Wells Investigation and the Independence Thereof

Hendu for Kutch · Jun 18, 2015

You could add to #3:

- League didn't want to look stupid for not knowing balls deflate in cold conditions

I mean, in my mind that's the biggest piece that goes underdiscussed. The intercepted ball was measured and came up exactly where it should have been, yet that's what triggered the act of measuring all the other balls, which begat the investigation, which begat the media leaks, which begat the Wells Report, etc.

The whole thing doesn't happen if there's a basic understanding of cold-weather deflation prior to all of this happening, but clearly there wasn't.

ifmanis5 · Jun 18, 2015

Hendu for Kutch said:
You could add to #3:

- League didn't want to look stupid for not knowing balls deflate in cold conditions

I mean, in my mind that's the biggest piece that goes underdiscussed. The intercepted ball was measured and came up exactly where it should have been, yet that's what triggered the act of measuring all the other balls, which begat the investigation, which begat the media leaks, which begat the Wells Report, etc.

The whole thing doesn't happen if there's a basic understanding of cold-weather deflation prior to all of this happening, but clearly there wasn't.

Agreed and also the people assigned to 'catch them in the act' had already jumped to the conclusion of 'cheating' before thinking through other logical explanations. The league basically acted like fans. The Wells report reads as the same. Whether that report was a total cover up or just plain incompetence, I don't know. We do know that the report's data and conclusions make no sense.

snowmanny · Jun 18, 2015

I think the directive to Wells was very limited. Wells was basically asked if the Patriots tampered with the balls. They didn't look into the overall picture of the possible sting, or what the officials did, or whether balls routinely lose psi in cold weather, or whether lower psi is actually a competitive advantage.

They found out that the Brady likes the footballs to be adjusted to a low psi (which everybody already knew) and used bad science and made wrong assumptions (due to a combination of laziness, sloppiness, and a predetermined belief in the outcome) to come up with the half-assed conclusion that there was probably something that happened that broke some rule somewhere.

I think the directive led to the outcome without it being as clear as "find this." The directive was very incomplete and inherently biased and the
report was just plain amateur hour.

BlackJack · Jun 18, 2015

snowmanny said:
I think the directive to Wells was very limited. Wells was basically asked if the Patriots tampered with the balls. They didn't look into the overall picture of the possible sting, or what the officials did, or whether balls routinely lose psi in cold weather, or whether lower psi is actually a competitive advantage.

I agree that Wells was probably given a narrow focus, but I don't think he was asked to find if the Patriots deflated them. He was asked to find out who on the Patriots did it.

snowmanny · Jun 18, 2015

Well according to the report itself he was asked to investigate if Patriots personnel tried to circumvent the rules in order to introduce deflated balls into the game.

lexrageorge · Jun 18, 2015

I think Wells took the easy way out. Once they saw an opening (the text messages), they determined guilt and built the narrative from there. Once Brady refused to hand over his phone, they decided he was guilty. So, the Wells report was theoretically independent; just slanted.

Exponent, meanwhile, built their report to fit Wells' narrative that the Patriots are guilty. There is nothing to indicate that Exponent was at all a disinterested, independent party to the investigation. Their report was truly a sham, which matches their reputation for anyone willing to dig into that in any detail.

EDIT: Had the league forced the issue, Wells may have found some reason to cast suspicion on Belichick and/or Kraft. They didn't; in fact, they exonerated both of them completely. Not that they had much choice, but my guess is that if the NFL was doing the investigation, they would have suspended Belichick as well. The Wells report prevented them from doing just that.

Carmine Hose · Jun 18, 2015

It seems clear that the "investigation" began with the premise that the Patriots were caught by the league officials (Mike Kensil) having tampered with the balls after they were handed to the referee pre-game. The league officials were tipped off by the Colts (and likely with the Ravens help) and then went into gotcha mode. When they tested balls at halftime and found they were all down (Pats and Colts), they laser focused on having apparently caught the Pats red-handed.

The Wells team was hired to prove this premise, rather than to actually report what happened, if anything.

