Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Araiza Troubles


dw49

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

And that cloud gets even darker since it’s been reported they knew about this and choose to cut another punter instead.  

Yes it does.  The Bills claim they first heard of this on July 31st when the woman’s lawyer sent them an email informing them of the complaint they filed.  Yet they decided to keep him and cut Haack.  Mrs Pegula is co owner of the team.  I can’t imagine she will go along with keeping him on the team.  I imagine some serious conversations going on in Buffalo right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 318
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

I don't see how it's bad? If they have the rape kit, it means they have his DNA. He can't say they didn't have sex if the rape kit says they did.

He admitted to having sex with her.  The police have it recorded on a telephone conversation he had with the victim.  It’s bad because he has no real defense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

My issue is less with the system and more with how it’s being applied or well not being applied in some cases.  My word choice might not have been the best.  When you suspend a player longer for gambling than you do for assault or sexual assault it shows what the NFL’s priorities are and aren’t.  I don’t think that’s going to shock anyone that they care the most about their bottom line but it doesn’t make it right either.  
 

As for evidence part the judge who did the first Watson suspension pretty much said the NFL met their burden of proof about him she was just bound by precedent.  So it wasn’t lack of proof that was the issue here.  This isn’t a court of law where they have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.  
 

With the Bills punter they aren’t even looking into the evidence based on reports.  They are just going happened before he got to the NFL not our problem.  


Ok. I see your point. I disagree with the NFL regarding the Bills punter if they know that he is involved. I had read that he admitted that he was involved but I saw another report today that he released a statement suggesting that he may not be involved. The statement seems carefully worded:

 

Quote

The facts of the incident are not what they are portrayed in the lawsuit or in the press," he said in a short statement. "I look forward to quickly setting the record straight."

 

Link to article

 

Who did the NFL suspend for gambling? Did the person gamble on football or something else? Did the NFL say why the punishment is longer than other punishment? The only thing I can think of is that gambling on football may affect the integrity of the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

He admitted to having sex with her.  The police have it recorded on a telephone conversation he had with the victim.  It’s bad because he has no real defense. 


I’m guessing his defense is going to be……She consented.    Whether that holds up under any scrutiny is another thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

That is what I thought. But his lawyers put out a statement that what is being "portrayed" is inaccurate.

Interesting.  I read where he was recorded by the police admitting to it in a conversation with the victim.  If I’m the Bills I’m moving on asap.  I wouldn’t want this following them on every game they play in a super bowl run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:


My understanding is that the current rules about the NFL nit getting involved were negotiated between the NFLPA and the League.    So if an incident happens while a player is in the league,  the NFL will rule.   But they won’t get involved if the incident happened BEFORE the player entered the league, which is the case with Araiza.

 

I don’t like it either, I’m just saying this was negotiated and not a case of the NFL just bring random. 

 

In Major League Baseball (MLB), I recall a top pitcher Luke Heimlich went undrafted because he admitted to sexually assaulting his niece. I just looked him up. He was not signed by a MLB team. He pitches for a Mexican league. Based on what you posted, it sounds like the NFL would not have punished him if he was picked up by any team. 

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/05/16/luke-heimlich-oregon-state

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

In Major League Baseball (MLB), I recall a top pitcher Luke Heimlich went undrafted because he admitted to sexually assaulting his niece. I just looked him up. He was not signed by a MLB team. He pitches for a Mexican league. Based on what you posted, it sounds like the NFL would not have punished him if he was picked up by any team. 

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/05/16/luke-heimlich-oregon-state


For a sports league as image conscience as the NFL is, I just think it’s a terrible look for them.   Not sure how and why they negotiated this right to discipline away?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:


For a sports league as image conscience as the NFL is, I just think it’s a terrible look for them.   Not sure how and why they negotiated this right to discipline away?   

 

It sounds like an excuse for not taking action in difficult matters. I disagree with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

He admitted to having sex with her.  The police have it recorded on a telephone conversation he had with the victim.  It’s bad because he has no real defense. 

 

He can argue it was consenual and she told him she was 18

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lemme get this straight, as far as what seems to underpin some comments.

 

You were hired by your current employer 6 months ago.  And you may potentially make a lot of money.

Now, a girl accuses you of being one of several men to rape her 6 months before your employer even knew you.

Your employer should believe it happened, because she said it did.

She files a civil suit because she said that the experts in criminal rape investigation didn't do their job well.

Your employer should believe that the expert investigators didn't do their job well because she said they didn't

 

What discipline do you believe is appropriate for your employer to give you at this time?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

So you think think him being suspend less than a player accessed of gambling is right for what he did?


