Peyton Manning sex assault allegations

[oldunclemark]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

OUM....

 

It's damning and shocking to everyone who has NOT known about this.     You, as a Colts fan know about this.

 

But this story has been kept pretty hush-hush for a long time.    Lots of people are learning about this for the very first time.      And to all those people,  it's damning and shocking.

 

Also,  your assertion that Peyton wrote this book to apologize to the young lady is not reflected in either of the two stories I've seen on this.     The book was written to promote Peyton and to downplay the allegations against him and take more shots at the woman.

 

She lost two jobs over this.     One at Tennessee,  the other at Central Florida.     The woman has been harmed.   

 

Also the reference to Likely is a way to say that I don't know if she's been libeled and slandered but as a non-legal expert it certainly looks that way to me.

 

NCF....

  I did not say that he wrote the book TO apologize to this woman.

. I did not mean that and actually, if you look at what I wrote, I did not say that at all.

Like you say, I did know about this....I remember the 2003 rehash...It wasnt shocking and damning to me then.

It was bad behavior by a college kid...but 'sexual assault' is an exaggeration.

Its sexual harassment certainly....but it never went to court . I'm thinking, had it been serious, it would have.

 

The story obviously wasn't 'hush hush' because it was in Manning's book, right?

And whether she lost her job the second time is something we'll just have to accept from her.

. He never mentioned her name in apologizing. She went public in response, is the way I remember it

To say the book was written 'to take more shots at her' is doubtful because he never mentions her name

He said he was sorry about it....hardly harming her again...

She chose to go public probably because he was profiting from the book so she did as well, in the end.

You have to, at least, take into account how many people this woman has sued.

 

The original incident is locker room mis behaving. It was wrong. Clear sexual harassment.

But she chose not to seek judgement in court and she's accepted a lot of money.

I dont know how much she was harmed. I cant say. She agreed to take judgement in cash and

 not to seek judgement in court. And you haven't been libeled and slandered unless you take that to court.

You have to call it something else.

 

Damning? Really?  20 years ago. Locker room misconduct by a 19 year old?

This is only shocking if you believe that some folks never do anything wrong in their lives.

Again. Don't hear me saying this wasnt wrong. It most certainly was. . But its been over for 13 years and in the last 20 years,

Peyton has been high profile and, by all accounts, an exemplary citizen

I think his 20 years as a good citizen overcomes the one incident of misconduct, right?.

 

 

 

.

 

 

[Carlos Danger]

I read the book and he does mention the incident, but his version is much different than the reports... He said that he "mooned" her. Which, in my opinion, negates his apology for its being disingenuous...

 

My opinion on the matter is that people are bringing it up now (as if it's a new story) for "political" reasons for lack of a better term. He really should have come completely clean about it before now and (knowing sports fans) it would have had little to no effect on his career. Right now, it's Bill Cosby time. This kind of story flies in the current media environment. 

 

I really hate what Manning allegedly (probably) did to that woman. The University has a real issue on its hands with stuff like this (and much worse things atheletes have gotten away with). However, I don't think that it's valid to bring up a childish thing that he did when he was practically a kid as if it ought tarnish his image now. However, it's a toughy because he still hasn't taken responsibility or shown proper contrition. He has no issues, to this day, with the implication that this woman was making it up. It's not classy, but I understand the desire to not lose hundreds of millions in endorsement dollars because of something as stupid as this... 

 

Like I said, I don't think it would have affected his career at all. He still would have had all the endorsement deals he wanted, but he couldn't be sure of that. It looks worse now, though. Society has much different attitudes about things like this than they did in the 90's. The media coverage of this will have a much more profound effect on his legacy than any court proceedings, I'd say. 

 

 

[bababooey]

Shaun King said he was able to get the redacted portion of her side and said it was deep and ugly. Which really doesn't matter since it's her lawyer's paid word.

 

i implore everyone to search for @lauralmonroe33 on Twitter and look at the tweet she sent from today at 10:21 am, it contains a screenshot of Jamie Naughright's Facebook and let's just say the caption of the picture is "So we are still outraged today over Peyton's actions to this undeserving, poor, sweet "lady"  who is never vulgar?" Id be banned for life for posting what she wrote. PM me if you want to see if you don't have Twitter. 

 

Edit here is link but the pic shouldn't show up or I'll quickly delete https://mobile.twitter.com/lauralmonroe33/status/698889706315128832

 

edit wow there is even more on this woman's Twitter account from the trainers Facebook page before it was deleted 

[oldunclemark]

3 hours ago, Fx Stryker said:

 

"Thirteen years ago, USA Today obtained 74 pages of explosive court documents on Peyton Manning..."

 

Literally the first sentence. Nothing is new. Everything has been available for over a decade now.

This is what I'm saying. Nothing is new.

It is what it is. He did it. Because folks have forgotten in the last 13 years or are young and didn't know.

That's not a cover up.  Its just the passing of time.

Everybody has done wrong in their lives at least one time.

Peyton paid in dollars and he has long since made up for this

 

[oldunclemark]

8 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

I read the book and he does mention the incident, but his version is much different than the reports... He said that he "mooned" her. Which, in my opinion, negates his apology for its being disingenuous...

