Saturday, September 20, 2008

Absolute control is absolutely the NASCAR way

DOVER, Del. – There are two guiding principles one must always keep in mind when dealing with NASCAR on any significant issue.

Rule No. 1 is that whenever possible NASCAR finds a way for somebody else to pick up the tab.

Any program or initiative where a team, a manufacturer or a sponsor can be cornered into paying the bills has an infinitely better chance of being implemented than one where NASCAR has to write a check.

Rule No. 2 is that NASCAR loves and maniacally defends its control over the sport. It is only slightly less likely to spend its own money than it is to let anything – even a black-and-white rule in its own rulebook – dictate how it handles a given situation.

NASCAR always likes to leave itself wiggle room.

The latter rule is clearly in play in regard to changes to NASCAR’s substance abuse policy announced here Saturday morning.

The new policy goes into effect for the 2009 season. All drivers in the Cup, Nationwide and Truck Series as well as all NASCAR officials will be drug tested before the start of next season. Additionally, team owners must verify that they’ve had all licensed crew members tested by a certified lab before the new season begins.

Drivers, over-the-wall crew members and officials will thereafter be subjected to random testing. At least two drivers, two over-the-wall crew members and two officials will be tested per series per race weekend. So if all three series are running on a given weekend, a minimum of 18 tests will be administered.

The NASCAR policy is that the misuse or abuse of any drug is prohibited. NASCAR’s press release Saturday said, “This means that a violation of the policy can be triggered with the use of any drug or medication if NASCAR believes it has been abused or misused.”

Of course, that also means that NASCAR has the discretion to decide that a positive test for any drug doesn’t necessarily constitute that abuse or misuse.

That’s where the control principle kicks in.

Take the case involving Ron Hornaday that surfaced last week. If Hornaday had tested positive for use of the testosterone cream he obtained, he would have had to tell NASCAR why he was using it. If the medication were on a black-and-white banned list, the circumstances wouldn’t have mattered. But with the discretion allowed, NASCAR would have been able to weigh the situation before ruling.

But shouldn’t there be at least some kind of list of substances that are absolutely banned, no matter the circumstances? There’s no circumstance under which a positive for cocaine or heroin, for instance, should leave any room for discretion. Why not just simply ban them as part of an official policy?

The answer is that NASCAR would rather not face any absolutes, even ones that would appear to be mindlessly obvious. It’s just not how NASCAR likes to operate.

The same thing can be said for the penalty phase. A first offense calls for immediate suspension with “detailed criteria” for consideration of reinstatement. Those criteria, however, are not delineated publicly.

NASCAR can handle each penalty phase on an individual basis. Is that just being smart, or does it give NASCAR the room to play favorites? That’s the kind of skepticism NASCAR is perfectly willing to deal with rather than cede any more control.

The one absolute is that a third offense results in an automatic lifetime ban, and it’s hard for anybody to argue that in a sport as dangerous as this one a “three-strikes” rule is a bad idea.

There is s a lot of good in the new plan. NASCAR will pay for all of the testing except for the preseason crew tests and the testing will be done through an outside agency. Random testing is a lot better than the old “with cause” standard, as long as the randomness of who gets picked for testing is fairly administered.

39 comments:

Monkeesfan said...

It all begs the question NASCAR is determined not to have asked but which it inevitably must answer - at what point does ceding some control of the sport better for the good of the sport? Having controls as tight as they are would not matter if the sanctioning body knew what it was doing - the problem the last ten-plus years is that it isn't clear the sanctioning body knows what it is doing anymore.

Richard in N.C. said...

DAVID- I believe the Hornaday situation demonstrates that flexibility and discretion makes sense. Now when are you wise watchdogs going to criticize ESPN for any of its failings - especially its unprofessional actions in re Hornaday? A great many of you media reps like to criticize NASCAR for everything, but always give a pass to ESPN? Why? If you media reps play favorites, such as with ESPN, what other favorites are you playing in reporting?

matt in socal said...

they play a lot of favorites although David will never admit it, not ever.

the new program rocks compared to the old. i've been involved in a lot of drug testing programs over the year and there has to be some 'wiggle' room in order to deal with reality of life.

David criticizes fans who want things black and white all the time. He just applies different rules to himself.

Anonymous said...

While all you folks are talking about how Poole reads Nascar rules...remember one thing....this is the thoughts of the same moron that wants the fuel truck delivery guys to go to jail for the price of gasoline. Poole is an idiot that writes his opinion and gets folks like us to respond....every response he gets, every call that goes into the morning drive, pumps his popularity, and sadly, his ratings.
He is no different that the Nascar he writes about....

nh_nascarfan said...

