I actually think it's unlikely that there was a payoff. Sly had every reason - for his own interests - to recant. If the goons informed his parents that "Charlie admitted on tape to doing something illegal that could send him to prison for several years", it wouldn't take very much coaxing to get him to take evasive actions. The fact that those actions were also in the interests of Peyton Manning doesn't mean that he bought them.Yeah I think it's pretty likely there was a payoff and it's not getting enough attention. The family called 911. Then when cops showed up they said there was nothing wrong. What else could these strange intimidating men done in between? The Sly family just decided they enjoyed a conversation with two men asking questions about their son. And the men wouldn't identify who sent them but that wasn't concerning?
Just a slight copy edit. The few people I've convinced about Brady's innocence, I've done so by pointing out that they all use terms and inside jokes from their own industry way more than other people would. People in healthcare make healthcare references, people in finance talk about the ROI of their gym memberships, yadda yadda...6. A random text 9 months before the AFCCG between the two regular employees of the team whose jobs revolve around the inflating, deflating, and massaging of footballs reveal the word "deflator".
Fleischer's main qualification for this job is that he has a track record of effectively perpetuating half truths and misinformation in an environment that is inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to his client. Bush wasn't nearly as popular as Manning is, but both situations share a strong disincentive to get at the truth.Is Ari Fleischer really that good at his job? I feel like the Bush II administration was continually being exposed for its embarrassingly obvious bullshit. E.g., Mission Accomplished, Katrina, etc.
This is not a rhetorical question. Was he considered to have done relatively well with the shitty cards he was dealt?
No, nothing to see here:
Which is PERFECT for his role here.On Fleischer, if memory serves, he was considered good in the moment, in the actual press conferences. I have no idea if he was great at the more "strategic" parts of the job. Keep in mind that post-9/11, the media was particularly quiescent, so it's not like he had the most difficult job in the world for a good chunk of his tenure.
And honestly, one reason he was good in press conferences was that he was unusually shameless even for a DC flack. He was not only comfortable spinning pure B.S. (if not outright lies), but was aggressive and somewhat confrontational about it, in a "how could you possibly think otherwise" kind of way. That's actually pretty hard for a journalist to push back on in the moment without a great command of the underlying facts at his fingertips.
Are you saying what I think you're saying?Most people think Bill Belichick is a sketchy character.
Except, from my perspective and hopefully from anyone paying attention, it is an absolute tell. Basically, if Ari Fleischer is involved you can count on some bullshit.Which is PERFECT for his role here.
They'd probably need Sly's parents to cooperate. Without testimony, there wouldn't be a lot of evidence.I wonder if the local DA could put the heat on one of these "investigators" to turn on Manning by threatening to easily prosecute for impersonating law enforcement.
Who knows if they actually did. Sly's teenage sister made the 911 call. They may have said something like "we're investigators here to talk to Charles Sly," which she perceived as their claiming to be law enforcement. I'm guessing that most people would not immediately make that distinction, but that doesn't mean the PIs were doing anything illegal.I wonder if the local DA could put the heat on one of these "investigators" to turn on Manning by threatening to easily prosecute for impersonating law enforcement.
This. I would think that the PIs know *exactly* where the leave the impression/impersonation line is and go right to the edge, because crossing it buys a shitload of trouble.Who knows if they actually did. Sly's teenage sister made the 911 call. They may have said something like "we're investigators here to talk to Charles Sly," which she perceived as their claiming to be law enforcement. I'm guessing that most people would not immediately make that distinction, but that doesn't mean the PIs were doing anything illegal.
Right. I work with PIs occasionally. No PI is going to tell a subject, "Hey, I'm a private investigator and you don't have to talk to me, but please let me in your house to ask you a bunch of uncomfortable questions!" Their job is to obtain information. So long as they don't affirmatively misrepresent themselves as law enforcement, they're not breaking the law.This. I would think that the PIs know *exactly* where the leave the impression/impersonation line is and go right to the edge, because crossing it buys a shitload of trouble.
Worth repeating. Very easy for anti-Peyton folks to start speculating about something even worse than what the facts show, just like it was easy last year for anti-Patriots folks to come up with their own speculative garbage that went way beyond what was known at the time. Let's not make the same mistakes.There's enough to raise eyebrows here over, that has been reported by reputable sources, that we don't need to go inventing things in our heads that would be even worse and talking about how they're "pretty likely".
BRRRRAAANNNGGGGG.Worth repeating. Very easy for anti-Peyton folks to start speculating about something even worse than what the facts show, just like it was easy last year for anti-Patriots folks to come up with their own speculative garbage that went way beyond what was known at the time. Let's not make the same mistakes.
Again, that could be her translation of something they said that was true, but not transparent.In the 911 call, the Sly daughter says specifically that they "were claiming to be a law enforcement officer but won't present a badge."