 

. He really should have come completely clean about it before now and (knowing sports fans) it would have had little to no effect on his career.

 

 

CD, The book was 'coming completely clean' don't you think? He never had to mention it again.

Why does his version of the truth negate his apology?  Her version is true and his version 'negates his apology'?

The writer who brought this up after the SDuper Bowl was defending Cam and he made a paralell to cite that everyone does wrong. He claimed a racial double standard. His issue isn't with Manning.

 

No one should be judged by an incident 20 years ago when they have been good citizens since then

 

[crazycolt1]

27 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

I read the book and he does mention the incident, but his version is much different than the reports... He said that he "mooned" her. Which, in my opinion, negates his apology for its being disingenuous...

 

My opinion on the matter is that people are bringing it up now (as if it's a new story) for "political" reasons for lack of a better term. He really should have come completely clean about it before now and (knowing sports fans) it would have had little to no effect on his career. Right now, it's Bill Cosby time. This kind of story flies in the current media environment. 

 

I really hate what Manning allegedly (probably) did to that woman. The University has a real issue on its hands with stuff like this (and much worse things atheletes have gotten away with). However, I don't think that it's valid to bring up a childish thing that he did when he was practically a kid as if it ought tarnish his image now. However, it's a toughy because he still hasn't taken responsibility or shown proper contrition. He has no issues, to this day, with the implication that this woman was making it up. It's not classy, but I understand the desire to not lose hundreds of millions in endorsement dollars because of something as stupid as this... 

 

Like I said, I don't think it would have affected his career at all. He still would have had all the endorsement deals he wanted, but he couldn't be sure of that. It looks worse now, though. Society has much different attitudes about things like this than they did in the 90's. The media coverage of this will have a much more profound effect on his legacy than any court proceedings, I'd say. 

 

 

Bill Cosby time? That is a far stretch to compare with what Cosby is accused of don't you think?

[2006Coltsbestever]

24 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Bill Cosby time? That is a far stretch to compare with what Cosby is accused of don't you think?

I know that comment threw me off as well. Peyton was never accused of rape, we all know what he was accused of and the woman settled out of court. She got 300,000 from the school and money from Peyton. To me this is a non-story and has already been settled so I don't see the big stink about it now. This is nowhere near what Ben or Kobe were being accused of, they were being accused of rape actually. The Bill Cosby situation is on a different level compared to even Ben and Kobe. All it is, is a racist writer that was upset Cam lost to Peyton and Cam getting treated badly by the media afterwards so he had to bring old news up. (what is funny is isn't Shaun King actually white? If so white pretending to be black- that is sad in itself). I cant see how any Patriots fan can even run with this and make a big deal out of it. I think Pats fans are stirring the pot because of what Tom went through with DeflateGate and their team losing to Peyton because I repeat this is old news. I think it goes away again shortly. Only the haters will keep stirring the pot  which makes them look really dumb.

[Andrew Luck's Beard]

 

Skip to 4:02. If this YouTube channel can find this information out 5 days before this Shaun King guy can (February 8 video upload date vs. February 13 article), this is most certainly not news.

[jvan1973]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Do you think I have a copy of the book?

 

Doesn't the story say she was mentioned in the book?      Another poster says the book was written to "apologize to her".....?

 

I knew attempts to say the Manning did not handle this well would not go over well here.    But some of the responses are curious at best......

 

Her name is never mentioned in the book

[bababooey]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

Her name is never mentioned in the book

I wouldn't even bother he never listens and rarely knows what he's talking about

[Surge89]

I wonder if it sucks?

 

If you are a fan of Brady you need to be defending stuff every 3 years about his integrity and validity of his team accomplishments.

 

If you just so happens to favor Manning you just need to listen to people complain about stuff of 20 years ago...

 

It's kinda nice tbh.

[2006Coltsbestever]

19 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

I wonder if it sucks?

 

If you are a fan of Brady you need to be defending stuff every 3 years about his integrity and validity of his team accomplishments.

 

If you just so happens to favor Manning you just need to listen to people complain about stuff of 20 years ago...

 

It's kinda nice tbh.

I know. Patriots fans on other sites are actually saying stuff like now his true character is really being shown. He is scum, he is a rapist, etc. Are they really that stupid or do they just hate Peyton that much that they need to bash on him over something that happened 20 years ago?? Do they not realize this happened 20 years ago and it wasn't nothing like rape? Secondly when else has he ever been in trouble? As an NFL player he has never been accused or arrested of anything or accused of cheating while playing the game.  The Patriots have been accused of cheating not once but twice. They got fined over Spygate, got fined and lost Draft picks over Deflategate as well. What Peyton did was wrong but it isn't  even close to rape so I will defend him, especially considering he has never been accused of anything else during his whole career. Regarding the HGH situation, I need more proof. The source seems wishy/washy to me and he has never tested positive for anything so good luck proving that LOL.

[ColtsSouljah]

I fully understand that we can't know 100% what happened that day, but let me ask this. Knowing this woman's reputation and Peyton's reputation, why are we assuming the worst about Peyton? Peyton says in the book that he mooned a fellow athlete because that athlete said something off-color and he didn't know the trainer was in the room. WHY is her word more believable than Peyton's?