You can point to the statement made by Kensil to McNally on the sideline telling him the team was in big trouble, and that's before the league knew anything of what did happen or could have happened. With this out of the box attitude, the report couldn't really land any other way, and that's why the report is taking a savage beating.

ivanvamp · Jun 18, 2015

Carmine Hose said:
It seems clear that the "investigation" began with the premise that the Patriots were caught by the league officials (Mike Kensil) having tampered with the balls after they were handed to the referee pre-game. The league officials were tipped off by the Colts (and likely with the Ravens help) and then went into gotcha mode. When they tested balls at halftime and found they were all down (Pats and Colts), they laser focused on having apparently caught the Pats red-handed.

The Wells team was hired to prove this premise, rather than to actually report what happened, if anything.

You can point to the statement made by Kensil to McNally on the sideline telling him the team was in big trouble, and that's before the league knew anything of what did happen or could have happened. With this out of the box attitude, the report couldn't really land any other way, and that's why the report is taking a savage beating.

Reasons why it is obviously not an objective, independent report:

(1) Wells was tasked with ONLY finding out about improper inflation of the Patriots' footballs, with no consideration given to any other possible scenario.

(2) The Kensil comment, as you point out.

(3) Despite the Patriots' request, the Wells report was not going to investigate the NFL's role in this.

(4) Every Brady mention had him wanting footballs at 12.5 psi; never, EVER does ANY piece of evidence suggest he wanted footballs lower than that. But…..that was the conclusion anyway.

(5) The gauge issue is huge. Anderson's memory is relied upon as being nearly infallible, except when it comes to which gauge he used. His memory was of the logo gauge. But that would kill the entire story, so on that point, of course, Anderson's memory is considered faulty.

(6) Instead of accepting the fact that there's no way text conversations without the proper context can yield truly accurate understanding of the discussion, Wells assumes he knows for certain that cryptic terms like "deflator" *must* mean not only that they were deflating footballs, but also that they were doing so *illegally*. That's quite a leap, actually.

(7) Every piece of scientific evidence that could support a nefarious plot is given weight; every piece of scientific evidence against a nefarious plot is tossed aside.

(8) The very fact that he used Exponent, given their history.

And on and on and on. There's essentially nothing in there that is, in any way, objective and independent. If there is, I'd like for someone to point it out.

Carmine Hose · Jun 18, 2015

I've stated this in other threads, but if the NFL really wanted to know if anything was really going on with the footballs, they would have reviewed the locker room tapes from the other home games, including the one week immediately preceding, against the Ravens. If they showed McNally continuously going to the bathroom, at all different times of day, then you've got something. If he didn't in the other games an instead went to the field, then it can be reasonably surmised that nothing surreptitious happened during the infamous bathroom visit, because you wouldn't just monkey with the balls for one game - especially considering the deflator texts occurred months earlier.

kartvelo · Jun 18, 2015

Hendu for Kutch said:
You could add to #3:

- League didn't want to look stupid for not knowing balls deflate in cold conditions

I mean, in my mind that's the biggest piece that goes underdiscussed. The intercepted ball was measured and came up exactly where it should have been, yet that's what triggered the act of measuring all the other balls, which begat the investigation, which begat the media leaks, which begat the Wells Report, etc.

The whole thing doesn't happen if there's a basic understanding of cold-weather deflation prior to all of this happening, but clearly there wasn't.

Yes. Haven't any of the people involved ever owned a car? Or a bicycle? The stupidity is really breathtaking, if you think about it.

kartvelo · Jun 18, 2015

ivanvamp said:
(6) Instead of accepting the fact that there's no way text conversations without the proper context can yield truly accurate understanding of the discussion, Wells assumes he knows for certain that cryptic terms like "deflator" *must* mean not only that they were deflating footballs, but also that they were doing so *illegally*. That's quite a leap, actually.

It's an astonishing leap, and I don't think there's any way it could have been made by an independent investigator.

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) · Jun 18, 2015

Carmine Hose said:
I've stated this in other threads, but if the NFL really wanted to know if anything was really going on with the footballs, they would have reviewed the locker room tapes from the other home games, including the one week immediately preceding, against the Ravens. If they showed McNally continuously going to the bathroom, at all different times of day, then you've got something. If he didn't in the other games an instead went to the field, then it can be reasonably surmised that nothing surreptitious happened during the infamous bathroom visit, because you wouldn't just monkey with the balls for one game - especially considering the deflator texts occurred months earlier.