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.In the 911 call, the Sly daughter says specifically that they "were claiming to be a law enforcement officer but won't present a badge."
Agreed.BRRRRAAANNNGGGGG.
It's the false equivalence alarm! Everybody run!
The entire issue is that, this year, it's 50 dudes on a Red Sox website and one or two newspaper reporters (or at least, it sure seems that way) connecting dotted lines. last year, it was fucking CBS, NBC, USA Today, CNN, the New York Times, ESPN and a host of others "speculating about something even worse than what the facts show", which 90% of the American public then took as gospel.
What we, here, at SoSH, do and say means precisely dog shit. We don't have to be "be careful" about anything, because nobody's reputations or livelihoods are going to get fucked in the process.
One interesting aspect is whether his wife has potential criminal liability. Maybe that's what the PI's and the lawyer reviewing medical records were actually concerned about.Agreed.
Also, what we know to be factually true without speculation is pretty wild. Something with shipped to Manning's house under his wife's name. Manning was going to a sketchy clinic. Manning was saying (in a carefully orchestrated series of interviews done with the help of a former white house freaking spokesman) that the report was made up garbage but his team is now admitting that most of their factual reporting about Peyton is true. Manning had private eyes visiting people at their homes.
I'd be willing to wager that the mis-steps in how Brady and Yee handled things initially served as a teachable moment for Manning. Peyton's team also had the advantage of it being a media outlet, and not the league itself, making the charge.I'm also going to give Manning some credit here. When he found out shit was about to hit the fan he (or he and his team of advisers) went thermonuclear. This is about a million times better than Brady who took months before he got a badass lawyer (one who wouldn't have him destory his phone) and who I'm guessing based on how he handled the press didn't get a media consultant/PR guy for a while
Quite true. Deflategate shows that if you're in the Brady/Armstrong/Manning/Jordan/Jeter/Woods class with a brand name worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars you absolutely need to get elite representation when something comes along that can ruin your reputation.I'd be willing to wager that the mis-steps in how Brady and Yee handled things initially served as a teachable moment for Manning. Peyton's team also had the advantage of it being a media outlet, and not the league itself, making the charge.
Love this post.So what we know so far...
1. Peyton Manning was doing business with some sketchy characters.
2. Peyton Manning was trying to recover from a potentially career-threatening injury.
3. Ashley Manning was receiving shipments of HGH to her home from said sketchy characters, at the time Peyton Manning was trying to recover from a potentially career-threatening injury.
4. Peyton Manning recovers and subsequently has the best season any QB in NFL history has ever had.
5. AlJeez decides to snoop around and finds a guy, Sly, willing to talk about what was going on, and the Mannings, among others, are implicated.
6. Manning's people go to the Guyer Institute and go through their records.
7. Manning's people pose as law enforcement and go visit Sly and Sly's family.
9. The next day Sly recants everything, even though he's not sure what "everything" is.
None of this PROVES Peyton Manning was taking HGH. But there is WAY more here than in deflategate. Way more. By way of comparison, in deflategate:
1. Tom Brady was not involved with any sketchy characters, just two regular employees of the team.
2. Tom Brady, it was made clear, wanted footballs at 12.5 psi.
3. On game day, one of the employees stopped to use the bathroom before heading out to the field with the footballs.
4. The Colts and Ravens whined to the NFL about the Patriots after getting beaten by them in the playoffs.
5. The NFL, having no idea whatsoever about the Ideal Gas Law, find that, on a cold day, the Patriots' footballs are - gasp - now below 12.5.
6. A random text 9 months before the AFCCG between the two regular employees of the team reveal the word "deflator".
6. Under oath, Tom Brady denies any shenanigans of any kind.
7. Ted Wells, the investigator, says that Tom Brady doesn't need to hand over his cell phone, yet when he doesn't, the commissioner uses that as evidence against him.
8. The footballs in the AFCCG were right where the Ideal Gas Law says they should have been, given the conditions.
9. The NFL leaked information to Chris Mortensen that was knowingly false, and was damaging to the Patriots. And never once corrected it. Moreover, when they gave the Patriots the correct numbers, it was on the condition that the Patriots not release that information.
10. Reports confirm that the NFL was under pressure from other league owners who wanted the Patriots punished more for spygate back in 2007.
And for THAT, the NFL took two draft picks (including a 1st rounder) away from the Patriots, fined the team $1 million, and suspended Tom Brady 4 games (at a personal cost of nearly $2 million), and is currently in court trying to make that suspension stick.
These are all known facts, correct? The conclusion: Tom Brady is the cheater and Peyton Manning is the victim.
What on EARTH is going on in this world?