The "new" documents (which aren't new) simply tell her side of the story; there is no "new" information here.

[bababooey]

2 hours ago, bababooey said:

Shaun King said he was able to get the redacted portion of her side and said it was deep and ugly. Which really doesn't matter since it's her lawyer's paid word.

 

i implore everyone to search for @lauralmonroe33 on Twitter and look at the tweet she sent from today at 10:21 am, it contains a screenshot of Jamie Naughright's Facebook and let's just say the caption of the picture is "So we are still outraged today over Peyton's actions to this undeserving, poor, sweet "lady"  who is never vulgar?" Id be banned for life for posting what she wrote. PM me if you want to see if you don't have Twitter. 

 

Edit here is link but the pic shouldn't show up or I'll quickly delete https://mobile.twitter.com/lauralmonroe33/status/698889706315128832

 

edit wow there is even more on this woman's Twitter account from the trainers Facebook page before it was deleted 

In addition to the screenshots above from the trainers now deleted Facebook account (PM me if you want them sent directly to you warning: vulgar language) the NE lawyer who works for SI and teaches a deflategate course (yes that's real) went through new documents and the timeline. Apparently in her initial lawsuits she never even said Peyton made physical contact with her until she mentions it in the "statement of facts" in 2013 which is the document her lawyer was paid to write that Shaun King attempted to make his meal ticket on, 17 years later. http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/02/14/peyton-manning-lawsuit-sexual-harassment-documents-tennessee

 

so if she really is vulgar as her personal now deleted Facebook page shows, and she said he never made physical contact w her until her lawyer wrote it in 2013, what else is false?

 

unrelated but somewhat related: anyone catch the nba all star game? Kobe won mvp and had his name chanted as he exited

[Carlos Danger]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Bill Cosby time? That is a far stretch to compare with what Cosby is accused of don't you think?

Wasn't comparing the acts at all... I was saying that, in the current cultural climate caused by things like the Cosby scandal and Subway Jared (i.e. "trusted celebrity figures being involved in sex scandals is one of the news-friendliest storylines at the moment), Manning's actions look worse to the general public than they would have in the 90's... 

 

His actions weren't anything near Cosby, was just saying that we are primed to destroy any respected male who may have been sexually inappropriate because it's the in thing right now (sick to think of it like that, but it's true, just like school shootings at the end of the 90's and blonde girl child abductions in the early 2000s)...

[ColtsSouljah]

11 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

Wasn't comparing the acts at all... I was saying that, in the current cultural climate caused by things like the Cosby scandal and Subway Jared (i.e. "trusted celebrity figures being involved in sex scandals is one of the news-friendliest storylines at the moment), Manning's actions look worse to the general public than they would have in the 90's... 

 

His actions weren't anything near Cosby, was just saying that we are primed to destroy any respected male who may have been sexually inappropriate because it's the in thing right now (sick to think of it like that, but it's true, just like school shootings at the end of the 90's and blonde girl child abductions in the early 2000s)...

 

Why are you assuming things didn't happen as Peyton said they did? Peyton said he was mooning a fellow athlete and didn't know she was in the room.... why are we assuming he is lying? I'm asking that honestly.

[Superman]

37 minutes ago, bababooey said:

unrelated but somewhat related: anyone catch the nba all star game? Kobe won mvp and had his name chanted as he exited

 

Kobe didn't come close to winning MVP.

[crazycolt1]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Kobe didn't come close to winning MVP.

 

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Kobe didn't come close to winning MVP.

How Paul George didn't win the MVP is beyond me. He had 41 points with 9 three pointers. I didn't know it was some sort of rule that the MVP had to come from the winning team?

[Carlos Danger]

20 minutes ago, ColtsSouljah said:

 

Why are you assuming things didn't happen as Peyton said they did? Peyton said he was mooning a fellow athlete and didn't know she was in the room.... why are we assuming he is lying? I'm asking that honestly.

I believe that he's lying, yeah... At least one other athelete in the room has corroborated the trainer's story in public. It just seems to me like it's much more likely that he's lying than she is... His story becomes, a female trainer saw my butt and concocted a story about me and got others to back her up, even though nobody could forsee having anything to gain from doing so...

 

I don't believe that for a second...

Btw, this didn't change my love for #18 when I first heard about it and it didn't now... I don't think he's a sexual predator or whatever the connotations of "sexual assault" are... I do think he did it and that not admitting it was a mistake. I think he should pay the woman in leu of his role in her misfortune...

[Superman]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

 

How Paul George didn't win the MVP is beyond me. He had 41 points with 9 three pointers. I didn't know it was some sort of rule that the MVP had to come from the winning team?

 

It's not a rule, but it's pretty much common sense. The West ran away with it in the fourth quarter, and despite PG's performance, his work wasn't as 'valuable' as Westbrook's was. If the game had been close down the stretch, PG might have won it. 

 

Last time the MVP came from the losing team was Magic Johnson in 1990 (not the year he was retiring; that was '92, and he won that MVP also, but the West won the game).

