Manning doping report

[RiverDog]

Did you read the article? USA today has had this information since 2003 and did nothing with it even though it was eventually litigated on 3 occasions withdamning affidavits against Peyton and the university. Why? If this weren't football royalty would the outcome have been different?How can an all pro QB be in court 3 times with a woman claiming sexual assault and it never made ESPN, ABC, USA today, nothing ever until now after 1996.

Between this and the HGH rumors looking more and more likely to be true maybe Manning's reputation needs to be tarnished....

I read the article. It doesn't change a thing about my statement.

Is there anything else this information can do besides tarnish the reputation of a future HOF'er?

[HumanCockroach]

Interesting that some are quick to chastise young players still making their way so quickly but come to the defense so quickly for "future HOFers", truth is Manning did this ( based on MULTIPLE accounts including the guy He supposedly was mooning, and cost the guy his spot on the team because he refused to lie about it) if this "tarnishes" Mannings image, so what? He will still be in the HOF, and he earned the "tarnish". Really absolutely nothing changes except maybe the opinion of some that believed he was the "good guy".

( by the by, Manning went after the lady a SECOND time in his book, only to be sued yet again from the Dr. and ponying up a SECOND significant sum too avoid the libel suit that claimed the Dr slept with "multiple "black" players" from the team and was constantly swearing, which was categorically denied by every source interviewed. Good news is that Manning was able to cost her a SECOND job with his actions.)

[Hawktawk]

[quote="RiverDog.

Between this and the HGH rumors looking more and more likely to be true maybe Manning's reputation needs to be tarnished....[/quote]

I read the article. It doesn't change a thing about my statement.

Is there anything else this information can do besides tarnish the reputation of a future HOF'er?[/quote]

It could effect the outcome of the pending litigation more than anything. With stars like manning the tarnish wears off. Favre, a married man with many years in the league sent inappropriate texts including alleged pictures of his unit to Jen Sterger with the Jets. She sued and won.I didn't notice anyone complaining about his first ballot induction. Rapel burgher likely committed sexual misconduct twice and it doesn't get brought up at all anymore.
I guess if its different its because its Peyton Manning the knight in shining armor, and this carefully guarded secret will undoubtedly affect that perception for some. I'm not that naive anymore about any athlete, pick a name. They all have one thing in common, they are great athletes. Beyond that we really don't know what they really are like in their heart of hearts.

[Hawktawk]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/tim ... ar-BBpsTqr

I agree with this guy. There is not much of an upside to Manning hanging around, for either he or the league.

[RiverDog]

It could effect the outcome of the pending litigation more than anything. With stars like manning the tarnish wears off. Favre, a married man with many years in the league sent inappropriate texts including alleged pictures of his unit to Jen Sterger with the Jets. She sued and won.I didn't notice anyone complaining about his first ballot induction. Rapel burgher likely committed sexual misconduct twice and it doesn't get brought up at all anymore.
I guess if its different its because its Peyton Manning the knight in shining armor, and this carefully guarded secret will undoubtedly affect that perception for some. I'm not that naive anymore about any athlete, pick a name. They all have one thing in common, they are great athletes. Beyond that we really don't know what they really are like in their heart of hearts.

As I mentioned to Obi, there's a statute of limitations on most crimes, except for particularly heinous crimes like murder. This stuff about Manning is 18-20 years old. The accusations against Favre that you mentioned occurred within 12 months of the accuser filing charges and did so within the statute of limitations. That's why Bill Cosby isn't facing charges on most of the accusations levied by the scores of women that have accused him of various sex crimes, except the over the top ones where he allegedly drugged and raped women.

I agree with you that there's a lot of athletes that have some pretty embarrassing skeletons in their closets, and I'm not against bringing that out. But unless there is something corrupt that still exists at UT or the NCAA, not much is going to result other than the tarnishing of Manning's reputation. It won't keep him out of the HOF.

