It seems that every year the Dosage figures of all the Derby contenders get bandied about. Some get drawn into the notion that only certain horses with a certain Dosage profile are bred to win the Derby. I beg to differ, a look at the numbers suggests that Dosage and the Dual Qualifier system has no validity at all. I think that it is flawed to the core. For those of you who aren’t aware what Dosage and Dual Qualifiers are here is a brief explanation.
Dosage is a points system that essentially tries to predict a horses most effective racing distances by their breeding. The rule of thumb is that no horse with a Dosage over 4.00 has the breeding to be a Derby winner. A Dual Qualifier is simply a horse with Dosage less than 4.00 and a rating on the Experimental Free Handicap that is within 10lbs of the division leader. That is to say the two components are breeding and a solid 2yo season.
Dosage is useless as a handicapping tool. It was created to be useful with past data and has a poor record going forward. Its effectiveness is decreasing with each passing generation because new sires come onto the scene and don’t get added to the Chef-de-race list until their progeny have already proven themselves. Another reason why its useless is because it eliminates virtually nobody. In the past 12 years 89% of the Derby starters have had a dosage of 4 or less. So essentially on average 18 of the 20 starters have the requisite Dosage to win the Derby. The cumulative record of the non-Dosage qualifiers is 23-3-1-1. Ironically if you focus on the 23 horses who didn’t have a low dosage you might have done very well indeed.
In 12 years you’ve got just 23 horses who didn’t have a dosage of 4.00 or less from 214 starters. A straight win bet on each prospect would have cost $46 and returned $186. A tidy little 328% ROI. Also the non-Dosage qualifiers boast a sturdy 2.34 Impact Value, meaning that each horse with a dosage of over 4.00 has won the Derby almost two and half times more than they would be statistically expected to do.
The problem with the dosage system is that its based on stallion progeny statistics which of course are only relevant once the stallions progeny record is complete. That is why this system struggles on a going forward basis. It can only tell 10 years after the fact who the chef’s-de-race for that period actually were. It is a lagging quantifier instead of a leading indicator.
The reason Dual Qualifiers doesn’t really work is because not only is Dosage fundamentally flawed but the Experimental Free Handicap is also flawed. First of all its a ranking compiled based on the opinions of handicappers. Like Timeform or the International Classification ratings its a subjective rating. Secondly the way 2yo’s and 3yo’s are being campaigned differs greatly from how they were in the 70’s and 80’s. 2yo’s are maxxed out in order to capitalize on their precocity and are washed up by the time the Derby preps roll around. Top Derby candidates are often brought around slowly and often aren’t cranked up until they’re 3yo’s.
Street Sense did manage to win the Derby as a Dual Qualifier last year. However he was actually just 1 of the 8 Dual Qualifiers in the race so betting on them was again a losing proposition. Dual Qualifiers since 1996 have compiled a Derby record of 42-2-2-2 and have yielded a shabby -69.3% ROI. Compare that to the figures for the non Dosage qualifiers above then decide which one you think looks better.
The performance of the Dual Qualifiers in the Derby itself has been declining every single decade since it’s inception.
1973-79
7 races
7 winners (100.0%)
19 DQs (19.8%)
36.8% DQ winners
96 starters
IV = 5.05
1980-89
10 races
8 winners (80.0%)
33 DQs (19.3%)
24.2% DQ winners
171 starters
IV = 4.15
1990-99
10 races
5 winners (55.6%)
39 DQs (25.7%)
12.8% DQ winners
152 starters
IV = 2.16
2000-07
8 races
1 winners (12.5%)
28 DQs (18.9%)
3.8% DQ winners
148 starters
IV = 0.66
The one thing you ought to note is that the DQ system has a declining winning pct for every successive decade of data provided. To get a better picture you should remove the years 1973 to 1983. Those years are of course perfect, because the system was created on historical data and was not officially released until 1984. The real test of a system is not using back tested data but from a certain point going forward.
Since 1983 there have been 24 Derby’s and just 10 Derby winners fit the system. What it means for the Dosage theory is that its most successful period was prior to its actual creation, which of course leads one to assume curve fitting was an integral part of the research. On a going forward basis the entire system has been under performing. Even look at the system on a 5 year basis
4 of 5
2 of 5
3 of 5
0 of 5
1 of 4
The system has been irrelevant since 5 years after it was created. Up to that time it only missed 1 of 16 Derby’s. Since then its gone 6 for 19.