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

I believe that he's lying, yeah... At least one other athelete in the room has corroborated the trainer's story in public. It just seems to me like it's much more likely that he's lying than she is... His story becomes, a female trainer saw my butt and concocted a story about me and got others to back her up, even though nobody could forsee having anything to gain from doing so...

 

I don't believe that for a second...

Btw, this didn't change my love for #18 when I first heard about it and it didn't now... I don't think he's a sexual predator or whatever the connotations of "sexual assault" are... I do think he did it and that not admitting it was a mistake. I think he should pay the woman in leu of his role in her misfortune...

 

He (apparently) has paid her. I don't think he should have to pay her every time someone decides to write a sensational article about it. 

 

To the bolded, I don't understand how you can conclude that no one had anything to gain from overstating what happened or supporting an untrue version of the events. He was Peyton Manning, big man on campus, on his way to the NFL, Heisman candidate... his dad was Archie Manning, and was rich. The school was UT. There was plenty to gain by means of extortion even then, and if you had even a little bit of foresight you would have known then that Peyton Manning would be a big deal in the future.

 

I'm not saying anyone is lying, nor am I saying anyone extorted the Mannings. I'm just confused that you would say no one could see that there would be anything to gain by hanging this over his head.

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

 

Damning? Really?  20 years ago. Locker room misconduct by a 19 year old?

This is only shocking if you believe that some folks never do anything wrong in their lives.

Again. Don't hear me saying this wasnt wrong. It most certainly was. . But its been over for 13 years and in the last 20 years,

Peyton has been high profile and, by all accounts, an exemplary citizen

I think his 20 years as a good citizen overcomes the one incident of misconduct, right?.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

Let's start with what we agree.

 

As far as I can tell there was no "sexual assault" at least not in the way I think of the term.    It reads to me like a stupid college kid's sexual prank.     But the thing of it, right or wrong,  the law views it differently.

 

And, I absolutely agree that the life Peyton has led as an adult has been by all accounts exemplary...

 

That said....   the incident happened at Tennessee,  and then was exacerbated when he was with the Colts and wrote a book with his dad.    Or, the dad wrote the book and included Peyton in it,  it's not clear to me.

 

But laws were broken when the book was written.   A file that was sealed by court order was broken to write the book,  and there's just no way of getting around that.     Though I haven't seen it written anywhere,  my instincts are the Manning's lost the 2nd lawsuit as well as the first.

 

For whatever reason,  this just didn't get nearly as much attention back in the late 90's and early 2000's....  these kind of incidents were just not taken as seriously, especially with few people going in front of a camera.

 

If the same things happened today -- well, we remember what happened to Jameis Winston, or Ray Rice.    that didn't happen to Peyton.     It's just the way things were back then.    Now, with new high tech media,  they'd be eating Peyton and Archie alive. 

 

I'm not looking for Peyton to be punished here...   he's led a good adult life....   but I'm not looking to minimize what happened either.     Peyton and his father were wrong -- twice.     It's sometimes hard to keep these things out of the spotlight.

[Carlos Danger]

39 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He (apparently) has paid her. I don't think he should have to pay her every time someone decides to write a sensational article about it. 

 

To the bolded, I don't understand how you can conclude that no one had anything to gain from overstating what happened or supporting an untrue version of the events. He was Peyton Manning, big man on campus, on his way to the NFL, Heisman candidate... his dad was Archie Manning, and was rich. The school was UT. There was plenty to gain by means of extortion even then, and if you had even a little bit of foresight you would have known then that Peyton Manning would be a big deal in the future.

 

I'm not saying anyone is lying, nor am I saying anyone extorted the Mannings. I'm just confused that you would say no one could see that there would be anything to gain by hanging this over his head.

I was thinking more along the lines of there not being any guarantee that he would become as wealthy as somebody who I would recognize as a candidate for extortion.

I do think that you are probably right, though. His dad was loaded and he was a lock for a high draft pick.

 

I'm not saying that I know what happened or that her story is the gospel on this incident, but I still believe that the truth is much closer to her story than his. It takes serious exaggeration to get from what he said to what she said. She could be embellishing, but it doesn't make his version any more believable. 

 

I've never ever heard of anybody paying money and apologizing years later in a book because an innocent bystander got caught in the crossfire of a mooning incident. That is silly talk. 

[Carlos Danger]

27 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Let's start with what we agree.

 

As far as I can tell there was no "sexual assault" at least not in the way I think of the term.    It reads to me like a stupid college kid's sexual prank.     But the thing of it, right or wrong,  the law views it differently.

 

And, I absolutely agree that the life Peyton has led as an adult has been by all accounts exemplary...

 

That said....   the incident happened at Tennessee,  and then was exacerbated when he was with the Colts and wrote a book with his dad.    Or, the dad wrote the book and included Peyton in it,  it's not clear to me.

 

But laws were broken when the book was written.   A file that was sealed by court order was broken to write the book,  and there's just no way of getting around that.     Though I haven't seen it written anywhere,  my instincts are the Manning's lost the 2nd lawsuit as well as the first.