[obiken]

No I agree it wont hurt him as a HOFamer, T.O. is a hall of famer, its all about the numbers. However, the scary part of the story is the them wanting her to blame it on 2 black players. The U of T needs to answer for that one River, no matter how you feel about Manning. It was a gut wrenching story for me. I dismissed the HGH out of hand, this one I just cant do it.

[RiverDog]

No I agree it wont hurt him as a HOFamer, T.O. is a hall of famer, its all about the numbers. However, the scary part of the story is the them wanting her to blame it on 2 black players. The U of T needs to answer for that one River, no matter how you feel about Manning. It was a gut wrenching story for me. I dismissed the HGH out of hand, this one I just cant do it.

I am by no means defending Manning. I am simply saying that too much time has elapsed for him to be charged with a crime, or at least not the types of crimes that are being discussed.

Whether or not this story sticks doesn't concern me that much. If it's true, then sure, I'd be disappointed, but no more so than I would any other notable personality that's fallen from grace. I am not a huge Peyton Manning fan.

[obiken]

The problem with sex crimes is that its one's word against the other, unless you go through the whole rape kit thing. IF they have enough witnesses to prove the Tenn. Administration wanted to substitute a black which I believe, then it puts the rape case over the top. ITs a sad day in sports River, either way.

[RiverDog]

The problem with sex crimes is that its one's word against the other, unless you go through the whole rape kit thing. IF they have enough witnesses to prove the Tenn. Administration wanted to substitute a black which I believe, then it puts the rape case over the top. ITs a sad day in sports River, either way.

Even in the article we've been discussing, there's no mention of rape. The accusation is sexual assault, which is a much broader term and includes unwanted touching of a sexual nature. Plus the alleged incident occurred 18-20 years ago, and that alone is going to complicate any eyewitness testimony no matter how credible it might appear. That's why they have a statute of limitations on most crimes.

Big schools have always attempted to cover up incidents involving their high profile athletes. UW's Jeremy Stevens is a prime example. Not that it's right or that we shouldn't be outraged when it happens, but news of UT covering up a story on one of their high profile athletes is by no means unique. Heck, the whole Joe Palermo episode involved covering up crimes in order to protect the reputation of the university.

[HumanCockroach]

I think you guys should reread the article. There is a witness, and multiple witnesses as to the lady's character. Sorry, Manning made a huge mistake when he cost her another job and slandered her when it was done and over. As for "to much time" to be charged with a crime, I would direct you guys to Bill Cosby. I doubt there will be charges pressed, but honestly, I hope the lady fleeces him for every penny he's worth, and drags his name through the mud as well. This is disgusting, and wrong no matter what excuses you guys feel are warranted. Manning and his father screwed a person's livelyhood, it's that simple.

[Hawktawk]

No I agree it wont hurt him as a HOFamer, T.O. is a hall of famer, its all about the numbers. However, the scary part of the story is the them wanting her to blame it on 2 black players. The U of T needs to answer for that one River, no matter how you feel about Manning. It was a gut wrenching story for me. I dismissed the HGH out of hand, this one I just cant do it.

Why did you dismiss the HGH allegations out of hand Obi? The source or the accused? Did you watch the report?

How do you feel about two of Manning's hired goons showing up at Charlie Slys PARENTS house the night before the report was scheduled to be released? Sly cut an impromptu denial tape the next day.

I've tried to remain open minded with the roids but I think hes guilty as hell and looking at that foot long forehead maybe since before 2011.

I care less about that than if he tea bagged a female trainer and later tea bagged some of his own teammates when she was present on other occasions.

Then he went out of his way to destroy her(successfully) with the assistance of his father Archie. That's disgusting disturbing behavior.

[RiverDog]

I think you guys should reread the article. There is a witness, and multiple witnesses as to the lady's character. Sorry, Manning made a huge mistake when he cost her another job and slandered her when it was done and over. As for "to much time" to be charged with a crime, I would direct you guys to Bill Cosby. I doubt there will be charges pressed, but honestly, I hope the lady fleeces him for every penny he's worth, and drags his name through the mud as well. This is disgusting, and wrong no matter what excuses you guys feel are warranted. Manning and his father screwed a person's livelyhood, it's that simple.

