Posted by: nestaquin | August 25, 2008

Trescothick: We Cheated!

The worst kept secret in international cricket has finally been admitted by mentally ill former English opening batsman Marcus Trescothick: England cheated to narrowly win the 2005 Ashes series.

In his new tome, Trescothick writes that he was in charge of a conspiracy to use mints to manufacture the shine on the ball to increase the efficiency and longevity of the deadly reverse-swing that rattled the Australian middle-order. No wonder McGrath and co. could not replicate the late swing that Flintoff and Jones regularly produced in the same conditions. The Australians played within the rules. The English did not.

Fletcher and Vaughan encouraged the ball tampering and Trescothick admits in his book that he even experimented before the series began until he found the right brand of mint. He also writes that the English team tried using sugary sweets to create a false shine during the 2001 Ashes series. Logic suggests that in the years between the English tampered with the ball against every opponent at home.

To put this incident in perspective for our loyal English readers I offer an analogy. Maradona’s hand of god goal was a spur of the moment decision. The English fraud was planned and executed by the coach, the captain and his deputy over many years, many matches and hundreds of net sessions.

During the 2005 Ashes the Australians raised this exact allegation and were howled down by the English management, captain and press. So, not only are the English premeditated cheats but bald-faced liars as well.

We will learn plenty about the character of the English public and cricket as this information is digested and understood. A team that won by illegal deception were awarded MBE’s and were cheered and lauded throughout the nation. I imagine our shared Monarch will not be amused when she learns of this deception.

There is already a campaign to flood her mailbox with letters demanding that the cheats return their medals and be publicly humiliated for denigrating the humble game of cricket and the reputation of Great Britain.

According to my source at Cricket Australia, the ECB have few friends at the ICC and unless punitive action is taken they will lose their most loyal and powerful ally, Australia. He also informs that discussions are taking place this afternoon with the Asian bloc to consider what action needs to be taken to against the perpertrators. Troy Cooley, much better at keeping a secret than Trescothick, will be interviewed and I suspect that his testimony will not be flattering.

We now know that the so-called Fletcher years were a farce. Vaughan’s captaincy is also under the microscope. Fortunately for England their new skipper, a rookie in 2005, was not part of the ongoing conspiracy. But then again, he was raised in a different continent with different attitudes to what is sporting and what is not. So there is hope that England will play within the spirit of the game in the years to come.

India, Pakistan and Australia will not allow Trescothick’s whistle-blowing to be swept under the carpet. They expect justice and the ECB would be foolish to deny them their due. Personally, this long suspected cheating only makes last year’s 5-0 humiliation even more satisfying.

The men in Baggygreen now have an added motivation to repeat the shellacking in 2009 and there is no doubt that English cricket will be scrutinised to a level never before seen in cricketing circles. It may even motivate Shane Warne to reconsider retirement.

Shame on you England. You are a disgrace to the grand game that your forebears invented. The rest of the cricketing family are aggrieved and this will not be forgotten or forgiven easily.


  1. I remember the accusations that were made in the English media about the Pakistanis being cheats when reverse-swing first made its appearance thanks to Waqar and Wasim. The current silence in the English media is, as they say, eloquent.

    Given that Rahul Dravid was punished for exactly the same offence – against Zimbabwe at that in 2004 – with the match referee Clive Lloyd more-or-less claiming that Dravid was a cheat perhaps others can understand why Indians/Pakistanis seem to suffer from a constant “persecution complex.” Anyway, it should be fun watching this unfold from the sidelines.

  2. I rather thought everyone knew this? The first thing to do to gain reverse swing is maximise saliva of one side of the ball, whilst keeping the other side dry. Troy was the man directing the magic.

    Dravid was punished for rubbing the sweet directly on the ball, as Atherton was for rubbing the dirt directly on the ball.

    Umpires inspect the ball after each over.

    Didn’t Big Merv used to lick the thing?

    I’m all for bowlers being able to affect the ball as much as they like so long as it remains in playable condition in the eyes of the umpires. I’d stop them taking bottle tops to it, but allow them to spit on it, bash it on the ground, stand on it whatever. But I wouldn’t allow them to change it on demand as seems to happen too frequently these days.

  3. Cheating as a team is a risky business.

    Especially when that team contains someone so deranged and financially desperate that he ends up telling all (and then some) in an autobiography.

