RealGM

How is no one talking about this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-peyton-manning-squeaky-clean-image-built-lies-article-1.2530395


There's a lot of pretty damning information in there that makes me think that it's not bull ****. In which case, what a scumbag. And also goes to show how the media picks and chooses who it goes after. Brady allegedly deflated footballs? Eviscerate him. Manning allegedly sexually assaulted someone, and then proceeded to ruin their career? What a nice, upstanding, humble guy.

At minimum, he did breach confidentiality and ruin a respected doctor's career. That's a scumbag move, regardless of whatever else is true.

This is not news, this has been known for years. Theout of court settlement the Mannings reached with her, forbade them from talking about it going forward. He then mentioned the incident in a book, but was not truthful on what happened. She took it as a breach of faith. The media picks who they want to attack.

patman52 wrote:This is not news, this has been known for years. Theout of court settlement the Mannings reached with her, forbade them from talking about it going forward. He then mentioned the incident in a book, but was not truthful on what happened. She took it as a breach of faith. The media picks who they want to attack.

I really want to go after Peyton here, but two things stop me. First, the article was based solely on the accuser's documents from her lawyers. It's not exactly objective. Second, Shaun King hasn't exactly screamed "integrity" lately. In my circles who love social media, I've heard him described as "the male Rachel Dolezal", "profiteer of #BlackLivesMatter movement", "embezzler", and "race baiter".

King's article has made that old document go public though. I wanna see if it uncovers anything new.

Shaun King is not well-regarded by his peers, that is for sure. And IMO he goes over the top in building up the victim here. Doesn't mean what he wrote isn't true or accurate. Came out today that ESPN has put a gag order on its employees on this subject too.

I agree that it's one-sided, but it doesn't mean it's untrue.

The most damning part to me is the part about how witnesses to all of the things described flat out denied that Manning's version of the events ever happened, and that they instead completely corroborated what the trainer said.

I mean, the teammate that he supposedly was mooning basically said "No, that didn't happen, you totally sexually assaulted her."

bradystans seem to be threatened by manning's super bowl victory

This is nothing more than a witch hunt.

nothing ideal gas law cant explain

Players should be innocent until proven guilty. Having said that, there's definitely more evidence of wrong doing by Manning than what a lot of fans want to hear (he never denied the HGH was made under his wife's name and that it went to his house, this sexual assault story was basically a he said/she said story yet when Manning's book came out after both sides agreed to squash the story, he proceeded to ruin the women's career hence the lawsuit that was filed). He also threw his entire offensive line under the bus after losing 20-3 to NE in the 03-04 playoffs, didn't shake hands with Brees/Payton after SB XLIV when Cam Newton was criticized for sulking even though he went to shake Manning's hand right after the game on the field). Imagine if it was Brady who was accused of any of these wrong doings. The media would have a field day with this.

Brady was railroaded in deflategate even though to this day the IGL and science strongly refute any wrong doing or even nary an attempt by him to break the rules. Like really people, would you order a ball boy to deflate exactly .2 PSI or whatever out of a football during a washroom break? Get real.

The media double standard is blatantly obvious. Everyone hates Brady so its easy to sell any negative story (true or made up) about him, while the golden boy Peyton Manning gets a pass for any transgression, even though there's more evidence to suggest of wrong doing by Manning in his cases than deflategate for Brady.

As Barkley would say, "The Spurs are the Patriots of the NFL". Haters gona hate.

Rich Rane wrote:

patman52 wrote:This is not news, this has been known for years. Theout of court settlement the Mannings reached with her, forbade them from talking about it going forward. He then mentioned the incident in a book, but was not truthful on what happened. She took it as a breach of faith. The media picks who they want to attack.

I really want to go after Peyton here, but two things stop me. First, the article was based solely on the accuser's documents from her lawyers. It's not exactly objective. Second, Shaun King hasn't exactly screamed "integrity" lately. In my circles who love social media, I've heard him described as "the male Rachel Dolezal", "profiteer of #BlackLivesMatter movement", "embezzler", and "race baiter".

King's article has made that old document go public though. I wanna see if it uncovers anything new.