David,

Discretion is absolutely important in any substance abuse policy. For example, there are no tests for heroin... just opiates, of which heroin happens to be in that class. Other opiates? Codeine, morphine, percocets.. all which have legitimate medical uses and should be between a person and his/her own physician. Other drugs that show up on a routine drug test are often prescribed to people for medical reasons, to suspend someone for taking cough syrup with a narcotic, for example, is crazy. Each drug test should be looked at on a case by case basis...

Monte in Dutton said...

Why the cheap shot saying that "Any program or initiative where a team, a manufacturer or a sponsor can be cornered into paying the bills has an infinitely better chance of being implemented than one where NASCAR has to write a check."? Not only does this show that David is utterly clueless about some of the inner workings of the sport he covers and bashes all the time, but it's also irrelevant to his story. Any effort at some in-depth reporting would show the exact opposite is the case regarding funding of lots of initiatives. But it's a lot easier to sit in the media center and wait for quote sheets to be handed out than it is to go out and find the truth, especially where NASCAR might be painted in a positive light.

However, as for giving a pass to ESPN, it's hard to criticize David. Truth be told, he can't stand the TV people and regularly complains about how they are supposedly treated better than the print media. He's not giving a pass to ESPN. David used to complain about the radio people too. Then he became one of them.

Monkeesfan said...

Monte in Dutton, then name at least one serious initiative where it was NASCAR, and not someone else, spending the money. I hav never seen any program where NASCAR didn't pass the buck to someone else to spend the money.

As for ESPN, it is simply the worst network covering sports out there. The network's analyses are consistently wrong, the network's coverage is invariably off-turning (from Arena Football to the NFL to racing, ESPN covers nothing right), and the goal of the network is self-aggradizement, not serious sports coverage. ESPN should never get a pass from anyone.

old-guy said...

David, I believe that the two points you bring up show that, as in many other facets of life, a lack of transparency invariably leads to the possibility/probability of abuse behind the scenes. For years we've seen inconsistency in rules enforcement or rules written in pencil.
A case in point is the mid-season's rule changes in the Nationwide and Craftsman series concerning engines. It would not surprise me to see an equivalent change in the Cup arena if Toyota powered cars were to win the next 4 races.

NASCAR actions tend to be reactive rather than proactive which indicates an inability to think things thru before they get out of control.

David, Keep 'em honest.

David Poole said...

For Richard in NC:
Tell me what ESPN reported that was inaccurate in regard to Hornaday? ESPN reported that Ron used a substance that must be obtained from a doctor without actually having seen a doctor. It reported that because his name came up in an investigation into a place in Palm Beach, Fla., that is in trouble for providing the testostertone cream without actually seeing patients. ESPN never said Ron Hornaday wasn't treating a medical condition. It reported his responses and explanations as did the rest of the media. There was nothing unprofessional about that story.

Anonymous -- The comment about everyone involved in gas prices going to jail is called "hyperbole." In order to make the point that the issue is not figuring out who to blame as much as it is getting someone to take responsibility, you make a broad statement that says if nobody wants to take responsbility for it you just deal with everybody. You know, the way most people treat the media -- if you dislike one person then all of the media must be evil.

NH_NASCARfan -- You make an excellent point. Thanks for helping me understand things better. But my concern is that unless you have a ban on some things NASCAR could find a way to let somebody "slide" who's a big star or in some other favored position when it would come down hard on somebody for the same offense.

Monte -- Who's paying for all of the preseason tests for over-the-wall crew guys? The teams. Who's paying for all the R&D on the car of tomorrow? The teams. Who's paying for every bit of diversity work the sport is doing, as small an amount as that is? Sponsors.

Barry in T.O. said...

Admittedly, I'm a little cynical when it comes to NASCAR rules and their application of same but in my opinion the decretion and flexibility is built-in to protect the stars and themselves. NASCAR never wants to be be forced into suspending a star like Junior for 10 races because "rules are rules - no exceptions". Fans would scream and the track owners and TV people wouldn't stand for it.

nh_nascarfan said...

David,

I agree with you that there is always the possibility of NASCAR playing favorites, that seems to be the biggest 'black helicopter' in the sport today. But for each illicit use of a drug, there is also often a legit medical use. Perhaps putting the burden of proof on the driver, in other words, a doctors note. Or better, a doctors note as soon as a medication, especially one that will show up in a drug test, is prescribed.

That way, if Dale Jr is on cough syrup with codeine, they wont be surprised if a random drug tests shows him testing positive for opiates.

Mike Hutton said...

As NH_NASCARFAN claims, testing results should be interpreted on a case-by-case basis, and NASCAR should be made aware of any and all prescriptions for any substance that may or may not show up in a test.