This very much flies in the face of conventional wisdom, pretty much everyone accepts that Dosage is a handy tool to help narrow down Derby contenders, but the real test of every system is how well it does going forward. Even my own Triple Crown 20-20 is a system in its infancy based primarily on historical data. If it fails to perform over the next 5 years it will be a useless fraud.
Be very careful about the Statistics you accept. Just because they seem good at a glance doesn’t mean they’re useful at all. Among the horses on this years Triple Crown Trail with a Dosage greater than 4.00 are War Pass and El Gato Malo. It remains to be seen if either will make it to the Derby but as of now both look like decent plays. It may be yet another tough year for the Dosage system.
January 16th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I’ve said this for year’s about dosage. I think it’s for people too lazy to look at the pedigree thoroughly.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I see you are using data only for the Derby as the basis of your argument. However, that same source shows that Dual Qualifiers in the Preakness and Belmont have performed consistently well in every decade since the 1970s. Doesn’t that raise more questions about the type of horse winning the Derby in recent years than it does about Dosage?
Anyway, I thought that Dosage was not a betting system but a way to categorize pedigrees in order to monitor how Thoroughbred speed evolves over time. If that’s true, then your “lagging quantifier” comment is irrelevant.
From what I can see at the Dosage web site, there is no recommendation that it be used for betting. In fact, it looks like the whole idea about Dual Qualifiers is to show that classic horses have a unique set of traits that most horses don’t. I think that’s why the site plays down the Dual Qualifier formula and instead emphasizes the qualities that Dual Qualifiers represent. If you accept that broader view, horses with those traits have performed far better in the Derby than those identified strictly by formula. I must admit I myself have used it for wagering and cashed some pretty good wins using the Dual Qualifier principles on horses like Grindstone, Funny Cide and Smarty Jones. Frankly, I think you’ve missed the whole point.
And hasn’t that link between Dosage and the Derby been over-hyped by the media? Most of the data at the site seem to confirm a relationship between inherited speed and average winning distance for the broad population of race horses. Wasn’t that the original hypothesis?
It seems to me your argument is very superficial.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
What you read on the Dosage website (www.chef-de-race.com) has been altered over the years as the Dual Qualifiers system has become less and less relevant. It used to be a main feature and heartily recommended by the site as a betting tool.
The link between Dosage and the Derby was one established by the creators of Dosage itself. In fact the whole system was created with an eye towards seeing what horses were properly bred for Derby success. There is nothing superficial about pointing out that this systems effectiveness has declined steadily.
As time has gone on and the system has decreased in effectiveness the site has changed how it presents the data.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Rather than just accept your word, I accessed the Internet Archive and pulled up the www.chef-de-race.com web site from November 11, 1998. There were about a dozen Dosage links to mainly general statistical data and some articles on new chefs-de-race. Then there were about another dozen links to racing stats that had nothing to do with Dosage. There were also four links to “The Derby” which included 1) Dosage Figures for Kentucky Derby Winners Since 1940; 2) Dosage and Two-Year-Old Form: A Predictor of Classic Performance; 3) Performance Figures for 3YOS - Continually Updated!; and 4) Derby Winners Since 1940: Pedigrees and Career Highlights.
Under #2 were listed all the Dual Qualifiers going back to 1973. Nowhere in the article is any recommendation about wagering. In fact, the only information relative to wagering was the odds of each winner and a reference to profitability based on a flat $2 win bet.
Now if you insist that using Dosage as a betting tool was a main feature of the site at that time, you’ll have to provide some sort of citation because, frankly, I don’t remember it that way nor did I see any evidence of it. The closest I could find to promotion of Dual Qualifiers as a betting tool was the following quotation: “These two factors, a pedigree balanced in speed and stamina plus a demonstration of high class, early maturity, appear to be critical for competitive performance in the Kentucky Derby. Current form in the pre-Derby preps at distances less than the 10 furlongs of the Derby seems to be far less significant”.