This is exactly why Peyton has gotten away it. You want to go after Peyton but instead direct your cynicism towards the victim and the source. Exactly what Peyton and his dad wanted it..that's why they went after her in the book even though there was a gag order....classic bullying behavior...but Hey you like Peyton so its all good right....nothing to see here....

rabbitsfoot8 wrote:This is exactly why Peyton has gotten away it. You want to go after Peyton but instead direct your cynicism towards the victim and the source. Exactly what Peyton and his dad wanted it..that's why they went after her in the book even though there was a gag order....classic bullying behavior...but Hey you like Peyton so its all good right....nothing to see here....

Wow, I apologize if I don't believe what everything from everyone says is true even though I nor anyone has proof of or the proof that is available isn't objective enough for me. I'm going to apologize specifically to you for not believing the following:

- Alien abductions
- Roswell alien coverup
- Area 51
- Magic bullets killing JFK
- Johnson ordering the killing of JFK
- 9/11 was set up by the US government
- US government creating AIDS to hurt urban communities
- R. Kelly urinating on a minor
- The Reptilian Elite
- The Illuminati
- Jesus and Mary Magdelene having a kid
- The Book Of Mormon
- Scientology
- A lot of religion, in general
- Jewish people control Wall Street and the Federal Reserve
- The "logic" of racism
- The "logic" of sexism
- People thinking the Holocaust never happened
- People thinking the Moon landings are fake
- People thinking Elvis faked his death and the possibility that he is still alive
- People thinking Nicholas Cage is 200 years old
- People thinking there's a lot of substance to Michael Bay's movies
- People thinking the Star Wars prequels were better than the original trilogy
- People thinking Avatar is an original film that should've won an Oscar for Best Picture
- People thinking The Walking Dead is a well written show
- People thinking the Kardashians are worth keeping up with
- People thinking reality television is the best stuff on television
- People thinking MTV is still a good channel
- People thinking Obama not being born an American
- People thinking Patrick Ewing to the Knicks was fixed before the lottery
- People thinking the Spurs are boring
- People thinking the Cowboys will win a Super Bowl with Tony Romo under center
- People thinking Kobe got into this year's All-Star game because he's the best guard in the league
- People thinking Zach LaVine had better dunks than Aaron Gordon in the dunk contest
- People thinking Trump would be a good President

I apologize to you for not believing anything on that list and I apologize again specifically to you if I change my mind if I see more objective evidence available.

you understand then the Mannings paid her already, there is no question on that. As part of that settlement both sides agreed never to discuss the event publicly. Then the Mannings published a book detailing an alternate event that was not the same as what she settled her claim for. By publishing this event with a different scenario it paints her story very differently. She is pissed that the Mannings are trying to portray what happened differently than what she alleged happened and for which she received damages.

patman52 wrote:you understand then the Mannings paid her already, there is no question on that. As part of that settlement both sides agreed never to discuss the event publicly. Then the Mannings published a book detailing an alternate event that was not the same as what she settled her claim for. By publishing this event with a different scenario it paints her story very differently. She is pissed that the Mannings are trying to portray what happened differently than what she alleged happened and for which she received damages.

You say Naughright is pissed. Honest question, has Naughright even come out and stated anything about the resurfacing of reports since it was released? Until then, nothing new has been released (Naughright's deposition has been known for more than a decade) and the article definitely and sadly comes off as a smear piece as alluded to here:

Shaun King of The Daily News wrote:"[Manning] has reaped tens of millions of dollars in endorsement deals based on a fraudulent mystique he's cultivated as a good guy, an upstanding citizen, the ideal professional athlete. This [74-page] document alone puts the lie to all this."

The settlement never proved if Manning was guilty or not (no settlement does). The 74-page document written by Naughright's lawyers is still not objective. The article doesn't prove who's telling the truth and it doesn't prove if Manning is guilty or not.

I'm fine waiting until more evidence comes out, but an eyewitness that was supposedly who Peyton Manning was joking with saying that he lied and corroborated what the trainer said sounds pretty damning to me. That alone warrants some skepticism thrown Peyton's way, instead of victim blaming (not saying anyone here is doing that, but comments I've read about the article have).

