Manning Legacy: Scrotal Recall

C4CRVT

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 29, 2008
3,076
Heart of the Green Mountains
I watched the documentary yesterday afternoon. At this stage, I don't know how one could participate in this thread without watching it.

There's lots to discuss besides the involvement of Manning in possible HGH use (kind of sad stuff really about Clay Matthews and some pretty incriminating stuff about the whole Packer's team and Taylor Teagarden has to be beyond fucked).

Regarding AJ- I'm not a savvy media type but that report seemed pretty legit. My gut instinct is essentially that there's no hidden agenda here (with the reporter or AJ). They set out to get a sense of the prevalence of PEDs in modern sport and the ease of acquiring, using and tricking the testing. The net-net seemed to be that it's not that difficult. PED use is likely quite prevalent and athletes seem to have a pretty good grasp of how to not get caught using. Getting names of athletes was not really the primary objective of the documentary; more like a super-juicy discovery that unfolded for them.

Manning- the link to his use of HGH is a tiny bit oblique. Sly seems to think that Manning is wasn't really into all the other PEDs (that Charlie prefers) but makes a very strong inference that the HGH is for Peyton and that he witnessed many, many doses being sent to the Mannings.

Watching the documentary then the recanting- It's pretty obvious that the recanting is BS. Sly is reasonably believable when on the hidden camera. In the recant, he seems to be reading off a prepared script and the tenor and story don't align/mesh at all.

Obviously there's a chance that Manning didn't use HGH. But at this stage, there's a very high likelihood that he did. I also think that there's a significant likelihood that his story is a drop in the bucket of the larger issue: how many of the pro athletes are likely using? The underlying insinuation is that the numbers are astonishingly high and in a way that will alter how we view sports and use of PEDs in general.
 
Last edited:

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,182
Missoula, MT
That looks like the same farm this picture was taken:


The horses look like they are much better fed too. NFL has been screwing Brady for 15 years, obviously. Kevin Bacon.
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
Apologies if this fact has already been thoroughly vetted, but if it has - it's not being widely reported....

Deborah Davies from Al Jazeera is crystal clear in this interview that HGH was shipped from the Guyer Institute to Peyton Manning's wife:

"We know for sure growth hormone was shipped to Ashley Manning in Florida".
She goes on to say that she had this fact confirmed by Peyton Manning's camp. And knowing AJ, this confirmation was probably filmed and recorded. http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/al-jazeera-reporter-we-know-for-sure-hgh-sent-to-mannings-home/280696

The odds of this being legal usage for Ashley would appear to be minimal. I doubt she's had a portion of her bowel removed, nor does she appear to be suffering from HIV wasting. And given that we have Charles Sly's on camera accusation that HGH was being sent to Peyton by proxy through his wife, doesn't this have to be investigated further by the authorities and the NFL? By the NFL's own standard of "more likely than not", it wouldn't take much additional investigating to arrive at a place where Manning, Mathews and others face suspensions.

Does this go anywhere from here? I don't think the mainstream media is going to put pressure on Manning to answer questions that stray into his wife's medical privacy. And personally I really don't want any of that shit going public. So it would seem to come down to a federal or state investigation being launched, right? What do the lawyers in here think? Is there enough here to open an investigation? And would the focus of that investigation be on the Guyer Institute, or would they also go after Peyton and his wife?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Has Davies released her proof of the HGH shipments to Ashley Manning in Florida? It's not like you can just call up the Manning's house and ask them if they received shipment of HGH and Guyer certainly wouldn't release that info. Interested to see what she has there but if there is more concrete proof like with Sly, things could get messy for Peyton.
 

Cabin Mirror

Member
SoSH Member
Apologies if this fact has already been thoroughly vetted, but if it has - it's not being widely reported....