The biggest problem I have with this "eyewitness testimony" is that it happened so long ago, nearly two decades. Even the most honest, reliable people can remember things differently with the passage of time. But we'll see where this story goes. I'm sure that we haven't heard the last opinion or version.

What Manning is accused of doing pales in comparison to the crimes Cosby is being accused of, at least the ones he's subject to charges on. The alleged crimes Cosby is being prosecuted for accuse him of of drugging unsuspecting females then sexually assaulting them. There has been some 60 females that have levied sexual assault accusations at Bill Cosby, and the vast majority of those won't be prosecuted due to the statute of limitations.

[HumanCockroach]

The eyewitness testimony was reported right after the incident and hasn't changed.Sorry try again.

As for the lawsuit...

http://q13fox.com/2016/02/15/peyton-man ... tennessee/

[HumanCockroach]

As a father of a daughter, personally, I have issue with anyone shoving their genitals in her face, you don't have to, entirely up to you. That said, costing her her career at two different locations shouldn't be forgivable in any way shape or form, considering it was swept under the rug, and didn't need to see the light off day again. This Doctor, left a long standing career, and forged a new path somewhere else, maintained the confidentiality agreement only to have Archie and Peyton drag her through the mud again, breaking the agreement and costing her a second time. Why? So Peyton can feel good about sticking his balls in someone's face? Sorry there's no way I'm cool with that. Surprises me some of you are. Especially you RD who typically loses it over some put smells, or knocking a pizza sign off a car, but balls to the face, slander and libel is o.k.? WTF?

[mykc14]

As a father of a daughter, personally, I have issue with anyone shoving their genitals in her face, you don't have to, entirely up to you. That said, costing her her career at two different locations shouldn't be forgivable in any way shape or form, considering it was swept under the rug, and didn't need to see the light off day again. This Doctor, left a long standing career, and forged a new path somewhere else, maintained the confidentiality agreement only to have Archie and Peyton drag her through the mud again, breaking the agreement and costing her a second time. Why? So Peyton can feel good about sticking his balls in someone's face? Sorry there's no way I'm cool with that. Surprises me some of you are. Especially you RD who typically loses it over some put smells, or knocking a pizza sign off a car, but balls to the face, slander and libel is o.k.? WTF?

This is why I felt it was more of an example of sexism in our society than racism.

[RiverDog]

As a father of a daughter, personally, I have issue with anyone shoving their genitals in her face, you don't have to, entirely up to you. That said, costing her her career at two different locations shouldn't be forgivable in any way shape or form, considering it was swept under the rug, and didn't need to see the light off day again. This Doctor, left a long standing career, and forged a new path somewhere else, maintained the confidentiality agreement only to have Archie and Peyton drag her through the mud again, breaking the agreement and costing her a second time. Why? So Peyton can feel good about sticking his balls in someone's face? Sorry there's no way I'm cool with that. Surprises me some of you are. Especially you RD who typically loses it over some put smells, or knocking a pizza sign off a car, but balls to the face, slander and libel is o.k.? WTF?

FYI I am a father of a daughter, too, my only child, so don't pull that Holier than Thou crap on me. If true, I'm just as offended as you or anyone else. I am not 'cool' with it as you accuse me of being. I just want to see this thing run its course before I jump to conclusions. I haven't even had time to read everything.

Did you even read the title of the article you linked? It said that Manning was only mentioned. He is not the target of the probe, it's the University of Tennessee that's on the hook. Manning's alleged behavior was mentioned as an example of possible Title IX violations committed by UT, but there's nothing in there that can subject Manning to any criminal proceedings. My argument has been a legal one, as a response to those that feel that Manning is going to be hauled before a court of law. He won't, unless it's as a witness.

