12-15-2005, 05:02 PM #1New Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
Largest Steroid Bust in History! Rick Collins is going to be real busy.
News Release [printer friendly page]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 15, 2005
DEA Leads Largest Steroid Bust in History
82 percent of all DEA-seized and analyzed steroids in U.S. are manufactured in Mexico; Large majority of those come from targets in Operation Gear Grinder
Steroids confiscated in the investigation were marketed to be used with animals via public web sites.
DEC 15--WASHINGTON, DC – DEA Administrator Karen P. Tandy today announced the arrest of Albert Saltiel-Cohen, owner of three of the world’s largest anabolic steroid manufacturers, as part of the largest steroid enforcement operation in U.S. history. Operation Gear Grinder is a 21-month Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigation that targeted eight major steroid manufacturing companies, their owners, and their trafficking associates. By reviewing the sources of all seized and analyzed steroids submitted to the DEA’s forensic laboratories, DEA intelligence analysts and diversion investigators found that 82 percent of the steroids seized and analyzed are of Mexican origin. A large majority of those 82 percent seized and analyzed steroids originate from the eight companies identified in Operation Gear Grinder. These businesses conducted their sales via the Internet, and DEA estimates their combined total U.S. steroid sales are $56 million per year.
“Steroid traffickers market their product by luring young people with promises of enhanced performance and appearance,” DEA Administrator Karen P. Tandy said, “but what they don’t say is the illicit use of these harmful drugs can destroy the very bodies that they are supposed to improve. Drug traffickers prey on the belief that steroids enhance ability, but steroids only rob that ability, as we have seen so often from the affected lives of too many youth and professional athletes.”
Operation Gear Grinder is part of the Virtual Enforcement Initiative, a coordinated DEA effort to target illegal Internet drug trafficking, which was launched in April with Operation Cyber Chase and continued in September with Operation CYBERx. DEA’s cyber initiative acknowledges drug traffickers are embracing the use of 21 st century technology to further spread their virus into U.S. communities.
The steroid manufacturers involved in this investigation tried to mask the true consumers of these products by marketing them as being developed and sold for use in animals. The veterinary manufacturers (“laboratorios”) took notice of the demand for anabolic steroids and created a marketing strategy tailored to the needs of the U.S. consumer – to include high-quality products and internet websites. Communications via the Internet and parcel distributions were the core of these companies’ operations. The websites showcase the products and offer an email address to exchange prices and tracking numbers, and give ordering and payment instructions.
These eight companies used U.S.-based email addresses and listed each manufacturer utilizing a business website to place their products in the hands of American consumers. Some manufacturers provided direct referrals to distributors through the Contact Us section of the websites. The steroids were smuggled into the United States, and shipped to customers. In addition, steroids from the eight companies were also shipped to U.S. traffickers, who re-sold the products to their customers. Financial transactions were primarily done via Western Union wire transfers, as well as bank transfers and credit card payments.
These groups also supplied numerous pharmacies along the U.S./Mexico border, where U.S. customers could purchase steroids and smuggle them back across the border into the United States.
In addition to the Saltiel-Cohen arrest and indictments, DEA today arrested 4 steroid trafficking suspects in San Diego and Laredo, TX. As part of Operation Gear Grinder, DEA also identified over 2,000 U.S. customers that have received steroids from the businesses indicted today. These customers consist of individual users, street-level dealers, and organized trafficking groups in dozens of cities across the country.
The Southern District of California has issued indictments charging the companies and individual defendants with the following:Title 21, U.S.C., Secs. 952, 960 and 963 - Conspiracy to Import Anabolic Steroids; Title 21, U.S.C., Secs. 846 and 841(a)(1) - Conspiracy to Distribute Anabolic Steroids; Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 2; Title 18, U.S.C., Secs. 1956(h) and 1956(a)(1)(A)(I) - Conspiracy to Launder Money; Title 21, U.S.C.,Sec. 853(a), Title 18, U.S.C.,Sec. 982 and Title 21, U.S.C.,Sec. 853(p) - Criminal Forfeiture.
1. Companies: Quality Vet, Denkall, and Animal Power
Owners: Alberto Saltiel Cohen, Joaquin Garcia Rivas, and Javier Garcia de la Pena.