Also if you listen to his press conference after the suspension came out he’s not thinking about what he did he’s laughing to the bank.  To the point an NFL advisory said he’s playing them.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-advisor-says-she-feels-deshaun-watson-is-playing-us-after-browns-q-nonsense-denial-of-wrongdoing-025644729.html

Regarding Ridley being suspended for a year, it is right in the NFL rule book that 'if a player gambles on football games, he will be suspended indefinitely'. The players agreed to this in the CBA. Ridley knew if he bet on football games that he would be suspended for the year if caught. He did it anyway which was just plain dumb knowing what consequences could happen. The integrity of the game is put at huge risk if players are allowed to gamble on games, especially in games they are involved in. A player could fix a game if he bet against his own team for example. Something the league wants to avoid as that would ruin the league and mess with millions of people money! That is why the league made that rule.

 

As far as Watson goes, 11 games and a 5 million dollar fine was adequate IMO considering nothing criminal was proved. The NFL at least stepped in and gave him a pretty hefty penalty which he deserves for the stuff he was doingHad he been charged criminally and the proof was there than yes he should have got a year, that wasn't the case here

 

You moved the goal posts on me in a big way so I am trying to explain this the best I can. You are comparing 2 separate incidents that are totally different, all I said was I thought the Watson punishment was handled well and then you throw in Ridley's incident. One has nothing to do with the other. I guess you think Watson should have got a year eventhough there is no proof at all in the court of law he did anything wrong criminally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chiefs took a WR with issues they were aware of.

Patriots took a TE with issues they were aware of.

Bills took a P with issues they were aware of.

 

The common theme here is.....some teams turning a blind eye to player's character. Since the league won't punish itself, the only way it will change is fan base departure. Period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Chiefs took a WR with issues they were aware of.

Patriots took a TE with issues they were aware of.

Bills took a P with issues they were aware of.

 

The common theme here is.....some teams turning a blind eye to player's character. Since the league won't punish itself, the only way it will change is fan base departure. Period. 

and fan base departure will never happen, everyone in here will still watch lmao 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Chiefs took a WR with issues they were aware of.

Patriots took a TE with issues they were aware of.

Bills took a P with issues they were aware of.

 

The common theme here is.....some teams turning a blind eye to player's character. Since the league won't punish itself, the only way it will change is fan base departure. Period. 

 

That won't happen. The average fan does not keep up with news of the NFL. Most don't know about these incidents.  Perhaps loss of season ticket holders. One of my friends who has had Giants season tickets in his family for over 50 years had threaten to give up his tickets but eventually he kept them. The owner contacted him and said they were working on it and that was that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

That won't happen. The average fan does not keep up with news of the NFL. Most don't know about these incidents.  Perhaps loss of season ticket holders. One of my friends who has had Giants season tickets in his family for over 50 years had threaten to give up his tickets but eventually he kept them. The owner contacted him and said they were working on it and that was that. 

Wasn't inferring that it would. Just saying that is the only way it would change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NFLfan said:


Ok. I see your point. I disagree with the NFL regarding the Bills punter if they know that he is involved. I had read that he admitted that he was involved but I saw another report today that he released a statement suggesting that he may not be involved. The statement seems carefully worded:

 

 

Link to article

 

Who did the NFL suspend for gambling? Did the person gamble on football or something else? Did the NFL say why the punishment is longer than other punishment? The only thing I can think of is that gambling on football may affect the integrity of the game. 

Calvin Ridley.  
 

They have also not done anything with Alvin Karama despite being on video punching a man 8 times during the pro-bowl.  That’s why I look at the NFL discipline as a joke.  I am not saying Ridley shouldn’t have been suspended for gambling but when you suspend them for gambling longer than you did players who did worse things something is messed up.

 

Also,  I fully understand why the NFL did punish Ridley harsher.  It goes back to my original point.  They were concerned about their bottom line.  
 

I also understood what @Myles was trying to say earlier in the thread.  The only way it’s going to change is if people stop watching.  I am not going to challenge him on that.  I am just saying it’s messed up rather it changes or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Regarding Ridley being suspended for a year, it is right in the NFL rule book that 'if a player gambles on football games, he will be suspended indefinitely'. The players agreed to this in the CBA. Ridley knew if he bet on football games that he would be suspended for the year if caught. He did it anyway which was just plain dumb knowing what consequences could happen. The integrity of the game is put at huge risk if players are allowed to gamble on games, especially in games they are involved in. A player could fix a game if he bet against his own team for example. Something the league wants to avoid as that would ruin the league and mess with millions of people money! That is why the league made that rule.