To this end, wouldn't now be an excellent time to also establish a full-time medical staff / safety team in conjunction with the new drug policy? This is one area where the IRL excels.

If a car is involved in an on-track incident, the personnel on-board the responding safety vehicles and at the infield care center have video of the incident as well as each driver's complete medical history since birth available to them almost before the crash is finished happening. CART had it too, thanks to Drs. Olvey and Trammel. Ask Alex Zanardi how well it works.

By having such a medical staff, working in conjuction with the drivers' personal physicians, NASCAR would have available to it any and all information necessary to correctly interpret those results which might be skewed one way or the other by legitimate uses of regulated substances.

Monte in Dutton said...

David - To answer your questions . . . NASCAR is paying for plenty of initiatives. How can you say that the teams are the one paying for the R&D on the COT? You've been to the R&D Center. That's an initiative that's been going on for years and NASCAR's costs are millions and millions of dollars on the COT alone, in addition to everything else they're doing in Concord. The cumulative cost of the additonal staff alone they've hired for the COT is millions. Yes, teams are paying too to gain a competitive edge. But even Jack Roush now admits it's going to save teams money in the long run. You ask who's paying for the diversity intitiative? Yes, technically the sponsors are footing a huge part of the bill, but only because NASCAR itself is foregoing that revenue by directing it to Diversity in the sponsor contracts. Would you rather NASCAR just kept the money themselves? Also, there have been plenty of times in the last decade where NASCAR has willingly passed on an official sponsor and instead worked with race teams to direct that sponsorship to them instead. I know this for a 100% fact. They also have their own people in New York working to help teams with sponsors, instead of having these people work on sponsors that only sign with NASCAR itself. Also, your writings indicate you think NASCAR's commitment to diversity is relatively insiginificant, but did you see the Camping World Series race? Aric Amirola and Marc Davis were 1-2. It's starting to pay off. And yes, I know Aric is part of the Gibbs diversity work, not technically the Drive for Diversity. NASCAR can be bashed legitimately for plenty of things, but it's inaccurate to make such overreaching statements about how they try to get others to pay for everything. It's simply not true.

David Briggs said...

My God!! Do you ever write anything besides inane drivel?? If so, I sure haven't seen it lately.
Why not look into something like France's Brand Sense client Dodge with regards to the new Bud Shootout format?? Hell, he can't penalize you under article 12-4-A.
Or how about BrandSense/Goodyear? Does no one other than me think it was strange that after testing last year at Las Vegas, despite numerous tire failures, (two of which resulted in driver injuries) France renewed Goodyear's contract with Nascar the following week??
You mentioned Nascar's rulebook. Does it even exist? That's a topic you could possibly say something about. As far as I know, no one outside Nascar has ever seen it.

David Briggs said...

By the way, Monte in Dutton, I think you're as full of s@@t as Poole. Diversity huh?? Try Nascar's attempt at improving its' bottom line with a wider viewing audience. What little viewing there is left, anyway. Thanks to France's negotiating that multi-billion dollar deal with FOX/TNT/ESPN, we're now viewing more commercials than we are actual racing.
But then what else would I expect from an obvious Nascar lackey???

Monkeesfan said...

mike hutton, no, because for all the hoopla over Indycar racing's traveling medical and saftey teams, no one has ever made a credible case that the in-house track teams NASCAR employs don't do the same job as well. One area that should be changed is track medical and safety teams should not be "locked out" of the garage area as a Watkins Glen medical worker once told me about. A major reason why drivers aren't as familiar with track medical teams is those people aren't allowed to meet the drivers and get to know them.

monte in dutton - it can in fact be said it is teams paying for the COT becuase it is the truth. NASCAR's R&D center doesn't pay for the testing, building, etc. of those cars; the teams do that.

"Even Jack Roush admits it's going to save teams money in the long run." Based on what? The myth that teams won't have to build Bristol cars-Dover cars-etc.? That's all it is - a myth. The one-size-fits-all premise behind the COT doesn't work.

You mention the Diversity initiative as if there's any need for it - sponsors have paid for it and there's no evidence that it either works or is even relevent to anything. "Did you see the Camping World Series race? It's starting to pay off." Again, so what? What evidence is there that either of those two drivers will ever amount to anything as racers? Because they won what amounts to a Busch East race? And what evidence is there that "divesity" is good for anything to begin with?

Monte, you haven't proven anything here. The fact is NASCAR passes the costs of a lot of things onto others; it doesn't spend its own money to any degree worth taking seriously.

marc said...

Poole - "But shouldn’t there be at least some kind of list of substances that are absolutely banned, no matter the circumstances?"

I agree and within a few short hours after the policy was announced the NYT published two such expert sources that slammed NASCAR for not providing a list of banned substances.


