interview with an insider on doping
Vagina Gorilla
put
the hammer down and looks like a sure winner 7 days from now. After
establishing the contact years ago, we finally are able to interview
one
of the participants about doping and what it means to him, the sport
and
the fans./
*DF: We agreed on total anonymity, but we still want to indicate to
our
readers where in the realm of cycling this is coming from.*
BL: OK.
*DF: So would it be fair to say that while you are not one of the
contenders in any of the major tours, you've had some success as a
professional cyclist in a couple of teams over the years and people
following the sport would recognize your name?*
BL: That is fair, I guess (laughs).
*DF: We have been trying to get an interview with you for more than
two
years now, why did you agree to talk to us about this now?*
BL: Well, you have to realize that the pressure in the last years has
been especially high...
*DF: The pressure of getting caught?*
BL: Yes. But now a rhythm has been found, and it is more secure to
talk.
*DF: A rhythm?*
BL: In terms of dealing with the controls.
*DF: Please, elaborate.*
BL: Well, after 2006 the rules on where and when we could be tested
got
crazy in terms of what it meant for our lifestyles, and also in terms
of
planning the – you know, medical manipulations.
*DF: Sure.*
BL: ... because more than ever we had to factor the masking of it all
into the equation. But obviously it is more predictable now when one
will likely be tested, and there are secure masking techniques too.
And
even if they found something – it is all indirect, the detection
methods
I mean. They can say: this indicator is off and so is this, but they
can't say or even prove what is used, when it is being used and how.
*DF: But sometimes people do get caught...*
BL: Yeah, but recently? On what? They are concentrating on the rhEPO
and
the CERA, and it took them years to develop a test for it. I know it
is
cocky, but they are farther behind than they were three years ago, and
I
know I can pee in as many cups as they want and have them draw blood
on
a fairly regular basis – they might see the indicators move, but they
wouldn't be able to say why, they haven't the faintest idea. And even
if
they did, they still had to prove anything, and we made that next to
impossible.
*DF: You say "we". Are you talking about your team?*
BL: No, after Festina the thing shifted away from the teams. I am
talking about the physicians and the cyclists.
*DF: "The cyclists"?*
BL: Well, those who like to compete.
*DF: OK, so in this year's peloton of the TdF, do you know of others
who
are "medically manipulated".*
BL: Well nobody /knows/ about anyone, but it is safe to assume that
everyone here is manipulated.
*DF: Everyone? There have been people who we expected to compete like
Evans or Sastre who are not really doing that now.*
BL: But this is where you people are off: if someone climbs up to
Verbier like Contador did, he must be manipulating, but if they do
like
Menchov (/who lost 11 minutes on that stage on Contador, ed./), they
are
not? No. Look, I can only talk about what I am doing, but I would be
foolish to assume that what the medical people do for me they only do
for me and a few select others just I happen to know. The expertise
and
all, the medication – that only develops if a) they have to gain
massively and b) they had tons of experience. And the riders – think
about it. First of all you have to /make/ it to the tour, ok? The
team
is bigger than the 9 guys each team is allowed to bring, and usually,
unless you are happy with like, the 6-days or 3-days type of races or
you got a slacker contract, you want to be one of those 9 people. And
in
the tour you need to present yourself, because of course it is not
totally out of the realm that some idiot is careless and removes your
whole team from the equation, because the sponsors are wary and
easily
scared off, and you have to find a new contract. Look at that guy
from
that German team (/German equipe Gerolsteiners manager Michael
Holczer,
ed./) who was like all over the press all the time "My team is clean"
and whatnot. And then they get to his two top guys and poof the whole
thing explodes around him and the other riders, and the sponsor drops
out and the team is dead instantly.
*DF: So you are saying everyone who is riding this TdF is manipulating?
*
BL: I'd say if you don't assume that then you're massively naive.
*DF: Ok, so let's talk about how this works, medically. *
BL: Well I won't tell you what we use there; I want to keep riding a
few
years still.