[EmeraldBullet]

RD is correct as far as a criminal case goes, but a civil case could still be made further against manning.

[HumanCockroach]

He already was ( for breaking the confidentiality agreement, and Libel. Tried to have it thrown out, and was shot down by the judge based partially on those records with doubt about the validity of the "mooning" bs cover story). I didn't pull any holier than thou crapola. I pointed out that I'm not cool with any dude putting his sack in my daughter's face while performing her job. There is ZERO question it happened RD( so skip the stupid "if true"), spin it however you want, but it happened ( even if by the manufactured story, it STILL happened) sorry if I don't buy the " oops my d#ck landed on top of your head, and my sack landed in your face, but I was just trying to moon this guy over here see" excuse you want to see "play out"

Regardless of whether you buy that, or want to see it "play out" ( which is silly as it's right there for the reading) there is no denying it happened ( even according to Peyton) and no denying it cost her first her job at Tennessee, and then Manning decided to go ahead and break the agreement he, his father and Tennessee pushed, and cost her yet another job ( sued and settled yet again to keep his name out of the public court) those things aren't " debateable" they are a matter of record and or admission by Peyton himself.

Interesting how quick you were to condemn certain players ( refuting the need to let things play out) and here when everything is right there in front of you, it's time to wait? Seriously? SMDH.

[RiverDog]

He already was ( for breaking the confidentiality agreement, and Libel. Tried to have it thrown out, and was shot down by the judge based partially on those records with doubt about the validity of the "mooning" bs cover story). I didn't pull any holier than thou crapola. I pointed out that I'm not cool with any dude putting his sack in my daughter's face while performing her job. There is ZERO question it happened RD( so skip the stupid "if true"), spin it however you want, but it happened ( even if by the manufactured story, it STILL happened) sorry if I don't buy the " oops my d#ck landed on top of your head, and my sack landed in your face, but I was just trying to moon this guy over here see" excuse you want to see "play out"

Regardless of whether you buy that, or want to see it "play out" ( which is silly as it's right there for the reading) there is no denying it happened ( even according to Peyton) and no denying it cost her first her job at Tennessee, and then Manning decided to go ahead and break the agreement he, his father and Tennessee pushed, and cost her yet another job ( sued and settled yet again to keep his name out of the public court) those things aren't " debateable" they are a matter of record and or admission by Peyton himself.

Interesting how quick you were to condemn certain players ( refuting the need to let things play out) and here when everything is right there in front of you, it's time to wait? Seriously? SMDH.

I am not questioning that something happened. What is in doubt is the intent or whether or not it constitutes sexual assault. Christ O Mighty, I haven't even had enough time to do my own research. Hawktalk's article is the first I've heard of it. Do you expect me to believe that Manning is guilty based on one article and the opinions of a couple of wanna be lawyers on an internet forum?

I never argued that Percy Harvin should have been charged with a crime because a cop smelled something during a traffic stop. That issue was about the risk of a potential character issue that could affect our football team, not about the finer points of the law. The point I'm making about Manning is a strictly legal one, that he cannot be charged with sexual assault due to the statute of limitations on that crime ala 90% of the accusations levied about Bill Cosby. That doesn't mean that I believe that nothing at all happened.

Em, I'm not sure about potential civil penalties. I know that the bar for civil rights violations is much lower than that of criminal proceedings, but 20 years is a long time and the amount of time alone would cast doubt on any eyewitness testimony whether it be a civil or criminal trial, and I haven't heard of any physical evidence. IMO even civil damages would be a reach based on what I've heard so far.

[HumanCockroach]

I am not questioning that something happened. What is in doubt is the intent or whether or not it constitutes sexual assault.

Really? Whether there's intent or not, last I checked hitting someone in the face with your sack shouldn't occur. You have an odd thought process on this. Accident or not, I know I would be seriously angry that my son felt it ok to drop his drawers in front of a women leaning down to check his ankle.