Poole - "There’s no circumstance under which a positive for cocaine or heroin, for instance, should leave any room for discretion. Why not just simply ban them as part of an official policy?"

Excuse me?

Poole, your clueless and know nothing from which you speak.

Poppy seeds, yes poppy seeds, if eating shortly before a urine test can give a false positive.

Additionally, the alcoholic drink from Greece called Ouzo, if the source is from Europe, i.e. produced in the EU vice distilled in the U.S. can also cause false positive test results.

NASCAR has said each test will have two separate sample, if one turns up positive the second will be tested to verify the results.

Frankly this is BS.

The first test if returned positive for any substance (via initial immunoassay screening assuming that's what they are using) should be retested.

Those that come up positive during two screening tests (of the SAME sample)are put through a much more specific gas chromatography/mass spectrometry test. This test can identify specific substances within the urine samples.

And note "same sample" does not mean from two different bottles as NASCAR is apparently attempting to do, it means from the bottle the first test was obtained from.

Reason for that is it's well documented two bottles taken from the same person at the same time can have markedly different results. When first urinating the largest concentration of normal substances, AND illegal substances are expelled in the first few seconds. Those will show up i the first bottle tested, they MAY NOT be present in the second.

I find HARD to believe NASCAR's "experts" didn't outline this to the powers that be.

P.S. Poole, maybe, just maybe next time you decide to opine on a subject such as this.... you get a CLUE.

First!

marc said...

monkees[butt] - "Monte in Dutton, then name at least one serious initiative where it was NASCAR, and not someone else, spending the money. I hav never seen any program where NASCAR didn't pass the buck to someone else to spend the money."

Who paid for the SAFER barriers installed at Darlington that covered the inside retaining walls?

The Tooth Fairy?

marc said...

David Briggs - "What little viewing there is left, anyway. Thanks to France's negotiating that multi-billion dollar deal with FOX/TNT/ESPN, we're now viewing more commercials than we are actual racing."

Ahem... you need to visit the mythbuster and quit spewing that meme.

marc said...

monkees[ass] - "monte in dutton - it can in fact be said it is teams paying for the COT becuase it is the truth. NASCAR's R&D center doesn't pay for the testing, building, etc. of those cars; the teams do that.

Of course teams have had to pat some costs. In fact there's evidence what used to cost less than 9 grand now costs "around $18,000 for a bare frame and rollcage with some sheetmetal."

But in your imfamous "knee-jerk" style you overlook the obvious. (on purpose in all liklihood)

But your assertion begs this question: The Cot was a project that took 7 years from it's inception until now and the teams didn't get their hands on one and had next to zero input other than brainstorming the concept, until 2006.

Just who was it that paid for all that R&D from late 2001 until 2006 if it wasn't NASCAR/ISC monkee[butt]?

Monkeesfan said...

marc,

1 - You know damned well Indianapolis Motor Speedway paid for the SAFER - they're the ones who developed it; NASCAR had nothing to do with it.

2 - The piece on commercial interruption in NASCAR television broadcasts covers just one race, and the data shows that comercial interruption has increased rather markedly. David Briggs is correct; never mind the exaggeration he used in his post. You just want to slam him for no reason, whch is your MO.

3 - There is no overloking of the obious on the COT, marc. The COT propaganda pieces you're citing do not tell the truth of he matter, which is that costs have not dropped at all, the "no more Bristol cars Dover ars etc." myth is exactly that - a myth - and teams built COTs in at the latest 2005 - with no NASCAR financial help. It was teams and manufacturers who aid for the R&D, not NASCAR.

And it all adds up to that you are a liar, marc.

The big picture question for you, marc - why do you insist on defending NASCAR when it is wrong?

marc said...

monkees[ass] - 1 - You know damned well Indianapolis Motor Speedway paid for the SAFER - they're the ones who developed it; NASCAR had nothing to do with it.

Confused (or purposefully disingenuous) I see, where and providing a quote, did I claim NASCAR and or Darlington had anything financially to do with SAFER Barrier development?

The question to you was, as you well know but pointed at a shiny object to deflect attention, "Who paid for the SAFER barriers installed at Darlington that covered the inside retaining walls?" (and just installed this ypring)

Nice try, but even an idiot wouldn't see what you're attempting.

monkees[ass] - "The piece on commercial interruption in NASCAR television broadcasts covers just one race, and the data shows that comercial interruption has increased rather markedly.

Yes they are from one race Daytona but what type of math do you use in coming to that conclusion?

The chart plainly shows from 2000-2002 comm time was in the mid 70% barcket.

For 2007 thru the first part of this year the average was in the HIGH 70% bracket.