It's been stated over and over again that the tapes are reused each week. There is no video from previous weeks.....however....

the whole "point" of McNally going to the bathroom to "deflate" balls was that there were more people in the Refs room then a normal game, being the playoffs and all. There was a security guard quoted at one point saying that he walks to the field with McNally every game and had never seen him go to the shitter before. Sooo what happened before the Ravens game when there were presumably also extra people in the refs room due to the playoffs. Did McNally go to the bathroom before the Ravens game or not?

ivanvamp · Jun 18, 2015

kartvelo said:
Yes. Haven't any of the people involved ever owned a car? Or a bicycle? The stupidity is really breathtaking, if you think about it.

This very winter, my Nissan Frontier gave me a loud beep and an indicator on my dash telling me that my tires had fallen below recommended inflation levels. How did this occur? Two options, apparently:

(1) The cold weather, according to the Ideal Gas Law, or
(2) Tom Brady had to jokers come and deflate them.

It's a tough call, thanks to the Wells report.

lambeau · Jun 18, 2015

I think the key was taking the halftime pressures at face value--it never occurred to anyone that the Colts' balls were 15-20 degrees warmer by the end of halftime,explaining the difference.
Kensil et al jumped to their conclusion, "confirmed" by the McNally tape, and they were off and running in a prosecutorial mode familiar to the FBI agents and prosecutors involved.
Clearly the Exponent report reflects this bias, glossing over problems (halftime temp effects) and finding favorable slants (Logo gauge).My favorite example of Exponent bias was their "proof"
that non-logo was used pregame: they bough "multiple dozen" gauges, found the results matched non-logo, and deduced Jastremski's gauge was non-logo--but they bought all non-logo gauges!
They were wrong, as Swan Boat proved, and maybe they were just dumb, but they got the answer they were looking for.

epraz · Jun 18, 2015

kartvelo said:
Yes. Haven't any of the people involved ever owned a car? Or a bicycle? The stupidity is really breathtaking, if you think about it.

I own a bicycle and had no clue about this even though I got an A in physics 17 years ago.

djbayko · Jun 18, 2015

epraz said:
I own a bicycle and had no clue about this even though I got an A in physics 17 years ago.

Well, it is taught in chemistry, so the A in physics is inconsequential. In any case, I wouldn't be so eager to admit to this.

yep · Jun 18, 2015

I think it was independent-ish, but biased. If you take away due process, it's not reasonable to expect justice.

Wells was hired to "investigate" something. They were paid to dig up the truth, to get to the bottom of things... that is a mandate that I think predisposes someone to expect there to be a "there" there. Kind of opposite to the presumption of innocence, Wells & co were looking for evidence of guilt, signs of wrongdoing. There is a wisp of something that might be smoke here, a little steam or breath over there, then you get something like the text messages or refusal of an interview, and bingo, now they're hiding something, it's a coverup.

Wells & co are not necessarily bad people, nor totally incompetent. These failings are exactly why our criminal system has procedural protections, because human beings are imperfect systems. Essentially every single person who ever gets prosecuted for a crime had some team of experts believe that they were guilty. And once you're convinced of someone's guilt, then everything starts to look like more evidence of guilt ("Ah, so you deny it. That's just what a guilty person would do!")

The science-y stuff was badly bungled, and shame on Wells for (predictably, but wrongly) hiring a company whose primary role is expert witnessing, rather than someone whose primary role is specifically in engineering these kinds of systems. The concept of temperature-dependent inflation is not hard to grasp, but actually doing predictive calculations of these things is a pretty specialized niche, and just hiring someone with a related degree to build a case is not how these things are done, unless you are working from an advocacy position. There are like, a lot of different ways to test and/or model how footballs react to changing atmospheric conditions, some of which are much simpler and more accurate than the methodologies in the Wells report. It's not an unsolvable problem, they just didn't know any of the correct solutions, and they apparently didn't even know how to apply the one they proposed, which I am guessing someone looked up in a book or asked a science teacher about, or something.

That part--not getting the right science/engineering advice--is hubris, probably mixed with a bit of "to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". Wells, a lawyer, called the people he usually calls when he needs an "expert". They did what they do, and took the information and did their level best to make a persuasive and technical-sounding case.

That's my guess, anyway.

epraz · Jun 18, 2015

djbayko said:
Well, it is taught in chemistry, so the A in physics is inconsequential. In any case, I wouldn't be so eager to admit to this.

