French After Armstrong~Again!

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by IntheNet, Aug 24, 2005.

  1. jambon-beurre

    jambon-beurre Member

    Mar 12, 2005
    France
    You're saying to me that I don't believe in the institutional truth, but that's exactly what I'm saying to Armstrong supporters ! They don't want to believe the lab, don't want to believe Dick Pound, don't want to believe the boss of the Tour who has always, always supported Armstrong until a week ago, etc ...

    I dont trust L'Equipe that much, because the ones you have to trust in the first place, are the scientists from the lab (who confirmed the results and confirmed they didn't know who they were testing).
    Everybody recognized that the lab can't be suspected of any dubious manipulation, except Armstrong and his "setup theory".
    L'Equipe has not the most important role, they didn't made the tests, they just did the matching.

    Btw, I know L'Equipe is not NASA, I was just comparing the way some people are denying (what I believe are) facts, putting doubts wherever they can be put.
    And denial is very, very powerful.

    If you want to wait until a legitimate institution confirm the facts, then I say OK, it's actually the right attitude, but you've noticed that the WADA (the legitimate institution in that case) and Dick Pound has publicly said that these 6 positive tests were a big big problem.
     
  2. jambon-beurre

    jambon-beurre Member

    Mar 12, 2005
    France
    Sorry but you don't know cycling. If that was the case, you'd know that being a great rider in the classics like Armstrong was in 1992-93-94-95, is absolutely not the same thing that being a great rider in the Tour de France, in the Vuelta or in the Giro.
    Armstrong participated in like 4 Tours de France before his come-back and he abandonned the race 3 times because he was a poor climber, though he was a great rider in the classics at the same time.
    He was poor too in time trials before his cancer, he didn't have ANY results in that exercise before 1999. And what happened on the first day of the Tour 99 ? On the exact same circuit where Indurain - known as the greatest specialist of time trials in the Tour - won in 1993 (I believe), he won the prologue, finishing 10 seconds ahead of Indurain's time. Armstrong was himself surprised ...
    Btw, the rider who finished 2nd of the prologue that day, Alex Zülle, a Swiss, admitted afterwards he took drugs (including EPO, I believe).

    Saying "Armstrong has super-human abilities" is false, e.g. his VO2 max is average (=82) compared to a VO2 max of a rider like Lemond (95 for Lemond, the gap is huge).
    And if he had super abilities, why was he a poor rider in the Tour before his cancer ?

    Maybe he spent millions of dollars in research etc, but in the end, it's the man who makes the difference. Wearing clothes 10 grams lighter than the clothes of the other riders don't make you arrive at the Champs Elysees in a yellow jersey. He only gained a few seconds with that.

    From the 15 points you mentionned, only the (4) can't be discussed.
     
  3. jambon-beurre

    jambon-beurre Member

    Mar 12, 2005
    France
    :rolleyes:
    The minimum permitted weight is 6.8 kg for a bike used in the Tour de France. The bike must weight at least 6.8 kilos otherwise the rider is not allowed to participate.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/?id=2004/features/uci_weight
     
  4. 352klr

    352klr Member+

    Jan 29, 2001
    The Burgh of Edin
    You're completely ignoring the fact that Armstrong had a completely different body-type pre-cancer. He was bulkier than all the other riders because he still had a 'triathalon' body, which is what made him break down during the tour and be a poor climber. Cancer destroyed all that and he rebuilt his body afterwards.

    Again, your facts are wrong on VO2 max. Armstrong's is not average as you claim it to be. The average for an elite endurance athlete is about 70. The highest ever recorded is 93. Stop lying.

    http://www.coolrunning.com/major/97/training/hampson.html
     
  5. jambon-beurre

    jambon-beurre Member

    Mar 12, 2005
    France

    Sorry, it was 83 and 92 - and btw Indurain had 88.
    Yes, 83 is average for a winner of 7 consecutive Tours.

    http://www.chicagoaa.com/features/humanperformanceMay05.html

    http://www.cptips.com/trnvgen.htm

     
  6. MarioKempes

    MarioKempes Member+

    Real Madrid, DC United, anywhere Pulisic plays
    Aug 3, 2000
    Proxima Centauri
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    :eek:
    This is my last post to you, because, not only do your posts contain logical fallacies and non-sequiturs, but you cannot keep the facts straight from post to post. You sidestep valid points and then respond to points not made.

