Very interesting Peyton Manning article
Wow. That's sensationalism at it's finest. This Naughtright, if portrayed accurately above, sounds like a delight of a person. Sarcasm. She sounds like a gold digger big time.
This is the issue with these things...we never really get to know. I hate that. One day it sounds like Manning is a first class pppprick and the next it sounds like he's the victim.
Now, he's gay and likes to smoke poles? Wow, wow, wow. Well, he and Papa John did kiss on the field after the SB...not that there's anything wrong with that.
Can't wait to see what happens next. 
Speaking of Joe Montana... one of the rumors from the industry I used to work in was that he never had back surgery (there's no scar, allegedly) and he was suspended by the NFL (secretly) for a raging cocaine addiction which accounted for the "recovery time" for the surgery he never had.
If Peyton and him are "buddies" Peyton probably wishes his name was "Joe" so he could be "Smokin' Joe".
- Edited
Tom and Gisele bought a home on the Brookline Country Club Golf Course (home of the 1999 Ryder Cup). The powers that be haven't allowed him to join yet (and may not). So he's obvious not great enough for the blue bloods at Brookline.
Sneakylong Tom and Gisele bought a home on the Brookline Country Club Golf Course (home of the 1999 Ryder Cup). The powers that be haven't allowed him to join yet (and may not). So he's obvious not great enough for the blue bloods at Brookline.
They don't believe his handicap index..............................8*)
sdandrea1 Sneakylong Tom and Gisele bought a home on the Brookline Country Club Golf Course (home of the 1999 Ryder Cup). The powers that be haven't allowed him to join yet (and may not). So he's obvious not great enough for the blue bloods at Brookline.
They don't believe his handicap index..............................8*)
It's deflated?
Sorry, couldn't help myself
:/
According to Freeman, Manning is able to get away with this because he is to a certain degree immune from criticism.
“Part of the reason why Manning hits back twice as hard—which is his right—is because he knows he’ll receive cover from large swaths of the media who will believe anything he says,” he wrote. “There are football writers, lots of them, that would lay their bodies over a puddle of water and let Manning walk over their bodies so his cleats don’t get wet.”
Don't get too wet yourself.
- Edited
Or possibly Manning wasn't guilty of the allegations and although the school settled - he wasn't about to set idly by and let someone tarnish his career.
It all just comes down to which side one prefers to believe. Although, I personally have to chuckle when evidence comes forward that the alleged "victim" has more of a questionable history than the alleged perpetrator himself, yet that just doesn't factor into the equation to some people.
Some people look at things objectively, some refuse to consider anything but what they want to believe, as though they were there and witnessed the allegation themselves. The underlying agendas in both of those instances can't help but be recognized for what they are.
Let's see. Who should we believe? Malcom Saxon who lost his eligibility and then wrote Peyton a letter imploring Peyton to tell the truth / come clean or do we believe Manning who has everything to gain by continuing the lie about mooning Saxon?
Does common sense say we're to believe a guy would lie and lose his eligibility or believe a guy would lie to cover up a sexual assault?
The mooning incident was a made up cover story. Then one might ask what is it he's covering up? Dot, dot, dot..............
Choose to believe who you want to believe, but only a few people know the truth. We never will.
You contend that you enjoy a good discussion/debate. If that's true, then maybe you should stop automatically discounting what everyone else might offer when they provide something substantive that runs contrary to your position.
At that point it's no longer a good discussion, it's just one guy banging out words on a keyboard and everyone else being amused and entertained about what he might post next. You're making yourself the brunt of a joke that you clearly don't realize you're perpetuating when you continuously do this, over and over.
It doesn't make you a bad person. It just makes you someone to avoid when a discussion evolves into a debate.
- Edited
But again and again and again we do know the mooning claim was not true. Manning did not come up with that story himself, but he did latch on to it once that lie was made up. We know it's a lie because the guy (Saxon) who Manning says he was mooning says so. So why lie about a mooning if nothing happened?
Now, do we know if Manning's rectum and testicles actually touched Naughright's face? No. But does it really make a difference?
Just as Manning has not denied his wife received HGH thru the mail, he also has never denied dropping his drawers in front of Naughright. No need to drop your shorts when someone is checking for a stress fracture in your foot. So if the mooning never happened why pull your shorts down?
I mean at the very least we have some admissions here that don't look good for Manning.
It makes a big difference whether there was a sexual assault or not.
Agree it's very possible he intentionally dropped his drawers at Naughtright rather than Saxon.
- Edited
I guess we could talk semantics (whether it rises to the claim of sexual assault) when it comes down to exposing yourself by dropping your shorts in front of a woman.
"Sexual assault is any involuntary sexual act in which a person is coerced or physically forced to engage against their will, or any non-consensual sexual touching of a person."
However, if you or I went out on the street and dropped our pants and exposed ourselves to a woman I think we'd be in trouble, even if we falsely claimed we were mooning a friend.
Or let's say we're in a doctors office and getting examined by a woman doctor for a stress fracture in our foot and we all of a sudden drop our pants and expose ourselves.
I think in both cases excuses like 'horseplay' or 'mooning' would fall short of legitimate excuses for such indecent behavior. And does it really matter that much if his testicles and rectum actually touched her face or were a inch or so away? Legally probably, but I'm not a lawyer.
And it's important to remember that Naughright reported the incident right away.
Peyton's 20 year old case was brought up to show a pattern of behavior by Tennessee over the years regarding how sexual assault / indecent behavior by athletes was dealt with.
How we specifically classify Manning's bad behavior is irrelevant when looking at the bigger issue with the Title IX lawsuit.