  4. I have no problems at all with what the English did. I’d be disappointed if Australians weren’t trying to do the same.

    Just as long as they don’t get caught.

  5. Here’s the law from,68,AR.html.

    3. The match ball – changing its condition
    (a) Any fielder may
    (i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time.
    (ii) remove mud from the ball under the supervision of the umpire.
    (iii) dry a wet ball on a towel.

    (b) It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any reason, interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the ball, use any implement, or take any other action whatsoever which is likely to alter the condition of the ball, except as permitted in (a) above.

    (c) The umpires shall make frequent and irregular inspections of the ball.

    So the question is whether under 3(a)(i) saliva post sweet sucking is an artificial substance. I’d say that it isn’t. Moreover, it would be impossible to police and turn to farce.

    It’s sharp practice for sure, but everyone knows that it’s allowed so it’s open to all.

    Nesta – My thoughts on Tresco post to a discussion group last week. I’m no apologist for him!

    I’ve just read The Spin and learned that Tresco’s autobiog is being serialised in the News of the World.

    I’m a bit ill at ease with this. I don’t mind players writing autobiogs nor selling them to the highest bidder, but it’s safe to say that the NotW won’t be bidding for Tim Robinson’s “My Story”. So the selling point is the illness (as is clear in the focus of the first extract).

    So for many months (years?) of his illness, Tresco held on to his central contract though not available for selection and deprived another the opportunties it affords. Now he has touted his account of the illness to the highest bidder, presumably keeping the cash for himself and ghost (although I’m not certain of this). Moreover, a highest bidder whose attitude (along with its sister The Sun) to mental illness is one notch above the voyuers at Bedlam.

    At each point of this criticism, I guess it’s possible to point out that Tresco has done nothing wrong, but that’s not the same as doing something right.

    It’s also Tresco’s benefit year which he is sharing with a Children’s Hospice. The website here,,11333,00.html makes mention of collections of £567 and £679 in favour of the hospice. I never quibble about people giving to charity and I’m sure the final amount donated will be more, but I bet it’s nowhere near the value of a benefit’s tax-free status.

    If he donated his serialisation rights to a mental illness charity, I suggest that might be more fitting.

  6. I am no expert at this but law 3(ii) seems ambiguous. How exactly does it apply to the case of mints/sweets? Here, the mint/sweet gets mixed up with the saliva and it is the resulting saliva/mint mixture that is being applied. Is this within the ambit of law 3(ii) or not? One can take both positions here. Technically, I guess one can say it is the saliva that is being applied but clearly it is the mint/sweet component of the mixture that is responsible for changing the condition of the ball.

    With regard to Dravid, his position was that he had been chewing the sweet just prior to rubbing the ball with his saliva and that the sweet accidentally came out and that he did not realise it till he looked at the ball. One can believe him or not. Even if one believes him, he can still be punished for technically contravening the laws of the game. Clive Lloyd, for the record, clearly stated the TV footage showed that Dravid was *deliberately* rubbing the ball with the sweet. I am not sure how Clive Lloyd inferred Dravid’s intent from the footage, but let’s leave it at that. No point in turning this into another subontinental v. others slanging match and in retrospect, I am sorry I brought this incident up.

  7. Oops, sorry. I meant law 3(i), of course.

  8. Suresh – I wouldn’t castigate Dravid. He was careless rather than mendacious.

    Reverse swing is a real skill to produce and control and to play. It, unlike the elbow-driven doosra (not Mendis’ doosra) seems entirely within the rules and I congratulate the brilliance of Sarfraz, Imran and other pioneers of the technique. It is the perfect antidote to people who complain about flat pitches. I’d like to see more reverse swing in the game.

  9. Toots, I can’t see how you could possibly think that the mint sugary bit of the saliva and mint sugar mixture counts doesn’t violate the “no artificial substances” part of the law.

    It may be unenforceable, and in my opinion it should be encouraged, but it’s clearly against the letter and spirit of the law.

  10. The problem here isnt the cheating, it’s in getting a mentally fragile man to be the head of the cheating.

  11. Dave – It’s definitely against the spirit and possibly against the letter of the law (although surely saliva always has some element of the recently ingested in its composition) but isn’t it more the law in action than the law in books? Everyone knows it happens and everyone gets on with it.