    We all know the difference between riding classics and the Tour. Stop pretending that we don't. Stop pretending that anyone has suggested otherwise. Stop debating ghosts arguments.

    Lance's VO2Max has been measured at 83.8 ml/kg/min in the offseason. We don't really know how high it is at race time, but I will guarantee you that it is higher. I don't know where you get your numbers from.

    Steve Prefontaine,US runner, 84.4
    Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner, 71.3
    Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder, 71.2
    Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder, 69.7
    Rosa Mota, Marathon runner, 67.2
    Jeff Galloway, US Runner, 73.0
    Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder, 71.0
    Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner, 72.8
    Greg LeMond, professional cyclist, 92.5
    Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder, 92
    Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist, 88

    http://runnersweb.com/running/vo2max.pl

    No one said that Lance had the highest VO2Max ever in the world, only that it was very high. Stop pretending that they have.

    Lactate threshold (aerobic threshold), sustainable time trial power, and maximum aerobic power are better indicators of bicycling success than VO2Max, and Lance scores extraordinarily high in those as well. You sidestepped aerobic threshold and the fact that Lance does not produce a lot of lactic acid and recovers very quickly. This is a huge advantage. Stop pretending that Lance doesn't have superior aerobic capacity and distinct advantages over other riders.

    Lance was a better classic rider in the past than now because he focused on the short races. Lance is better now at the Tour because he focuses on the Tour. It's really not hard to understand. Stop pretending that you don't.

    David Zabriskie rode the fastest time trial ever in the Tour this year. Lance was 2 seconds behind him, making his the 2nd fastest time trial ever in the TDF. Lance was tested over and over in this 2005 Tour and in all the others before him. You know the results. Stop pretending that Lance can't ride a fast time trial w/o drugs.

    You mentioned that Armstrong rode in prior TDFs and quit in the middle. What you fail to mention is that both Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich also abandoned races in their earlier days. In fact, it's quite common for young riders to abandon the races in their young days, because they lack the discipline required and have not trained properly for these long races. They underestimate the training required to finish these races. This is not an indication of a rider's potential or a predictor of their future accomplishments. Stop pretending that it is.

    Telling me that Alex Zulle used drugs has no bearing on Armstrong. Stop pretending that it does.

    When I mentioned clothing and helmet, I specifically mentioned aerodynamics and not weight. Stop pretending that I did.

    In 1989, Greg LeMond won the Tour by eight seconds - a victory attributed to the aerodynamic handlebars he used in the final time trial. Aerodynamics are extremely important, and Lance's teams have spent a lot of time and money exploring the aerodynamics of his bike, his riding position, and his clothing. Since you did mention weight, you should know that the weight of Lance's clothing and helmet have decreased as well.

    One of the key turnaround for Lance was when he lost weight during his cancer ordeal. How can losing weight help Lance in the Tour, you say? Well in the fall of 1990, six-foot-two-inch Miguel Indurain weighed a muscular 184 pounds—too heavy to stay competitive in the mountain stages of the Tour de France. But that winter, a consultant to Indurain's team, Max Testa, now director of sports performance at the University of California at Davis, figured out the optimal ratio of power to body weight for cyclists, based on his studies of past Tour winners. To reach it, Indurain had to shed only 12 pounds, which he did. The next year he won his first of five consecutive Tours.

    The old Amstrong pedalled at 75-80 rpms, while the tour winning Armstrong pedals at 85-90 rpms. The old Armstrong weighed 170-175 lbs, while the new one weighs 155-158 lbs. Lance puts out more Wattage than Indurain, and he does it at a significantly (for top-level cycling) lower weight. This is crucially important. If Lance does a time trial at 170 lbs, and then does it later at 155 lbs, don't you think there would be improvement? Lance's lower weight combined with his higher aerobic fitness and higher pedal cadence are the main reasons he has improved in the mountains. He maintained his power outtage while dropping significant weight.