*DF: Well not in terms then of what is used, but how and when, and
how
you factor in controls and, most importantly for you, I guess, the
desired results.*
BL: Hmm. (pause). Well I will tell you this: The desired results can
be
achieved much more easily than 5 years ago, because the stuff can
push
you for over 4 weeks, even two months now. So you can really mask
that
easily, you choose a time when you do the bulk of the medical stuff
in
which the rest of your training and your life situation would
possibly
explain if certain indicators were off.
*DF: Can you give us an example?*
BL: Say you do something that drives up your haemoglobin, then you do
that when it would be higher than usual anyway, because of high
altitude
training maybe, so you could explain it if need be. But that is not
the
extend of it, and I won't go into that.
*DF: The newer stuff.*
BL: Right.
*DF: So that is the long-term stuff, what about situations like
Landis'
thing in 2006 where he used testosterone to come back on that stage
right there, on the spot?*
BL: That is manageable too, but Landis was desperate and not thinking
clearly. He had lost eight minutes, and you can gain those back with
manipulation, as shown by Landis, but not without /obvious/
manipulation
– as shown by Landis. You can probably kind of make sure that you are
competitive even when you might not feel that good, you know what I
mean? Something that makes you just good enough not to lose too much
time. But the risk is obviously higher, and you got to do a
risk-vs.-reward thingie. I don't do that, because, well, let's face it
–
I would still not get anywhere close to what the best do on the steep
climbs. And I need to feed a family and I need a contract next year,
so
getting caught is not an option. And also, even though I block this
out
really and I suspect most of the other riders do to: It is dangerous
to
do too much. Nobody is going to die like that guy on the Ventoux (/
Tom
Simpson 1967, ed./), but long-term the risk is there. I guess other
people smoke and live with the fear of cancer; we do this and have
ours.
*DF: You say you are not competitive with the best even with doping?*
BL: Yeah. I could probably overdo it, but I don't do that, as I said.
It
is kind of funny: I believe the final results would be pretty much
the
same without the manipulation, and you still have good days and bad
days. But as long as one guy does it, all others will do it as well,
because otherwise that guy would have the ultimate advantage. But
what
we do is not just the manipulation, it is actually, if you look at
the
whole plan, not an overly big part. It is obviously important to
like,
have the body in terms of leverage and such, and to have a good
training
plan, the right nutrition, and to have the will to torture yourself.
Without all of that, you can still manipulate, but it won't get you
anywhere.
*DF: OK, let's get back to the organization of it all. You said it is
not the teams who organize it.*
BL: Well at least no longer in the established ones. If you're
hailing
from Kazakhstan the story is different maybe. Anyway: The teams need
to
maintain deniability, mainly for the sponsors.
*DF: There is no pressure from the sponsors?*
BL: Well not overtly. Obviously they want to see good results and
their
name represented properly, but those that are in it for a bit longer
already can lay a bit lower, they - no one says this, but it is kind
of
obvious – prioritize no one gets caught over a prestigious win. Those
with less of a history seem to not trust the whole thing anyway, in
terms of business sense, you know, so they prefer being represented
properly now rather than in say, three years – who knows what the
image
is then? But they do the "don't ask, don't tell" thing.
*DF: So what is the image now?*
BL: Well I guess some of the media know what's happening, in general
I
mean and they are frustrated they can't prove anything, so it got a
bit
unfriendly and focused on only the manipulations, especially with the
scapegoats like Astana or Valverde or Boonen. And they try to push
this
negative image.
But I know there are loads of people out there, fans, who love the
sport, and they don't care. Look at how many people still come to the
tour, that hasn't changed at all. They don't care, and actually they
don't want to care. They want the spectacle, they want to see those
guys
who race up the hill and also those who can't follow, they want the
soloists and the sprints, they want it all. And that only changes
sometimes when too much is reported or when too many people get
caught,
but not for long either. I mean I know that people actually climb up
the
famous ascends like the Tourmalet or Alpe d'Huez or the Ventoux on
their
bikes to feel what it's like, and they use stuff like EPO themselves,
just to feel that kick they imagine we must feel.(Pause) I still
write
plenty autographs, I am not worried, what I am saying is that from a
sponsors perspective that is maybe not quite so clear.