Derail, but I am super eager to admit that while I'm sure I learned it (in chemistry?), it wasn't a fact that I ever considered when pumping up my bike's tires.

Ed Hillel · Jun 18, 2015

I think it's 2 at best and 3 at worst. A couple of things I will just mention that stand out at this point:

1. It seems clear from WellsReportContext, and the Wells Report itself, that Ted Wells was never asked to investigate the conduct of the league. In fact, he was specifically asked not to. We can say no biggie, he's still acting independently in the rest, but when he includes a paragraph in his report stating that he found no improper conduct from the league, rather than stating he was asked not to investigate it, that's a dead giveaway that he's just writing what the league wants. At least about that subject.

2. The Wells PC itself. Why hold it? Beyond that, you could hear Wells being coached on the answers during the questioning. Seems obvious to me it was for PR purposes, and the only one asking him to do that would be Pash/Aiello, or someone else from the FO.

So, to me, it was clear that Wells was at least willing to write what the NFL wanted. Whether that extends to asking to find Brady guilty, there's really no way to know, based on the information we had. Would I be surprised, based on the actions of Goodell and his cronies? Hell no. Am I willing to just make that claim at this point? No to that, as well. But I am extremely confident in stating that Wells was willing to at least bend the truth to the make the NFL look good.

NortheasternPJ · Jun 18, 2015

epraz said:
Derail, but I am super eager to admit that while I'm sure I learned it (in chemistry?), it wasn't a fact that I ever considered when pumping up my bike's tires.

I thought it was common knowledge to not fill your cars tires cold in the winter before driving since they'll heat up and you'll over inflate them. Typical hippies on bikes not knowing.

djbayko · Jun 18, 2015

epraz said:
Derail, but I am super eager to admit that while I'm sure I learned it (in chemistry?), it wasn't a fact that I ever considered when pumping up my bike's tires.

Have you lived in a warmer climate your whole life? That could explain it.

Because it's hard to believe you've never left an inflatable object out in the cold. The inability to observe the effects of that is what I found surprising. Maybe I'm alone in thinking this...my apologies.

PS: Yes, it's definitely chemistry. That's where students learn about the moles, molecules, states of matter, and interrelationship of volume, temp, and pressure of gases.

epraz · Jun 18, 2015

djbayko said:
Have you lived in a warmer climate your whole life? That could explain it.

Because it's hard to believe you've never left an inflatable object out in the cold. The inability to observe the effects of that is what I found surprising. Maybe I'm alone in thinking this...my apologies.

PS: Yes, it's definitely chemistry. That's where students learn about the moles, molecules, states of matter, and interrelationship of volume, temp, and pressure of gases.

I doubt you're alone in thinking this, but we clearly have different views on the normal person's aptitude and attitude for integrating scientific knowledge into their daily lives.

twothousandone · Jun 18, 2015

Is it just me, or are "we" more eager to fight the NFL on this than Bob Kraft? Maybe it is just me, but his unwillingness to highlight all of these things tells me he thinks that Patriots monkeyed with the footballs. Maybe he's wrong, and maybe I'm wrong in that conclusion, but with that conclusion in mind, I think the Patriots cheated.

Ed Hillel · Jun 18, 2015

twothousandone said:
Is it just me, or are "we" more eager to fight the NFL on this than Bob Kraft? Maybe it is just me, but his unwillingness to highlight all of these things tells me he thinks that Patriots monkeyed with the footballs. Maybe he's wrong, and maybe I'm wrong in that conclusion, but with that conclusion in mind, I think the Patriots cheated.

He released the entire WellsReportContext he released, which goes further than I think any of us ever imagined he would? What about the PC where he asked the league to apologize? And again, to go there again, if science suggests the footballs were not actually deflated, your reasoning cannot be correct. Now we're officially derailed. Kraft also has no recourse outside of suing the league, and even then he'd be in a difficult legal position.

Harry Hooper · Jun 18, 2015

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
It's been stated over and over again that the tapes are reused each week. There is no video from previous weeks.....however....

the whole "point" of McNally going to the bathroom to "deflate" balls was that there were more people in the Refs room then a normal game, being the playoffs and all. There was a security guard quoted at one point saying that he walks to the field with McNally every game and had never seen him go to the shitter before. Sooo what happened before the Ravens game when there were presumably also extra people in the refs room due to the playoffs. Did McNally go to the bathroom before the Ravens game or not?