Just as anything else you may claim being skilled at you suck at math. (BTW you may, although you won't, look at cawsnjaws.com, the trend contines)

monkees[ass] - "3 - There is no overloking of the obious on the COT, marc. The COT propaganda pieces you're citing do not tell the truth of he matter, which is that costs have not dropped at all, the "no more Bristol cars Dover ars etc."

More shiny objects? Why yes a big one. The so-called "propaganda pieces" I linked to said exactly that cost have increased.

So your problem is? If nothing else this portion of your comment proves one thing, no matter WHAT anyone posts you will take the opposite side, even, as in this case, I agree, and the links shows, costs have increased on the basic construction of the CoT.

In being a nitwit you avoided answering the question didn't you?

So, again, who paid all that cash to develop the CoT between it's first iteration on a NASCAR drawing board in late 2001 and 2006 when all the Cup teams first got their hands on one and when they got what were than alleged to be the final version?

And as usual, when confronted with proof of being disingenuous, (at best) if not downright loony, you toss out your patented "your a liar" BS.

But that's your way, anything and everything that doesn't match your reality, precisely, are called lies or liars.

But cheer up, I understand, really. You crave the attention. Attention you FAIL to get on your own blog that hasn't had a comment posted since 16 June of this year.

Asswipe.

Monkeesfan said...

marc,

1 - You yourself said, "Who paid for the SAFER barriers installed at Darlington, the Tooth Fairy?" in response to my point to Monte in Dutton that he cannot name one item that NASCAR spent the money on instead of passing the costs onto sponsors, teams, etc. Your premise was that NASCAR had some hand in spending money on the SAFER - they had no such stake; they just took something that someone else spent money developing and took credit for putting it in. Your question was disingenuous, not my response.

2 - The Chart showed that commercial interruption increased markedly in the decade, which proved David Briggs' point. You want to pretend that it has not increased and your own data proves you wrong.

3 - You were trying to argue that costs have not increased with the COT and that NASCAR somewhere spent real money developing it. Neither case is true - NASCAR passed the costs onto teams and sponsors; they spent not a dime developing a machine that should never have been developed to begin with (another issue altogether).


Which continues to prove you a liar and a projector, as you project the faults you want to damn me for because I actually understand the real world as opposed to yourself.

marc said...

monlkees[ass] - "Your question was disingenuous, not my response."

Idiot, you kno9w damn well what the question was and what it refered to.

"2 - The Chart showed that commercial interruption increased markedly in the decade

The chart also displayed this:

"At a glance one might think that going from a 79% coverage of a race to a 76% is just proving the naysayer’s point, however I would point out that a 3% change in a broad sense equates to less than 30 seconds of additional commercial time per half hour. More importantly this equates to about a half a lap of 'action missed’ per half hour. That is simply not significant. More importantly over this decade, there is over a 77% average of race coverage for the ‘Great American Race’. This is not bad at all considering this is a FREE broadcast.

30 second per half hour is NOT increased [ing] markedly the number of comms. Don't bother checking the math behind all the posts at cawsandjaws, a foll never looks good when peering in the mirror.

"NASCAR passed the costs onto teams and sponsors; they spent not a dime developing a machine that should never have been developed to begin with (another issue altogether)."

Other than you own thought process, which questionable, got proof?

Proof such as bills of lading that transferred cost to NASCAR teams for ALL development of the CoT.

Are you also making the assertion that race teams are so stupic that they willingly paid for such costs incurred by NASCAR prior to say... 2005?

If so certainly you can point to many news stories stating just that. That's particularity true in Roush's case, he whines about the cost of each bolt and nut, he MUST have been quoted somewhere that confirms your assertion.

BTW, how's that traffic problem on your blog? Anything since mid-June? Or have you logged out, posted a butt load of comments by "anonymous" then point me over there and call me a liar?

Monkeesfan said...

marc, you're still being disingenuous, and your name-caling has long replaced credible argument in your repetoire.

You try to remain in denial that commercial interruion has greatly inceased in television coverage. The fact is that chart proves this point - it is far more than just 30 additional seconds. Instead of lecturing me about checking the math, check it yourself and tell me what ytour eyes tell you - better yet, I'll sae you the trouble; your own eyes tell yoiu hat commercial interrutption has significantly increased. Your eyes tell you that because it's there in front of you and everyone else.

My proof aboutNASCAR passing costs to others is the real history of te sport - you've seen it in all your years covering the sport. Once again, the onus of proof is on you, not me - it is NASCAR passing the costs, not NASCAR spending its own money on something. You saw yourslf it was teams, not NASCAR, paying for developing the COT.

Are you the one so stupid as to think that NASCAR would ever spend its own money on R&D? If you expect the Mainstream Media to cover this issue with reams o quotes, you're a bigger fool than you've aleady proven yourself to be - the MSM never covers the big picture.