*DF: OK, so back to, sorry for this, but back to it not being the
teams
who drive this.*
BL: Well they don't need to, it is kind of like they used to, but
riders
understood how it all works better and better, and the more
industrious
among us probably make a nice buck off us now. Like, I have my
medical
personnel that I kind of got recommended by another rider I rode with
in
a team a few years back. And they coordinate the training plans, give
input and organize the medical side of it. Before, I took what I got
from the team, but it was simply not as tailored as it is now.
*DF: How many physicians play in this game?*
BL: (frowns) I don't know. First of all: I don't want to know. Then:
I
can't, you know, "say" this, but you think they only look after the
cyclists? So I presume, you know, most of them also do not want to
get
caught. Like, I have all my medical records. The doctor does not keep
any records, and, you know, the blood isn't labelled by your dog's
name
anymore.
*DF: But how is that possible – they have to get the medications from
somewhere, and that must be traceable?*
BL: This is the other thing riders don't want to know. I am well
aware
that if these people order massive amounts of stuff, there should be
a
track of records. But this means it probably goes through
backchannels
or worse, comes from sources I don't want to know of. I don't usually
take the newest of things, I let the more crazy guys do that, mostly
the
younger ones who still want it all, you know. After a season or so,
if
everyone stayed healthy, I will use stuff as well. But for the
doctors
it means they stay clean. The equipment can usually be hidden, I
mean:
who counts syringes, right? The more expensive stuff – well let's say
take a look at Austria. (/he presumably meant the fact that Bernhard
Kohl, the Austrian rider who got caught doping during the TdF last
year,
co-financed various expensive medical equipment with other athletes
and
his physician, ed./)
*DF: So if say your physician got raided, you'd stay undetected?*
BL: As long as he shuts up, sure, and he's got every reason to. There
is
nothing there that ties me to him. They would have to do DNA testing
to
match blood samples if they actually found any, and that won't get
out
of court for a few years to come, certainly till I am done riding. It
is
harder in some countries than in others.
*DF: Are you aware of the, excuse me, schizophrenic nature of what
you're saying? On one hand you are astonished about anyone not
believing
in manipulation and on the other hand you feel completely save?*
BL: How is that schizophrenic? Everyone knows the game that is
played.
There are those, with legal power, who for some reason want to ban it
(/doping, ed./) all, and for them we have to put on the hide and seek
and the legal armour and the secrecy, but it is just a game. But they
did have successes, and, maybe I am clouded because I am inside, but
I'd
think it's obvious for anyone what is going on. If amateurs do it
just
for kicks, why would you believe when there is actual stakes, money,
it's not happening? /That's/ probably schizophrenic.
*DF: So are you saying doping should be legal?*
BL: I don't know to be honest. There is medical risk and not everyone
who is young understands this or even gets a choice, look at what
happened in the East before 1989. It's not totally impossible in some
sport somewhere that crazy coaches or ruthless parents would not
damage
young athletes. On the other hand: That's probably happening today
just
the same. Legalization would make things easier by far: Lots of money
could be spent into training and developing younger talents rather
than
trying to figure out what happened when and how, which is mostly
useless. But it also would become even more of a money game – those
with
a generous sponsor could do more. I mean in general the sponsor who
provides better equipment and staff will give an advantage to their
team, but you need roughly the same amount of technicians and
masseurs,
and the difference between an expensive frame and a very expensive
frame
is not that big in terms of money, but the medication is really a
huge
amount. But... excuse me (/phone rings/)
/At this stage, the interview was over. After the phone conversation
the
rider had to leave us. We tried to get his authorization for
publishing
in the following days (because, in the words of the athlete, it is
"not
out of the realm of possibility" that someone manages to identify
him),
but then it became public that two Euskatel riders had tested
positive
as well Giro runner up Daniel di Luca, and we were back to square one
with him./
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
Interesting interview.
thanks for sharing,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Amit Ghosh
<kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 9:01 am, Vagina Gorilla <vaginagori...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
dumbass,
the formatting makes this almost impossible to read.
just post the link next time.