None of that really matters. First, there's the dubious notion that 90 seconds in the bathroom was enough time for deflation of the bag of balls. Secondly, there's the reality that since no one cared (both pre-game and before the second half) that McNally took the bag of balls out of the refs room, he had no reason to hurry. He could have spent 6 minutes in the bathroom with the balls. More likely than not he actually was using the toilet.

MuppetAsteriskTalk · Jun 18, 2015

djbayko said:
Have you lived in a warmer climate your whole life? That could explain it.

Because it's hard to believe you've never left an inflatable object out in the cold. The inability to observe the effects of that is what I found surprising. Maybe I'm alone in thinking this...my apologies.

PS: Yes, it's definitely chemistry. That's where students learn about the moles, molecules, states of matter, and interrelationship of volume, temp, and pressure of gases.

Southern rednecks know about this because they all know NASCAR pitcrews put under-inflated tires on the cars during pitstops and they take a couple of laps to build up to the correct pressure.

mwonow · Jun 18, 2015

Harry Hooper said:
None of that really matters. First, there's the dubious notion that 90 seconds in the bathroom was enough time for deflation of the bag of balls. Secondly, there's the reality that since no one cared (both pre-game and before the second half) that McNally took the bag of balls out of the refs room, he had no reason to hurry. He could have spent 6 minutes in the bathroom with the balls. More likely than not he actually was using the toilet.

That's more PROBABLE than not to you, sir!

To the question, I think it's clear that there was an agenda underlying the report. I doubt there's as much overt intent as 2 and 3 suppose, but I'd guess that most of the points from 2 and 3 entered the minds of the "investigators" (and hence, the "investigation") at some point in the process

Harry Hooper · Jun 18, 2015

Given how Wells analyzed and presented the texts in the report, I really don't see how anyone can believe he was conducting a honest investigation vs. confirming what NFL HQ had already concluded.

Kraft was such a sap that he believed Goodell was going to give the Pats a fair shot via Wells instead of the cronies.

amarshal2 · Jun 18, 2015

In general I believe that people typically vastly overestimate the likelihood of conspiracy and vastly underestimate the likelihood of incompetence. However, when it comes to the Exponent section of Wells, I think conspiracy is far more likely than incompetence.

Both AEI and WellsReportContext.com pointed out a consistent pattern of intellectual dishonesty and slight of hand. Saying you did one type of commonly accepted approach to regression analysis and presenting the results for a different, more controversial form of regression analysis is not the type of mistake a professional firm being paid this much money makes. They did not forget what methodology they used to arrive at their conclusions; that doesn't happen. Taking into account Exponent's reported history as a hired gun and it seems clear that they did indeed deliver the results (they believe were) expected of them.

What I really don't know is how this came to pass and where it falls on the incompetence <---> conspiracy spectrum.
-Perhaps some high-ranking official using crappy logic and motivated reasoning came to a premature conclusion and subsequently gave everyone below him/Exponent the impression they had to prove his case (closer to incompetence).
-Perhaps Wells had no idea that Exponent was under the impression they had to deliver a specific result and then took their findings at face value without questioning them closely (shocking incompetence)
-Or perhaps some high-ranking official gave an order to save face/CYA (genesis of incompetence but ultimately conspiracy)

One thing seems for certain, SN's scenario #1 is rather unlikely.

Gorton Fisherman · Jun 19, 2015

I come down somewhere in the 2.1-2.3 spectrum. I still like the theory (floated by someone a while back in the other thread) that Wells didn't necessarily go into the process intending to nail the Brady and the Pats, but once he got the faintest whiff of possible wrongdoing (e.g. "deflator" texts, etc.), he developed "tunnel vision", where he basically decided the team/Brady was guilty. After he had basically made up his mind, it biased (consciously or unconsciously) the conduct of the investigation, and caused him to be selective about focusing on evidence that supported his preordained conclusion, etc.

I generally subscribe to the notion of "never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence", and I think that applies in this case. I don't think Wells went into this thing intending to screw over the Pats. And In his own mind, I'm sure Wells believes he conducted a perfectly fair investigation and came to a just conclusion. But he clearly didn't.