    The jelly bean episode last year was a bad joke, but it got the level of concern about right. The law in action allows it – no players seem ever to have complained because they know that they’re next.

    It’s unedifying, but not much more than that – and I’d say the same if we were on the receiving end as we were vs Zaheer Khan and RP Singh last year. (It’s also my view re Bodyline and the hammering England got from the Windies quicks. Bouncer fair: Beamer unfair. Saliva fair: rubbing hair gel on ball unfair).

  12. Toots, I commend you on your attempt to protect the guilty but your arguments are as sound as your government’s reasons for invading Iraq and publicly murdering it’s president.

    The English team cheated. They know it and now thanks to the honesty/guilt/greed of Marcus Trescothick the rest of the world knows too.

    Fletcher, Vaughan and co. not only duped the Aussies but the entire British nation as well. Don’t you feel cheated?

    You awarded the miscreants medals and gave them a parade. You probably felt pride and happiness at the time but it was based on a complete deception. Are you comfortable with that?

    If an Australian team in the exact circumstances did the same I’m confident that there would be a lynching. Metaphorically, of course.

    Cooley’s head is already on the executioner’s block. Not for inventing the deception, it was in place when he arrived, but for being an accomplice. I don’t expect to see him in Darwin next week.

    In some countries, notably India and Australia, cricket is seen as way to develop the character of young men. To teach them about life, fair competition and respect. It stands above all sports because of its history, tradition and spirit.

    What does this most celebrated of series teach the youth of England? That cheats prosper? That winning is all that counts no matter the consequences? That cricket is no different from cycling, swimming, athletics and baseball where illegally gaining an advantage is commonplace?

    The English 2005 Ashes team’s reputation has plummeted from greatness to despicable in light of Marcus’ confession. It says reams about the rest of the squad that the bloke who suffers from a mental illness has more moral courage than the rest of them combined.

    This will not be forgotten quickly and there are many cricketers and supporters the world over who are appalled at the behaviour of the men who wear the three lions on their chest. It goes past the sweet, it is the premeditated conspiratorial nature of the crime and damage that it does to cricket in general.

    And there is an easy way to stop this form of ball tampering. No food of any type is allowed on the field. I expect that rule to be in place after the next ICC rules committee meeting.

  13. Well put, Nestaquin.

    Tooting Trumpet and David Barry: Why is this an impossible law to enforce? Compared to say throwing? If the latter is worth trying to do, surely the former can be managed.

    Just don’t allow anyone to chew anything while on the field of play.

    Are you scared that the the chewing gum industry will sue the ICC or something?

  14. Nesta – I don’t feel let down at all.

    Here’s Selvey 13 months before The Ashes – Everyone knew about the sweets and was assumed to be doing the same if they so wished. This is from two years ago but covers similar ground –

    I’d be amazed if there was any action taken against anyone. The more reverse swing, the better – cricket needs the balance it brings between bat and ball.

  15. There’s a case for stopping them chewing anything during play, but how about the drinks interval? And will umpires inspect mouths for mints under tongues after lunch and tea?

    We could stop sledging too by keeping players silent during play.

    In neither instance is the offence worth the draconian measures required to enforce it.

  16. I can’t seem to post the link, but this is Selvey from June 2004.

    “Not long afterwards a Middlesex player (not a bowler: fielders were less obtrusive when it came to cheating) was warned once, not so much for using the stuff as being too obvious; the ball, said the umpire, stank of peppermint. If you are going to do it, please use the unflavoured variety, there’s a good lad.

    The same might apply to the current trend for confectionery, now that lipsalve is on the banned list. Experimentation has found benefit in the saliva generated from sucking boiled sweets, a generous supply of which once fell from the pocket of a diving Marcus Trescothick, much to his embarrassment. The authorities, probably acting on behalf of dental health, have been clamping down for a while, though, and it is not the same.

    In January the Indian batsman Rahul Dravid, playing for India against Zimbabwe, was fined half his match fee for “altering the condition of the ball in breach of Law 42.3″. Imagine – a thousand quid for chewing a Fisherman’s Friend. Not on, really, is it?”

    That’s pretty much the view in the UK today too.

  17. Toots, the spam filter wasn’t allowing your posts but held them for moderation. I have no idea why, the settings haven’t changed. My only guess is that perhaps it filters denial and bullshit too.