Deborah Davies from Al Jazeera is crystal clear in this interview that HGH was shipped from the Guyer Institute to Peyton Manning's wife:



She goes on to say that she had this fact confirmed by Peyton Manning's camp. And knowing AJ, this confirmation was probably filmed and recorded. http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/al-jazeera-reporter-we-know-for-sure-hgh-sent-to-mannings-home/280696

The odds of this being legal usage for Ashley would appear to be minimal. I doubt she's had a portion of her bowel removed, nor does she appear to be suffering from HIV wasting. And given that we have Charles Sly's on camera accusation that HGH was being sent to Peyton by proxy through his wife, doesn't this have to be investigated further by the authorities and the NFL? By the NFL's own standard of "more likely than not", it wouldn't take much additional investigating to arrive at a place where Manning, Mathews and others face suspensions.

Does this go anywhere from here? I don't think the mainstream media is going to put pressure on Manning to answer questions that stray into his wife's medical privacy. And personally I really don't want any of that shit going public. So it would seem to come down to a federal or state investigation being launched, right? What do the lawyers in here think? Is there enough here to open an investigation? And would the focus of that investigation be on the Guyer Institute, or would they also go after Peyton and his wife?
Why do you doubt this? I mean, I have no idea, but there are diseases with which treatment sometimes involves the removal of pieces of bowel (crohns, colitis). I can also understand why that is something they would not really want to make public.

That said, what is highly unlikely is that she would seek this treatment from an anti-aging clinic. That's the part that seems questionable.
 

Bone Chips

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
736
South Windsor, CT
In the interview I linked to above, Davies is pretty emphatic that AJ has confirmation that growth hormone was shipped to Ashley Manning in Florida. One of her quotes is as follows (at the 2:12 mark):

"We've had it confirmed by people within Manning's own camp"
My guess is that AJ is holding back some of this evidence to draw the story out a bit, or to use it exactly at the right time. They obviously did a masterful job yesterday blowing up Guyer's claim that Sly didn't work there in 2011.
 

Cabin Mirror

Member
SoSH Member
Beyond his excessive name dropping, Sly states that they sent HGH to the Mannings "everywhere". Yet, he then only mentions Florida. Twice.

I don't really know what that means, but it does make me think Sly is unreliable. I am not sure what his motives are (in the doc, while being secretly recorded). Is he trying to get the undercover guy to buy into his new business (which is potentially another ponzi scheme)? He really seems to be selling something beyond just the PEDs.

Also, one of the first guys that led the AJ team to Sly characterized Sly as some genius. He came off as more dipshit than genius.

After watching, I do think there is a decent chance Manning was doing something, but I think it is going to be really hard to nail him on anything. This guy Sly will be pretty easy to discredit whether in the court of public opinion or in real court. I also think it's completely possible that Manning did nothing wrong.
 

Seabass

has an efficient neck
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
5,342
Brooklyn
Why do you doubt this? I mean, I have no idea, but there are diseases with which treatment sometimes involves the removal of pieces of bowel (crohns, colitis). I can also understand why that is something they would not really want to make public.

That said, what is highly unlikely is that she would seek this treatment from an anti-aging clinic. That's the part that seems questionable.
This all seems very similar to the Biogenesis scandal -- an anti-aging clinic treating athletes that's shipping out HGH. The only difference here is that the employees have seemingly circled the wagons, while Biogenesis has the disgruntled ex-employee handing out boxes of info about Bosch and his practice.

In the Biogenesis case, MLB sued everyone until they got as much info as possible. I'd bet they'll do the same this time and I imagine they'll coordinate their investigation with the NFL to some extent.

I don't think this looks good for Peyton, though. Yes, he said all the right things and he's doing the appropriate TV shows, but what else is he going to do? Remember Ryan Braun's press conference after he got off on a technicality? He didn't equivocate either:
If I had done this intentionally or unintentionally, I’d be the first one to step up and say, ‘I did it.’ By no means am I perfect, but if I’ve ever made any mistakes in my life I’ve taken responsibility for my actions. I truly believe in my heart, and I would bet my life, that this substance never entered my body at any point.
This is the only answer an athlete can give in this circumstance, regardless of whether he used or not. More info will come out, but this reporting on multiple shipments of HGH going to Peyton's wife seems solid.