A. Dumas
> On Jan 4, 9:01 am, Vagina Gorilla wrote:
>> It is the second rest day of this year's TdF, [...]
>
> Interesting interview.
"Dan F" posted it July 29th 2009:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/2fff42be441cba19
Mike Jacoubowsky
But maybe you can-
==============
*DF: So that is the long-term stuff, what about situations like
Landis'
thing in 2006 where he used testosterone to come back on that stage
right there, on the spot?*
BL: That is manageable too, but Landis was desperate and not thinking
clearly. He had lost eight minutes, and you can gain those back with
manipulation, as shown by Landis, but not without /obvious/
manipulation
– as shown by Landis. You can probably kind of make sure that you are
competitive even when you might not feel that good, you know what I
mean? Something that makes you just good enough not to lose too much
time. But the risk is obviously higher, and you got to do a
risk-vs.-reward thingie. I don't do that, because, well, let's face it
==============
There is no evidence you can get back 8 minutes on a stage like that with
"manipulation" alone, especially when you're making the case that everbody
is manipulated to some degree. The field screwed up. Big time. Yes, Landis
was riding out of his mind, but please show me something that documents that
degree of enhancement over everyone else when everyone else is also presumed
not riding clean. Unless Landis was on something new that hasn't yet been
brought out (doubtful, given how long ago it was), even an amateur cyclist
isn't going to believe you could get that far ahead of everyone else by
doping. It spins a good story though. And then-
==============
I would still not get anywhere close to what the best do on the steep
climbs. And I need to feed a family and I need a contract next year,
so getting caught is not an option. And also, even though I block this
out really and I suspect most of the other riders do to: It is dangerous
to do too much. Nobody is going to die like that guy on the Ventoux (/
Tom Simpson 1967, ed./), but long-term the risk is there. I guess other
people smoke and live with the fear of cancer; we do this and have
ours.
==============
"...like that guy on the Ventoux"
Right, like any pro riding the TdF is going to refer to Tom Simpson that
way. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that any and all pro cyclists
riding the TdF know his name, just figuring out what rationale for not
saying it. Doesn't make sense. It's the sort of thing you'd put into a
fictional story to add credibility in a backward sort of way.
This interview could be real, or it could be a fabrication. There's nothing
in it that couldn't be created out of common banter in rbr.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Vagina Gorilla" <vagina...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66e73500-1385-4274...@fj8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Anton Berlin
That guy that died on Ventoux = the guy that sang in the Beatles and
that president guy that got shot in Dallas.
Kids are that fucking stupid today.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:137b1c3e-577c-4be1...@29g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
This is someone who, according to the story (er, I mean, interview), has
been around for a while. Should be pretty well schooled in what went down.
When the TdF climbs Ventoux, pictures and stories about Tom Simpson are
*everywhere.*
I agree that kids are that stupid. But not everyone is a "kid" and anyone
aware of the dangers of doping (as the person in the story, er, interview,
claimed to be) would likely be aware of the single most-famous incident of a
cyclist dying from an the effects of doping.
I'm open to arguments otherwise. Persuade me. And try to convince me that
someone really believes a testosterone patch alone, worn too long, was worth
8 minutes.
Anton Berlin
even 30
And even the best racers have their 'fuck it' days when they just
don't want to pedal any harder.
Mike Jacoubowsky
Exactly. Which is why it's ludicrous and misguided for the person
interviewed to say it's due to doping. If that's what he believes, he's lost
the race before starting gun. Which, of course, he has... supposedly this
guy is an also-ran (or, as Martin Mull would have said, his band was known
as "plus opening act.")
Anton Berlin
Your usual defense is "lance is clean" and the fact that one sullied
racer got caught doesn't spoil the whole peloton
But if a guy makes one mis-step in logic - any other knowledge he
offers up is all baseless? Sky isn't blue because you don't know who
Tom Simpson is and 8 minute abs just don't work?
Thus you are concluding that clean lance can only win in a clean
peloton.
Which we all know just isn't true.
Then you must then find the following true - only dirty lance can win
in a dirty peloton and on a dirty sport.
