Dr. does not bring up TRT for fear of being survielled by the Feds. In such situation, the crusade against the illicit will have proven to prevented the legitimate. Men will live their last decades will reduced quality of life; all in the name of busting some 35 year old meathead back in 2008. This likely unintended side affect of new legislation is rarely mentioned because in an action crusade few are willing to measure their actions. When the momentum is hot, few stop to consider the future; everything is about today and tomorrow, maybe next year, but never five or tens years from now. It's the short-term that matters to the crusaders. Unfortunately, for society, the actions of the crusaders do not become truly manifest for years and it's the unintended consequences that prove most powerful. Laws are viciously applied in ways never imagined or considered (think RICO Act, think Patriot Act). So as you join the crusade, you may consider asking yourself what is the real benefit to your participation. Will you actually be doing good?

All of that probably reads like a crazy man and I will grant that I am nuts; I actually believe that if people stop and consider how only a central authority has proven able to murder six million people, they might just think twice about granting our own central authority evermore power. Nuts or not, I defy anyone to develop an argument wherein they show reason why Congress has devoted so much time to the issue of steroids. If all of the working hours of Congress are totaled, and the b.s. hours eliminated, if not for purposes of raw propaganda and diversion, how can steroid usage possibly have garnered such disproportionate attention relative to their impact on society and the world? Maybe I am wrong, and maybe Congress hasn't devoted enough time. Perhaps all the press stories are better served to steroids rather than rampant government-fueled mortgage fraud. If someone can develop a cogent argument, I would more than happily cede; and I can tell you from personal experience there is nothing quite like the achievement of having another man cede his reason to yours. Until then, I just don't think it's wise for us to give law enforcement and the prison/industrialist complex more and more reasons to grow. That said, the leagues should be free to ban as desired.

Great blog. I read it on my RSS.

KG

"I am sorry, but I am 35 years old and have been hired as turnaround CEO (the most demanding task in general management) by three separate companies since age 27."

Jeff, do you own a boat?

betty

KG: and Jeff's gonna take this boat to the moon somehow.

Uggs On Sale

The wrathful guys continued to generate their promote charge continues to break.

Vibram Five Fingers

Most consumers longing lickety and pubescent applications that target gladly kick its users.

Baby UGG Boots

Halfway all your laptop, the illustration of adventure for BlackBerry Developers.

terimoore's Journal

This blog is certainly excellent. Excellent work. For this reason I enjoy of keeping returning to the weblog.

Jerseys

You did it is very very inportant,post is good !

christian louboutin outlet

Very nice site.I haven’t any word to appreciate this post…

The comments to this entry are closed.