Manning Legacy: Scrotal Recall

[LogansDad]

This is glorious to hear. I hope Naughtright gets some measure of satisfaction seeing this scumbag get dragged through the mud a bit.

I hope so, too, but I think it is probably just as likely that she thought this part of her life was behind her and didn't ever want it brought up again. Especially since she can't even come out now and tell her side of the story without breaking the NDA.

As for the story itself, I knew something had happened (mostly off of reading this site), but count me among the many who didn't know how awful this whole thing was. Peyton and Archie are fucking monsters and it's a shame that the worst outcome for them is probably that the court of public opinion turns against them and they ride out the rest of their lives in obscurity living off of the millions of dollars they have already made. And the chances of public opinion even turning against them that much are so low that I won't even bother getting my hopes up.

I imagine it is only a matter of time before articles start coming out that defend the Mannings and rip on Dr Naughright, because there will be people out there who can't resist the victim blaming, especially when it comes to the golden boy and daddy. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the majority of the public takes this stance, because people are fucking awful in general, and that's just the way it seems to go lately.

Edit: And as I'm typing this, E5 posts King's "he said-she said" comment.... it's already starting.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Peter King really is a despicable human being.

 

[rodderick]

Yup, it's "he said-she said". The problem is pretty much nothing "he said" has been corroborated by a credible witness, and even the guy Manning said he was mooning came out against him in a private fucking letter, asking him to own up to it. I mean, jesus fucking christ. Obviously those documents are one sided, but they seem to tell a pretty convincing story and are very thorough about verifying if the allegations about Naughright are in any way reality based.

 

[E5 Yaz]

And here's Florio. I'll spare you the Jason Whitlock into

Ultimately, that’s the one thing that this case never received: A trial in open court. The parties chose to settle the case before that could happen, making it necessarily impossible to make a clear decision as to what did or didn’t happen. Whatever King’s motivations, he helped set an inaccurate narrative by presenting the allegations contained in the document released on Saturday not as accusations but as undeniable fact.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/15/whitlock-calls-out-shaun-king-not-the-quarterback/

It may mean nothing, but PK and Florio both work with NBC ... and one of the possible landing spots mentioned for Manning has been in the NBC Sunday night booth

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

c/o Shalize Manza Young at Yahoo, the latest from Shaun King's Facebook page:
.... The machine put in place to protect Peyton Manning is incredible. It's not just reverence though, it's fear. He and his family will attempt to ruin you if you cross him.

Now think about this in the context of him playing for Tony Dungy, while Dungy regularly made paid keynote addresses for anti-gay hate groups, all while the NFL was painting that team as the do-gooders of the league.

The cult of personality is strong.

 

[Auger34]

Petey also did a great job of getting in front of all possible logical retorts so now he can just say "I already covered that". I am ashamed to have ever read that water carrying wind bags column

 

[Ed Hillel]

He-said-she-said only covers part of the story anyways. I don't really want to get into a "which is worse" aspect, but the subsequent actions by Peyton and his Daddy were atrocious in their own right and we've got a nice little settlement from the Mannings on that issue (in addition to the university's settlement for the assault). My guess is the 1994 incident, which probably will come to light, won't help.

Peyton's aw shucks front has really been a shield for the mafia-esque operations of the entire family. Drugs, thugs, reputational hit jobs, they've got it all!

 

[JimBoSox9]

Which, frankly, is not much different than what they otherwise would have done -- Michael Jordan is the only ex-athlete whose appeal as an endorser survived his retirement (occasional "old-timer" spots by guys like Montana aside), and I don't think Manning was on that level even if he was as squeaky-clean as his supporters want to believe he is

I kinda think you're crazy if you don't think that's not exactly what Manning, Inc has been aiming for. He absolutely aspires to that level.

 

[Norm loves Vera]

I was curious how Bronco fans were taking this story.. I was not surprised the pitchforks are aimed at the media and the victim.