And honestly, I could chalk that up to young stupidity, but getting the lady fired after she left the school because off you years after the fact? Sorry, absolutely low class, scum. Having money and throwing a football really well doesn't exempt you from being a human being in my book. Whether you are the Sheriff or Russell Wilson, doesn't matter. Screwing with someone's life or ability to live it out of pettiness isn't o.k. to me.

[RiverDog]

Really? Whether there's intent or not, last I checked hitting someone in the face with your sack shouldn't occur. You have an odd thought process on this. Accident or not, I know I would be seriously angry that my son felt it ok to drop his drawers in front of a women leaning down to check his ankle.

And honestly, I could chalk that up to young stupidity, but getting the lady fired after she left the school because off you years after the fact? Sorry, absolutely low class, scum. Having money and throwing a football really well doesn't exempt you from being a human being in my book. Whether you are the Sheriff or Russell Wilson, doesn't matter. Screwing with someone's life or ability to live it out of pettiness isn't o.k. to me.

I'd be pissed off, too. Either way, it's a pretty sick act. And I'm not OK about anything in this story. I simply haven't read or heard enough about it to come to the same conclusions you have.

MY ONLY POINT IS THAT MANNING CAN'T BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME DUE TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS!. Period.

[obiken]

Actually the reason he cant comment is that he had to settle a lawsuit in 2003 when his book came out he just mentioned the case, and didn't mention her name. So he in fact paid her 300,000 in 95 and then again in 03. Sorry Riv, I had him on way more of a pedestal than you but I learned the hard way in Corrections, to my chagrin and sorrow, where there's smoke there's fire.
This plus the PED's the squeaky clean image is going to take a hit.

NO he will not do any jail time.

[RiverDog]

NO he will not do any jail time.

That's my point, Obi. My only point.

And don't get me wrong. I am not insensitive to the charges. Even if Manning's version is what actually happened, it's extremely disgusting, and I won't accept the "boys will be boys" excuse.

[obiken]

As far as the Manning legacy River, when the word came out about the 1 and 2 payoffs, it took a major hit. IMHO!

[Hawktawk]

As far as the Manning legacy River, when the word came out about the 1 and 2 payoffs, it took a major hit. IMHO!

Meh. I read an article yesterday that said Manning is still being courted by all the major networks to become an analyst upon his retirement. They all made their pact with the devil long ago when it came to the golden boy.
The dude will be basically the biggest free agent talking forehead ever. Barring some further bizarre revelations or people coming out of the woodwork ala Cosbys accusers he is going to skate off to a lucrative retirement and certain first ballot HOF induction.

Its how it has always been and how it likely always will be. The golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules.

[obiken]

Yeah the sex story is he mooned her then she changed her story. Pretty thin. The real story is the lets substitute two blacks for it story. The U of T, is on the block for that one.

[RiverDog]

I see now where some women's rights groups are jumping on the bandwagon by calling for Papa John's and Nationwide to cut ties with Manning by issuing the following statement:

When institutions like the University of Tennessee tacitly condone violence against women by ignoring cases of sexual assault by student-athletes, it perpetuates a dangerous culture of violence that ultimately hurts women everywhere," Nita Chaudhary, co-founder of UltraViolet, said in a release.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14793 ... on-manning

Now I can understand, even agree to the proposition that sponsors ought to drop Manning for his insensitivity to females, but not doing so condones violence? I guess I don't follow the logic.

[c_hawkbob]

Seems to me their beef is more appropriately with UT than with Manning.

Manning's case was settled and would never have been heard of again had he not (twice now) interjected it back into the public consciousness. The fact that he keeps picking at that scab indicates to me that the incident itself may not have been much more than a college kid mooning someone and he just cant get over it being characterized otherwise. Makes him more stupid than evil.

The doping thing has yet to play itself out, I have no comment on that yet.

[HumanCockroach]

Yeah the sex story is he mooned her then she changed her story. Pretty thin. The real story is the lets substitute two blacks for it story. The U of T, is on the block for that one.