That's the conclusion that most reasonable people have come to. What
stops you?
Mike Jacoubowsky
Anton: I don't believe you will find one reference to me saying "Lance is
clean." Anywhere. Even back on 2000.
What I have said, repeatedly, is that the evidence to prove otherwise hasn't
been shown. Huge difference between the two. I have said, way back in the
day, that it's hard to believe anyone could win the TdF clean. I didn't say
that I suspected Lance was dirty because he won the TdF.
Is Lance "cleaner" than the rest of the pack, or did he just have better
people helping him dope and not get caught? Those are relevant questions
once you've determined for yourself that he's guilty. I'm not there yet. I
remain amazed that there's all this stuff apparently going on and so little
hard evidence, ESPECIALLY when YOU (that means you, Anton, along with many
others) talk about what children and mental midgets many/most of the riders
are. If they're as dumb as you say they are, how are they smart enough to
dope so heavily and not get caught? That's something I can't figure out.
As I've said before, the process of what's going on is an amazing thing to
watch. Much more is learned, and more to entertain yourself by, when you
approach this as an observer, rather than someone who feels everything must
come out a certain way for justice to be done, and you already know just how
that should all be.
I do have access to a couple people who are in a position to know the answer
to "Is Lance clean?"... and would actually tell me. I will not ask, because
I don't want to be in the position of figuring out what to do with the
answer. I don't even want it rattling around in my brain as a secret. I
don't like secrets. I like my life to be as transparent as possible.
Anton Berlin
> I do have access to a couple people who are in a position to know the answer
> to "Is Lance clean?"... and would actually tell me. I will not ask, because
> I don't want to be in the position of figuring out what to do with the
> answer.
With that kind of dissonance you won't have much rattling around in
your head ever.
What do you stand to lose from knowing the truth ? Not just this but
anything?
Mike Jacoubowsky
Not true at all. There are many things that may be troublesome if known, and
yet cause no problems if you don't. Let's just take the Lance example. Let's
say I hear from someone he's absolutely, categorically clean. Someone I
trust. OK, what good does that information do me? Nobody in my peer circles
would believe it, so I lose credibility if I try to tell the world. What if
I'm told he's dirty? OK, in all likelihood it would have been told to me
with the understanding that I'm not allowed to tell anyone else, so I've got
this dirty little secret that causes me to be dishonest in my conversations
with others, or at least withold information, not quite lying but close.
What does that do for me?
Sometimes it's goes beyond simply not wanting to know. There are good
reasons to not have some information.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Dumbass,
Is that a stupid question or have you just not
thought about it?
There are a lot of times when knowing the truth
isn't such a great idea. Our illusions are the only
thing that keeps us from going crazy over how
fucked up the world is.
What do you stand to *gain* from knowing the truth
about whether LANCE doped or not? It's just a
goddamn bike race. If you want to pick some harsh
truth to enlighten America about, I can think of
several that are more important.
Fredmaster Ben
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
Regardless of what Flandis doped with, I thought his biggest advantage
that day was having the team car right there. It was really hot and
when they handed the bottle to him, he got a little push, then he was
able to pour the ice water right over his head, all day long. He was
able to avoid hyperthermia.
Other riders in the pack couldn't do that with the caravan situation
following the main field.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
Damn, that's old.
Anton Berlin
that want to know the truth don't apply truth (knowledge) so
selectively.
It's intellectually dishonest to do that.
Based on this thread alone Mike Jacoubowsky come across as a dishonest
man.
Makes one wonder what else he tells himself and others that is
completely false.
Anton Berlin
I didn't actually see it - I wasn't interested in bike racing at the
time.
Doping had overwhelmed the race since Indurain's 2nd win ( the
reality became apparent to me that doping was the primary component of
victory - although it was probably always this way - always )
Fred Flintstein
> Sure - the human mind is made for fitness - however men of conscience
> that want to know the truth don't apply truth (knowledge) so
> selectively.
>
> It's intellectually dishonest to do that.
Jesus fucking christ.
I've repeatedly dumped on Laff for having OCD. You're
right behind him if you think that people shouldn't
prioritize what they give a shit about.