Peyton may be telling the truth, but there's a lot of smoke around him.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
Ari Fleischer tells TMZ Sports..."Al Jazeera is backtracking and retreating."

http://www.tmz.com/2015/12/29/peyton-manning-ari-fleischer-al-jazeera/

They are? I haven't seen them backtrack from a single piece of information yet. The problem is that people don't fucking read (or in this case watch) anymore and get their information from summarized and editorialized second- and third-hand sources.

For those who are paying attention, it actually looks much worse for Peyton today than it did yesterday morning.
 

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
3,962
Florida
Ari Fleischer tells TMZ Sports..."Al Jazeera is backtracking and retreating."

http://www.tmz.com/2015/12/29/peyton-manning-ari-fleischer-al-jazeera/

They are? I haven't seen them backtrack from a single piece of information yet. The problem is that people don't fucking read (or in this case watch) anymore and get their information from summarized and editorialized second- and third-hand sources.

For those who are paying attention, it actually looks much worse for Peyton today than it did yesterday morning.

I agree, too bad nobody is paying attention and/or cares :(
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
16,247
Boston, MA
Ari Fleischer tells TMZ Sports..."Al Jazeera is backtracking and retreating."

http://www.tmz.com/2015/12/29/peyton-manning-ari-fleischer-al-jazeera/

They are? I haven't seen them backtrack from a single piece of information yet. The problem is that people don't fucking read (or in this case watch) anymore and get their information from summarized and editorialized second- and third-hand sources.

For those who are paying attention, it actually looks much worse for Peyton today than it did yesterday morning.
Why does it look much worse today than yesterday? No snark, actually curious about what has changed, for better or worse.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
If Manning had said, "The only concrete information in the story is that my wife got the stuff in the mail. This is true ------ for medical reasons that are none of your fucking business," that would have been the end of it for him since he (and Archie and Eli) are so tongue-bathed by the relevant media.
Instead, he denied an accusation that wasn't explicitly made and got all hot and bothered, just giving the story more oxygen. Despite his reputation and employment history, friends in the business say Ari Fleischer is not very good at the public side of crisis management PR. (He can call a Congressman or 5 and get heat put on Al Jazeera, but that's a different part of the job).
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
If Manning had said, "The only concrete information in the story is that my wife got the stuff in the mail. This is true ------ for medical reasons that are none of your fucking business," that would have been the end of it for him since he (and Archie and Eli) are so tongue-bathed by the relevant media.
I find this entirely naive. He's getting the benefit of the doubt as it is - if anyone is going to dig now, they still would have had he said that.

It's a very simple premise - no one needs to have Peyton divulge his wife's medical issues. The question is why was she getting her meds by mail from an anti-aging clinic over a thousand miles away, instead of her own doctor? That question doesn't change in any scenario involving PMs press releases.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
Why does it look much worse today than yesterday? No snark, actually curious about what has changed, for better or worse.
The main thing is the evidence that Sly worked for Guyer in 2011. Yesterday, people were still hanging onto "but he didn't even work there at the time, and when he did he was just an unpaid intern!" Al Jazeera is doubling down on their other claims, so that doesn't bode well either.