    According to Discovery's sporting director Johan Bruyneel, Armstrong is in better shape now than he was in 1999. Pre-race tests in Nice saw the American produce 30 watts more power than the 520 watts he managed six years ago. And yet his race-day tests still show him drug free. Hmmm.

    Lance would not have won 7 Tours without his teammates, his friends, his coaches, his technology, and all of the technologists that he surrounds himself with. You can be sure of that. There's a lot more to racing than just the rider. I don't think Lance would have even won 1 Tour De France without the important groundwork done by Greg Le Mond.

    I don't know anything about cycling, huh? LOL. I've watched every Tour de France since 1986, and I read about it almost every day. I'm also an avid cyclist.
     
  7. topcatcole

    topcatcole BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 26, 2003
    Washington DC
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    But you're not French, how COULD you know anything about cycling? :rolleyes: ;)
     
  8. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Heh, a Frenchman hasn't won the Tour since 1985 when Hinault won......and that was only because LeMond let the old man (his team leader) win one last time.
    ;)
     
  9. jambon-beurre

    jambon-beurre Member

    Mar 12, 2005
    France
    Then why did you mentionned these points ?


    Your list with only the cyclists in it :

    In that list I could have put Christophe Bassons, one of Armstrong "ennemies", who was a very average rider, and who had 84 of VO2 max.
    The fact is that 83 or 84 is average for a professional cyclist.

    No, It's not very high compared to other great champions of the Tour de France.

    OK, so now, VO2 max doesn't count anymore.
    I will simply say I've not been convinced at all he has "superior aerobic capacity".

    OK, so if it's as easy as that, why other great classic rider don't focuse on the Tour with which they can get a lot more money and a lot more fame, etc ...
    Why Jalabert, Freire, Museeuw, Bartoli did not focuse on the Tour though it could have bring them a lot more than the classics ?

    It was the shortest time trial ever in a Tour de France, something like 20 kilometers. It could have been a prologue. And what's your point ?

    If you believe that not having tested positive proves that you're not taking doping substances, check the Festina affair and the Balco affair
    -> not a single positive test in both cases.

    Do you really believe I think Ullrich and Basso are perfectly clean ? :rolleyes:

    For his first Tour, Ullrich finished 2nd behind Riis (his leader) and for his 2nd Tour, he actually won the Tour. There's quite a difference with Armstong's 2 abandons.

    But that still means he was able to beat a great rider (because Zülle was a great rider) taking drugs.

    So he gained minutes and minutes because of the "aerodynamics of his clothes" ? hmm ...

    Yes, 8 seconds.
    Armstrong won almost all of his Tour de France being something like 7 minutes ahead of the runner-up ...

    And don't you think that if losing weight was the key to win the Tour de France, other riders would have follow the same example ?

    And if other riders could have an higher pedal cadence, don't you think they would have adopted the same technique ?
    He used this technique already in 1999, so the other guys had 7 years to understand that, but still they couldn't follow him in the big climbings.
    That's actually the dumbest argument of it all, if Armstrong had an higher pedal cadence, it's because he had the physical possibility the others didn't have.

    I'm glad you mention that famous wattage. I've read several times that Armstrong's wattage (520 watts) is actually unthinkable without taking drugs. According to scientists, the normal limit for a human is something like 400 watts for a big climbing in the Tour ...
    520 watts is actually the wattage developped by pursuit riders, that is to say riders giving all the energy they can give in an extremely violent effort, during approximately 10 minutes.
    Armstrong developped the same wattage in the last climbing of a stage in the Tour de France after already 3 big climbings and 6 hours of racing ...