These manufacturers are significant U.S. suppliers of Nandrolone
2. Company: Laboratorios Tornel
Owner: Luis Bravo-Tornel
Manager: Mauricio Bravo-Berentsen
This manufacturer is a top U.S. supplier of Testosterone Decanoate
3. Company: Laboratorios Brovel
Owner: Arturo Bravo-Valdes
This manufacturer is a top U.S. supplier of Nandrolone Decanoate
4. Company: Pet’s Pharma
Owner: Ramon Vargas
This manufacturer is a top U.S. source of Testosterone Enanthate
5. Company: Syd Group
Owner: Armando Guzman-Armenta
Associate: Amalia Lara
This manufacturer is a top U.S. source of Stanozolol
6. Company: Loeffler
Officer: Jose Angel Garcia-Hinojosa
This manufacturer is a top U.S. source of Methandrostenolone
Operation Gear Grinder was coordinated by the DEA Special Operations Division. DEA offices in San Diego, Mexico City, Tijuana, New York, Houston, San Antonio, and Laredo, Texas participated in the investigation.
This investigation was a collaborative effort involving DEA, numerous U.S state and local law enforcement agencies, and the Mexican Federal Agency of Investigation (AFI).
12-15-2005, 05:19 PM #2
12-15-2005, 05:39 PM #3
Holy frijoles man!
12-15-2005, 05:50 PM #4
Holy shiat, get the popcorn.....
12-15-2005, 05:53 PM #5
this sh_t really pisses me off. steroids are not a virus, and its nowhere near as harmful as the govt wants everyone to think. fu_king dea should find something better to do with their time, like trying to bust crack dealers or something
12-15-2005, 06:53 PM #6
Thats bull sh#*,but dont worry,i call my contact in mex.again,but prices are going to stay the same... for now ... well see.
12-15-2005, 06:54 PM #7
12-15-2005, 06:58 PM #8
12-15-2005, 07:10 PM #9
12-15-2005, 07:22 PM #10
i wish they would put this much time and effort into a real problem like crystal meth, or getting Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson to appear topless, there 18 now so its not gross anymore....right???
12-15-2005, 07:25 PM #11Owner
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
12-15-2005, 07:31 PM #12
So who did they bust? The people referring others in the US only? How can they stop the manufacturing of it in Mex? That will still go on and it will still be sold to the Americans and whoever else. Damn vet roids have been available for many years in Mex, nothing new.
12-15-2005, 07:48 PM #13
It is really sad they put so much effort into stopping people who are concerned with their appearance, performance, etc. All they bullshit myths and stories floating around influence lawmakers into causing us harm. The funny thing is, athletes usually contribute positively to society. The fact that they want to be stronger for their sports, or in general, should be irrelevant. Compared to other substances that are having a profound and negative effect on society, ESPECIALLY CRYSTAL METH, I would expect them to invest their time and effort into controlling that. I swear every day I hear about a new meth lab exploding or killing someone on the news. And that shit is taking over America....so addictive. The sides are ridiculous. ANd people addicted to it most often become a burden on society. On the other hand juicers and athletes simply get stronger......just doesn't add up. All the media hype with sports and baseball means lawmakers have to give the people what they want: steroid answers. Bunch of b/s and just garbage....what a waste of two years and lots of money.
12-15-2005, 08:40 PM #14Junior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
F#%K THE DEA and our stupid government. A damn 10 year old can buy CRACK in my neighborhood, but an honest citizen that chooses to enhance the way they perform or look and also has to go out and search for the means by which they do it and doesn't affect anyone doing it is penalized and prosecuted. This pisses me off to no end, I pay my damn taxes that support these morons and I say FFFFFF###^^^KKKKK TTTTHHHHEEEEMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12-15-2005, 09:52 PM #15
i wonder how much thier spending on this project to stop gear... could have put that money to better use like feeding the homeless or some other shi+
12-15-2005, 09:56 PM #16Originally Posted by Seattle Junk
12-15-2005, 09:59 PM #17
substances like alcohol and tobaco deteriorate and break the body down but they are legal. in fact certain organizations want people use these things not concerned about the consiquences. "that guys fuked up on crack and now his body wont obsorb nutrients? GOOD! KEEP HIM DOWN!" they say.
on the other hand, some people care about there bodies and have found something that will inhance it and this is boosting confidence. the sad thing is now these certain organizations are doing everything possible to stop us.
how did sh*t get so fuked up?