It's not a huge change, but I was drawing contrast to the claim that AJ was backtracking. They've done nothing of the sort.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
If Manning had said, "The only concrete information in the story is that my wife got the stuff in the mail. This is true ------ for medical reasons that are none of your fucking business," that would have been the end of it for him since he (and Archie and Eli) are so tongue-bathed by the relevant media.
Instead, he denied an accusation that wasn't explicitly made and got all hot and bothered, just giving the story more oxygen. Despite his reputation and employment history, friends in the business say Ari Fleischer is not very good at the public side of crisis management PR. (He can call a Congressman or 5 and get heat put on Al Jazeera, but that's a different part of the job).
Terrible decision hiring Ari Feischer. Fleischer was paid to tell obvious lies as Bush's spokesman and got away with it because, White House. Getting away with telling lies because you work for the president doesn't make you a good liar or a good p.r. rep. Probably the opposite.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
If Manning had said, "The only concrete information in the story is that my wife got the stuff in the mail. This is true ------ for medical reasons that are none of your fucking business," that would have been the end of it for him since he (and Archie and Eli) are so tongue-bathed by the relevant media.
That's sort of what he said. Problem with that defense is that there's no conceivable, legal reason for Ashley Manning to be receiving HGH shipments from an anti-aging clinic. If she had one of the three conditions that HGH can legally be prescribed for, or even for IVF treatment, she'd get it from her regular doctor or a fertility clinic, not the Guyer Institute. If Guyer sent HGH to Ashley Manning, it's 99% sure that it was for Peyton... or at least "more probable than not."
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,025
Oregon
Terrible decision hiring Ari Feischer. Fleischer was paid to tell obvious lies as Bush's spokesman and got away with it because, White House. Getting away with telling lies because you work for the president doesn't make you a good liar or a good p.r. rep. Probably the opposite.
That only matters if there is a watchdog vetting the statements for the truth. In this case, there isn't. The NFL isn't going to do it. The major news and sports networks aren't going to do it. All of them have too much money invested to open this can of worms.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
The main thing is the evidence that Sly worked for Guyer in 2011. Yesterday, people were still hanging onto "but he didn't even work there at the time, and when he did he was just an unpaid intern!" Al Jazeera is doubling down on their other claims, so that doesn't bode well either.

It's not a huge change, but I was drawing contrast to the claim that AJ was backtracking. They've done nothing of the sort.
On the NFL Insiders show on ESPN, they showed a clip from the Today Show where the reporter stated that the investigation was about a PED supplier and they have no direct evidence concerning Peyton Manning. And as soon as the clip ended, the entire crew began parroting the idea that "Al Jazeera is backing down."

Now that I'm seeing Fleisher repeat it, I have no doubt that it's part of a coordinated strategy. Which is smart, in the sense that this is how you get ahead of the news and create a narrative.
 
May 30, 2009
17,395
in my pants...
That's sort of what he said. Problem with that defense is that there's no conceivable, legal reason for Ashley Manning to be receiving HGH shipments from an anti-aging clinic. If she had one of the three conditions that HGH can legally be prescribed for, or even for IVF treatment, she'd get it from her regular doctor or a fertility clinic, not the Guyer Institute. If Guyer sent HGH to Ashley Manning, it's 99% sure that it was for Peyton... or at least "more probable than not."
It'd be illegal for a doctor to prescribe it to her for IVF treatments too though. As I understand it, even if HGH can be used to help a woman get pregnant (which apparently isn't fully proven either), a regular doctor or a fertility clinic still can't prescribe it. So where she would get it if it was meant to help her conceive is always going to be shady in some way even if her reason to get it isn't all that nefarious.
But it's moot anyway- The Manning's twins were born in late march of 2011, so for the entirety of the year Mrs. Manning was either pregnant or had already had a successful pregnancy so had no need of it HGH as part of an IVF treatment.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
It'd be illegal for a doctor to prescribe it to her for IVF treatments too though. As I understand it, even if HGH can be used to help a woman get pregnant (which apparently isn't fully proven either), a regular doctor or a fertility clinic still can't prescribe it. So where she would get it if it was meant to help her conceive is always going to be shady in some way even if her reason to get it isn't all that nefarious.
But it's moot anyway- The Manning's twins were born in late march of 2011, so for the entirety of the year Mrs. Manning was either pregnant or had already had a successful pregnancy so had no need of it HGH as part of an IVF treatment.
Unless they were using it to try to breed super babies
 

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
3,962
Florida
On the NFL Insiders show on ESPN, they showed a clip from the Today Show where the reporter stated that the investigation was about a PED supplier and they have no direct evidence concerning Peyton Manning. And as soon as the clip ended, the entire crew began parroting the idea that "Al Jazeera is backing down."

