Manning Legacy: Scrotal Recall

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
No, you asked me whether the optics of Manning sending PIs to Sly's house would be an indicator that he is guilty, while Brady is not. And there's no way to tell that.
And my opinion differs from yours.

Also, you use the word "goalposts" as if to imply I was moving them. I did no such thing. I was asking exploratory questions as follow-ups to your answers because I find them curious.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Brady took forever to get wise to the need to lawyer up and hire a PR flack, though. Right away, yeah, you can see how he might have dismissed it. But by the time of the Super Bowl, it was clear this was a big effin' deal, and while he was busy with game prep leading up to that, he should have handled things better after the Super Bowl.
Even during Super Bowl week, the focus was on the Patriots organization (Belichick in particular) rather than focused on him specifically. There were no hints that he'd be whacked with a suspension for something that stemmed from an equipment violation accusation. There was every reason to trust the science (the Belichick Mona Lisa Vito presser sure illustrated that was the strategy) and that it would win the day in the end. I think hiring a Fleischer-equivalent PR spin-doctor might have been counter-productive until the Wells Report came down and showed that science was going to be ignored and the NFL wanted its pound of flesh regardless.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
The criticism of Brady's response—not lawyering up, looking "guilty" in his press conference before the SB last year—is so easy to say in retrospect.

Brady, very clearly, didn't see the story for what it became. And even when it did become a thing, he clearly didn't think he would end up being suspended over it – most likely because he didn't think it even happened much less had anything to do with it. His reaction throughout Deflategate has been of a guy who had no idea this would balloon into a major sports scandal leading the nightly news (the same is almost certainly true of Kraft, who has said as much). Quite frankly, only the most paranoid among us could have predicted the lengths to which Goodell and the league went after the Patriots, but that's only because no one really had any idea how deep the animosity toward the Patriots was throughout the league – and how desperate Goodell likely was to repair his image after the Ray Rice scandal.

What does this have to do with Manning hiring a team like Fleischer's before the story even broke? Not much IMO. Manning has always been significantly more conscious of and involved with maintaining his public image – and the accusations here pose a major threat to that image and the money that image makes him (which I imagine is more than Brady, perhaps significantly so).

Put simply, these guys would never have reacted the same way to a scandal like this. They may both be NFL MVP quarterbacks but their motivations and concerns are like night and day.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,275
I agree with this, and should have added it to my post about Manning learning from the Brady experience. That said, while the potential charges are worse, that doesn't preclude those around Peyton devising a strategy based on what they've seen brady (or others) go through in the past.
That's why it makes sense to hire someone to do some PR spin and get out in front of the accusations in the media. What I have yet to see anyone sufficiently explain is why Peyton would hire Private Investigators to go visit the Sly family household.
Especially because Peyton is bulletproof with the media, which is something he is acutely aware of and takes full advantage. There was a great article recently on The Daily Beast (link here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/01/peyton-s-manning-s-forgotten-sex-scandal.html) where they quoted Mike Freeman as saying the reason that Peyton goes on the "bullying offensive" whenever accused is because he knows that he has the media eating out of his hand and they will never challenge him
I mean look at how this actually played out. Archie and Peyton took some pot shots at Al Jazeera, Fleischer did some spin doctoring and this scandal was basically over. Until this recent news, the only time HGH was even brought up was ESPN asking a few softball questions to the Manning boys.

So, while hiring private investigators doesn't mean definitive guilt, it is a pretty damn suspicious move
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,679
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Sort of a general post about the criminal aspects of this and how they play into PR.

1) The Mannings may not be criminally liable for simply receiving and using HGH. (That's one reason why HGH became popular when anabolic steroids became more criminalized.) However, Peyton may a) face a league sanction and b) have his reputation tarnished. Logically, the path of least damage is to acknowledge all the provable facts and spin the fuzzy ones. Since Peyton used the clinic, his best claim would be that he used it for everything but HGH, and that the clinic sent HGH to his wife. Which happened.

2) Sly's in relatively deep shit. Sly admitted to being involved a fairly sophisticated conspiracy to distributing controlled substances. I assume Al Jazeera has a lot of footage that didn't make it into the documentary. What did make it in was:
  • Sly offering to sell steroids (D2) to the undercover reporter.
  • Sly saying that he worked for the Guyer Institute that set up IVs for Payton and his wife after hours in 2010, and shipped HGH to Payton. Guyer prescribed drugs out of his office for them.
  • Steroids to Ryan Howard.
  • Steroids to Zimmerman.
  • Steroids to James Harrison.
  • Steroids to Mike Neal; then Julius Peppers, then 10-12 players were told how to order and use D-2.
  • Text from Clay Matthews wanting anti-inflammatories.
He's either implicated in shipping steroids/HGH/other drugs for off label purposes (multiple felonies) or, if he claims he lied, trying to sell steroids (or fake steroids) to an undercover reporter. Again, the scenario which minimized damage was pushed. His best case would be that he lied to the undercover reporter in an attempt to sell vitamin shots.

3) The other players - Dustin Keller, Zimmerman, Howard, Teagarden, the Green Bay Packers, et. al. They're subject to league sanctions, and civil ramifications (loss of endorsements, etc.). If they received only HGH, there's probably no criminal liability, but there could be, depending on the state they were in when they received it. Their liability increases with other types of controlled substances/PEDs.
  • Teagarden admitted on film to steroid use, peptides.
4) The clinic is on the hook any which way for distributing HGH/Steriods. If MDs prescribed the drugs (Dr. Dale Guyer) or distributed them, they're also on the hook.

The investigation might take awhile because the weak link is Sly. He could be offered immunity or a deal. Dr. Guyer also looks particularly vulnerable. On the other hand, there's always the chance that someone on the far end breaks. Say, Teagarden cooperating, which would put more pressure on Sly/Guyer.

If one of them breaks, the dominos will start to fall. Peyton's not the most important or central player here, despite his celebrity. I think the biggest development thusfar is USADA's involvement in the issue. They're not going to roll over or turn a blind eye to service either MLB or the NFL. (And MLB has already shown it will go after violators, no matter how well they're perceived in the game.) So while Manning might not be facing a criminal violation, I don't see how he remains untouched when the dust clears, retirement or no retirement.

Edit - I realized that I'm somewhat confusing HGH/Steroids in this. From what I can see Delta-2, or D-2, is mostly likely an anabolic steroid, which is a Schedule III controlled substance. For Sly/Guyer, that'd be a max of 15 years for each trafficking offense. Then there's RICO, etc. Basically for Sly/Guyer, this could be "go to jail for most of your life" stuff. On the other hand, simple possession is punishable by up to one year for a first time offender.
 
Last edited:

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Great post. I think virtually the only chance Manning has to survive this scandal is to convince people that while Guyer and Sly may have provided PEDs to other athletes, he wasn't one of them. Hard case to make tho.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Can you give us/me a refresher on impossibility in criminal law? That is, if I offer to sell cocaine but it's only flour, what's my liability? Does it hinge on whether I know that it's flour and not cocaine? If I don't know, there's attempt or conspiracy liability, correct? Is that why his best bet is to claim some sort of puffery - these were legal vitamins, but I lied and said they're steroids because those are more marketable?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,679
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Can you give us/me a refresher on impossibility in criminal law? That is, if I offer to sell cocaine but it's only flour, what's my liability? Does it hinge on whether I know that it's flour and not cocaine? If I don't know, there's attempt or conspiracy liability, correct? Is that why his best bet is to claim some sort of puffery - these were legal vitamins, but I lied and said they're steroids because those are more marketable?
Well, it's something of a fuzzy subject. There are impossibility of fact and impossibility of law defenses, although there's often not a bright line between them. For example, if one tries to steal from one's self, it's both factually and legally impossible. The defenses are often not used in the real world as discretely-named defenses since what would qualify tends to get aired out under the probable cause standard. For example, if you went into a police station saying that you attempted to kill the president through your psychic powers given to you by aliens, it would not rise to probable cause for arrest, due to the impossibility of fact. But if you were arrested, your attorney could use "an impossibility of fact defense," although you'd practically frame it as a habeas issue, or a review of probable cause, or by asking for a verdict on the pleadings, or as a motion to dismiss, or through a "be reasonable and drop this now" conversation with the D.A. If it got to trial you'd essentially ask for a not guilty from a fact-finder (impossibility of fact), or a MJOA/MSJ/MDV/MJNV on an impossibility of fact/law issue from the Judge.

(There are also somewhat related mistake of fact and mistake of law defenses, which center on the subjective beliefs held by the suspect when the "crime" was committed.)

That said, "impossibility of fact" defenses are sometimes legislatively precluded in attempt scenarios. In many jurisdictions, the attempt to sell flour as "cocaine" is still the crime of attempting to sell cocaine, no matter that it was physically impossible, and the defense is not allowed to raise impossibility as a defense. Also, some jurisdictions have specific crimes of "selling or attempting to sell an imitation controlled substance" which is basically designed to directly address the flour/cocaine scenario.

I haven't looked at the issue on a fed. level recently, but on the state level, attempting to sell imitation controlled substances is usually less severe of a crime than actually selling controlled ones. However, if Sly asserted that he was selling vitamin shots as steroids, he could also be charged by the Feds for a species of criminal fraud or misbranding drugs, etc.

There's not really a good scenario for Sly here. I think the best he can hope for would be if everyone denied/destroyed all records of the prior drug sales/transactions (which is tough now-a-days) and for him to claim that those prior drug transactions were lies/puffery, and his one attempt to actually sell steroids on tape to the undercover reporter was some kind of attempted fraud/misbranding, not attempted trafficking.

But, given what's in his cell-phone records, that's probably going to be a vain hope.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,679
Miami (oh, Miami!)
T.J. Quinn ‏@TJQuinnESPN 3m3 minutes ago
As story says, when I first reached Sly after the Al Jazeera story, said he needed to check with his lawyer--and Manning's--before talking.

why the hell does he need to talk to MANNING"S lawyers!?
I usually don't quote myself but see the bolded:

That said, Sly admitted to multiple felonies on tape. So he'll be circling the wagons with Manning and whomever else he hopes will clam up/deny in self-protection. (In fact, even if he did lie about all the pro-athletes, he's trying to sell the undercover athlete illegal drugs.) So he's pretty screwed.

FWIW, the "recantation" by Sly isn't some sort of a magic bullet for him. It's actually more or less useless logically and legally. His documentary statements have been corroborated by multiple independent sources; he can't say A, B, C, D, E, then turn around and claim he made everything up. Especially, when A, B, and C (thus far) have proven to be true. All is shows is that he's willing to lie after the fact.

So, I think there's pretty much zero chance the Sly family actually tries to press this PI saying they're LEOs issue, and a very large chance that if questioned, they'll say everyone was "mistaken." The local D.A. won't do anything about such a marginal issue.

Edit - which is to say the real story here isn't that Manning tried some sort of shakedown (which is possible) but, in conjunction with that or no, Manning had his people coordinate with Sly, prior to Sly reading his recorded statement for damage control/PR purposes. Which smells very strongly of criminal conspiracy/tampering with a witness.

Edit 2 - I'm also near certain that Sly gives not a shit about the effect all this has on Manning, et. al. Sly knows he won't be hired by anyone in his field. He also knows that he's facing a world of hurt in possible criminal charges (however he may have rationalized his defense/innocence.) So of course he'd have said anything that the PIs suggested "might be helpful" to himself. Don't underestimate the amount of leverage that Sly's venerable to.
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
35,626
Maui
Sly has obviously been shown a different light and point of view for him to suddenly recant this magnificent story that is still regardless of recanting contains some truthful facts. Whether that was influenced by threats and/or money remains to be seen.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
Why is Sly's recantation significant at all?

Jastremski and McNally were "caught" in emails making suspicious statements. They recanted too. Actually, the never "canted." They both denied any wrongdoing from the start.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
Wow, media "expert" Dan Kennedy on WGBH's "Beat the Press" just now offered his take that all Al Jazeera has is the (recanted) statements of one guy.
 
Last edited:

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Why is Sly's recantation significant at all?

Jastremski and McNally were "caught" in emails making suspicious statements. They recanted too. Actually, the never "canted." They both denied any wrongdoing from the start.
Not sure what you're trying to say here.
Isn't the initial 'cant' the point?
There's a world of difference between 'look at what I did, described in explicit terms, and here's a pro athlete corroberating it!....nevermind, just kidding'
And
'Wait what? We never did that thing you described in vague and implausible terms. That one text? That doesn't mean what you claim it means'
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Why is Sly's recantation significant at all?

Jastremski and McNally were "caught" in emails making suspicious statements. They recanted too. Actually, the never "canted." They both denied any wrongdoing from the start.

Your comparing apples to pine trees. Deflate-a-whirl was a league-motivated and league-driven, affair. This isn't.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
So when Sly says it was all a lie and Mannings guys are stand up, Sly is a reliable source... but anything else and he's just a conman who should not be trusted? Trying to follow along here.
 

jtn46

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 10, 2004
9,757
Norwalk, CT
So when Sly says it was all a lie and Mannings guys are stand up, Sly is a reliable source... but anything else and he's just a conman who should'nt be trusted? Trying to follow along here.
I would love to see a national poll that asked who is a worse person, Sly or Jastremski.

In conversations this week about Manning and HGH, I am shocked at how many people aren't aware that Teagarden visits Sly to buy PED's on the video. That is an extremely hard fact to ignore. It takes an extreme bias to believe Sly didn't sell PED's to professional athletes given that one visits to buy PED's. If Manning wasn't named in this (and maybe Matthews) I feel like this would be a big story and the rest of the named players like Howard, Keller and Adams would be under a lot of scrutiny but now to question them is to consider accepting the possibility that Peyton Manning did HGH and folks are so unwilling to do that they won't even acknowledge the other accusations.
 

Zedia

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
6,988
Pasadena, CA
But the media's continued use of the word "recant" is interesting. Sly can't "recant" what he was secretly recorded saying anymore than Nixon could "recant" the smoking gun section of the Watergate tapes.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,087
Rhode Island
The biggest thing Manning has going for him is that Jeff Novitzky now works for the UFC and not the government. Novitzky lurked in the shadows for years with Armstrong. It will be interesting if he has a protege still with the Feds who is quietly looking into all of this.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
The biggest thing Manning has going for him is that Jeff Novitzky now works for the UFC and not the government. Novitzky lurked in the shadows for years with Armstrong. It will be interesting if he has a protege still with the Feds who is quietly looking into all of this.
That's what I was thinking earlier today. We should hope for a Jeff Novitzky type - someone who observed how Jeff made a name for himself by going after high-profile athletes (Bonds, Lance) - who will follow in his footsteps.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,079
If Manning wasn't named in this (and maybe Matthews) I feel like this would be a big story and the rest of the named players like Howard, Keller and Adams would be under a lot of scrutiny but now to question them is to consider accepting the possibility that Peyton Manning did HGH and folks are so unwilling to do that they won't even acknowledge the other accusations.
I would bet everything I have on this. Well stated.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
But the media's continued use of the word "recant" is interesting. Sly can't "recant" what he was secretly recorded saying anymore than Nixon could "recant" the smoking gun section of the Watergate tapes.
Breaking News: Charles Manson has recanted involvement in the Tate-LaBianca murders. Release scheduled for Super Sunday.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Why is Sly's recantation significant at all?

Jastremski and McNally were "caught" in emails making suspicious statements. They recanted too. Actually, the never "canted." They both denied any wrongdoing from the start.
Why the media cares about anything Sly says at this point is ridiculous. It's abundantly clear that everything he has said since the recantation has been directed by Manning's lawyers. Even that water carrying TJ Quinn piece admits this:

On the day the documentary was broadcast Sly released a video denying everything he said to Al-Jazeera, reading a statement that he told Outside the Lines was vetted by Manning's attorneys.

When Outside the Lines first contacted Sly about the report in December, he said he would be able to speak only with the permission of his attorney and attorneys for Manning.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
The best part is that Sly was dumb enough to tell Quinn he needed to consult with Manning's lawyers first. There's absolutely no reason to tell anyone that, let alone the media.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,238
Jastremski to Goodell: I won't talk to you without talking to Tom's lawyers first.

Can you imagine?
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
I just realized that all of Manning's public comments on this have been AFTER his team of henchmen talked to Sly and got into the lab to view to 'view' the records. For some reason I was going on the presumption that he had made his initial comments after the story broke but before Ari and his team did their little job.

The comments he made early appeared to be a response to what was breaking to the public when in reality he had the knowledge of knowing what his guys discovered (or were able to deep 6). Disingenuous to say the least. Reminds me of the fake ball keep away act they practiced before he broke the TD record. Dude rehearses his responses. Slime.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,276
“@TJQuinnESPN: Sly was clearly pressured into recanting. Question is whether he was pressured to lie or come clean.”
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,291
I won't know what to think about all this until I hear the human eye detector's opinion tonight during a crucial late-game drive.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,870
San Andreas Fault
They brought it up on The Sports Reporters, a long time ESPN heritage show today. Apparently, they broke the budget to fly the cast of Saunders, Lupica, Adam Schefter and one other reporter today to SF. Shefter was the one that said something like so what, it's the last NFL game of the year and maybe Peyton's last game ever, so what would happen? In other words, BFD.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,620
They brought it up on The Sports Reporters, a long time ESPN heritage show today. Apparently, they broke the budget to fly the cast of Saunders, Lupica, Adam Schefter and one other reporter today to SF. Shefter was the one that said something like so what, it's the last NFL game of the year and maybe Peyton's last game ever, so what would happen? In other words, BFD.

I think Shefters take is correct. Why should we all of a sudden care that NFL players take PEDs. Just because Brady got railroaded doesn't mean everyone should.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I think Shefters take is correct. Why should we all of a sudden care that NFL players take PEDs. Just because Brady got railroaded doesn't mean everyone should.
The NFL has a policy in place against PEDs and others have been penalized for it. Not suggesting that Manning gets "railroaded" but he's alleged to have been in the vicinity of the train station and excuse the pun, but he appears to be getting a free ride here. Footballs that may or may not have been intentionally underinflated is a bigger story than one of today's starting Super Bowl quarterbacks linked to an HGH supplier? As expected, there's been major ball washing going on by all the networks holding an NFL contract. This morning on Sports Center, ESPN actually teased going in to commercial that they would address the biggest question surrounding Peyton Manning going into today's game. That question being....Will this be Peyton Manning's last game.
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,921
Michigan
The NFL has a policy in place against PEDs and others have been penalized for it.
Didn't they try to equate deflation of footballs to PEDs to justify Brady's punishment? And now nobody seems to care about PEDs. Times change, I guess.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
Question for others, since I never really pay attention to the NFL HOF. How have voters historically treated known or widely suspected PED users? Or has that situation not really come up yet?

I see T.O. Was just shut out. While he was an apparent user to me, I don't know how widely that is believed to be true, and of course there are other reasons the he might have been shot down.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
This morning on Sports Center, ESPN actually teased going in to commercial that they would address the biggest question surrounding Peyton Manning going into today's game. That question being....Will this be Peyton Manning's last game.
Well, that is the biggest question going into today's game. Whether he underwent HGH therapy four years ago isn't as relevant to today's game
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
I'm positive that Peyton will get in on the first ballot, regardless. The voters make up the rules on the fly and based on the candidate. It's why Tony fucking Dungy is in the HOF today and Owens isn't.