12-15-2005, 10:00 PM #18Originally Posted by k_kingston
12-15-2005, 10:08 PM #19
12-15-2005, 10:26 PM #20
this is crazy
12-15-2005, 10:30 PM #21
How can they be so stupid there is so much evidence going agains their beliefs on steroids there has got to be something that we dont know makes you wonder who really rules the country the govt or fast food, alcohol and cigarette companies.
12-15-2005, 10:39 PM #22
Crazy...I was just speaking to a source yesterday who is a QV distributor...Guess I can cross his name off the list, probably get a package with handcuffs inside for me to try on.
12-15-2005, 10:43 PM #23
If anything happens it will be a slight price increase ... no biggie
12-15-2005, 11:01 PM #24Originally Posted by james21
Also, since the DEA has been at this one for 21 months and just wrapped it up. I sincerely believe their next target will be the research chem websites. If they can nail legitimate mexican companies for producing steroids for animals, they can definately nail the research sites. Lion should definately be cautious.
12-15-2005, 11:06 PM #25
12-15-2005, 11:06 PM #26Originally Posted by thegodfather
12-15-2005, 11:36 PM #27Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Washington state
it is really sad they put this much time into this.. its a hot button issue right now and bush wants to score points,,. never mind he is an ex coke head.
Im glad i dont use that dirty ass mexican gear.. sounds like there is gonna be a shortage !
12-15-2005, 11:53 PM #28
This is bullshit...i'm sick and tired of seeing other companies going down for some crazy shi* like making you animals stronger.... there is other things going on in America that needs attention rather than gear....**** i mean there is people in america that can not pay there bills...come on bush...get your shi* togethor..
12-16-2005, 12:14 AM #29Anabolic Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
I still cant believe u voted for that guy and most ppl in Europe would agree with me.. Ok the other candidate was not so much better but still...
12-16-2005, 12:14 AM #30Originally Posted by james21
The proliferation of chemical products being sold online “for research purposes only” has generated countless inquiries about what’s legal and what’s not. Nobody wants to get busted out of ignorance, of course. I sat down with Rick Collins, New York lawyer, founder of www.SteroidLaw.com, and author of the definitive book on anabolic steroids and bodybuilding drugs, Legal Muscle, in an effort to shine a little light into this very dark area.
Citruscide (C): Thanks for offering to share your thoughts on this topic. I can imagine what your schedule is like.
Rick (R): Well, thanks to you for taking the time to do this interview and to offer your thoughts as well, big guy.
C: Let’s start with this: What’s wrong with buying and selling chemical products?
R: Generally, nothing. Chemicals are bought and sold every day. Hydrogen peroxide, ammonium hydroxide, benzyl alcohol, and on and on and on. But, as you know, there are some restrictions.
C: Such as controlled substances, for example?
R: Yes. Any chemicals that are designated as a “controlled substance,” “controlled substance analogue,” or “listed chemical” have restrictions on them. Those terms are defined by Section 802 of Title 21 of the United States Code. The Code is our big book of the laws passed by Congress. Unless we indicate otherwise, people can find all the sections of federal law that we’re going to talk about in Title 21 of the Code.
C: Obviously, the DEA has an interest in any illegal conduct involving controlled substance chemicals or their analogues. What about the FDA? What interest does the FDA have in chemicals?
R: None, unless the chemicals are food, drugs, devices, cosmetics, or dietary supplements for humans or animals. And there has to be the interstate commerce aspect. But the chemical products we’re discussing aren’t being explicitly sold as any of these things. They’re being sold purportedly as chemicals for research purposes only.
C: So they fall outside the jurisdiction of the FDA?
R: Yes, as long as they don’t fit the definition of any of those articles that the FDA has jurisdiction over. But here’s the problem. And it could become a big problem for someone in the future. The FDA’s opinion on the issue may differ from somebody else’s. The product may be sold as one thing, but the FDA may say it’s something else – for example, they may say it’s a drug.
C: What exactly is a “drug”?