    If you were right when you told me his bike was lighter than everyone else and if you were right when you told me Ullrich made also a poor debut in big competitions, amid other imprecisions and false statements maybe you'd have more credibility to me.
    Bye. [​IMG]
     
  10. jambon-beurre

    jambon-beurre Member

    Mar 12, 2005
    France
    Thanks for bringing the debate back to where it started. :rolleyes:
     
  11. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    What's with all these French 'smilie-icons' [​IMG]? BigSoccer needs to start testing...
     
  12. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    There are two kinds of people in the world: those who do wondrous things and those who stand around saying, "But you can't do that- it's impossible!"

    France used to be filled with the former but now it's populated by the latter. That's why only forty years after the Nouvelle Vague, the French can't make good movies anymore. That's why French wineries are in crisis. That's why you elect bureaucrats instead of idealogues. That's why artists don't flock to Paris anymore. That's why your only great writer hates his own country. That's why a brief heat wave can kill thousands of your most vulnerable citizens. I know none of this has to do with Lance, but your culture is very sick right now and it's interferring with your ability to make a cogent argument.
     
  13. jambon-beurre

    jambon-beurre Member

    Mar 12, 2005
    France
    [​IMG] (another smilie-icon)
    Don't you think your post is a perfect example of what could be called "running short of arguments" ...

    PS : You know Michel Houellebecq ? I love his novels too and his next one is released next week (it's gonna be a big event in France, it already is in fact)
     
  14. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    Houellebecq rocks. What's his new one about?
     
  15. jambon-beurre

    jambon-beurre Member

    Mar 12, 2005
    France
    It's about cloning, I believe.
    It's called "La possibilité d'une île" i.e. "The possibility of an island". But I didn't want to know too much about it before reading the book myself.

    Is he well-known in the US ?
     
  16. johan neeskens

    Jan 14, 2004
    Back on subject, I am convinced that 99% of all cyclists use drugs, and I can't even blame them. If we the public expect them to cycle in such extreme circumstances for three weeks in a row in the Tour de France, what else do you expect. Armstrong most probably uses drugs too, interestingly in the interviews I saw with him of late he always comes out with stuff like "I've never used any illegal substances" - with that he doesn't deny that he used EPO in 1999 as EPO wasn't on the banned substances list back then.

    So yes he's probably guilty, but then again so are the large majority of cyclists. I think the powers that be need to be more grown-up with this. Why not allow drugs but regulate it, put athletes and cyclists under medical superivision and get it out in the open.

    Or am I being a bit Dutch about this I wonder.
     
  17. speedcake

    speedcake Member

    Dec 2, 1999
    Tampa
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're being a bit something about it, but I don't know if Dutch is the word I'd use.
     
  18. johan neeskens

    Jan 14, 2004
    Pragmatic is the word. It's very naive to think that your sporting heroes are squeaky clean.
     
  19. speedcake

    speedcake Member

    Dec 2, 1999
    Tampa
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I wouldn't argue they are, just look at the case involving McGuire, Bonds and those jokers in the states.

    However, I do not believe 99% is a realistic number at all. I also do not agree that any condonation of drug usage amongst athletes should be tolerated. There are reasons this is ethically and wrong and often medically dangerous, no need to send the message to young kids everywhere that without performance enhancers they aren't real athletes.

    To stop fighting against illegal doping in sports is to surrender practically everything that makes sport great to begin with.
     
  20. taylor

    taylor Member+

    Jun 9, 2000
    Fav team: FC CARL ZEISS JENA
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    I just don't understand how anybody can convict a person in today's age with a source proven to be bais.


    J-B, I want to thank your for posting on here. It helps me refine my arguments.

    J-B, this is why I/we don't respect Pound and the Tour guy. I don't care if they tought LA was Pablo Escobar, you don't "publicly find a guy guilty" because one external source says he is and they have proof. You just don't. The fact that they did behave in this manner, should automatically raise red flags.

    It is their job to govern, not to let one source dictate guilt or innocence. Surely you must agree to that statement, no? As a reminder, they found him guilty when L'equipe called them up and asked for a comment.