You don't think it has more to do with one party being innocent and the other guilty? Learning from Brady's Deflategate gets us to lawyering up and hiring a good PR firm. It doesn't get us to collusion and / or intimidation.I'd be willing to wager that the mis-steps in how Brady and Yee handled things initially served as a teachable moment for Manning. Peyton's team also had the advantage of it being a media outlet, and not the league itself, making the charge.
Devil's in the details. The first issue is what exactly was shipped. Unlike steroids, HGH isn't a controlled substance per se. But it is federally regulated:One interesting aspect is whether his wife has potential criminal liability. Maybe that's what the PI's and the lawyer reviewing medical records were actually concerned about.
RR--what do you think about that?
Offhand, I don't know if Ashley Manning could be charged under this - unless she planned to distribute the HGH to her husband.(e) Prohibited distribution of human growth hormone
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute, human growth hormone for any use in humans 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 under section 355 of this title and pursuant to the order of a physician, is guilty of an offense punishable by not more than 5 years in prison, such fines as are authorized by title 18, or both.
(2) Whoever commits any offense set forth in paragraph (1) and such offense involves an individual under 18 years of age is punishable by not more than 10 years imprisonment, such fines as are authorized by title 18, or both.
(3) Any conviction for a violation of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall be considered a felony violation of the Controlled Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.] for the purposes of forfeiture under section 413 of such Act [21 U.S.C. 853].
(4) As used in this subsection the term "human growth hormone" means somatrem, somatropin, or an analogue of either of them.
(5) The Drug Enforcement Administration is authorized to investigate offenses punishable by this subsection.
I don't think any of us know that this is the caseYou don't think it has more to do with one party being innocent and the other guilty?
Of course not, but we're all free to draw conclusions from people's actions and other circumstantial evidence or lack thereof. I used the word "think" purposely.I don't think any of us know that this is the case
Then the answer to your first question is the same. I don't think it has anything to do with "one party being innocent and the other guilty" because there's no way to definitively state the guilt or innocence of either. They could both be innocent, both guilty, or one of each. So that doesn't play into my thinking at all.Of course not, but we're all free to draw conclusions from people's actions and other circumstantial evidence or lack thereof. I used the word "think" purposely.
So you have no opinion on the guilt or innocence of Tom Brady? I don't believe I've ever heard someone say that.Then the answer to your first question is the same. I don't think it has anything to do with "one party being innocent and the other guilty" because there's no way to definitively state the guilt or innocence of either. They could both be innocent, both guilty, or one of each. So that doesn't play into my thinking at all.
The second part of your statement -- "Learning from Brady's Deflategate gets us to lawyering up and hiring a good PR firm. It doesn't get us to collusion and / or intimidation." -- also brings up opinions that aren't proven. There's no proof of "collusion and/or intimidation."
If you want to draw a conclusion from conjecture and circumstantial evidence, go right ahead. I just don't think that's the way to go in cases such as these
I'm not so sure it does--Manning's legal/PR team is being very aggressive but that's a reasonable strategy for either complete innocence-he's never taken a drug and his wife took HGH or something without his knowledge and know nobody would believe the truth--or complete guilt.You don't think it has more to do with one party being innocent and the other guilty? Learning from Brady's Deflategate gets us to lawyering up and hiring a good PR firm. It doesn't get us to collusion and / or intimidation.
Do I have an opinion? Sure, I have an opinion: I think the charges are trumped up and the penalty, in particular, does not fit the alleged offense.So you have no opinion on the guilt or innocence of Tom Brady? I don't believe I've ever heard someone say that.
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.Brady not lawyering up and hiring a PR flack right away while Peyton did is much more a reflection of the severity of the "crime" than competence in handling their situations. Brady had zero reason to think a couple tweets about air pressure would blow up (pun intended) and get to the point of a suspension. PEDs and accusations involving such is a much more understandable and well-tread minefield necessitating big-time firepower.
He would go to the doctor's office to look for records he knows aren't there?Yeah, that reminds me of all those hot takes about "OMG Brady talked to Jastremski the day after the game! He must have been orchestrating a cover-up" from last year. It was BS last year and is BS this year -- he would talk to the same people and do the same thing whether or not he's guilty.
Okay, just checking. Once again, I never asked you for fact.Do I have an opinion? Sure, I have an opinion: I think the charges are trumped up and the penalty, in particular, does not fit the alleged offense.
Do I know for a fact that Brady is guilty or innocent? Nope. Neither does anyone on this board.
But, to go back to your original goalposts, my opinion, or my belief, or what I think is immaterial in deciding whether Manning has done anything wrong.
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.Brady not lawyering up and hiring a PR flack right away while Peyton did is much more a reflection of the severity of the "crime" than competence in handling their situations. Brady had zero reason to think a couple tweets about air pressure would blow up (pun intended) and get to the point of a suspension. PEDs and accusations involving such is a much more understandable and well-tread minefield necessitating big-time firepower.
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.Okay, just checking. Once again, I never asked you for fact.