And then breaking confidentiality that both sides agreed to and basically destroying her reputation (she was highly respected and well-liked everywhere she went) sounds like downright douchebaggery, at minimum, to me.

It's also kind of sad and pathetic that posters here are trying to make jokes about possible sexual assault.

Rich Rane wrote:

rabbitsfoot8 wrote:This is exactly why Peyton has gotten away it. You want to go after Peyton but instead direct your cynicism towards the victim and the source. Exactly what Peyton and his dad wanted it..that's why they went after her in the book even though there was a gag order....classic bullying behavior...but Hey you like Peyton so its all good right....nothing to see here....

Wow, I apologize if I don't believe what everything from everyone says is true even though I nor anyone has proof of or the proof that is available isn't objective enough for me. I'm going to apologize specifically to you for not believing the following:

- Alien abductions
- Roswell alien coverup
- Area 51
- Magic bullets killing JFK
- Johnson ordering the killing of JFK
- 9/11 was set up by the US government
- US government creating AIDS to hurt urban communities
- R. Kelly urinating on a minor
- The Reptilian Elite
- The Illuminati
- Jesus and Mary Magdelene having a kid
- The Book Of Mormon
- Scientology
- A lot of religion, in general
- Jewish people control Wall Street and the Federal Reserve
- The "logic" of racism
- The "logic" of sexism
- People thinking the Holocaust never happened
- People thinking the Moon landings are fake
- People thinking Elvis faked his death and the possibility that he is still alive
- People thinking Nicholas Cage is 200 years old
- People thinking there's a lot of substance to Michael Bay's movies
- People thinking the Star Wars prequels were better than the original trilogy
- People thinking Avatar is an original film that should've won an Oscar for Best Picture
- People thinking The Walking Dead is a well written show
- People thinking the Kardashians are worth keeping up with
- People thinking reality television is the best stuff on television
- People thinking MTV is still a good channel
- People thinking Obama not being born an American
- People thinking Patrick Ewing to the Knicks was fixed before the lottery
- People thinking the Spurs are boring
- People thinking the Cowboys will win a Super Bowl with Tony Romo under center
- People thinking Kobe got into this year's All-Star game because he's the best guard in the league
- People thinking Zach LaVine had better dunks than Aaron Gordon in the dunk contest
- People thinking Trump would be a good President

I apologize to you for not believing anything on that list and I apologize again specifically to you if I change my mind if I see more objective evidence available.

Is it not a little concerning that this might be another case of a celebrity/star athlete getting away with sexual assault based on their mystique, though?

Reminds me of Bill Cosby tbh. Reports of rape had been around forever. It took a comedian to bring it into the national spotlight for people to call him out on it. And although the timing of the reaction is suspect, does that excuse Cosby's actions at the end of the day? Or since nothing has been proven, does it mean that the accusations should be ignored simply because the appropriate reaction is a little late? We're still dealing with a serious crime here.

Should Manning breaching confidentiality be ignored/excused? Should the fact that he was alleged to have been involved in sexual assault (with an eyewitness) be swept under the rug and forgotten? Yeah, it was conveniently brought up by a hack writer right when Manning won a Super Bowl, but honestly...who cares? The writer doing it for attention and clicks doesn't change the fact that it's something that should be talked about and looked into. It had real-life ramifications for the trainer, who by all accounts, was an excellent doctor that never had any issues prior to and after Manning.

therealbig3 wrote:Is it not a little concerning that this might be another case of a celebrity/star athlete getting away with sexual assault based on their mystique, though?

It's also still a possibility that the woman was trying to make a quick buck. It happens. People, that includes celebrities and non-celebrities, can be scumbags. Even children can lie about serious crimes (Watch Jagten/The Hunt).

therealbig3 wrote:Reminds me of Bill Cosby tbh. Reports of rape had been around forever. It took a comedian to bring it into the national spotlight for people to call him out on it. And although the timing of the reaction is suspect, does that excuse Cosby's actions at the end of the day? Or since nothing has been proven, does it mean that the accusations should be ignored simply because the appropriate reaction is a little late? We're still dealing with a serious crime here.