"Two legends, Peyton Manning and kobe Bryant highly respected HOF individuals who's talents we may never get to witness ever again are just getting destroyed by today's version of the rag, which is "social media".

http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?241437-Peyton-Manning-Newest-Target-of-Fake-Internet-Outrage-Brigade

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I'm sure his agent is on the phone with Lipton and Luzianne playing them against each other as we speak.

"Peyton grew up in New Orleans, you guys sell Louisiana teabags...boom!"

 

[Marciano490]

I was curious how Bronco fans were taking this story.. I was not surprised the pitchforks are aimed at the media and the victim.

"Two legends, Peyton Manning and kobe Bryant highly respected HOF individuals who's talents we may never get to witness ever again are just getting destroyed by today's version of the rag, which is "social media".

http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?241437-Peyton-Manning-Newest-Target-of-Fake-Internet-Outrage-Brigade

Brady fanboism aside, aren't there at least 2 post-Kobe NBA all stars who are pretty undeniably at or beyond Kobe's level?

 

[Ed Hillel]

OMG guys OMGOMGOMG:

Moony Corleone

 

[Leather]

Don Cornholeon.

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

Tainton Mooning.

 

[soxhop411]

“@readDanwrite: Very telling: @finebaum says on @OTLonESPN that back when he was a reporter, Archie Manning asked him not to write about Peyton incident”

 

[Ferm Sheller]

I was curious how Bronco fans were taking this story.. I was not surprised the pitchforks are aimed at the media and the victim.

"Two legends, Peyton Manning and kobe Bryant highly respected HOF individuals who's talents we may never get to witness ever again are just getting destroyed by today's version of the rag, which is "social media".

http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?241437-Peyton-Manning-Newest-Target-of-Fake-Internet-Outrage-Brigade

I read the idiot comment section on some web site, Yahoo I think (I know, I know, but it's a holiday and I'm stir crazy), and one guy said it's not sexual assault because he only set his balls on her face and another said he'd be fine with it if it was his daughter because it was only "prank."

 

[Ferm Sheller]

double post

 

[Marciano490]

I read the idiot comment section on some web site, Yahoo I think (I know, I know, but it's a holiday and I'm stir crazy), and one guy said it's not sexual assault because he only set his balls on her face and another said he'd be fine with it if it was his daughter because it was only "prank."

In the first commenter's defense, that was basically Clinton's argument.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

I read the idiot comment section on some web site, Yahoo I think (I know, I know, but it's a holiday and I'm stir crazy), and one guy said it's not sexual assault because he only set his balls on her face and another said he'd be fine with it if it was his daughter because it was only "prank."

Quite a bit more extreme but logic would dictate this internet commenter would be ok if his kids died during a frat hazing incident, as it's only a prank.

Also Peter King's logic, if I dare even call it that, is fucking weird.

 

[Leather]

King has been carrying Manning's water for years. He just doesn't ever want to piss off a source. It was like this with Favre 6 years ago.

 

[djbayko]

I read the idiot comment section on some web site, Yahoo I think (I know, I know, but it's a holiday and I'm stir crazy), and one guy said it's not sexual assault because he only set his balls on her face and another said he'd be fine with it if it was his daughter because it was only "prank."

And I assume he'd be okay if a gay guy laid schlong on his face, right? It's just a prank.

 

[DourDoerr]

Given how bad Manning's settlement appears to the general public - and how it seems to have little effect on Peter King - I wonder if King ever condemned Michael Jackson because of the settlements he made.

 

[DourDoerr]

Also (hating myself)...

Peyton Manning: Goodnight Moon(er)

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Quite a bit more extreme but logic would dictate this internet commenter would be ok if his kids died during a frat hazing incident, as it's only a prank.

Also Peter King's logic, if I dare even call it that, is fucking weird.

All the Manning apologists are focusing on the incident and ignoring the cover up and the lies. Which if that is what you are doing, you either don't understand the recent news on this story or you're getting walking orders from Archie, Ari, etc...

 

[Ferm Sheller]

And I assume he'd be okay if a gay guy laid schlong on his face, right? It's just a prank.