That I call you a liar is shown by what you claim in these varied conversations.

Monkeesfan said...

And marc, the bottom line is there is not one realworld example of NASCAR spending its own money on a project - all the examples (the failed COT, the SAFER barrier, safety devices, everyhing) show NASCAR passing the costs onto others or taking credit for something others did for them.

You will claim oterwise until you are blue in the face and you will never be right. Because you are an idiot. You have been an idiot abut racing from Jump Street.

That is the big piture you want to remain in denial about - absolute control is NASCAR's obsession to where it has blinded them to understanding where ceding some control is better for the good of the sport.

speedie32 said...

monkeesfan - "You saw yourslf it was teams, not NASCAR, paying for developing the COT. "

Just a quick question about the development of the COT. Was Nascar suppose to build 43 cars, hire 43 drivers and rent each track for a day and run a complete race so they could do "R&D"?

The last time I drove a race car(1990-94)we went to the track, picked up a set of rules which stated what cars they were racing and the specs on how to build them and we showed up and raced. After halfway through a season, the officials saw an issue with the current cars and we had to change our car to conform with the new rules. This change came about because of on track experience of racing the car. There is nothing better than real time R&D.

Monkeesfan said...

speedie32, no NASCAR was not expected to build 43 cars and "race" them every week for R&D purposes. They were, however, supposed to build cars with their own money and with a greater understanding of what makes better racing than they have shown under the John Darby garage regime.

Fan #5 said...

Marc 0 Monkeesfan 1
------- ------------

said...

A片,A片,成人網站,成人漫畫,色情,情色網,情色,AV,AV女優,成人影城,成人,色情A片,日本AV,免費成人影片,成人影片,SEX,免費A片,A片下載,免費A片下載,做愛,情色A片,色情影片,H漫,A漫,18成人

a片,色情影片,情色電影,a片,色情,情色網,情色,av,av女優,成人影城,成人,色情a片,日本av,免費成人影片,成人影片,情色a片,sex,免費a片,a片下載,免費a片下載

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣

A片,A片,A片下載,做愛,成人電影,.18成人,日本A片,情色小說,情色電影,成人影城,自拍,情色論壇,成人論壇,情色貼圖,情色,免費A片,成人,成人網站,成人圖片,AV女優,成人光碟,色情,色情影片,免費A片下載,SEX,AV,色情網站,本土自拍,性愛,成人影片,情色文學,成人文章,成人圖片區,成人貼圖

情色,AV女優,UT聊天室,聊天室,A片,視訊聊天室

sexy said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,A片,A片,情色,A片,A片,情色,A片,A片,情趣用品,A片,情趣用品,A片,情趣用品,a片,情趣用品

A片,A片,AV女優,色情,成人,做愛,情色,AIO,視訊聊天室,SEX,聊天室,自拍,AV,情色,成人,情色,aio,sex,成人,情色

免費A片,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛

情色文學,色情A片,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,言情小說,愛情小說,AV片,A漫,AVDVD,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,成人交友,成人電影,成人貼圖,成人小說,成人文章,成人圖片區,成人遊戲,愛情公寓,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,成人論壇

免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,色情網站,免費AV,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,成人影片,情色網

A片,A片,A片下載,做愛,成人電影,.18成人,日本A片,情色小說,情色電影,成人影城,自拍,情色論壇,成人論壇,情色貼圖,情色,免費A片,成人,成人網站,成人圖片,AV女優,成人光碟,色情,色情影片,免費A片下載,SEX,AV,色情網站,本土自拍,性愛,成人影片,情色文學,成人文章,成人圖片區,成人貼圖

6508269988 said...

日本av女優免費影片區日本av女優免費影片區日本av女優免費影片區日本av女優免費影片區日本av女優免費影片區av女優神藤美香av女優神藤美香av女優神藤美香av女優神藤美香av女優神藤美香av女優神藤美香av女優神藤美香av女優神藤美香av女優神藤美香av女優神藤美香人氣女優人氣女優人氣女優人氣女優人氣女優人氣女優人氣女優人氣女優人氣女優人氣女優日本女優美女寫真免費欣賞日本女優美女寫真免費欣賞日本女優美女寫真免費欣賞日本女優美女寫真免費欣賞日本女優美女寫真免費欣賞日本女優美女寫真免費欣賞日本女優美女寫真免費欣賞日本女優美女寫真免費欣賞日本女優美女寫真免費欣賞日本女優美女寫真免費欣賞av女優無碼av女優無碼av女優無碼av女優無碼av女優無碼av女優無碼av女優無碼av女優無碼av女優無碼av女優無碼a片女優a片女優a片女優a片女優a片女優a片女優a片女優a片女優a片女優a片女優無碼日本女優短片試看無碼日本女優短片試看無碼日本女優短片試看無碼日本女優短片試看無碼日本女優短片試看無碼日本女優短片試看無碼日本女優短片試看無碼日本女優短片試看無碼日本女優短片試看無碼日本女優短片試看鄰家女優鄰家女優鄰家女優鄰家女優鄰家女優鄰家女優鄰家女優鄰家女優鄰家女優鄰家女優台灣女優台灣女優台灣女優台灣女優台灣女優台灣女優台灣女優台灣女優台灣女優台灣女優無碼女優無碼女優無碼女優無碼女優無碼女優無碼女優無碼女優無碼女優無碼女優無碼女優女優網女優網女優網女優網女優網女優網女優網女優網女優網女優網歐美女優歐美女優歐美女優歐美女優