Now that I'm seeing Fleisher repeat it, I have no doubt that it's part of a coordinated strategy. Which is smart, in the sense that this is how you get ahead of the news and create a narrative.

did any of them even watch this documentary? Peyton was never the subject of it and their reporter didn't accuse him of anything so her stating that on the Today show is far from "backing down", but what they are doing is pushing back and showing that Guyer is lying about when Sly worked for him, how on earth is that backing down??
 

garzooma

New Member
Mar 4, 2011
126
It'd be illegal for a doctor to prescribe it to her for IVF treatments too though.
Although, according to Kravitz, Guyer isn't all that fussy about "legal": he says they prescribed it to him to "help with my energy and basically bring me back to the land of the living. Unfortunately, it had zero impact – except on my bank account."

I've been online trying to check out just how "illegal" prescribing HGH was for unapproved usages -- after all, I've seen estimate that about half the antibiotics prescribed in this country are useless. I found this site which suggests it's pretty illegal:

...as part of the 1990 Anabolic Steroids Control Act, the distribution and possession, with the intent to distribute, of hGH "for any use…other than the treatment of a disease or other recognized medical condition, where such use has been authorized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services…and pursuant to the order of a physician…" was criminalized as a five-year felony...
The site also also says "The illicit distribution of injectable synthetic hGH formulations is thought to be primarily through Internet pharmacies, as well as wellness and anti-aging clinics", so this is a thing clinics like Guyer do.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
did any of them even watch this documentary? Peyton was never the subject of it and their reporter didn't accuse him of anything so her stating that on the Today show is far from "backing down", but what they are doing is pushing back and showing that Guyer is lying about when Sly worked for him, how on earth is that backing down??
I don't disagree with you. It's still an effective strategy for Manning's team to employ to change the narrative.

I will admit that I shook my head in disgust watching the morons on NFL Insider declare that Al Jazerra was backing down and that this is clear evidence that there was nothing to the report to begin with, etc., but then I remembered that ESPN employs Ray Lewis. They are in the icon business.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,588
Here
ESPN is paving way for the NFL to summarily dismiss this. What this is going to likely come down to is whether there is a law enforcement investigation, in which case the NFL/ESPN is going to get completely embarrassed again a la Ray Rice. I can't stand either, so I'm hoping for that and that any stain by the player usage rubs off on the league office.
 

Statman

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
1,057
Los Angeles, CA
did any of them even watch this documentary? Peyton was never the subject of it and their reporter didn't accuse him of anything so her stating that on the Today show is far from "backing down", but what they are doing is pushing back and showing that Guyer is lying about when Sly worked for him, how on earth is that backing down??
In the documentary, Sly states that:

“All the time we would be sending Ashley Manning drugs”
...

“Like growth hormone, all the time, everywhere, Florida. And it would never be under Peyton’s name, it would always be under her name.”
I am not so about the bolded part of your statement because crux of the documentary is the allegation that the Guyer Institute was sending HGH to Ashley Manning which were intended for Peyton.

Today Davies states that "The only allegation in the program from Charlie Sly is that growth hormone was sent repeatedly from the Guyer [Institute] to Ashley Manning in Florida. We’re not making the allegation against Peyton Manning." IMO, that is backtracking.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
I don't disagree with you. It's still an effective strategy for Manning's team to employ to change the narrative.

I will admit that I shook my head in disgust watching the morons on NFL Insider declare that Al Jazerra was backing down and that this is clear evidence that there was nothing to the report to begin with, etc., but then I remembered that ESPN employs Ray Lewis. They are in the icon business.
Im starting to think, they are paving the way for Manning to get a gig at ESPN.
 

garzooma

New Member
Mar 4, 2011
126
ESPN is paving way for the NFL to summarily dismiss this. What this is going to likely come down to is whether there is a law enforcement investigation, ...
Which might take a while. I was checking for examples of convictions for illegal prescribing of HGH. I found this article on ESPN by Mike Fish from 2009. It's about a Dr. Richard Rydze who was on the Steelers medical staff for over 20 years, and was "dispensing the HGH to elderly patients referred to him for help in healing tendon and ligament injuries." He claims he never gave it to players, but the uses clearly weren't any of the approved ones. Apparently investigators first questioned him in February 2007. The article also states:

Marc Mukasey, a former assistant U.S. attorney, suggested prosecutors allocate their resources to go after traffickers of what are considered more dangerous drugs such as cocaine, heroin and, to a lesser extent, crystal methamphetamine, or ecstasy. Steroids prosecutions, with exceptions such as the BALCO case, are unusual. And human growth hormone is viewed by most law enforcement agencies as something less than an egregious societal problem.