R: Check out Section 321(g) of that Title 21 we mentioned. The current definition is there in its entirety. Basically, any chemical or product recognized as a drug by the United States Pharmacopoeia or other official compendium is a drug. But official recognition is only one way that a chemical can be a drug. Let me say that again. Just because it’s not in the official books or approved by the FDA doesn’t mean it’s not a drug. The other way that an article can be deemed to be a drug is if it is intended to be used as a drug.
C: How does the law define when something is intended to be used as a drug?
R: Well, in two ways. Again, it’s in Section 321(g). The term “drug” means “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals.” It also means “articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.” So, prescription medicines are drugs, but so are many over-the-counter products including fluoride toothpaste, dandruff shampoos and sunscreens.
C: So, if you sell a chemical product claiming it will cure or prevent heart disease or treat kidney dysfunction or make you grow taller, you can turn it into a drug under the law?
R: Yes. Just by the claims. The crucial issue is what the product is intended to do. Dietary supplement companies have to be careful about what claims they make. Otherwise, they can be targeted by the FDA and have to argue over whether their product is a dietary supplement or an unapproved and illegal new drug.
C: Okay, so as far as chemical products which are clearly not intended for consumption or administration to humans or animals at all, how could the FDA claim to have jurisdiction? The products aren’t food, drugs, devices, cosmetics or dietary supplements.
R: They can’t as long as it’s clear. That’s the rub. Sometimes, it’s not so clear what they’re intended for, and it can be a point of argument. Take the substance IGF-1, for example. You might claim say it’s being sold just for research purposes, but the FDA might claim otherwise.
C: But if the supplier explicitly labels the product, “Not For Human Consumption” or words to that effect, how can the government argue otherwise?
R: The perfect example is 1,4-butanediol. Many people were arrested last year in an Internet-based DEA investigation into sales of the chemical. That’s because the government decided that butanediol fits the definition of a controlled substance analogue due to its similarities to GHB, a scheduled controlled substance. In situations where an analogue is intended for human consumption, it can be treated just like a controlled substance. But here’s the interesting part. Many of the people selling butanediol had web site disclaimers and product warning labels explicitly telling people not to consume it. They were prosecuted anyway, and many of them have been convicted.
C: Even though they gave disclaimers and warnings not to consume it?
R: Yes. The government’s theory was that in some instances the disclaimers and warnings were a sham. The government asserted that the words were not put there to actually warn consumers, but were just an attempt to evade a criminal prosecution.
C: They would have needed evidence to back that up.
R: Absolutely. Frankly, in some cases I suspect that the defense lawyers failed to aggressively punch holes in the prosecution theories. But, generally, the government built their prosecutions on circumstantial evidence. In some cases, the product had previously been sold as a dietary supplement, with marketing hype about its nutritional benefits. Then, when GHB was scheduled, the product was re-labeled as a “cleaning solution” with no change in the formula. The products were continued to be sold on web sites having nothing to do with household cleaning, but focused on human nutrition and fitness. They were sometimes infused with pina colada or other fruity additives, alleged to be “scents” but arguably flavoring. They were sold at prices that the government argued nobody would ever pay for cleaning products. But most damaging of all, some defendant-suppliers made private statements, recorded by the government or preserved in emails or discussion board posts, about how to consume the product.
C: So, they directly contradicted their own disclaimers and warnings?
R: Yes. Saying the product is intended only for cleaning or research purposes doesn’t automatically protect the supplier, if he’s caught saying otherwise elsewhere.
C: The DEA went after butanediol as a claimed analogue of the controlled substance, GHB. Would they be interested in chemicals that are not controlled substances or analogues of controlled substances?
R: No. It would generally be an issue for the FDA, and for the Postal Inspector if the mail were involved. An exception, by the way, is human growth hormone , which is not a federally controlled substance but the DEA is specifically authorized to investigate distribution offenses.
C: What about the situation where a chemical might be a recognized drug, but it’s sold in a raw or liquid form for research purposes?
R: It depends whether the chemical fits the definition of a drug in its raw or liquid form. That can depend on whether the government buys the argument that the chemical really is intended for research purposes, or whether, as in the butanediol cases, it’s really intended for human consumption. It would be an issue to be determined on a case by case basis.
C: What sorts of factors might the government look at, other than things the supplier himself might have said about consuming it?