 

As far as Watson goes, 11 games and a 5 million dollar fine was adequate IMO considering nothing criminal was proved. The NFL at least stepped in and gave him a pretty hefty penalty which he deserves for the stuff he was doingHad he been charged criminally and the proof was there than yes he should have got a year, that wasn't the case here

 

You moved the goal posts on me in a big way so I am trying to explain this the best I can. You are comparing 2 separate incidents that are totally different, all I said was I thought the Watson punishment was handled well and then you throw in Ridley's incident. One has nothing to do with the other. I guess you think Watson should have got a year eventhough there is no proof at all in the court of law he did anything wrong criminally. 

The proof WAS there.  The judge who handed down the discipline in the first place said the NFL proved its case IE he did this.  Just because two grand juries didn’t indict him does not mean he is innocent or there is no proof.  It just means they can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  The NFL is not bound to that as that’s an extremely high bar to clear as it should be it.  The NFL is more bound to can a reasonable person look at the facts and go yeah he did this.  A judge looked at those facts and said yeah the NFL proved that.  I’d encourage you to back and read her ruling when handing down the first suspension she hammered Watson and the only reason she didn’t give him longer was precedent which goes back to my point about the NFL’s discipline being a joke. 
 

I am not moving the goal posts at all.  I said from the start my issue is if a guy is getting suspend longer for gambling on football than people who assaulted people (and in Watson’s case several women) something is messed up with your discipline and it’s a joke.  
 

The only reason Ridley was suspended longer is that gambling can have a major impact on the NFL’s bottom line which is all they care about.  Again, that’s not exactly breaking news but it does make their discipline a joke.  
 

To put it another way do you if it had come out this Bills punter has gambled on college games when in college the NFL would be saying well happened before he got to the NFL nothing we can do?  If you honestly believe that I have some land on the moon to sell you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, sb41champs said:

After the dubious way that the NFL handled (mishandled) the Deshaun Watson debacle - I can't say I expect any better outcome "IF" this young man did - in fact - participate in something this despicable.

 

The NFL proved - once again - that they want the players to play - with little regard to any assaults and/or crimes that are perpetrated against women.

 

SHAME ON YOU NFL!!

I forgot to mention that my thoughts and prayers are with the young lady who was potentially involved in this scenario.  It is my hope - that if the allegations are true - that she has access to the counseling and support that she will need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Wasn't inferring that it would. Just saying that is the only way it would change. 

Yeah Forty but If we’d all boycott businesses that had people who did bad things we’d all starve to death, walk everywhere, never travel anywhere, essentially we’d be living like cave man hermits.

 

does the NFL have a higher rate if criminality than the general populace?  I don’t think so.  I think I’ve seen statistics that show the opposite.  In the case of Watson, there not only hasnt been criminality proven, there hasn’t even been any adjudicated.  So far the same goes for this punter.

 

if this dude is guilty of gang rape I’m for all kinds of medieval punishment.  The thing about most sex cases is that it’s he said she said.  I don’t think it’s expedient to deny anyone the ability to earn a living based on an individual’s accusation without substantive corroborating evidence.

 

Dude im acquainted with is currently under investigation.  Have little idea what for or by whom, but if he’s never charged and isn’t proven to have broken his contract,  I don’t know how we can justify denying him a right to make a living.

 

In my line of work there are all kinds of false allegations made about all sorts of things.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

The proof WAS there.  The judge who handed down the discipline in the first place said the NFL proved its case IE he did this.  Just because two grand juries didn’t indict him does not mean he is innocent or there is no proof.  It just means they can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  The NFL is not bound to that as that’s an extremely high bar to clear as it should be it.  The NFL is more bound to can a reasonable person look at the facts and go yeah he did this.  A judge looked at those facts and said yeah the NFL proved that.  I’d encourage you to back and read her ruling when handing down the first suspension she hammered Watson and the only reason she didn’t give him longer was precedent which goes back to my point about the NFL’s discipline being a joke. 
 

I am not moving the goal posts at all.  I said from the start my issue is if a guy is getting suspend longer for gambling on football than people who assaulted people (and in Watson’s case several women) something is messed up with your discipline and it’s a joke.  
 

The only reason Ridley was suspended longer is that gambling can have a major impact on the NFL’s bottom line which is all they care about.  Again, that’s not exactly breaking news but it does make their discipline a joke.  
 

To put it another way do you if it had come out this Bills punter has gambled on college games when in college the NFL would be saying well happened before he got to the NFL nothing we can do?  If you honestly believe that I have some land on the moon to sell you.  