"Why is nobody prosecuting it?" said Mukasey, the stepson of outgoing U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey. "Because there are too many guns and drugs and violent crime on the streets. That is the short answer."
So what happened in Rydze's case? I found this from this past June:

Rydze's trial in the 2012 case was postponed after the second indictment. U.S. District Judge Maurice Cohill filed a notice Wednesday saying that a trial for both cases probably will be held early next year.

Read more: http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/8598146-74/rydze-zipf-health#ixzz3vkzSORV7

Well, there's always the MLB investigation.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Not sure you need convictions or indictments for it to impact the players or force networks to cover it. If the federal government gets involved at any significant level of commitment, it can't be ignored or brushed under the rug.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
Although, according to Kravitz, Guyer isn't all that fussy about "legal": he says they prescribed it to him to "help with my energy and basically bring me back to the land of the living. Unfortunately, it had zero impact – except on my bank account."

I've been online trying to check out just how "illegal" prescribing HGH was for unapproved usages -- after all, I've seen estimate that about half the antibiotics prescribed in this country are useless. I found this site which suggests it's pretty illegal:

...as part of the 1990 Anabolic Steroids Control Act, the distribution and possession, with the intent to distribute, of hGH "for any use…other than the treatment of a disease or other recognized medical condition, where such use has been authorized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services…and pursuant to the order of a physician…" was criminalized as a five-year felony...
The site also also says "The illicit distribution of injectable synthetic hGH formulations is thought to be primarily through Internet pharmacies, as well as wellness and anti-aging clinics", so this is a thing clinics like Guyer do.
Yes, this is what Deborah Davies, the AJ reporter, said in the 120 Sports interview linked here late last night. She said they researched the law and had it verified by 4 of the foremost hGH experts in the country.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
In the documentary, Sly states that:



I am not so about the bolded part of your statement because crux of the documentary is the allegation that the Guyer Institute was sending HGH to Ashley Manning which were intended for Peyton.

Today Davies states that "The only allegation in the program from Charlie Sly is that growth hormone was sent repeatedly from the Guyer [Institute] to Ashley Manning in Florida. We’re not making the allegation against Peyton Manning." IMO, that is backtracking.
This single quote is slightly mischaracterizing her position. If you watch the entire Today interview, and especially the 120 Sports interview from yesterday, she's implying that there are 2 possibilities: (1) Peyton was taking a substance banned by the NFL, or (2) Ashley Manning was illegally prescribed medication. She's being a bit coy about it in the Today interview, but the implication is definitely still there.
 
Last edited:

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
ESPN is paving way for the NFL to summarily dismiss this. What this is going to likely come down to is whether there is a law enforcement investigation, in which case the NFL/ESPN is going to get completely embarrassed again a la Ray Rice. I can't stand either, so I'm hoping for that and that any stain by the player usage rubs off on the league office.
A lot of questions and uncertainties in this, but this I am sure of: whatever the NFL does, it'll be the wrong thing.

If Manning is innocent and didn't use HGH, he's going about this the wrong way. Instead of attacking Al Jazeera, he should make a simple declarative statement: "I did not use HGH in 2011 or at any other time." Pretty simple, actually.

The fact that his denials have not been unequivocal makes me think like he is not innocent. If that's the case, then he's still going about it the wrong way. If he took the HGH, he should have admitted it, a la Andy Petitte. Most people would forgive him considering he faced a career-ending neck injury. It's not like he was juicing in order to hit 70+ home runs.
 