R: The nature and wording of the disclaimers on the web site, for starters, and the screening and ordering process. Let’s look at what a legitimate chemical supply house would do. A legitimate supply company would try to ensure the products are not being purchased for use as drugs, right? Some companies require an account to be set up and references checked, and will not sell to individuals. But the government might also look at where and to whom the products were being marketed, and the nature of the other products being sold on the site, in assessing the legitimacy of the “research” explanation. I’m not going to go through all the possible factors. You can figure them out, and so can the FDA if they’re so inclined. I’m not interested in giving the FDA a blueprint. They have their own lawyers to sort it out.
C: But selling a research chemical with a host of vitamins on a bodybuilding web site might be one factor?
R: Yes. In combination with other factors, hypothetically, that’s how the government could build a case.
C: What about what other people say about the products? Could the government take into account the fact that the discussion boards are filled with postings about how people are using the products?
R: Well, if one guy said in an obscure online forum somewhere that he consumed a liquid research chemical despite all the warnings and disclaimers, the supplier could hardly be expected to be aware of it, much less accountable for it. But it might be different if lots of people are talking all about it on the boards, particularly if the boards are associated or affiliated with the supplier.
C: But isn’t it possible that the supplier may intend the product to be used for research purposes only, but individual purchasers may have other ideas?
R: Quite possible.
C: Then to what extent is the supplier responsible for the purchaser’s intentions?
R: He’s not. He’s responsible for his own conduct and intent. But if he knows or has reason to know that the purchaser had these “other ideas,” it may reflect upon his own intent in supplying the product.
C: Doesn’t the theory of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” offer some protection?
R: Not necessarily, if the supplier is consciously avoiding the knowledge of his customers’ obvious uses of the products. You can reach a point where you can’t purposely stick your head in the sand like an ostrich to undermine proof of your knowledge of a fact. That kind of willful blindness doesn’t exempt you from prosecution.
C: Okay, let’s assume the government doesn’t buy the claim that the chemical product is really intended for research purposes. Then what?
R: Maybe nothing, I guess, but one option would be for the FDA to assert that the product violated the law regarding misbranded drugs under Title 21, Section 331. They could send out warning letters to suppliers, or just institute prosecutions.
C: What’s a misbranded drug?
R: Check out Section 352. A drug sold without adequate directions or warnings for safe consumption, for example, is deemed misbranded. Since these chemical products we’re discussing are supposedly for research only, they obviously bear no such directions or warnings.
C: And if they were to be adequately labeled for human use, they’d no longer be arguably for research purposes only.
R: Then they’d clearly be drugs and more easily prosecuted.
C: Right. So, theoretically, what offenses could the government possibly hit a supplier with?
R: If they were inclined to take action, the government could charge introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce under Sections 331(a) and 333(b). They could also charge conspiring to defraud the FDA in violation of Title 18 of the Code, Section 371, and/or with mail fraud in violation of Title 18, Section 1341.
C: All right, what kind of penalties are we talking about?
R: The penalties for misbranded drug violations are found in Section 333(a). Under 333(a)(1), neither knowledge nor intent is required for a misdemeanor violation. To make it a felony under 333(a)(2), the requisite additional element is just the intent to defraud or mislead, or having a previous similar conviction. The felony carries a maximum term of imprisonment of three years.
C: What about conspiracy and mail fraud charges?
R: Sure, look at the cases involving the illegal sales of DNP . Defendants got hit with the misbranded drug charges as well as conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The maximum imprisonment for conspiracy to commit mail fraud is five years.
C: Do you think the FDA is presently aware of what’s going on?
R: I’m almost positive that they are.
C: What if the factors they need to make a case against most of these suppliers just aren’t there?
R: Great question. If the government still thinks it’s all a sham, they could try to do specific sting operations, or find other ways to make life tough for these companies. If federal regulatory agencies really want to mess with you, they can usually find ways. And if the agencies find that under the existing law they can’t stop you from illegal conduct, they’ll consider issuing new regulations to help them or they’ll ask Congress to amend a law or pass a new one.
C: Like what’s going on with prohormones right now.