Wanna know how sick I am? I've STILL not even formulated a full opinion on Bill Cosby. Never watched his show growing up, never was a follower of his comedy and I've STILL not joined the bandwagon.

therealbig3 wrote:Should Manning breaching confidentiality be ignored/excused? Should the fact that he was alleged to have been involved in sexual assault (with an eyewitness) be swept under the rug and forgotten? Yeah, it was conveniently brought up by a hack writer right when Manning won a Super Bowl, but honestly...who cares? The writer doing it for attention and clicks doesn't change the fact that it's something that should be talked about and looked into. It had real-life ramifications for the trainer, who by all accounts, was an excellent doctor that never had any issues prior to and after Manning.

I've known all about this from Manning for years. A writer and a new population reading into this won't sway my stance. I mean, I'm not saying you guys are right or wrong for vilifying him, but I'm sorry that I'm gonna need more to join you.

Rich Rane wrote:

therealbig3 wrote:Is it not a little concerning that this might be another case of a celebrity/star athlete getting away with sexual assault based on their mystique, though?

It's also still a possibility that the woman was trying to make a quick buck. It happens. People, that includes celebrities and non-celebrities, can be scumbags. Even children can lie about serious crimes (Watch Jagten/The Hunt).

therealbig3 wrote:Reminds me of Bill Cosby tbh. Reports of rape had been around forever. It took a comedian to bring it into the national spotlight for people to call him out on it. And although the timing of the reaction is suspect, does that excuse Cosby's actions at the end of the day? Or since nothing has been proven, does it mean that the accusations should be ignored simply because the appropriate reaction is a little late? We're still dealing with a serious crime here.

Wanna know how sick I am? I've STILL not even formulated a full opinion on Bill Cosby. Never watched his show growing up, never was a follower of his comedy and I've STILL not joined the bandwagon.

therealbig3 wrote:Should Manning breaching confidentiality be ignored/excused? Should the fact that he was alleged to have been involved in sexual assault (with an eyewitness) be swept under the rug and forgotten? Yeah, it was conveniently brought up by a hack writer right when Manning won a Super Bowl, but honestly...who cares? The writer doing it for attention and clicks doesn't change the fact that it's something that should be talked about and looked into. It had real-life ramifications for the trainer, who by all accounts, was an excellent doctor that never had any issues prior to and after Manning.

I've known all about this from Manning for years. A writer and a new population reading into this won't sway my stance. I mean, I'm not saying you guys are right or wrong for vilifying him, but I'm sorry that I'm gonna need more to join you.

I think the big picture of what the OP is trying to prove is the double standards that exist between someone who is viewed as the golden boy of the NFL coming from part of the royal family of the Mannings.

In terms of transgressions and the facts associated:

Manning
-Sexual assault (eye witness account did not want to go along with Manning's story, then after a settlement was reached Manning proceeds to publish a book to rip into the victim. I'm not one to call him a rapist but at the very least, it is apparent that Manning didn't think this was a big deal while the accuser did. The people who did not agree with Manning's story were promptly send away from UT. This is more than just circumstantial evidence at play here.
-HGH (being mailed to his his house under his wife's name which to this day he has not denied). Is he linked to this? Perhaps we'll never know.
-Throwing his entire offensive line under the bus after losing to NE in the playoffs for the second year in a row 20-3. Check the quotes "we had some protection issues".
-Not shaking hands with Dree Brees/Sean Payton after SB XLIV. And Cam Newton (cocky as he is) actually shook Manning's hand after SB 50 but the sore loser label persists.