I12XU

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 5, 2003
3,445
Brooklyn
Today Davies states that "The only allegation in the program from Charlie Sly is that growth hormone was sent repeatedly from the Guyer [Institute] to Ashley Manning in Florida. We’re not making the allegation against Peyton Manning." IMO, that is backtracking.
That's not backtracking, that's pointing out that Peyton suing Al Jazeera is not going to happen since it was all direct from the horse's mouth.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
A lot of questions and uncertainties in this, but this I am sure of: whatever the NFL does, it'll be the wrong thing.

If Manning is innocent and didn't use HGH, he's going about this the wrong way. Instead of attacking Al Jazeera, he should make a simple declarative statement: "I did not use HGH in 2011 or at any other time." Pretty simple, actually.

The fact that his denials have not been unequivocal makes me think like he is not innocent. If that's the case, then he's still going about it the wrong way. If he took the HGH, he should have admitted it, a la Andy Petitte. Most people would forgive him considering he faced a career-ending neck injury. It's not like he was juicing in order to hit 70+ home runs.
Jesus, people also said this during that thing we're only supposed to talk about in the other thread. I don't know what people want. You can choose to not believe him if you want (I don't), but what about these quotes is ambiguous to you?

"The allegation that I would do something like that is complete garbage and is totally made up. It never happened. Never."
"Whoever said this is making stuff up."
"I know what I've done, I know how hard I've worked in my 18 years of playing in the NFL. There are no shortcuts in the NFL. I've done it the long way, I've done it the hard way. And to insinuate anything otherwise is a complete and total joke, it's defamation and it really ticks me off"
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,588
Here
Here's a picture of Guyer's office. Seems like where I would go for service if I was a multi-million dollar athlete, especially the out of staters:



Edit - Got it l1, I read that hastily. Thanks for the catch.
 
Last edited:

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
You can choose to not believe him if you want (I don't), but what about these quotes is ambiguous to you?

"The allegation that I would do something like that is complete garbage and is totally made up. It never happened. Never."

"Whoever said this is making stuff up."

"I know what I've done, I know how hard I've worked in my 18 years of playing in the NFL. There are no shortcuts in the NFL. I've done it the long way, I've done it the hard way. And to insinuate anything otherwise is a complete and total joke, it's defamation and it really ticks me off"
Every one of those statements is ambiguous or word-smithed.


1) "The allegation that I would do something like that is complete garbage and is totally made up. It never happened. Never."

Here, Manning denies doing "something like that." That's classic liar language. Wife: "You've been messin' 'round with Mrs. Jones." Husband: "Honey, you know I'd never do something like that!"


2) "Whoever said this is making stuff up."

"Whoever said this..." Huh? Sly said this. Al Jazeera said this. Manning knows this. This is another example of prevarication.

"...is making stuff up." No doubt Sly made some stuff up. Some of "this" is probably "made up." That's still not an unequivocal "I did not take HGH in 2011" denial.


3) "I know what I've done, I know how hard I've worked in my 18 years of playing in the NFL. There are no shortcuts in the NFL. I've done it the long way, I've done it the hard way. And to insinuate anything otherwise is a complete and total joke, it's defamation and it really ticks me off"

Manning knows what he's done. Um. Okay. Manning knows how hard he's worked. Great. "There are no shortcuts in the NFL." Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't address the allegation that Guyer sent HGH to his wife, presumably for his use. I wouldn't consider HGH a "shortcut" and if I were in Manning's shoes in 2011, I might take HGH to recover from a neck injury too and not consider it a "shortcut" towards recovery. He has pride and principles so bald-faced lying is probably hard for him, so he's being cute with his language.

"...to insinuate anything otherwise is a complete and total joke, it's defamation and it really ticks me off."

This is just bluster. No one is insinuating anything. It's not a joke and it definitely is not defamation.

More to the point, NONE of what you've quoted is an explicit, unequivocal denial.
 