Regardless, your argument still doesn’t address the performance of Dual Qualifiers in the other classics over a span of four decades nor does it address the validity of the Dosage/Distance relationship which appears to be the main theme.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:12 am
qeagms nufxlroi skjrauig gvod pemnulx fhybclmu nwlmbxefc
February 27th, 2008 at 2:21 am
Useful site. Thank you!!!
February 27th, 2008 at 3:19 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
February 27th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Useful site. Thanks!
February 27th, 2008 at 3:58 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
February 27th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Nice site. Thank you!!
February 27th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Good site. Thanks!
February 27th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Very good site. Thank you.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Useful site. Thank you:-)
February 27th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Good site. Thank you.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
February 27th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
February 27th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Useful site. Thanks!!!
February 27th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Good site. Thank you!
February 27th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Good site. Thank you!!
February 27th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Good site. Thanks!!
February 27th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
February 27th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Good site. Thanks!
February 27th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
February 27th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Useful site. Thanks:-)
February 27th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Useful site. Thank you:-)
February 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
February 27th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
February 27th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Useful site. Thanks!!
February 27th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Useful site. Thank you!!!
February 27th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
February 27th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
February 27th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
February 27th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Useful site. Thanks!
February 27th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Good site. Thank you!
February 28th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Very good site. Thank you!!
February 28th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Very good site. Thanks!!
February 28th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Nice site. Thank you!!
February 28th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Nice site. Thanks!!
February 28th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Useful site. Thanks.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
February 28th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Useful site. Thanks.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Good site. Thanks:-)
February 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
February 28th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Useful site. Thank you!!
February 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
February 28th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
February 28th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Useful site. Thank you.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Cool site. Thanks!
February 29th, 2008 at 4:03 am
Nice site. Thanks.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:06 am
Useful site. Thank you!!
February 29th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!
February 29th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Good site. Thank you.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Useful site. Thanks.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Useful site. Thanks!!!
February 29th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Good site. Thanks!
February 29th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!
March 1st, 2008 at 12:39 am
Useful site. Thanks!
March 1st, 2008 at 2:26 am
Useful site. Thank you.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:53 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
March 1st, 2008 at 7:58 am
Cool site. Thanks!!
March 1st, 2008 at 9:55 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
March 1st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Good site. Thanks!
March 1st, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Useful site. Thanks!!!
March 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
March 1st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Useful site. Thanks!!!
March 1st, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
March 1st, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Good site. Thank you!!
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 am
Cool site. Thanks.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 am
Good site. Thanks.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 am
Nice site. Thanks!!
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:14 am
Nice site. Thank you!
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:54 am
Nice site. Thanks!!
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:31 am
Good site. Thanks.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Nice site. Thank you.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 am
Good site. Thank you.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 am
Very good site. Thank you.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
Very good site. Thank you.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Good site. Thank you!
March 4th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Good site. Thanks.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
March 4th, 2008 at 3:25 am
Good site. Thanks:-)
March 4th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
March 4th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
March 4th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Useful site. Thanks!
March 4th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:44 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
March 5th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Very good site. Thank you!
March 5th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Very good site. Thank you!
March 5th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Cool site. Thank you.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
March 5th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!
March 5th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
March 5th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!
March 6th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!
March 6th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
March 6th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Useful site. Thanks!!
March 6th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!
March 6th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Nice site. Thank you!
March 7th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
March 7th, 2008 at 4:07 am
Useful site. Thank you!!!
March 7th, 2008 at 4:53 am
Very good site. Thank you.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:06 am
Good site. Thank you.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:15 am
Good site. Thanks!!
March 7th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Good site. Thank you!
March 7th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
March 7th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
March 7th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Very good site. Thanks!
March 7th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Cool site. Thank you.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Useful site. Thanks!!
March 7th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Useful site. Thanks!!!
March 7th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
March 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Useful site. Thank you:-)
March 7th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
March 7th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
March 7th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Useful site. Thanks!
March 7th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
March 8th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Very good site. Thank you.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:01 am
Very good site. Thanks!!
March 8th, 2008 at 5:04 am
Cool site. Thanks.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Good site. Thank you!!
March 8th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Useful site. Thank you:-)
March 8th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Very good site. Thanks!!
March 8th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Nice site. Thank you!