Look, look. Let's not go twisting the facts here, OK? She was a woman in a man's locker room - she had it coming to her. Plus, the only reason why she didn't like it was because she's lesbian!

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Look, look. Let's not go twisting the facts here, OK? She was a woman in a man's locker room - she had it coming to her. Plus, the only reason why she didn't like it was because she's lesbian!

Don't forget sneaking into the dorm to fuck the black guys, when she wasn't being a lesbian of course.

 

[Auger34]

Don't forget sneaking into the dorm to fuck the black guys, when she wasn't being a lesbian of course.

She had a foul mouth, was banging tons of black athletes and worst of all..in a man's locker room she maintained no sense of decorum. Something that would not have stood in Archie's day!

 

[E5 Yaz]

Christine Brennan's 2003 reporting repeated on her twitter feed, where there are also links to her radio appearances today:

 

[edoug]

Obviously, the woman has Multiple Personality Disorder.

 

[mauf]

I kinda think you're crazy if you don't think that's not exactly what Manning, Inc has been aiming for. He absolutely aspires to that level.

DiMaggio and OJS didn't make the kind of money during their playing days that Manning did. Their post-retirement deals were nice (and many athletes of their eras had similar deals, though few were as lucrative as OJ's), but the dollars would be a rounding error for a guy like Manning. Only Jordan made the kind of post-career endorsement money that would be material to Manning, and while I agree that Manning aspired to that, I don't think it was ever going to happen for him. The only retired NFL star who comes close to having Jordan's cachet is Joe Montana; Manning doesn't have the looks or the rings to match that, and even Montana hasn't made a fortune in endorsements over the past 20 years.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Arnold Palmer?

 

[E5 Yaz]

Arnold Palmer?

There's a joke about mixing lemonade and iced tea and tea bagging to be made ...

 

[mauf]

Arnold Palmer?

I could quibble, because the senior tour lets golfers compete into their 60s (which Palmer did, though not with distinction), but I'll concede the point.

Manning was never going to match the post-career endorsement haul of Jordan or (adjusted for inflation, and treating his later days on the senior tour as quasi-retirement) Palmer. Even if Manning didn't stand accused of sexual assault, someone else would be hawking Papa John's pizza two years from now.

 

[Harry Hooper]

There's a joke about mixing lemonade and iced tea and tea bagging to be made ...

There's that, plus I think Peyton is mining very much that same folksy everyman space which can yield megabucks in endorsements even in retirement.

Not disagreeing too much, though, maufman. Papa John already introduced J.J. Watt into spots as the replacement pitchman after Peyton retires.

 

[E5 Yaz]

There's that, plus I think Peyton is mining very much that some folksy everyman space which can yield megabucks in endorsements even in retirement.

True ... but I was trying to navigate this back to the actual thread topic, instead of a rehash of what went on without end in the OJ movie thread

 

[edmunddantes]

All the Manning apologists are focusing on the incident and ignoring the cover up and the lies. Which if that is what you are doing, you either don't understand the recent news on this story or you're getting walking orders from Archie, Ari, etc...

why not? It worked for them in the HGH case. Sly recanted who cares if we saw a professional athlete show up on his doorstep on video and getting drugs from him.

 

[Moviegoer]

I was wondering today just how much all of this is really resonating outside of sports focused groups or even outside of groups inside sports that are already inclined to hate Manning (like SoSH).
Then I came across this on cracked today:
I'd guess these guys are probably really only casual football fans, and its all more of blase commentary than an impassioned editorial, but they were surprisingly more on the ball talking about this stuff than I expected.

 

[mauf]

I knew this story had crossed over when my wife was outraged about it -- she hates football.

 

[Harry Hooper]

I knew this story had crossed over when my wife was outraged about it -- she hates football.

Time for Sal Pal to give us an update from the Mall of America.