  18. Nesta – Thanks for the reply. I thought it was this end.

    Denial and bullshit? Not from me. I think it falls into that grey area occupied by a few issues in cricket – sledging for example. If sugary saliva on the ball is banned, then I’d expect all players to abide. It appears that many (including me) find the law less than clear about this, so until it is clarified, I shan’t condemn any players doing so. I understand why you and others think differently.

    The parallel for me is the Tour de France in 1989. In the final stage time-trial, Greg Lemond used the tri-bar extensions which weren’t banned then but weren’t exactly allowed either and won the Tour by 8 seconds. Everyone salutes Lemond’s imagination in such a coup. Once banned (or rather regulated), nobody would expect Lemond to use them again and he didn’t.

  19. You are right nestaquin. in many ways. The English cheated. I thought Mr Tooting was a wise and fair man but now I see he is like so many English stupid people. What he says is the Australian should have cheated to and its not the English fault that they didn’t. Why then did the English lie in tampering the ball when questioned about it by Nathn Bracken. I do not understand what sledging has to do with ball tampering or why players cannot have drink only at drinks break. I am sad for cricket. I thought England in 2005 were the best but now I see that they are corrupt. Mr nesta you keep writing about your love of cricket and the way it should be played. every Englishman should be ashamed but they are not. They are disgrace and don’t you worry Mr nestaquin justice will be true.

  20. Ravi – Thank you for the time you have taken to consider my words. I feel that we disagree on grey areas in the law.

    Here’s another attempt at an analogy.

    A sign says, “No vehicles in the Park”

    A car is obviously barred, but why?

    Is it its wheels? No, because that would ban a child’s push chair.

    Is it its engine? No, because that would ban a motorised wheelchair.

    Is it the fact that it conveys a person? No, that would ban both.

    And is a skateboard a vehicle? In-line skates? A bicycle? The loaw alone is quickly useless and we rely (in English Law) on case precedent, tacit understanding and that dangerous thing, common sense.

    No tampering with the ball is a bit like this. I am to accept saliva as not ball tampering as nobody would consider saliva as artificial. It seems, this much is known amongst cricketers. I’m not prepared to accept penknives or bottle tops – this also appears to be known amongst cricketers. Sugary saliva could be either artificial or not (in my example above, akin to a skateboard, either a vehicle or not).

    You and Nesta are on one side of that argument, I am on the other. Cricket, like life, is seldom straightforward.

  21. I am English and an ex-umpire and it is not within the laws of the game to use sweets or any other substance to shine the ball. It doesn’t matter if it is in your mouth, hand, armpit or arse. It is not within the spirit of the game and is blatant cheating.

    It is so common in England that few question it. But that does not make it right. Almost all teams at all levels do it and hopefully Tresco’s admission will force the ECB to act.

    The Tooting Trumpet’s argument is ridiculous and evasive. All he has done is embarrass the country further and show the utter boorishness that is a staple in all forms of sport in Britain.

    I am very disappointed that The Ashes were won on an unlevel playing field and I applaud Tresco’s stance on the matter. He will be bullied and targeted by the media and public for his honesty and I can’t help to think that his problems may have been caused by the pressure of knowing he did the wrong thing.

    This is one of the best cricket blogs Ive seen and it was very interesting to read the Australian view on Tresco’s comments.

    Johnson Talty

  22. Tooting:

    We agree that it’s, as you put it, “sharp practice.” And you seem to have backed off the claim that it’d be hard to enforce, drinks breaks being precisely that after all.

    But why are we left with the vagaries of common sense about sugary saliva?

    Tresco was embarrassed about sweets falling out of his pocket and, much more importantly, Dravid was fined for applying a sweet directly onto a ball.

    Where’s the confusion about whether it’s illegal or not? Because you would have us understand that rolling a sweet around one’s mouth and then applying the resulting saliva is different from rolling a sweet around one’s mouth and applying the sweet itself to a ball? This is ridiculous on many different levels.

    Consistency with the Dravid fine demands that we treat Tresco and company as cheats. As for consistency with the Pakistan-England Test match result change…eek!

    Like you I’m all for reverse swing, but the way to allow sweets is to explicitly make something legal that is currently illegal.