 

For whatever reason,  this just didn't get nearly as much attention back in the late 90's and early 2000's....  these kind of incidents were just not taken as seriously, especially with few people going in front of a camera.

 

If the same things happened today -- well, we remember what happened to Jameis Winston, or Ray Rice.    that didn't happen to Peyton.     It's just the way things were back then.    Now, with new high tech media,  they'd be eating Peyton and Archie alive. 

 

I'm not looking for Peyton to be punished here...   he's led a good adult life....   but I'm not looking to minimize what happened either.     Peyton and his father were wrong -- twice.     It's sometimes hard to keep these things out of the spotlight.

This ^

 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

I was thinking more along the lines of there not being any guarantee that he would become as wealthy as somebody who I would recognize as a candidate for extortion.

I do think that you are probavly right, though. His dad was loaded and he was a lock for a high draft pick.

 

I'm not saying that I know what happened or that her story is the gospel on this incident, but I still believe that the truth is much closer to her story than his. It takes serious exaggeration to get from what he said to what she said. She could be embellishing, but it doesn't make his version any more believable. 

 

I've never ever heard of anybody paying money and apologizing years later in a book because an innocent bystander got caught in the crossfire of a mooning incident. That is silly talk. 

 

The part about what the truth is and who might or might not be embellishing is all speculative, by both of us. I don't really take issue with anyone's opinion of the matter. I was only saying that I think there would be plenty of incentive to embellish the matter, with Peyton Manning and his family being involved.

 

As for the paying part, it's kind of the same thing. Right, wrong or indifferent, all accounts are that Manning did pay this woman (they settled privately, and I think we all agree about what that means). That's after UT paid her $300K. You said he should pay her, considering his role in the matter and how it's supposedly impacted her life. He has paid her, as far as we know. Should he pay her again just because someone decided to write an article about it in 2016? Should he pay her every time someone brings it up, or every time she gets upset about it? Should his pay be garnished into perpetuity over this?

 

This is why people want to cap paid damages for defamation, professional malpractice, and so on. I don't have a problem with the concept of suing someone who has wronged or damaged you. But at a certain point, it's over. This story is two decades old. By all means, discuss it, get acquainted with whatever 'new' information there is, whatever. But should Manning have to pay more because it's back on people's minds? I don't think so.

[Carlos Danger]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The part about what the truth is and who might or might not be embellishing is all speculative, by both of us. I don't really take issue with anyone's opinion of the matter. I was only saying that I think there would be plenty of incentive to embellish the matter, with Peyton Manning and his family being involved.

 

As for the paying part, it's kind of the same thing. Right, wrong or indifferent, all accounts are that Manning did pay this woman (they settled privately, and I think we all agree about what that means). That's after UT paid her $300K. You said he should pay her, considering his role in the matter and how it's supposedly impacted her life. He has paid her, as far as we know. Should he pay her again just because someone decided to write an article about it in 2016? Should he pay her every time someone brings it up, or every time she gets upset about it? Should his pay be garnished into perpetuity over this?

 

This is why people want to cap paid damages for defamation, professional malpractice, and so on. I don't have a problem with the concept of suing someone who has wronged or damaged you. But at a certain point, it's over. This story is two decades old. By all means, discuss it, get acquainted with whatever 'new' information there is, whatever. But should Manning have to pay more because it's back on people's minds? I don't think so.

No.

I agree. I meant to say "should have paid."

 

You are right that my general belief in his version being dishonest is speculative. I wasn't there, of course. I have only heard and read second-hand accounts. I don't have all of the info. I was just stating my opinion based on what I know, which is admittedly little. I am willing to do so only because I know that my opinion doesn't affect the situation any way. 

 

I feel the same way about my opinion concerning deflate gate and everything else forum-related. I'm not an authority on anything and will change my opinion if I feel sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant it. 

 

I don't think he should have to pay for the same offense more than once, but would be happy to let the courts sort it out. Naturally, If either party is found to have broken the terms of a court mandated settlement, then they should have to pay for it.

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, Carlos Danger said:

I believe that he's lying, yeah... At least one other athelete in the room has corroborated the trainer's story in public. It just seems to me like it's much more likely that he's lying than she is... His story becomes, a female trainer saw my butt and concocted a story about me and got others to back her up, even though nobody could forsee having anything to gain from doing so...

 

I don't believe that for a second...

Btw, this didn't change my love for #18 when I first heard about it and it didn't now... I don't think he's a sexual predator or whatever the connotations of "sexual assault" are... I do think he did it and that not admitting it was a mistake. I think he should pay the woman in leu of his role in her misfortune...

He already paid her along with the university.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Carlos Danger said:

This ^

 

 

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Let's start with what we agree.

 

As far as I can tell there was no "sexual assault" at least not in the way I think of the term.    It reads to me like a stupid college kid's sexual prank.     But the thing of it, right or wrong,  the law views it differently.

 

And, I absolutely agree that the life Peyton has led as an adult has been by all accounts exemplary...

 

That said....   the incident happened at Tennessee,  and then was exacerbated when he was with the Colts and wrote a book with his dad.    Or, the dad wrote the book and included Peyton in it,  it's not clear to me.