Brady
-Being ACCUSED of deflategate even though there is no evidence, eye witness accounts to support these claims. Meanwhile science has debunked that the balls were even deflated, and nothing has linked NE as a team to having even ATTEMPTED to deflate the footballs (we've seen plenty of other teams caught doing this though, starting with SD being caught on CBS with their ball boys tampering with the footballs on live TV. Yet they only got a warning).
-Spygate (nothing to do with him) was a case where the Jets and NE were going back and forth in a bitter feud at the time, with the Jets being accused by NE of taping from an illegal area during I believe week 4 of preseason. NE does it to open the season against the Jets (it is NOT illegal to tape to this day) but were guilty of doing so from a disapproved area after a league wide memo went out. Arrogance on NE's part? Perhaps. But to call them cheaters? Yeah right. NE has always been one to scoff at the NFL for its perceived stupid rules. Belichick once put every player on his roster as 'questionable' even though its true (but we all know most were going to play). When you combine that with consistent winning, a coach who has shown he wont hesistate to challenge authority (the NFL), a bunch of ex-Jets employees (Jets are obv arch rivals to NE in the same division) in the league office, teams who couldn't fathom losing to an underdog (the Rams), teams that couldn't take it when they lost at home in the playoffs with NE mocking their star defensive player's signature dance (Shawn Merriman)...you have incredible sour grapes and the perception that a dynasty like NE was the league's evil empire. Nobody felt sorry that they received an unprecedented (and imo wildy excessive punishment). Brady was just guilty by association. Easy to hate on a pretty boy who seemingly has everything going for him including a super model wife.
-Tuck rule (no cheating here) benefited NE greatly in their first SB run. Lady luck smiled on them this year but the opposite is also true in 2007/2011 vs NYG.

By in large, there is much more evidence and legs to support the notion that Manning has gone to great lengths to protect his image, and the NFL had no hesitation in promoting its golden boy. They changed the rules after 2003 after Indy lost to NE 27-17 and Manning complained to the NFL that NE's defensive backs were mugging his receivers. The evidence is there to suggest that the league and media as a whole has catered to Manning his whole career and the excuses were lined up when they consistently choked in the playoffs. On the other hand, Brady has been nothing but a model citizen and ultimate competitor yet he gets labelled as a cry baby and cheater. You do the math, regardless of whom you or anyone else may root for. Just be objective. There is a clear double standard here.

therealbig3 wrote:
Is it not a little concerning that this might be another case of a celebrity/star athlete getting away with sexual assault based on their mystique, though?

Reminds me of Bill Cosby tbh. Reports of rape had been around forever. It took a comedian to bring it into the national spotlight for people to call him out on it. And although the timing of the reaction is suspect, does that excuse Cosby's actions at the end of the day? Or since nothing has been proven, does it mean that the accusations should be ignored simply because the appropriate reaction is a little late? We're still dealing with a serious crime here.

Should Manning breaching confidentiality be ignored/excused? Should the fact that he was alleged to have been involved in sexual assault (with an eyewitness) be swept under the rug and forgotten? Yeah, it was conveniently brought up by a hack writer right when Manning won a Super Bowl, but honestly...who cares? The writer doing it for attention and clicks doesn't change the fact that it's something that should be talked about and looked into. It had real-life ramifications for the trainer, who by all accounts, was an excellent doctor that never had any issues prior to and after Manning.

Comparing this to Bill Cosby is kind of ridiculous. Bill Cosby drugged and raped women repeatedly. Peyton Manning put his junk in a woman's face one time 20 years ago. I'm not even sure it's fair to frame that as a sexual assault.
The bigger issue might be how the woman was treated afterwards, but I haven't looked into how much that should be on him or the University of Tennessee or anyone else involved.

Worm Guts wrote:

therealbig3 wrote:
Is it not a little concerning that this might be another case of a celebrity/star athlete getting away with sexual assault based on their mystique, though?

Reminds me of Bill Cosby tbh. Reports of rape had been around forever. It took a comedian to bring it into the national spotlight for people to call him out on it. And although the timing of the reaction is suspect, does that excuse Cosby's actions at the end of the day? Or since nothing has been proven, does it mean that the accusations should be ignored simply because the appropriate reaction is a little late? We're still dealing with a serious crime here.

Should Manning breaching confidentiality be ignored/excused? Should the fact that he was alleged to have been involved in sexual assault (with an eyewitness) be swept under the rug and forgotten? Yeah, it was conveniently brought up by a hack writer right when Manning won a Super Bowl, but honestly...who cares? The writer doing it for attention and clicks doesn't change the fact that it's something that should be talked about and looked into. It had real-life ramifications for the trainer, who by all accounts, was an excellent doctor that never had any issues prior to and after Manning.