    I also just don't understand your logic with the science. Assuming Mario's timeline is correct with the positives, then applying their own science, LANCE must be positive on day 11 and 13. If he is not positive on 11 and 13, then 1) The test is fallable 2) he did not take it during the tour.

    Either one indicates a much higher degree of innocence then you/West Europe has afforded him.
    There are alot more red flags then what I have stated, but I would appreciate your candid comments on 1) the professionalism and 2) the above stated science. i.e their tests sates 1+1=2 and day 11 and 13 show 1+1=0

    Cheers

    Mario, if you could post the link to the positve timeline, it would help me shoot down a lot of this stuff with the Germans I know.
     
  21. jambon-beurre

    jambon-beurre Member

    Mar 12, 2005
    France
    I don't think L'Equipe is a source proven to be bias. They never accused him before having some real evidences.
    Moreover it's the lab which did the job, and there's nothing to prove the lab is bias.
    If the documents are real, and the WADA will probably have to launch an inquiry to confirm that, where is the bias ? There's no "allegations" made by the newspaper, they're reporting what they believe are facts.

    I don't think Pound has said LA was guilty. He said the allegations had to be taken seriously.
    For Leblanc, it's another story, he's just talking for himself, he doesn't represent a judiciary institution like Pound

    But don't forget that to find EPO in the samples corresponding to the 1st and 2nd stages, and to find EPO in the samples from the 9th and 10th stages is perfectly logical. The sample from the 11th stage is not a problem since the current hypothesis is that he took 3 treatments for the prologue 1-2, the Alps 9-10 and the Pyrennees 12-13?-14.
    Concerning the 13th stage, maybe the EPO has degraded a little bit more than in the other samples, I don't know, the WADA will have to look into that.

    I've already mentionned the lab used 3 methods combined together to make the tests, maybe with 2 methods they found a presence of EPO and with the third it was not that clear, so they preferred to mark it "undetermined" or "negative".
    But in any case, the 13th stage sample can't be used to say "he didn't take EPO during the Tour". That's absurd. The 6 positive samples by 3 different methods can not be forgotten that quickly.

    A good argument is : "If this is a setup, why the hell didn't they mark the sample from the 13th stage positive ? why didn't they show us something perfectly logical ?"

    Professionalism ? the professionalism of the lab or the professionalism in cycling ? I don't doubt of the former and I have no illusions at all about the latter.
     
  22. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why? What proof do you have to make such a claim?
     
  23. taylor

    taylor Member+

    Jun 9, 2000
    Fav team: FC CARL ZEISS JENA
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    "Never has a retirement been more welcome.. blah blah."
    That clearly indicates a high degree of bais (also poor sportsmanship and lack of appreciation of LA's contribution.) Also, a journalist who is now being sued by LA for the book is a member of L'equipe. (talk about motivation to create some new half-truth, btw.)

    No more disscusion about that point.

    As for you Pound, after re-reading his comments, you are right, he does not explicitly declare him guilty, but he comes as close as possible, which to me is the same thing;

    "If he had one, you could say it was an aberration," Pound said. "When you get up to six, there's got to be some explanation."

    "You can count on the fingers of one hand the times a B sample has not confirmed the result of the A sample," Pound said. "It's almost always a delaying tactic."

    Armstrong said that contradicts WADA's own policy. "

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050826/ap_on_sp_ot/cyc_armstrong_doping

    There are some more qoutes, perhaps even more condeming, but I am too busy to cite them.

    Those statements, K-B, are a clear red flag.

    K-B writes:
    But don't forget that to find EPO in the samples corresponding to the 1st and 2nd stage sample, and to find EPO in the samples from the 9th and 10th stage is perfectly logical.
    For the 12th stage, maybe the EPO has degraded a little bit more than in the other samples, I don't know, the WADA will have to look into that.

    I've already the lab used 3 methods combined together to make the tests, maybe with 2 methods they found a presence of EPO and with the third it was not that clear, so they preferred to mark it "undetermined" or "negative".
    But in any case, the 12th stage sample can't be used to say "he didn't take EPO during the Tour". That's absurd. The 6 positive samples by 3 different methods can not be forgotten that quickly.":END J-B

    So you are saying trust the science that finds him guilty, but put less credibility in the science that may indicate fallability or innocence. I refuse.