WTH are you talking about? None of that statement is true, minus the subbing two black players. She reported it immediately, has never changed the story, and the player Manning supposedly mooned has refuted it since the first, as well as the fact that it wasn't even Manning that made up the story in the first place. The story hasn't changed one bit from the beginning, even IF it had ( which it categorically hasn't) you think a male athlete should go around mooning or dropping trow in front of a female Doctor who is checking for a stress fracture of an ankle? STILL a crime to expose yourself.... either way you have missed the boat entirely. Did you even read anything on this? Seems likely the answer is no.

[HumanCockroach]

Come on Bob, dropping your D#ck on someone's head and shoving your sack in someone's face, whether you're mooning someone else or not isn't o.k. whether you're in college or 4th grade. It shouldn't be made out to bee something like he messed up her hair. Not only were those actions wrong, it ended up costing a well respected person their career, not once but TWICE.

Little shocked how people are making excuses for someone because they can throw a football really well. Exposing yourself last I checked was still against the law, whether you're in college or HS or an adult ( which Manning was) much less dropping the old one eyed snake on top of someone's head with the old hairy beanbag on their forehead. Chalking it up to a "minor" lack of judgement doesn't do justice to how badly Manning has f'ld up this lady's career and life. She deserves better than that.

[c_hawkbob]

Come on yourself Roach. You are relating only the most extreme telling of a single side of the story. There are other plausible versions of the events and it has been my experience that once lawyers are involved every version becomes the most extreme possible and the truth is almost always somewhere in between.

Besides I'm not saying it was OK, only that 1) it was settled, and it absolutely WAS settled. And 2) that if Peyton himself weren't stupid enough to keep bringing the incident back up it would not be a topic of discussion right now. And 3) that her beef has always more rightly been with UT's attempts to hush, squash and mischaracterize the event (among others).

As far as the event itself, whatever it was that took place of course it wasn't OK! But damn, we're talking about a 19 year old kid acting on a stupid impulse and doing a thing he should absolutely be ashamed of and apologetic for, but that doesn't even approach the level of things like what Roethlisberger made a habit of at the same period in their lives.

Again; stupid, not evil.

[Hawktawk]

Again; stupid, not evil.

Ok well how about admitting the actions in the locker room were weird and extremely disturbing at a minimum. A sense of privilege? Arrogance?
Lots of people back up this woman's story and between the university and Manning she's been paid at least 600 grand in damages.
The impetus for the initial actions are apparently debatable for some but going out of ones way to smear someone years after the fact was EVIL.
Allowing a teammate to lose his scholarship for not backing up his mooning story(the guy who was supposedly mooned BTW) was EVIL.

The guy is dropping like a stone IMO. Just go away.....

[c_hawkbob]

Admitting?

I haven't been denying any of those things.

I'm not defending Peyton, I'm saying it's his own damn fault people are talking about this again because he brought it up again in his stupid book.

But if you're expecting me to grab a pitchfork and torch and join in the hyperbole, I'll save that for the outcome of the HGH investigation thanks.

[RiverDog]

Seems to me their beef is more appropriately with UT than with Manning.

Manning's case was settled and would never have been heard of again had he not (twice now) interjected it back into the public consciousness. The fact that he keeps picking at that scab indicates to me that the incident itself may not have been much more than a college kid mooning someone and he just cant get over it being characterized otherwise. Makes him more stupid than evil.

The doping thing has yet to play itself out, I have no comment on that yet.

I'm not sure if the UT's covering up the incident with Manning (if that's indeed what happened) constitutes the promotion of an atmosphere of violence against women, either. IMO nothing of what I've read or heard includes any kind of violence, certainly not on the same level as Greg Hardy or Ray Rice.

Agreed with your characterization of Manning's actions being more stupid than evil. That's a good way of putting it.

[HumanCockroach]

Wow. Shocked by the blaise attitude towards someone that cost an innocent person their career not just in the original "stupid" incident, but a SECOND time when they had worked again to reforge their career, after having to leave because of his "stupid" indiscretion of placing his junk on top of a medical professionals head and face.