 

But laws were broken when the book was written.   A file that was sealed by court order was broken to write the book,  and there's just no way of getting around that.     Though I haven't seen it written anywhere,  my instincts are the Manning's lost the 2nd lawsuit as well as the first.

 

For whatever reason,  this just didn't get nearly as much attention back in the late 90's and early 2000's....  these kind of incidents were just not taken as seriously, especially with few people going in front of a camera.

 

If the same things happened today -- well, we remember what happened to Jameis Winston, or Ray Rice.    that didn't happen to Peyton.     It's just the way things were back then.    Now, with new high tech media,  they'd be eating Peyton and Archie alive. 

 

I'm not looking for Peyton to be punished here...   he's led a good adult life....   but I'm not looking to minimize what happened either.     Peyton and his father were wrong -- twice.     It's sometimes hard to keep these things out of the spotlight.

Butt cheaking someone may not be considered sexual prank. Just a prank. Now he evidently was nude then the charge should have been exposing himself. She was offended just enough to take the money not to make a big issue out of it. That was the $300,000. from the university. Then she sued Manning aver the book. Her name was not used in the book. She came out and named herself as the one in the book and then sued when she is the one who made her name public. She got an unknown amount that time. Like I said earlier, it's funny how someone can feel less offended when paid.

[NewColtsFan]

27 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

 

Butt cheaking someone may not be considered sexual prank. Just a prank. Now he evidently was nude then the charge should have been exposing himself. She was offended just enough to take the money not to make a big issue out of it. That was the $300,000. from the university. Then she sued Manning aver the book. Her name was not used in the book. She came out and named herself as the one in the book and then sued when she is the one who made her name public. She got an unknown amount that time. Like I said earlier, it's funny how someone can feel less offended when paid.

 

Assuming what you say is true,  that her name was not used in the book,  you can write it in such a way as to make it clear and obvious to many people who you're talking about.   

 

The Manning's also claimed that she went to the athletes dorms a lot so she could have sex with the black athletes.     Back then that type of thing would be more of a scandal than it would be 20 years later.

 

And the stories I read said he wasn't naked of the sexual prank,  just made his privates more visible to her.

 

This thing about putting up with stuff because she got paid....   you're attacking the victim here.   Peyton and Archie were not victims here,  she was.      She has lost not one, but two jobs over this.     Getting paid is -- in part -- how people are compensated when they're badly wronged. 

 

I appreciate that Peyton is a hero to many, a near-God to some here....   but this rush to defend him and make her the Bad Guy in this is is pretty surprising to me.     Perhaps it shouldn't be -- but it is.

 

I've read the story from the perspective of two different writes,  and in each,  she's been the victim -- twice.

And the legal system has recognized her as such.

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

I am not going to comment on this Thread anymore because to me this is incident is old news, the woman got a ton of money as well for what happened. He didn't rape or kill anyone, harm an animal, hurt a kid, or cheat to win when playing so who should really give a rats behind about this. He is a man of great character who hasn't been in trouble since that happened 20 years ago. His character hasn't been tarnished one bit like some haters would wish to believe . It's not like he gets in trouble every few years, if he had character issues then he would've had many incidents throughout his Pro career similar to the one at Tennessee. Peyton has never been in trouble his whole Pro career. Last of all I am so glad Peyton got Ring #2 because Patriots fans, Peyton haters, and Cam lovers are absolutely tore up over this. That makes it 1000 times better watching them weep, not Post here, and complain, use excuses, and try to bash Peyton for something he did 20 years ago! Pretty entertaining. I have enjoyed this week!

[bababooey]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Kobe didn't come close to winning MVP.

Sorry misread my Twitter, still left to his name chanted 

[bababooey]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Let's start with what we agree.

 

As far as I can tell there was no "sexual assault" at least not in the way I think of the term.    It reads to me like a stupid college kid's sexual prank.     But the thing of it, right or wrong,  the law views it differently.

 

And, I absolutely agree that the life Peyton has led as an adult has been by all accounts exemplary...

 

That said....   the incident happened at Tennessee,  and then was exacerbated when he was with the Colts and wrote a book with his dad.    Or, the dad wrote the book and included Peyton in it,  it's not clear to me.

 

But laws were broken when the book was written.   A file that was sealed by court order was broken to write the book,  and there's just no way of getting around that.     Though I haven't seen it written anywhere,  my instincts are the Manning's lost the 2nd lawsuit as well as the first.

 

For whatever reason,  this just didn't get nearly as much attention back in the late 90's and early 2000's....  these kind of incidents were just not taken as seriously, especially with few people going in front of a camera.

 

If the same things happened today -- well, we remember what happened to Jameis Winston, or Ray Rice.    that didn't happen to Peyton.     It's just the way things were back then.    Now, with new high tech media,  they'd be eating Peyton and Archie alive. 

 

I'm not looking for Peyton to be punished here...   he's led a good adult life....   but I'm not looking to minimize what happened either.     Peyton and his father were wrong -- twice.     It's sometimes hard to keep these things out of the spotlight.

Literally Google Peyton manning sexual assault allegation and you'll see it's been covered

[oldunclemark]

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Let's start with what we agree.