    If you are going to say "trust the science" it must uniformly apply. If you/they cannot explain a perfectly predicable outcome (i.e. 11 and 13), then why o why should we believe them? I mean, I keep having to use your own logic to debunk things (btw, I am starting to understand what happened in the 2004 elections.) Using your own logic, how could day 10 and 12 be positive if 11 and 13 were negative? The only way you could argue it, is that he injected on stage 10 and 12 and they didn't show the next day. So that means, it can only test to injections given during the same day, but given what the science demands i.e. 3 day minimum to 2 weeks, this is not the case at all.

    This/French science is wrong/fallable/poor by their own testing procedures. How can you dispute this?

    Taken from Mario:
    I am certainly better informed than you. 2 or 3 days is a very conservative estimate. Some say 3 to 7 days. Some say 2 weeks. You can find varying estimates if you bother to look.

    Lance was tested after the following stages (and one more which is undetermined):
    prologue - won *positive*
    stage 1 - yellow *positive*
    stage 2 - yellow
    stage 8 - won
    stage 9 - won, yellow *positive*
    stage 10 - yellow *positive*
    stage 11 - yellow
    stage 12 - yellow *positive*
    stage 13 - yellow
    stage 14 - yellow *positive*
    stage 15 - yellow
    stage 16 - yellow
    stage 17 - yellow
    stage 18 - yellow
    stage 19 - won, yellow
    stage 20 - yellow
    "end Mario
    sorry, I don't know the quote system thing.







    finally, I meant the professionalism of LeBlanc and Pound (that was my joke about Escobar.)

    EDIT: LA is suing a tabloid for publishing stuff from the L'equipe journalist.
     
  24. jambon-beurre

    jambon-beurre Member

    Mar 12, 2005
    France
    I'm not going to post other long posts about the affair (it's taxing), but just to give you some information :
    "Never has a retirement been more welcome.. blah blah." is not bias. That's simply the truth. The fact is Armstrong wasn't popular in Europe and even maybe all over the world except the USA.
    He wasn't popular for the cyclists and wasn't popular for the public.
    It's a fact that his retirement has been relatively welcome, and L'Equipe are reporting these facts, acting like journalists.

    About Pierre Ballester, the guy who wrote the book with David Walsh about Armstrong, he's actually been fired by L'Equipe because of that book. There was a conflict of interests with Amaury and his book.


    What science indicates innocence ? Negative tests don't mean anything -> Marion Jones never had a positive test, Richard Virenque has a positive test, etc ...
    I don't contest there's some holes in the evidences but it's not sufficients to discredit the all thing.

    I can say that because it has been determined by 3 different methods by a laboratory agreed by the IOC.
    I read everywhere the tests could only detect EPO if injections were made the day of the control, the day before, or 2 days before. The fact that the 13th stage sample isn't positive is illogical but I think this is insufficient to discredit the 6 other tests.

    Btw, I edited my message afterwards to tell the sample from the 11th stage wasn't a problem.
     
  25. taylor

    taylor Member+

    Jun 9, 2000
    Fav team: FC CARL ZEISS JENA
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Well, thanks for posting, but I think the disscussion is reaching its limit.

    J-B, the timeline does not equal. You disagree.

    I did not know that about the L'equipe journalist.


    I suspect the real anwser will come in the following weeks and months. To be clear, if he is guilty, I will come on the board to say it. But until that point, I feel quite comfortable, objectively speaking, in believing his innocence.

    You should also know that Lance will forever be considered clean because the Hurricane has now taken up 24/7 news, so the story will die quickly. I say this with regret, because I would have liked the press to do some real investigation (which generally means the Daily Show:)

    btw, about LA's physical anomoly status, try this quick read;
    http://www.detnews.com/2005/moresports/0508/29/more-294723.htm
     

Share This Page