If this was my daughter poor wife I would be looking for not only pitchforks, but body bags. You guys are welcome to the "it's no big deal" to expose yourself, and put your genitalia on someone's head or face, I'm not going with you.

Destroying someone's career a second time, and doing it with the pettiness with which he did, even IF I was inclined to forgive the first disgusting act ( which I'm not) isn't "stupid", it's "evil" in every way it can be.

[obiken]

I agree Human, but its the part of the case that is hanging out there depending on who you believe. We need more evidence on that part of it.

[c_hawkbob]

You know Roach, I find it hard to believe that you have so completely bought into that version of the events that took place that day. I don't completely buy into that version (her lawyers words BTW) any more than I believe Peyton's:

"I did it thinking the trainer wasn't where she would see. ... Even when she did, it seemed like something she'd have laughed at, considering the environment, or shrugged off as harmless. Crude maybe, but harmless."

Both were things that were said in court by or at the advice of their lawyers. My experience has been that by that point the truth is almost irrelevant and always somewhere between the two extremes. Once lawyers get involved the truth becomes the actual value of a used car with the lawyers versions being the high and the low when the negotiations between to experienced professional buyers/sellers begin.

There was an assistant trainer on one hand that seemed to lean toward one side, and the guy he was supposed to have mooned writing an open letter to Peyton asking him to "tell the truth" but it was also another assistant trainer on the other side that was the first to call the event a "mooning".

You go ahead and believe what you want to believe, but step back with the holier than thou act for those of us that aren't ready take it to that extreme.

What is not up for debate however is that the case was settled, in court, agreed to by both sides (the true value of the used car). Over with completely until Peyton wrote his stupid book and referred to her as "having a foul mouth" which lead to another court settlement and then brought the incident up again in a 2005 ESPN interview (which led to another "re-settlement" of the last settlement).

If what you say is how it happened and if she actually did lose here job because of the book an her life is indeed "ruined" I honestly feel for her, I'm just not as convinced as you are of what actually happened. What I am convinced of is that Peyton's proving himself to be an idiot where this whole matter is concerned.

[RiverDog]

Excellent post, CBob. I especially liked this part:

Both were things that were said in court by or at the advice of their lawyers. My experience has been that by that point the truth is almost irrelevant and always somewhere between the two extremes. Once lawyers get involved the truth becomes the actual value of a used car with the lawyers versions being the high and the low when the negotiations between to experienced professional buyers/sellers begin.

And HC, no one is defending Manning or saying what he did was OK or that we accept his explanation. But your arguments seem to imply that if we don't all come down 4 square on the side of the accuser's version as you have that we are all a bunch of insensitive males and are condoning such behavior.

[Hawktawk]

Hey RD, I have some Florida swampland for you too. You too Cbob.

You admit Manning violated a confidentiality clause not once but twice over a period of 9 years. That's not the act of an innocent man IMO. That's the act of a petulant child continuing to thumb his nose at his victim..
And ask yourselves which locker room guy might be lying? The one who said it was a mooning and kept his job or the one who said it wasn't and lost his job and has his letter in court evidence telling Manning to fess up. WHO would be lying there??? Common sense comes into the equation doesn't it?

You are making very light of what is a disturbing pattern emerging of witness intimidation and untruth. Its no different than Manning sending hired goons to Charley Sly's PARENTS!!!!!! house the night before the HGH report was to be released. By strange coincidence he had an impromptu denial video released the next day.
Manning is too GD indignant to believe anyone should dare to tamper with his perfectly crafted and financially protected squeaky clean image. Like Polian says, its a vicious smear campaign.
I think its a light of truth shining on darkness.

Say what you want you guys sound like a couple of good old boys right now.

[c_hawkbob]

Must be nice to be so sure you know everything about everything.

You're the one needs to be a little careful about what you buy, I question everything.