March 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
March 8th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
March 8th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
March 8th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Cool site. Thanks.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Useful site. Thanks:-)
March 8th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Useful site. Thank you.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!
March 8th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
March 8th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
March 9th, 2008 at 3:00 am
Good site. Thanks.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:12 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
March 9th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Cool site. Thank you!!
March 9th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Very good site. Thanks!
March 9th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Useful site. Thanks!!!
March 9th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Useful site. Thank you!
March 9th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
March 9th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Good site. Thank you!!
March 9th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Cool site. Thanks.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Useful site. Thanks:-)
March 9th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
March 9th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Good site. Thanks!!
March 9th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Good site. Thank you!
March 9th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Useful site. Thank you!!!
March 9th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!
March 9th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Good site. Thanks!!
March 10th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
March 10th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
March 10th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Very good site. Thank you!
March 10th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Useful site. Thank you!!
March 10th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Nice site. Thank you!
March 10th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
March 10th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
March 10th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Good site. Thank you.
March 10th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Good site. Thanks!!
March 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
March 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
March 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
March 10th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Useful site. Thank you.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Good site. Thanks!
March 10th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Useful site. Thank you!!
March 10th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
March 10th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Useful site. Thanks.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
March 10th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Useful site. Thanks!!!
March 10th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Useful site. Thanks!
March 11th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Nice site. Thanks!!
March 11th, 2008 at 3:14 am
Cool site. Thanks!
March 11th, 2008 at 4:15 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
March 11th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Useful site. Thanks!!
March 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!
March 13th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
March 13th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
March 13th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
March 13th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Good site. Thanks!
March 13th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
March 14th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
March 14th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Good site. Thanks!!
March 14th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
March 14th, 2008 at 3:12 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
March 14th, 2008 at 5:14 am
Nice site. Thanks!!
March 14th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Nice site. Thank you!!
March 14th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
March 14th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
March 14th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Good site. Thank you!!
March 14th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Useful site. Thank you!
March 14th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
March 14th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
March 14th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Useful site. Thanks:-)
March 14th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!
March 14th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Good site. Thank you!
March 14th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Useful site. Thank you!!!
March 14th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
March 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Useful site. Thank you.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Useful site. Thank you.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!
March 14th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
March 14th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
March 14th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Good site. Thank you.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Useful site. Thank you!!
March 15th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
March 15th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
March 15th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Useful site. Thanks.
March 15th, 2008 at 5:01 am
Nice site. Thank you!!
March 15th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Useful site. Thanks!
March 15th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
March 15th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Useful site. Thank you!
March 15th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Nice site. Thanks!!
March 15th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Very good site. Thanks!
March 15th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Very good site. Thank you!!
March 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Cool site. Thanks.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
March 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Good site. Thanks!
March 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
March 15th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Useful site. Thank you!!!
March 15th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
March 15th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
March 15th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
March 15th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Good site. Thanks!
March 15th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Good site. Thank you!
March 15th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
March 15th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
March 15th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Cool site. Thanks.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
March 16th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Good site. Thank you.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Nice site. Thanks!
March 16th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Cool site. Thank you.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Very good site. Thank you!!
March 16th, 2008 at 3:55 am
Very good site. Thank you!!
March 16th, 2008 at 4:51 am
Cool site. Thank you!
March 16th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Useful site. Thank you.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Good site. Thanks!!
March 16th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Nice site. Thanks!!
March 16th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Nice site. Thanks.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
March 16th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Cool site. Thank you!!
March 16th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Cool site. Thank you.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Useful site. Thanks:-)
March 16th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Useful site. Thank you.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
March 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
March 16th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Useful site. Thanks.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
March 16th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
March 17th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Nice site. Thanks!!
March 17th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Good site. Thank you!
March 17th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
March 17th, 2008 at 4:33 am
Cool site. Thanks.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
March 17th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
March 17th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Nice site. Thanks.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Good site. Thanks:-)
March 17th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Nice site. Thank you!
March 17th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
March 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!
March 17th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!
March 17th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
March 17th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
March 17th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
March 18th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
March 18th, 2008 at 4:07 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
March 18th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Useful site. Thank you:-)
March 18th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
March 18th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Very good site. Thank you!