The disappointing thing is that you have thought someone of Wells' reputation and stature would have been above such incompetence and gross lapses in judgment. He should have been better than this. I do think hubris/arrogance probably played a role, which is detectable in the public hissy fit he had after the report's release when some (e.g. Don Yee) had the *audacity* to openly criticize his work. Guys like Wells (many leatherbound books, office smells of rich mahogany) aren't used to getting bitch-slapped in public.

epraz · Jun 19, 2015

Gorton Fisherman said:
I come down somewhere in the 2.1-2.3 spectrum. I still like the theory (floated by someone a while back in the other thread) that Wells didn't necessarily go into the process intending to nail the Brady and the Pats, but once he got the faintest whiff of possible wrongdoing (e.g. "deflator" texts, etc.), he developed "tunnel vision", where he basically decided the team/Brady was guilty. After he had basically made up his mind, it biased (consciously or unconsciously) the conduct of the investigation, and caused him to be selective about focusing on evidence that supported his preordained conclusion, etc.

I generally subscribe to the notion of "never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence", and I think that applies in this case. I don't think Wells went into this thing intending to screw over the Pats. And In his own mind, I'm sure Wells believes he conducted a perfectly fair investigation and came to a just conclusion. But he clearly didn't.

The bolded is really beyond incompetence for a seasoned lawyer who's tasked with being an impartial investigator. He just forgot to weigh both sides?

On the other hand, this is exactly in line with what I would expect from a seasoned lawyer who's thinks, for whatever reason, that his client wants as close to an unequivocal result as possible.

BrazilianSoxFan · Jun 19, 2015

Could any of the lawyers here say how this report is being talked about in the legal community?

Eddie Jurak · Jun 19, 2015

It wasn't an independent investigation (not necessarily bad, just a fact).

The purpose of it was not to "find out what happened", the purpose was to confirm the NFLs priors and provide a basis for a severe punishment of the team and Brady.

Wells' conclusions were full of weasel words "More probable than not that Brady was at least generally aware" and provided little more than a fig leaf on which to base a harsh punishment.

The Exponent report is, at best, incredibly sloppy work, but more likely gross scientific misconduct.

Roger Goodell is an asshole and a buffoon.

Bergs · Jun 19, 2015

I'm pretty squarely at 2.5 minimum, and would probably be a full 3 apart from items 5 and maybe 7, which take it a bit beyond what I think to be likely.

garzooma · Jun 19, 2015

Harry Hooper said:
Kraft was such a sap that he believed Goodell was going to give the Pats a fair shot via Wells instead of the cronies.

Somebody finally said it. It's hard not to wince when reading this: "I very much support the league’s desire to conduct a complete investigation and welcome the appointment of Ted Wells to lead the process."

lambeau · Jun 19, 2015

Kraft promised four times in one minute on May 19 to end his rhetoric and drop the discussion--maybe he asked fans to trust him because he didn't promise anything about not amplifying surrogates.

SinceMay 19 he has linked on the Context web site to both Sally Jenkins articles, the AEI report, and today the Science News article; as well as Curran on Roger sullying The Shield, an article recommending Brady sue Roger's pants off, and the Times' Op Ed.

This in addition to an encyclopedic collection of links to pre-May 19 articles critical of Wells, scientific and otherwise. So Robert (or Jonathan) is still quietly in the game.

http://wellsreportcontext.com/wells-report-critical-science-articles/

crystalline · Jun 20, 2015

Unquestionably, Wells has at least one bias: to avoid blaming owners. Both the Incognito and Ballghazi reports are notable for the way they blame players and low-level team employees and exonerate ownership and the head coaches. Especially with Incognito, it's nearly impossible to believe that Philbin knew nothing, and ownership, the GM and head coach bore as much blame for organizational failure as the players and employees that took the heat.

But maybe that's unconscious bias for Wells. Perhaps I am too cynical but isn't the first point of any commissioned investigation is to make sure to absolve the people who are paying you, so you'll get more business from others in their position?

Tony C · Jun 20, 2015

Pleasing the client is, indeed, a basic principle in virtually all businesses.

Wells Investigation and the Independence Thereof

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

captain obvious

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

T&A

captain obvious

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Wants to be startin somethin

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Wants to be startin somethin

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

canderson-lite

funky and cold

New Member

Member

Member

Moderator