Last edited:

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
If it were a prepared statement, I'd agree that the word choice matters a lot more, but this was said in an interview. Again, you're free to believe he's lying (as I do), but those seem to me like pretty strong denials within that context.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
If it were a prepared statement, I'd agree that the word choice matters a lot more, but this was said in an interview. Again, you're free to believe he's lying, but those seem like pretty strong denials to me within that context.
I actually think for a guy who hired Ari Fleischer as his PR advisor the lack of a clear and specific denial is a gigantic, glaring, suspicious omission. I did not read the interview transcript and so I'm relying on what others are saying he said---but I disagree that because it's an interview we shouldn't expect the clear denial; in fact, we should expect it up front if he can make it.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,427
Every one of those statements is ambiguous or word-smithed.


1) "The allegation that I would do something like that is complete garbage and is totally made up. It never happened. Never."

Here, Manning denies doing "something like that." That's classic liar language. Wife: "You've been messin' 'round with Mrs. Jones." Husband: "Honey, you know I'd never do something like that!"


2) "Whoever said this is making stuff up."

"Whoever said this..." Huh? Sly said this. Al Jazeera said this. Manning knows this. This is another example of prevarication.

"...is making stuff up." No doubt Sly made some stuff up. Some of "this" is probably "made up." That's still not an unequivocal "I did not take HGH in 2011" denial.


3) "I know what I've done, I know how hard I've worked in my 18 years of playing in the NFL. There are no shortcuts in the NFL. I've done it the long way, I've done it the hard way. And to insinuate anything otherwise is a complete and total joke, it's defamation and it really ticks me off"

Manning knows what he's done. Um. Okay. Manning knows how hard he's worked. Great. "There are no shortcuts in the NFL." Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't address the allegation that Guyer sent HGH to his wife, presumably for his use. I wouldn't consider HGH a "shortcut" and if I were in Manning's shoes in 2011, I might take HGH to recover from a neck injury too and not consider it a "shortcut" towards recovery. He has pride and principles so bald-faced lying is probably hard for him, so he's being cute with his language.

"...to insinuate anything otherwise is a complete and total joke, it's defamation and it really ticks me off."

This is just bluster. No one is insinuating anything. It's not a joke and it definitely is not defamation.

More to the point, NONE of what you've quoted is an explicit, unequivocal denial.
What the fuck are you talking about?
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
Every one of those statements is ambiguous or word-smithed.


1) "The allegation that I would do something like that is complete garbage and is totally made up. It never happened. Never."

Here, Manning denies doing "something like that." That's classic liar language. Wife: "You've been messin' 'round with Mrs. Jones." Husband: "Honey, you know I'd never do something like that!"


2) "Whoever said this is making stuff up."

"Whoever said this..." Huh? Sly said this. Al Jazeera said this. Manning knows this. This is another example of prevarication.

"...is making stuff up." No doubt Sly made some stuff up. Some of "this" is probably "made up." That's still not an unequivocal "I did not take HGH in 2011" denial.


3) "I know what I've done, I know how hard I've worked in my 18 years of playing in the NFL. There are no shortcuts in the NFL. I've done it the long way, I've done it the hard way. And to insinuate anything otherwise is a complete and total joke, it's defamation and it really ticks me off"

Manning knows what he's done. Um. Okay. Manning knows how hard he's worked. Great. "There are no shortcuts in the NFL." Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't address the allegation that Guyer sent HGH to his wife, presumably for his use. I wouldn't consider HGH a "shortcut" and if I were in Manning's shoes in 2011, I might take HGH to recover from a neck injury too and not consider it a "shortcut" towards recovery. He has pride and principles so bald-faced lying is probably hard for him, so he's being cute with his language.

"...to insinuate anything otherwise is a complete and total joke, it's defamation and it really ticks me off."

This is just bluster. No one is insinuating anything. It's not a joke and it definitely is not defamation.

More to the point, NONE of what you've quoted is an explicit, unequivocal denial.
Please expand your explanation of word smithing and ambiguous language to include the part where he says....
"It never happened. Never"