 

[Kliq]

I don't have the desire to read the entirety of Peter King's piece, but what does he (or other writers taking a similar stance) do to explain Naughright's motivation for either making up the incident, or blowing it out of proportion and taking the case to court? What did she have to gain by going after Manning? Maybe she wanted some money from Peyton and his dad, but I imagine considering her degrees and the level of expertise she displayed, she was probably making some pretty good money and wouldn't want to jeopardize her future career for some hush money. Maybe she was embarrassed by the incident and then blew Manning's actions out of proportion, but that doesn't seem to be worth the risk to her either. What did Naughright really have to gain by filing charges, unless something really bad did happen to her?

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

I'll leave Peter King to the rest of you, but as for Mike Florio, I read it as a pretty reasonable explanation of the difference between what (edit to clarify - SHAUN) King was suggesting as something definitive the judge said and what is ACTUALLY, in terms of legal process, something entirely different from that. (IANAL.)

I don't really see Florio as carrying water for Manning or NBC, and I think he's proven himself to be pretty independent in his reporting and in his more...advocacy-ish pieces.

 

[mauf]

Shaun King had a choice between telling a one-sided story and a zero-sided story (i.e., not telling it at all). He might have told the story for the wrong reasons (he did the research to support a racial point that I don't think I agree with), but Shaun King was clearly right to tell the story.

Edit: Shaun King, not Peter. Why did we let that clown invade this thread?

 

[E5 Yaz]

I'll leave Peter King to the rest of you, but as for Mike Florio, I read it as a pretty reasonable explanation of the difference between what (edit to clarify - SHAUN) King was suggesting as something definitive the judge said and what is ACTUALLY, in terms of legal process, something entirely different from that.

And what would you say was Christine Brennan's agenda?

 

[Devizier]

Shaun King's piece is written as a piece of advocacy (especially the bio on Naughtright), which ironically weakens its advocacy.

But the reportage is solid. Manning never denied the facts of the case, just the context. Furthermore, an eyewitness disputed his recounting of the assault. And, lastly, there's really no incentive for Naughtright to lie, and there's plenty of historical precedent for 1) this kind of behavior among college athletes 2) athletic programs covering up for it.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

And what would you say was Christine Brennan's agenda?

I'm not SAYING anything about Shaun King's agenda, I'm saying that Mike Florio doesn't appear to have one. He is merely pointing out a difference in what Shaun King has written and what is actually, legally correct. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if Florio is CORRECT, though I suspect he is. But I do know how to READ, even when I'm a little worked up about something.

By pointing out what a third party is arguing, I am not relinquishing my right to completely support Brennan and Shaun King and anyone else whose POV I not only suspect is on target, but truly HOPE is on target. I would love for Peyton to be exposed as a scumbag for, ya know, ACTING LIKE A SCUMBAG. I just don't feel the need to denigrate Florio, and shove him into the same corner currently housing Peter King, just because he's taking a more cautious position than some would prefer.

 

[Average Reds]

I'm not SAYING anything about Shaun King's agenda, I'm saying that Mike Florio doesn't appear to have one. He is merely pointing out a difference in what Shaun King has written and what is actually, legally correct. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if Florio is CORRECT, though I suspect he is. But I do know how to READ, even when I'm a little worked up about something.

By pointing out what a third party is arguing, I am not relinquishing my right to completely support Brennan and Shaun King and anyone else whose POV I not only suspect is on target, but truly HOPE is on target. I would love for Peyton to be exposed as a scumbag for, ya know, ACTING LIKE A SCUMBAG. I just don't feel the need to denigrate Florio, and shove him into the same corner currently housing Peter King, just because he's taking a more cautious position than some would prefer.

The "caution" being shown is funadmentally misguided.

Yes, the narrative may be one-sided. That does not make it inaccurate, as Florio described it. (In fact, for him to describe it that way is as sloppy as anything he is criticizing.) It's also important to note that you are 100% wrong about how you are characterizing Shaun King's article. He never suggested that the documents were "something definitive that a judge said." (Your words.) He stated up frot that the document was submitted to the court by the plaintiff's lawyers.