  23. Dcsiva and others.

    It is my great honour to write from time to time for this site because in so doing my writing sits with Nesta’s and with the commenters who come here to spend time reading and writing thoughts of their own I am humbled that so many, led by Nesta, care so deeply about this great game and think so hard about the issues it raises.

    I have followed this debate with great interest, understanding the feelings Tresco’s confession has animated, particularly from the perspective of those wronged in 2005 or those feeling that as admirable a cricketer as Rahul Dravid was castigated for the same offence.

    On my first day as a law student, I was told, as students still are today, that hard cases make bad law. Notwithstanding the arguments put against my point of view here (and I concede that I was too bullish in simplifying the matter in earlier posts) I am still minded to consider the sweets – saliva – ball issue as a hard case. It would be a bad law that purported to outlaw sugary saliva, but not plain saliva and a bad law that attempted to outlaw any saliva.

    That’s as far as I can take my argument – as I say, I feel it is sharp practice, but so is bowling bouncers at tail-enders, running the first two steps down the middle of the wicket for a quick single in the third innings of a Test, appealing when you know the ball was not edged or for LBW when it was edged and countless other matters that are not exactly right, but not quite wrong enough to start bringing in new laws or extending the application or old laws.

    Ravi thinks me stupid and Johnson Talty boorish. That is their right – I would prefer “mistaken” and “forthright”, but if I put my head above the parapet, I can’t complain at getting shot at from time to time.

  24. Penultimate para should read “application of old laws” – sorry.

  25. This covers a variety of views, including some support for mine –

  26. Good post Nesta

  27. I’ll be there in Cardiff dude with a banner that reads:

    Nesatquin says poms cheat!

    But true lying cheating bastards

  28. Hey Tooting,

    Thanks for your comments. For what it’s worth, I’ve found them to be reasoned and reasonable. I just think they’re wrong, that’s all. :)

  29. Have to agree that Tootings comments are well argued and reasonable, particularly given some of the insulting nature of the responses. “Stupid?” – he appears far from it.

    My favourite response is slightly off topic but the reference from Nestaquin to the British government and Iraq made me chuckle – while I acknowledge that Australia’s contribution to Iraq has been minimal given the small size of its armed forces, let’s not pretend Australia weren’t part of the “coalition of the willing” – John Howard positively revelled in Australia’s role and constantly talked it up in the media here in Australia!

    Back to “mintgate” though, it does appear to be a gray area and something that the ICC should look into when they have the time – as Katich mentioned in the press this morning, the ICC have far more pressing issues to worry about.

    If they come out and rule against the eating of mints on the pitch, the difficulty comes in terms of policing it. There’s also the question of whether it actually works – England won the 2005 Ashes because of reverse swing. The question that people should be asking is how England managed to rough the other side of the ball up so effectively, not how they managed to keep the shine.

    And lastly Nestaquin, don’t think you can get away with the comment about “Indian and Australia and respect for the game”. The Waugh/Ponting era has seen Australia at the forefront of sledging and the art of mental disintegration of opposition batsmen- again “illegal” on any literal/strict interpretation of the laws of the game. Furthermore, wasn’t an Indian bowler recently banned for physically attacking a fellow player during the 20/20?

    However you’ll see things as you want to see them and that’s fine, just try and calm down on the tub thumping histrionics.

  30. Let us not forget the bigger picture here. Reverse swing is awesome.

    I’m genuinely surprised by reaction from Australian blog/media people. I take a very hard-nosed approach to the game, and it’s usually a good approximation to say that so do most Australian cricket followers. Scuffing up the pitch, running between fielder and stumps, sledging, the slip fielder flicking his fingers as the ball passes the bat, using a sunscreen/sweat mixture to rub into the ball, all these are just part of the game.

    Of course there’s a line to be drawn somewhere, and it varies between people – I’ve never been happy with Australia’s intimidation of umpires, for instance – but I thought that as a nation of cricket players we had no problems with subtle ball tampering.

    I seem to have badly misread the nation’s cricket morals.

    To hell with them. Bring on the reverse swing.

  31. We don’t usually allow personal insults on this blog but I gave Ravi a pass because his English vocabulary appears slight.

    Regarding the Iraq analogy the omission of dozens of other countries that blindly followed is beside the point. If I remember it correctly, and I must admit I have little interest in conflict, the British government cravenly created a document for Colin Powell to use as evidence at the UN.