Roger Goodell stepping in is the reason why Watson got 11 games and a 5 million dollar fine, without him it would've been 6 games and no fine which was a joke. So I thought he did well there, JMO. I will leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Roger Goodell stepping in is the reason why Watson got 11 games and a 5 million dollar fine, without him it would've been 6 games and no fine which was a joke. So I thought he did well there, JMO. I will leave it at that.

So you think the NFL should suspend players longer for gambling than assault.  That’s what’s you are saying when you said he did well here.  I am saying to me that’s what shows the NFL’s discipline is a joke.  Yes Goodell made it longer but he wouldn’t have had too had the NFL’s discipline not been a joke from the start.  Also, just because he made it longer doesn’t mean it was long enough.  I think he should have gotten the indefinite suspension which would have probably been lifted after a year had he proven he was truly sorry by completing certain steps.  Also five millions dollars might be a lot to you or me but it’s nothing to a guy who just signed a $230 million dollar guaranteed contract.  If the NFL wanted to send a message fine him $24 million, $1 for each one who accused him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

So you think the NFL should suspend players longer for gambling than assault.  That’s what’s you are saying when you said he did well here.  I am saying to me that’s what shows the NFL’s discipline is a joke.  Yes Goodell made it longer but he wouldn’t have had too had the NFL’s discipline not been a joke from the start.  Also, just because he made it longer doesn’t mean it was long enough.  I think he should have gotten the indefinite suspension which would have probably been lifted after a year had he proven he was truly sorry by completing certain steps.  Also five millions dollars might be a lot to you or me but it’s nothing to a guy who just signed a $230 million dollar guaranteed contract.  If the NFL wanted to send a message fine him $24 million, $1 for each one who accused him.

Honestly, should be a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault. Career ended, barred from HoF. Nothing less. Period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

Yeah Forty but If we’d all boycott businesses that had people who did bad things we’d all starve to death, walk everywhere, never travel anywhere, essentially we’d be living like cave man hermits.

 

does the NFL have a higher rate if criminality than the general populace?  I don’t think so.  I think I’ve seen statistics that show the opposite.  In the case of Watson, there not only hasnt been criminality proven, there hasn’t even been any adjudicated.  So far the same goes for this punter.

 

if this dude is guilty of gang rape I’m for all kinds of medieval punishment.  The thing about most sex cases is that it’s he said she said.  I don’t think it’s expedient to deny anyone the ability to earn a living based on an individual’s accusation without substantive corroborating evidence.

 

Dude im acquainted with is currently under investigation.  Have little idea what for or by whom, but if he’s never charged and isn’t proven to have broken his contract,  I don’t know how we can justify denying him a right to make a living.

 

In my line of work there are all kinds of false allegations made about all sorts of things.

 

 

But you're using common sense supported by logic, and an evolved way of implementing due process.  That isn't what discipline tyrants care about.   They are about having a process where they and their associates can invoke discipline, not an impartial third party,  Evil is the company who would hire an accused perp like that.  Righteous is the company who fires him.   A tactic for that goal is to pretend that the police/judicial system doesn't work, so therefore they have to take the "proper" disciplinary actions into their own hands, which may be none at all depending upon the purported crime and who the perp might be. 

 

What is the saying, its not the amount of evidence but the seriousness of the charge?  Apparently, just the seriousness of the charge should be enough to give someone the Scarlett Letter.

 

Its an old concept that's rearing its ugly head again in our current state of reverting back to more primitive processes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

But you're using common sense supported by logic, and an evolved way of implementing due process.  That isn't what discipline tyrants care about.   They are about having a process where they and their associates can invoke discipline, not an impartial third party,  Evil is the company who would hire an accused perp like that.  Righteous is the company who fires him.   A tactic for that goal is to pretend that the police/judicial system doesn't work, so therefore they have to take the "proper" disciplinary actions into their own hands, which may be none at all depending upon the purported crime and who the perp might be. 

 

What is the saying, its not the amount of evidence but the seriousness of the charge?  Apparently, just the seriousness of the charge should be enough to give someone the Scarlett Letter.

 

Its an old concept that's rearing its ugly head again in our current state of reverting back to more primitive processes.

You understand the criminal investigation is still underway right?  Also,  even if it was "consensual" he admitted to having sex with a minor.   Also,  she was given alcohol at the party.    If it's my company,  I get rid of him on those two facts alone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

You understand the criminal investigation is still underway right?  Also,  even if it was "consensual" he admitted to having sex with a minor.   Also,  she was given alcohol at the party.    If it's my company,  I get rid of him on those two facts alone.  