Of greater relevance, the vast majority of the underlying facts are not in dispute. I mean, the book Archie and Peyton wrote wasn't the figment of someone's imagination. The court papers from that lawsuit - and the subsequent follow up suits when Peyton continued to lie about the case - are public records. The depositions where it was suggested that Naughright was a slut who slept with black athletes isn't something King dreamed up. There are records.

Lastly, we're not in court and there are no criminal charges pending. The presumption of innocence does not apply and in the immportal words of Brendan Sullivan, we are not potted plants. We're free to look at the evidence and come to the inescapable conclusion that Peyton Manning is a vindictive asshole who will stop at nothing to protect his image whether the issue is being held to account for a sexual assault or for being caught with HGH shipments sent to his house.

 

[Marciano490]

To build in AR's points, a court filing has to actually comport with the truth. You can shade facts and include those favorable to you, but it's not like both sides just get to make crap up and call it advocacy. Regardless of whether it's the plaintiff's filing, facts is facts.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

The NYDN has pretty good lawyers. One thing we can be relatively sure of is that every word in Shaun King's article was considered under a libel microscope. Peyton Manning may be a public figure, but you don't mess around with a story like that. It's still largely based on what another person alleged, but one is right to give the benefit of the doubt to Shuan King that everything in there is more or less accurately reported. That doesn't mean the underlying story in the court papers is true, but at a minimum you can have a high degree of confidence that the details have been correctly presented.

 

[Harry Hooper]

The "caution" being shown is funadmentally misguided.

Yes, the narrative may be one-sided. That does not make it inaccurate, as Florio described it. (In fact, for him to describe it that way is as sloppy as anything he is criticizing.) It's also important to note that you are 100% wrong about how you are characterizing Shaun King's article. He never suggested that the documents were "something definitive that a judge said." (Your words.) He stated up from that the document was submitted to the court by the plaintiff's lawyers.

Of greater relevance, the vast majority of the underlying facts are not in dispute. I mean, the book Archie and Peyton wrote wasn't the figment of someone's imagination. The court papers from that lawsuit - and the subsequent follow up suits when Peyton continued to lie about the case - are public records. The depositions where it was suggested that Naughright was a slut who slept with black athletes isn't somehting King dreamed up. There are records.

Lastly, we're not in court and there are no criminal charges pending. The presumption of innocence does not apply and in the immportal words of Brendan Sullivan, we are not potted plants. We're free to look at the evidence and come to the inescapable conclusion that Peyton Manning is a vindictive asshole who will stop at nothing to protect his image whether the issue is being held to account for a sexual assault or for being caught with HGH shipments sent to his house.

There are 2 King Daily News articles. IANAL but today's article by King seems to have misrepresented what the judge's statements meant. The judge only meant that there's enough material in the dispute that the court's and the jury's valuable time and attention should be devoted to hearing the case. I do think that Florio's posted reaction to the first King article was so intent on pointing out the one-sidedness of King only having the Plaintiff's filing* that Florio neglected to properly note that a good deal of the punch in the Plaintiff's filing is coming from statements by the Mannings and the ghostwriter themselves.

King probably should have folded a couple of sentences in his first article upfront acknowledging he had only the Plaintiff's filing and the limitations of that, and he should have completely avoided today's misstep by getting some legal help.


* And that said filing was 74-pages long!

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

AGAIN, I'm not suggesting Florio is correct in his analysis. I'm suggesting his analysis involves something he considers to be a legal difference. I'm not sure why we have to believe he's carrying water for Peyton or protecting his corner of NBC. He could be WRONG, that's fine, you guys sure sound far less in the weeds than I admittedly and absolutely am on this front. Florio (and his sizable ego) could very well be slapping on his big boy lawyer pants, and getting the legal of it all kinds of wrong. I just don't doubt the sincerity of his take, however off-base it may be. He's given people very little reason to assume he's shilling for anyone other than himself and PFT Nation.

EDIT: This, to be clear, is what I'm referring to...

"There are 2 King Daily News articles. IANAL but today's article by King seems to have misrepresented what the judge's statements meant. The judge only meant that there's enough material in the dispute that the court's and the jury's valuable time and attention should be devoted to hearing the case."