 

As far as I can tell there was no "sexual assault" at least not in the way I think of the term.    It reads to me like a stupid college kid's sexual prank.     But the thing of it, right or wrong,  the law views it differently.

 

And, I absolutely agree that the life Peyton has led as an adult has been by all accounts exemplary...

 

That said....   the incident happened at Tennessee,  and then was exacerbated when he was with the Colts and wrote a book with his dad.    Or, the dad wrote the book and included Peyton in it,  it's not clear to me.

 

But laws were broken when the book was written.   A file that was sealed by court order was broken to write the book,  and there's just no way of getting around that.     Though I haven't seen it written anywhere,  my instincts are the Manning's lost the 2nd lawsuit as well as the first.

 

For whatever reason,  this just didn't get nearly as much attention back in the late 90's and early 2000's....  these kind of incidents were just not taken as seriously, especially with few people going in front of a camera.

 

If the same things happened today -- well, we remember what happened to Jameis Winston, or Ray Rice.    that didn't happen to Peyton.     It's just the way things were back then.    Now, with new high tech media,  they'd be eating Peyton and Archie alive. 

 

I'm not looking for Peyton to be punished here...   he's led a good adult life....   but I'm not looking to minimize what happened either.     Peyton and his father were wrong -- twice.     It's sometimes hard to keep these things out of the spotlight.

Its in the spotlight certainly..and it was a mistake at best to mention her in the book in the 2003 incident.

That was a second mistake.

But nothing is new here since 2003........the UT lawsuit is an overarching thing which mentions the 1996 incident as na proven example of the college's 'culture'.   I'm certain that will be settled out of court.

 

But if you understand that Peyton cant talk about this anymore (he made that mistake in 2003) and that the incident is back when he was a teen..........how much attention does this deserve now?..and the larger question.

Does one bad deed nullify an adult life of being a good citizen. Are the two equal?.

Are we all never better than our worst act?

On balance, I'm saying that Peyton does not deserve this to resurface a second time..

And the reasons for it resurfacing are questionable at best.

[oldunclemark]

    ...

5 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Assuming what you say is true,  that her name was not used in the book,  you can write it in such a way as to make it clear and obvious to many people who you're talking about.   

 

The Manning's also claimed that she went to the athletes dorms a lot so she could have sex with the black athletes.     Back then that type of thing would be more of a scandal than it would be 20 years later.

 

And the stories I read said he wasn't naked of the sexual prank,  just made his privates more visible to her.

 

This thing about putting up with stuff because she got paid....   you're attacking the victim here.   Peyton and Archie were not victims here,  she was.      She has lost not one, but two jobs over this.     Getting paid is -- in part -- how people are compensated when they're badly wronged. 

 

I appreciate that Peyton is a hero to many, a near-God to some here....   but this rush to defend him and make her the Bad Guy in this is is pretty surprising to me.     Perhaps it shouldn't be -- but it is.

 

I've read the story from the perspective of two different writes,  and in each,  she's been the victim -- twice.

And the legal system has recognized her as such.

 

 

Peyton isn't a near God to anyone...that's an overstatement.

I just feel there's a double standard. We play morality games where one side is 100% guilty and the other is 100% innocent.  That's not real life. 

Court cases are like political campaigns..you have to paint the other negatively and you exaggerate.

Its best not to believe all of what either side says.

Its an important point: Wrong was admitted (by Peyton)  but no one was ever charged with (or convicted of) any crime here.  2 cases were settled....the courts didn't recognize any victim, right?

 

[teganslaw]

I think that this case is brought up to force Manning's retirement. For some reason, they want him to quit football, and  bringing up something that happened 20 years ago might tarnish his reputation and force him out.

 

I don't know what happened, although some payment was made to hush things up. This seems to be a case of "he said, she said" and unless a person was there during the incident they don't really know what took place. Everything is speculation, so I'm not taking sides.Maybe Manning did something stupid and had to pay for it; I don't know.

 

The Broncos organization hasn't said anything about this. I'm wondering if they might cut Manning because it could harm the NFL reputation? Other players are cut if they are involved in allegations, whether it turns out to be true or not. Not saying that they should, but I'll be watching to see what happens. Maybe Manning will retire instead.

[Gramz]

I have to wonder how many squeeky clean posters here did something they are not so proud of when they were 19, and how appropriate they think it would be to have this resurface every time something good happens in their life?

 

I still view this as a foolish act by a teenager, and as wrong as it was, and as disgusted as I would be if this happened to myself, my daughter or grandaughter, I don't view this as criminal, and I have to believe an educated woman signing up for this type of job, being in a locker room with naked or half naked boys or young men would know to expect pranks from time to time.

 

 Do I think it's right?  No.  

Do I think she was a naive vulnerable innocent helpless young thing? No, I don't believe that either.

 

He was wrong.

She was the victim here.

She was compensated a few times.

 

The timing of this resurfacing once again is very calculated and suspect.

 

I expect when Tom Brady goes to court in a few weeks, stories about him dumping his pregnant girlfriend years ago will resurface  again, calling his character into question.  It's what people do.  It will be something new, I mean old,  once again new,  to talk about. 