R: Yes, they’ve helped fuel the new bills attacking the supplement industry, particularly prohormones. A good place to learn about that issue is www.usfa.biz. Even people who don’t use prohormones should be aware that their nutritional freedoms are under siege by the government.
C: For sure. Rick, has anyone actually been prosecuted for research chemicals yet?
R: Not that I know of – yet. In practice, the research chemical scenario presents a tougher challenge for the FDA than other misbranded drug cases. More typically, a product is sold for human use or administration and the issue is the adequacy of labels and such. But with research chemicals, the government must instead prove the threshold issue that the product is intended for human consumption – despite express warnings and disclaimers to the contrary.
C: That’s not always easy to do. It’s more investigative work to do it, and a potentially bigger drain for an agency with budget and personnel limitations.
R: That’s right.
C: The DEA did it with butanediol, but maybe they felt it was worthwhile because they considered it to be an analogue of a dangerous claimed “date rape” drug.
R: Maybe. It’s hard to say how the DEA prioritizes its resources. Look at what recently happened to actor Tommy Chong. He got popped in a major DEA sting operation orchestrated to catch people selling bongs over the Internet. At least 55 people were arrested. The prosecutions relied on a Supreme Court decision [Posters ‘N’ Things, Ltd., v. U.S., 511 U.S. 513 (1994)] recognizing, basically, that bongs are items that are specifically designed for use as drug paraphernalia – to smoke marijuana. Chong got hit with a nine-month federal sentence, despite the fact that his site had disclaimers saying the pipes were to be used only for smoking tobacco.
C: Makes you wonder how a future court someday might view conversion kits.
R: Well, yes, but that’s another story. Chong’s bongs may not be completely analogous, but what’s important, I think, is simply that Chong never imagined in his wildest dreams that the government would come after him, especially when he had disclaimers up on the site.
C: He never saw it coming.
R: Right. That’s the lesson. Which brings us back to research chemicals. Up until now, the FDA has chosen to set other priorities. That may continue indefinitely. Or it may change, possibly suddenly and without notice. I can’t give more conclusive answers at this time because these are uncharted waters. Until I possibly wind up arguing these issues in a court somewhere and getting definitive rulings, the best I can do is identify areas of concern and make educated speculations. But for now, I think there’s more risk than most people have thought about.
C: I guess the more blatant the use as drugs of these products becomes, the more likely the FDA will try to get involved. At the same time, the more blatant the drug use of the products, the easier it might be for the FDA to prove its cases.
R: Exactly. That’s definitely something to be concerned about.
C: Thanks for the interview, Rick.
R: Anytime. Knowledge is power.
Citruscide is the web name of a lawyer licensed to practice in Illinois. He has a background as a certified personal trainer and hardcore bodybuilder, and is a mod at the Elite Fitness Bodybuilding and the Law discussion board and at Chemical Muscle.
12-16-2005, 12:18 AM #31Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
WAKE THE F*CK UP FFS
target REAL CRIMINALS
12-16-2005, 12:46 AM #32Originally Posted by stupidhippo
Originally Posted by macabee303
Also, as a taxpayer, I'm quite curious as to how much this ridiculous effort has cost me, and you.
It's no mystery why Mexico has allowed the DEA to suddenly have jurisdiction on foreign soil. It desperately needs to stay in Washington's good graces. The money coming into the Mexican private sector for steroid sales is of no consequence when, I'm sure, Washington has made it clear that the pittance the Mexican government receives will be cut off if they don't cooperate.
In the end, support your local UGL!
12-16-2005, 09:18 AM #33Associate Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
Yea spend my taxes on busting people who care about there bodies. I mean why stop crystal meth and crack there not so bad and the homeless f them too. That should be America's new slogan.
12-16-2005, 11:43 AM #34Originally Posted by simster1
12-16-2005, 12:36 PM #35Associate Member
Originally Posted by amstaf
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
12-16-2005, 12:43 PM #36
12-24-2005, 04:25 PM #37Originally Posted by Seattle Junk
by asking mex gov to extradite owners of these companies
12-24-2005, 04:43 PM #38Anabolic Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
"Operation Gear Grinder"! ????
That jusy makes my blood boil.
12-24-2005, 04:43 PM #39Originally Posted by superfat73
12-24-2005, 05:07 PM #40
I know who Im not voting for next election.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)