    That argument like much of the ball-tampering appeasement doesn’t stand up to intense critical scrutiny.

    Australian cricketers wrote their own Spirit of Cricket document and lobbied the ICC to have it accepted worldwide. Alot of resources have gone into promoting it throughout the continent especially at the junior levels. The Milo cricket program for 6 -12 year olds not only teaches fielding, batting and bowling but also has an emphasis on the Spirit of Cricket.

    There is a difference between sledging and abuse and it seems few outside the southern hemisphere understand the concept. Not unlike ball-tampering in English cricket, sledging (not abuse) is common on every sporting ground, pool or court in Australia.

    In my view it makes the contest more intense and it definitely doesn’t make the ball misbehave. I’ve also found that the best sledgers are the funniest and that makes standing under a hot sun chasing leather more enjoyable.

    On-field banter is so entrenched within Australian sport that when the Manly Cricket Club of Sydney decreed that their players would not partake in sledging they won the competition as most opponents found the silence uncomfortable and disturbing. The Kiwis used the same tactic at Test level against the Australians with some success.

    If, as some suggest, certain types of ball-tampering was allowed, Cricket Australia would most likely employ food technologists to create a lozenge that not only tasted sweet but when mixed with saliva gave maximum shine to the ball. They’d be negligent not to and I doubt they’d be available to the public or any other cricketing nation.

    Despite all the analogy, twisted argument and finger-pointing, the fact remains that Trescothick admits to cheating even stating that he was worried he may be exposed when he spilled his lollies. What more is there to say, his confession says it all.

  32. Something is so rotten in the state of cricket in England. Harmison’s ‘homesickness’, Trescothick’s antics and subsequent collapse, Flintoff’s drunkeness, Fletcher’s beheading, and more… and suddenly, once Vaughan departs, all matters reverse…??? a cluster of incidents that are remarkable , mints are but a small part of the greater shambles.

    But hey ho… onwards and ever onwards, as Merv so rightly states. Character will out. No doubt, Vaughan will be penning a long tome of slipperiness to while away the hours.

  33. Lol Pepp,

    where have you been?

  34. Having sat through a selection of Ashes tests from the 70s on ESPN Classic recently, it’s noticeable that the wearers of the baggy green have always struggled to play swing. Poor Dougie Walters was reduced to a walking wicket and the likes of the Chappells tended to bat well only when the sun shone.

    Not sure if polos were the cause of the seventies decline or not but Ray Illingworth was partial to a Fisherman’s Friend now and again.

  35. I’ve no desire to open the debate again, but Sambit Bal makes some of my points above here

  36. Ran into an influential coat-holder at the hospital today (Don’t worry folks I am well) and I discovered that a decision was made to allow this incident, publicly at least, to die a natural death.

    There were a number of reasons but the primary one was that Australian cricket did not want to be defacto promoters for Trescothick’s book.

    Winning the last series 5-0 has made this decision all the more easy but I was assured that clarification and hopefully an agreement can be found between the respective captains and administrators before the next Ashes so that the series can be played in the appropriate manner and spirit without any questionable shenanigans from either side.

  37. I’m all for not promoting Tresco’s book, as it’s a shabby affair, and for an understanding between the captains / administrators about how the Tests will be played.

    I’m pretty sure KP will stand for no nonsense and Punter or Pup will be fine too. Flintoff and Lee should act as senior pros to stop any potential problems escalating as far as the captains – they are decent blokes and mates.

  38. A scandal aimed at garnering publicity for his book.

  39. On Trescothick’s book – I’ve read sections of it that have been serialised in some British newspapers. I was impressed with the depth of discussion towards the illness that ended his international career.
    I think it’s a really interesting read:
    I think this might be worthy of a separate post by Nesta.

  40. Actually, I think the claims in the book relate to the 2001 series, rather than 2005.

  41. Welcome to 99.94 APW.

    Unfortunately, if the words of the mentally ill can be believed, the tawdry ball-tampering began in 2001 and continued unabated up to and beyond 2005.

  42. bump

  43. Time we all moved on…

  44. Well this hasn’t aged well from an Aussie haha, wonder if the feelings the same about Smith last year or if we’re happy to just forget about that one?

Leave a Reply to David Lee Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: