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.

    PA-PLAYA

    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..............

        sdandrea1
        Exactly. Saxon never said Manning did what Nautright said (in 2003, not 1996) he did. And that latest article is consistent with the Manning's portrayal of her in their book. 😌

          Sneakylong

          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.

            sdandrea1

            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.

                MidwayJ

                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.