[crazycolt1]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Assuming what you say is true,  that her name was not used in the book,  you can write it in such a way as to make it clear and obvious to many people who you're talking about.   

 

The Manning's also claimed that she went to the athletes dorms a lot so she could have sex with the black athletes.     Back then that type of thing would be more of a scandal than it would be 20 years later.

 

And the stories I read said he wasn't naked of the sexual prank,  just made his privates more visible to her.

 

This thing about putting up with stuff because she got paid....   you're attacking the victim here.   Peyton and Archie were not victims here,  she was.      She has lost not one, but two jobs over this.     Getting paid is -- in part -- how people are compensated when they're badly wronged. 

 

I appreciate that Peyton is a hero to many, a near-God to some here....   but this rush to defend him and make her the Bad Guy in this is is pretty surprising to me.     Perhaps it shouldn't be -- but it is.

 

I've read the story from the perspective of two different writes,  and in each,  she's been the victim -- twice.

And the legal system has recognized her as such.

 

 

So to what extent is a victim  offended when paid off?  $300,000. + more when she named herself out of a book? I am not saying what Manning did was good by any means and I am not defending him in that regards. My question is if she were that offended then why take a payoff? Not once, but two times. The second time she named herself? Maybe my thinking is strange but naming yourself for money gain is questionable. Her name was not used in the book and she made herself a victim in that case after taking a payoff. I guess I have a problem when money buys as to how much a victim is offended. I know if I felt that highly offended money wouldn't buy my silence.

[bababooey]

1 hour ago, teganslaw said:

I think that this case is brought up to force Manning's retirement. For some reason, they want him to quit football, and  bringing up something that happened 20 years ago might tarnish his reputation and force him out.

 

I don't know what happened, although some payment was made to hush things up. This seems to be a case of "he said, she said" and unless a person was there during the incident they don't really know what took place. Everything is speculation, so I'm not taking sides.Maybe Manning did something stupid and had to pay for it; I don't know.

 

The Broncos organization hasn't said anything about this. I'm wondering if they might cut Manning because it could harm the NFL reputation? Other players are cut if they are involved in allegations, whether it turns out to be true or not. Not saying that they should, but I'll be watching to see what happens. Maybe Manning will retire instead.

If you think this incident hurts the NFL's reputation after what we saw two seasons ago you're mistaken. The only people after him right now are Al Qaeda and Black Lives Matter, both which aren't very credible sources but want to gain credibility/notoriety for taking down an American hero which is what their only agendas are. US Today had the documents for 13 years and didn't publish bc it was literally her lawyer's paid words and they knew without Manning's side it wasn't enough to be a story. This was just a disgraced BLM activist who was excommunicated for stealing money from them and then found out he was actually white so he wanted to take his anger and hatred out on PM when people ripped Cam for giving a bad press conference. The other players that are cut that you're talking to are nobodies or repeat offenders.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

Its in the spotlight certainly..and it was a mistake at best to mention her in the book in the 2003 incident.

That was a second mistake.

But nothing is new here since 2003........the UT lawsuit is an overarching thing which mentions the 1996 incident as na proven example of the college's 'culture'.   I'm certain that will be settled out of court.

 

But if you understand that Peyton cant talk about this anymore (he made that mistake in 2003) and that the incident is back when he was a teen..........how much attention does this deserve now?..and the larger question.

Does one bad deed nullify an adult life of being a good citizen. Are the two equal?.

Are we all never better than our worst act?

On balance, I'm saying that Peyton does not deserve this to resurface a second time..

And the reasons for it resurfacing are questionable at best.

 

It's not one bad.    

 

There was the incident at Tennessee -- that's one.     Then there was the attempted cover-up at Tennessee -- that's two.     Manning tried to get a teammate to cover for his bogus version of the event (mooning a teammate)  and  that teammate flat-out denied Manning's version of events.

 

Then there was the trashing of her in the book -- that's three.     And this one,  one would think had civil implications,   but the Manning's violated a confidentiality agreement to do so.

 

So, I can find three,  and I'm not even a lawyer.

 

I agree with you,  that all of this shouldn't nullify a lifetime of being a good citizen.    I'm agreeing with you.

 

But the questions are now coming,  was Manning really a good citizen during his lifetime,  or has he been covering up more things like this?     And before you downplay that possibility,  just think of Bill Cosby.    Once America's favorite dad -- now one of America's most hated fallen stars.   

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

    ...

Peyton isn't a near God to anyone...that's an overstatement.

I just feel there's a double standard. We play morality games where one side is 100% guilty and the other is 100% innocent.  That's not real life. 

Court cases are like political campaigns..you have to paint the other negatively and you exaggerate.

Its best not to believe all of what either side says.

Its an important point: Wrong was admitted (by Peyton)  but no one was ever charged with (or convicted of) any crime here.  2 cases were settled....the courts didn't recognize any victim, right?

 

 

Well,  the legal system has accepted that two cases were settled.    But the Manning's paid-up in both cases. 

 

So,  now that this is getting far more attention now,  Manning is likely going to be looked at in a different way by a sizable number of people....