LANCE was on the hot sauce. Just like all the other
top riders. And all the best footballers. And all the
best athletes in other aerobic sports. And power sports.
Don't get me started about how the Olympics drive doping
in sport.
If you want me to get all cranked up over doping in the
workplace, I have to tell you, the pro cyclist's
workplace is way the hell down my list.
Fred Flintstein
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
I disagree about doping being primary.
It's one of a number of details that need to be taken care of. Don't
take care of any of them and a racer isn't competitive (at the top
level). The guy in the interview basically says the same thing.
Anton Berlin
sounds a little bullshitty.
What I mean is that given great genetics, proper training, nutrition,
rest, a strong team and good tactics - doping ended up being the
primary deciding factor.
That's why they do it - without dope chance, guts, strategy and the
things we originally loved about cycling come into favor.
But the cheats can't trust that - just like the guy in Miller's
Crossing
"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed
fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust? For a good
return, you gotta go bettin' on chance - and then you're back with
anarchy, right back in the jungle"
Anton Berlin
among the men of conscience) it's about why Mike lives with blinders.
Frederick the Great
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
You are naive enough or feverish enough in you
anti-doping stance to believe that Tom Simpson
died from dope; so the kids do not have to be
dragged into it.
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
<725ba42a-dc6c-460a...@w17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 6:14 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I do have access to a couple people who are in a position to know the answer
> > > to "Is Lance clean?"... and would actually tell me. I will not ask, because
> > > I don't want to be in the position of figuring out what to do with the
> > > answer.
> >
> > With that kind of dissonance you won't have much rattling around in
> > your head ever.
> >
> > What do you stand to lose from knowing the truth ? Not just this but
> > anything?
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Is that a stupid question or have you just not
> thought about it?
>
> There are a lot of times when knowing the truth
> isn't such a great idea. Our illusions are the only
> thing that keeps us from going crazy over how
> fucked up the world is.
I disagree that illusions have to come into it. Sometimes
one does not want to know a secret so that if the secret
comes out, then one is not suspected, for an extreme
example. As a less extreme example why would anyone want
to know the details of any chicanery in sports? I am
fully capable of enjoying sporting events knowing that
rules are broken. What acutally concerns me is doping
treated as more than a sporting foul by some. Those
people would be better occupied examining their own lives.
> What do you stand to *gain* from knowing the truth
> about whether LANCE doped or not?
Just so.
> It's just a
> goddamn bike race. If you want to pick some harsh
> truth to enlighten America about, I can think of
> several that are more important.
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
<91cd74ba-d59b-4092...@l22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you know that recently you often reply without quoting any
text in the message to which you reply?
--
Old Fritz
Fred Flintstein
I wouldn't dissuade him from doing that. It looks creepy as hell
so I think it's entirely appropriate given his creepy fixation
with LANCE.
Fred Flintstein
Fred Flintstein
> The debate isn't about whether Lance doped - (that's been established
> among the men of conscience) it's about why Mike lives with blinders.
Dude,
It isn't about Mike, it's about LANCE. If Mike looked like
LANCE's mom it might be about Mike. But he doesn't.
Fred Flintstein
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> By primary I mean deciding when all other factors are equal - but that
> sounds a little bullshitty.
>
> What I mean is that given great genetics, proper training, nutrition,
> rest, a strong team and good tactics - doping ended up being the
> primary deciding factor.
>
> That's why they do it - without dope chance, guts, strategy and the
> things we originally loved about cycling come into favor.
Dumbass -
If you read the interview closely, doping more than everyone else has
a big element of risk to it: that of not beating the test.
Anton Berlin
Disagree - not doping means not playing - that's 100% at risk.
Doping and not getting caught can be also be calculated by the number
of rider days vs tests that give positive results. But it's assuredly
a much smaller percentage, especially when taken individually and not
the group.
We know dopers pass tests and we know good dopers pass almost all
tests. Where's the risk?
Frederick the Great
Fred Flintstein <bob.sc...@sbcremoveglobal.net> wrote:
Thanks. I lost the plot there.
--
Old Fritz