清朝美女 said...

(法新社倫敦四日電) 英國情色大亨芮孟的公司昨天說,芮孟av日前去avdvd世,享壽八十二歲;這位身價上億的房地產開發商,曾經在倫敦推出第一場脫av女優衣舞情色視訊表演。


芮孟的日本av財產估成人網站計達六億五千萬英鎊(台幣將近成人網站四百億),由於他名情色電影下事業大av多分av女優布在倫敦夜部落格生活情色區蘇活區,因此擁有「蘇活之王」的稱號。

a片
他的公色情影片司「保成人羅芮孟集團」旗下發行多種成人影片成人光碟色雜誌,包括「Raz色情zle」、「av女優男性世成人影片界」以及「Mayfa部落格ir」。


芮孟本av名傑福瑞.安東尼色情.奎恩,父親為a片下載搬運承包部落格商。芮孟十五歲離開學校,矢言要在表演事業留名,情色電影起先表演讀a片心術,a片a片來成為巡迴歌舞雜耍表演的製作人。
成人網站
sex
成人影片許多色情評論家認成人為,他把情色表演帶進主流社會,一九五九年主持破天荒的脫成人電影衣舞表演,後來情色成人電影靠著在蘇活區與倫敦西區開發房地產賺得大筆財富。


有人AV片形容芮孟是a片下載英國的av海夫色情a片納,地位等同美國的「花花公子」創辦人海夫納。

Anonymous said...

KK情色視訊俱樂部KK情色視訊俱樂部KK情色視訊俱樂部KK情色視訊俱樂部KK情色視訊俱樂部KK情色視訊俱樂部視訊交友網 - kk俱樂部視訊交友網 - kk俱樂部視訊交友網 - kk俱樂部視訊交友網 - kk俱樂部視訊交友網 - kk俱樂部視訊交友網 - kk俱樂部視訊交友網 - kk俱樂部視訊交友網 - kk俱樂部視訊交友網 - kk俱樂部視訊交友網 - kk俱樂部美女視訊-成人聊天美女視訊-成人聊天美女視訊-成人聊天美女視訊-成人聊天美女視訊-成人聊天美女視訊-成人聊天美女視訊-成人聊天美女視訊-成人聊天美女視訊-成人聊天美女視訊-成人聊天AV女優-免費a片AV女優-免費a片AV女優-免費a片AV女優-免費a片AV女優-免費a片AV女優-免費a片AV女優-免費a片AV女優-免費a片AV女優-免費a片AV女優-免費a片影音視訊聊天室影音視訊聊天室影音視訊聊天室影音視訊聊天室影音視訊聊天室影音視訊聊天室影音視訊聊天室影音視訊聊天室影音視訊聊天室影音視訊聊天室AV視訊美女AV視訊美女AV視訊美女AV視訊美女AV視訊美女AV視訊美女AV視訊美女AV視訊美女AV視訊美女AV視訊美女ut免費視訊聊天室aa片免費看微風論壇080哈啦聊天室6k聊天室成人聊天室上班族捷克論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室520視訊聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族 a片a片影片免費情色影片免費a片觀看小弟第貼影片區免費av影片免費h影片試看 H漫 - 卡通美女短片小魔女貼影片免費影片觀賞無碼a片網美女pc交友相簿美女交友-哈啦聊天室中文a片線上試看免費電影下載區免費試看a短片免費卡通aa片觀看女優影片無碼直播免費性感a片試看日本AV女優影音娛樂網日本av女優無碼dvd辣妹視訊 - 免費聊天室美女交友視訊聊天室080免費視訊聊天室尋夢園聊天室080苗栗人聊天室a片下載日本免費視訊美女免費視訊聊天中文搜性網後宮電影院 - 免費a片a片下載情色A片下載gogo2sex免費成人影片xvediox 免費a片影片 go2av免費影片伊莉討論區 sex520免費影片gogobox下載論壇ggyy8在線漫畫GO2AV免費影城

元美女 said...