Exactly. Gonna be interesting to see the tap dancing on this one by the league

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

It doesn't work that way.   She is a minor,  he is an adult.   She could say whatever she wants,  he can still be prosecuted.  

Yep. I can personally attest to this. There’s a man doing 5 years in Terre Haute right now cause he had sex with a 16 year old whom he met a club in Indy.. along with HER OWN MOTHER… seemed like a set up but hey, all I could do was take statements. Prosecutors did the rest. They argued it was his responsibility to ensure his partners were of legal age regardless of meeting location or fake id….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

It doesn't work that way.   She is a minor,  he is an adult.   She could say whatever she wants,  he can still be prosecuted.  

 

Statutory rape isn't the same penalty as actual rape though. So even if he gets dinged for that, his lawyer will argue it's a first time offense with a 17 year old instead of say 15 which can be viewed differently. All I'm saying is it's not cut and dry. The legal system is flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PuntersArePeopleToo said:

Adam Schefter on Twitter: "Bills have informed rookie punter Matt Araiza that he is being released, effective immediately. Araiza has been accused along with two others of gang raping a 17-year-old girl last year in a civil lawsuit filed on Thursday." / Twitter

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1563674747015204865

Told you.  Bills we’re going to move on asap.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PuntersArePeopleToo said:

Adam Schefter on Twitter: "Bills have informed rookie punter Matt Araiza that he is being released, effective immediately. Araiza has been accused along with two others of gang raping a 17-year-old girl last year in a civil lawsuit filed on Thursday." / Twitter

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1563674747015204865

Good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Statutory rape isn't the same penalty as actual rape though. So even if he gets dinged for that, his lawyer will argue it's a first time offense with a 17 year old instead of say 15 which can be viewed differently. All I'm saying is it's not cut and dry. The legal system is flawed.

It depends on the state.   He also provided her alcohol.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, PuntersArePeopleToo said:

Adam Schefter on Twitter: "Bills have informed rookie punter Matt Araiza that he is being released, effective immediately. Araiza has been accused along with two others of gang raping a 17-year-old girl last year in a civil lawsuit filed on Thursday." / Twitter

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1563674747015204865

So dumb of them to cut the other punter when they knew this was happening.   If I'm the bills owner I'm having some questions about the GM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

So dumb of them to cut the other punter when they knew this was happening.   If I'm the bills owner I'm having some questions about the GM

They were probably banking on this being kept under wraps. Didn’t sound like the HC even knew about it until Thursday and he seemed genuinely ticked about that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

So dumb of them to cut the other punter when they knew this was happening.   If I'm the bills owner I'm having some questions about the GM

But you know what, I also need to give them credit too. This is what should have happened to Watson, he shouldn’t be on a roster. Kudos to the Bills for at least making the right move here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Shhh, the more he is "overlooked" the better off Downs and the Colts will be.
    • Dude diving for that catch made a fan of me. 
    • He is superbly quick, nearly unguardable. A very high % as a extension of our run game. With the speed to wheel them over the top. The guy should perform as a 9/10 in our offense.    
    • I think PFF is useful for analyzing individual players. But if I want to analyze the team's pass rush performance, I don't want to know how many times the individual players pressured the QB; I want to know the number of plays we managed to pressure the opposing QB.    For example, the QB drops back 50 times in a game, and he's pressured 15 times, and sacked three times. Let's say each of those 15 plays where he's pressured, there are two defenders getting pressure. PFF would count that as 30 pressures for the defense, because they're acknowledging that two players got a pressure on one play. Same process if each sack was shared among two players; they'd count six sacks, even though the QB was only sacked on three plays.   And that's fine, because that's their focus. But I think that context needs to be acknowledged when we're talking about team performance. Because, as we know with our pass rush last year, we feasted against bad offenses, but there were too many situations where we failed to get pressure at all.    So I like to use PFR when talking about team performance, because their sack/pressure stats are on a per-play basis, rather than per-player. Both metrics can be used together, I just think PFR tells us 'the opposing QBs dropped back this many times, faced pressure on this many plays, and were sacked this many times.' And now we can clearly see how frequently the pass rush is affecting the QB. Or in the case of the 2023 Colts, how infrequently... 
  • Members

    • IndyEV

      IndyEV 99

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • G8R

      G8R 59

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 6,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • stitches

      stitches 19,980

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Goatface Killah

      Goatface Killah 2,045

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • dw49

      dw49 1,388

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Superman

      Superman 21,142

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • smittywerb

      smittywerb 1,527

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...