Comparing this to Bill Cosby is kind of ridiculous. Bill Cosby drugged and raped women repeatedly. Peyton Manning put his junk in a woman's face one time 20 years ago. I'm not even sure it's fair to frame that as a sexual assault.
The bigger issue might be how the woman was treated afterwards, but I haven't looked into how much that should be on him or the University of Tennessee or anyone else involved.

Ok, so assuming this is true...

How is shoving your junk into a woman's face that was not consenting (and that was apparently the second time things got weird between them) NOT sexual assault?

And what does it matter if it was 20 years ago or not? Was he not an adult who was aware of right and wrong? And he released the book in 2005, knowingly breaching confidentiality and damaging her reputation, when he was much older and more mature, so blaming it on being a dumb college kid doesn't hold much weight in that instance...and btw, being a dumb college kid, or "boys will be boys" NEVER flies with me...imo, those are just lame excuses for very inappropriate behavior that those people should have known not to do. Being a dumb college kid is imo getting too drunk at a party and throwing up all over yourself, or getting caught underage drinking, or getting caught smoking pot, or just other stupid, harmless stuff that's a product of being young...thinking it's normal for that age to just assault women is downright sexist and misogynistic, and it's perpetuated by men that think it's ok to do stuff like that.

Also, the comparison to Bill Cosby is more so with regards to how this has been known by many people for a while, but it really didn't get any attention until it got brought up again much later. I also think we (rightfully) take things like sexual assault and victim blaming much more seriously now, so stories that weren't big deals before are met with the appropriate reactions when they get attention again. And I also think we have more cynicism with regards to our role models nowadays...again, rightfully so imo.

therealbig3 wrote:

Worm Guts wrote:

therealbig3 wrote:
Is it not a little concerning that this might be another case of a celebrity/star athlete getting away with sexual assault based on their mystique, though?

Reminds me of Bill Cosby tbh. Reports of rape had been around forever. It took a comedian to bring it into the national spotlight for people to call him out on it. And although the timing of the reaction is suspect, does that excuse Cosby's actions at the end of the day? Or since nothing has been proven, does it mean that the accusations should be ignored simply because the appropriate reaction is a little late? We're still dealing with a serious crime here.

Should Manning breaching confidentiality be ignored/excused? Should the fact that he was alleged to have been involved in sexual assault (with an eyewitness) be swept under the rug and forgotten? Yeah, it was conveniently brought up by a hack writer right when Manning won a Super Bowl, but honestly...who cares? The writer doing it for attention and clicks doesn't change the fact that it's something that should be talked about and looked into. It had real-life ramifications for the trainer, who by all accounts, was an excellent doctor that never had any issues prior to and after Manning.

Comparing this to Bill Cosby is kind of ridiculous. Bill Cosby drugged and raped women repeatedly. Peyton Manning put his junk in a woman's face one time 20 years ago. I'm not even sure it's fair to frame that as a sexual assault.
The bigger issue might be how the woman was treated afterwards, but I haven't looked into how much that should be on him or the University of Tennessee or anyone else involved.

Ok, so assuming this is true...

How is shoving your junk into a woman's face that was not consenting (and that was apparently the second time things got weird between them) NOT sexual assault?.

It comes off as more of a sexual harassment situation than a sexual assault, considering sexual assault is a term used for rape. I wouldn't expect this to be subject to jail time. But that's semantics.

therealbig3 wrote:[
And what does it matter if it was 20 years ago or not? Was he not an adult who was aware of right and wrong? And he released the book in 2005, knowingly breaching confidentiality and damaging her reputation, when he was much older and more mature, so blaming it on being a dumb college kid doesn't hold much weight in that instance...and btw, being a dumb college kid, or "boys will be boys" NEVER flies with me...imo, those are just lame excuses for very inappropriate behavior that those people should have known not to do. Being a dumb college kid is imo getting too drunk at a party and throwing up all over yourself, or getting caught underage drinking, or getting caught smoking pot, or just other stupid, harmless stuff that's a product of being young...thinking it's normal for that age to just assault women is downright sexist and misogynistic, and it's perpetuated by men that think it's ok to do stuff like that.

.

It matters that it was 20 years ago because things happen. You make mistakes and you move on, especially if that mistake doesn't happen again. It wasn't OK and he should have been punished, but it's not something he should be labeled the rest of his life over.