(法新社a倫敦二B十WE四日電) 「情色二零零七」情趣產品大產自二十三日起在倫敦的成人網站肯辛頓奧林匹亞展覽館舉行,倫敦人擺脫對成人網站性的保守態度踴躍參觀,許多穿皮衣與塑膠緊身衣的好色之徒擠進這項世界規a片模最大的成人生活A片下載展,估計三天展期可吸引八萬多好奇民眾參觀。

活動計畫負責人米里根承諾:「要搞浪漫、誘惑人、玩虐待,你渴望的色情我們都有。」

他說:「時髦的設計與華麗女裝,從吊飾到束腹到真人大小的雕塑,是我們由今年展出的數千件情色產品精選出的一部分,參展產品還包括時尚服飾、貼身女用內在美、鞋子、珠寶、色情影片玩具、影片、藝術、圖書及遊戲,更不要說性成人電影av女優輔具及馬術裝備。」

參觀民眾遊覽a片兩百五十多個情色電影攤位情色電影,有性感服裝、玩具及情色食品,迎合各種品味。

大舞台上表演的是AV女優美國野蠻搖滾歌手瑪莉蓮曼情色森的前A片妻─全世界頭牌脫衣舞孃黛塔范提思,這是她今年在英國唯一一場表演。

以一九a片下載四零年代風格成人電影演出的黛塔色情范提思表演性感的天堂鳥、旋轉木馬及羽扇等舞蹈。

參展攤位有的av推廣情趣用品,有的AV成人影片開展示人成人影片體藝術和人體雕塑,也有情色藝術家工會成員提供建議。

BloggerBoy said...

成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,h漫,成人電影,成人電影,色情,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人影片,色情,免費A片,微風成人,情色,成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,h漫,色情,成人電影,色情,成人電影,色情,成人影片,免費A片,成人影片,免費A片,情色,微風成人,成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,h漫,成人電影,成人電影,色情,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人影片,色情,免費A片,





微風成人,情色,成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,h漫,色情,成人電影,色情,成人電影,色情,成人影片,免費A片,成人影片,免費A片,情色,微風成人,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,打卡鐘,跳蛋,持久液,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,色情網站,色情網站,色情網站,色情網站,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,色情,色情,色情,色情,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,sex,sex,sex,sex,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,av女優,a片,a片,a片,a片,成人網站,







成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,色情,色情,色情,色情,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,sex,sex,sex,sex,情色,情色,情色,情色,黃金回收,黃金回收,黃金回收,黃金回收,借錢,借錢,借錢,借錢,植牙,植牙,植牙,牙醫,牙醫,牙醫,a片,a片,a片,a片,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,成人影片,



成人影片

,成人影片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,色情,色情,色情,色情,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,sex,sex,sex,sex,情色,情色,情色,情色,黃金,黃金,黃金,黃金,黃金價格,黃金價格,黃金價格,黃金價格,黃金買賣,黃金買賣,黃金買賣,黃金買賣,當舖,當舖,當舖,當舖,鑽石價格,鑽石價格,鑽石價格,鑽石價格,鑽石回收,鑽石回收,鑽石回收,鑽石回收,鑽石買賣,鑽石買賣,鑽石買賣,鑽石買賣,黃金存摺,黃金存摺,黃金存摺,







黃金存摺,辣妹視訊,辣妹視訊,辣妹視訊,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,080視訊聊天室,080視訊聊天室,080視訊聊天室,美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,情色視訊,情色視訊,情色視訊,情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,哈啦聊天室,哈啦聊天室,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,ut聊天室,ut聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室,打卡鐘,火鍋吃到飽,創業加盟,賺錢,吃到飽麻辣鍋成人網站,成人影片,av女優,h漫,成人網站,成人電影,a片,色情,成人影片,色情,成人電影,色情,h漫,成人影片,成人電影,免費A片,色情,成人電影,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人網站,免費A片,成人網站,色情,a片,成人影片,情色,免費A片,微風成人,情色,成人影片,微風成人,av女優

Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社,

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,

Anonymous said...

看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,燒肉,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,关键词排名,网络营销,網路行銷,關鍵字排名,关键词排名,网络营销,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告

住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林

贝贝 said...

Microsoft Office is so great!
Office 2010 –save your time and save your money.
The invention of Microsoft Office 2010 is a big change of the world.
Office 2007 is so powerful.
Microsoft Office 2007 is my love!
Office 2010 key is for you now!
Office 2010 download is available now!
Microsoft outlook 2010 is convenient!
Outlook 2010 is powerfull.