Manning Legacy: Scrotal Recall
- Thread starter GeorgeCostanza
- Start date
Not wanting to derail the retirement thread, so I'll post here. As a former Tennessee Vol, I wonder what Jerod Mayo has to say about the lawsuit.
Is it possible to retroactively take someone out of the Hall of Fame?
Jesus Fucking Christ, not only is Polian an idiot but he is the worst type of idiot, the type that thinks he is smarter than everyone so he tries to re-write history to make himself and his cronies look better and expects no one to question him.
First, he said that the Colts had a 1st round grade on Tom Brady, which might be the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard in my life. (It's pretty well known that only ONE team showed interest in drafting Brady). In fact, just read this article where Bill conveniently lists Big Ben, Aaron Rodgers, and Brady as players "they were really high on".
Then, he goes on this tirade where he basically admits he knows absolutely nothing about the case or any information involved with the case. (Didn't read Peyton's book, didn't read any of the court stuff, basically knows nothing except that Peyton didn't do it)
No wonder he's been reduced to calling into low rent ESPN radio shows like Freddie Coleman's who, if you haven't listened to him, may be the worst radio show host I have ever heard. He basically just says "Freddie Coleman, ESPN Radio" over and over until his show is over
Awesome. Though to be fair, that's less infuriating than most talk radio shows. I'm sure it's almost rhythmically soothing after a while.
Yow, that reads like Bill Murray's annual Oscar selections on WU. And then there's:
Polian continued: “First of all, Peyton Manning has absolutely nothing, zero to do with the Title IX investigation or alleged violations at Tennessee. Absolutely nothing. And to conflate the two would be absolutely wrong, and we all know it’s going to happen."
So not only hasnt he (admittedly) not read anything, he hasnt even watched the WWL either, which has repeatedly pointed out that Manning is named in the current suit/investigation.
Polian continued: “First of all, Peyton Manning has absolutely nothing, zero to do with the Title IX investigation or alleged violations at Tennessee. Absolutely nothing. And to conflate the two would be absolutely wrong, and we all know it’s going to happen."
So not only hasnt he (admittedly) not read anything, he hasnt even watched the WWL either, which has repeatedly pointed out that Manning is named in the current suit/investigation.
Peyton Manning is getting a TV gig, barring any more offensive or embarrassing revelations. The typical football viewer is unlikely to be bothered by these allegations, IMO, and I'm guessing that a not-insignificant subset probably think that Naughright had no business in the locker room anyways (or worse).
To me, the more interesting issue will be how this affects Peyton's current and future endorsement deals. Being alleged to be a demeaning and sexist pig and then allowing your father and others to carelessly use racism to try and cover up the deed should certainly be cause for companies to second-guess the decision to have this guy as their pitchman.
To me, the more interesting issue will be how this affects Peyton's current and future endorsement deals. Being alleged to be a demeaning and sexist pig and then allowing your father and others to carelessly use racism to try and cover up the deed should certainly be cause for companies to second-guess the decision to have this guy as their pitchman.
Sexual assault isn't being sexist. I mean, I suppose it is in a way, but it's like calling a murderer misanthropic.
This part of Polian's claim really stands out to me:
For the resident lawyers who know about defamation law, is this actionable if untrue? Does "obviously" make it an opinion? Is it even defamatory in the first place?
Amazing how many people now suddenly understand and/or care about something being an advocacy document.
Oh wow, a Deflategate reference! That's so timely and witty!
In topical news, a lengthy BR piece by Mike Tanier advocating skepticism on the Manning reports (often a cover for dismissing the inconvenient or discordant), but then actually puts his typing where his mouth is by diving into the history and evidence. I have my quibbles, but it's a balanced take, overall.
In topical news, a lengthy BR piece by Mike Tanier advocating skepticism on the Manning reports (often a cover for dismissing the inconvenient or discordant), but then actually puts his typing where his mouth is by diving into the history and evidence. I have my quibbles, but it's a balanced take, overall.
Of course. That sounds so much like PK. Basically running them so he can say that he presents both side of the argument but only commenting and talking about how his previous opinion was right and how he believes in Peyton. It's such a cowardly way to be a journalist and such a transparent attempt to seem "fair and balanced" without doing any of that
Why is it that you can only
A.) Post a tweet without context
B.) Post ABOUT a tweet without posting the tweet.
It's literally incomprehensible to you to provide the full picture on any event.
A.) Post a tweet without context
B.) Post ABOUT a tweet without posting the tweet.
It's literally incomprehensible to you to provide the full picture on any event.
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing
https://twitter.com/WhitlockJason
it its hard to screencap it. since its not in traditonal conversational form.. You need to go back and forth between each profile. give me a min
Last edited:
Just finished listening to Shaun King being interviewed by Stephen A. Smith on Mad Dog Radio. He came across very well to me at least. When Smith asked him." What do you say to those who claim your are presenting only one side of the Story?" King replied that the court document he received has about ten different affidavits, including many from Manning's own teammates at the time, that claim Manning was not telling the truth.
And Polian is right about a smear campaign. He just has it backwards as in fact the Mannings were smearing her!
And Polian is right about a smear campaign. He just has it backwards as in fact the Mannings were smearing her!
Jesus. That is indeed a fucking mess. Peyton's the big winner in that exchange; King comes off as complete asshole (as does Whitlock).
I think Jason Whitlock looks much worse in dragging out the race card to defend Manning given that Manning tried to stick a black athlete with responsibility for his actions.
Ehhh, Tanier writes:
And USA Today's Christine Brennan says this about her overlooked old piece:
Both Tanier and Brennan with the "no new news" slant are overlooking the disintermediation aspect here of what Tanier calls King's "feverish longform" extensively quoting the Plaintiff's filing and the Daily News actually disseminating the full PDF of the Plaintiff's filing. Yes, King built a piece on an old advocacy document, but it's not one that many eyeballs have had a look at previously.
Yea was coming here to post that it was a really good interview. I encourage everyone to find it and give it a listen.
I really wish The Daily Best article written by Robert Silverman had been the tipping point instead of the NYDN story by King.The guy is a lightning rod for criticism and is not doing a good job on Twitter defending himself or making his position clear. Instead he is engaging in racial talk with Jason Whitlock and letting that become the story.
Whitlock is such an egotistical jackass only interested in clickbait that hopefully intelligent people realize that but still..it's not helping out the original point of King's story
Whitlock is such an egotistical jackass only interested in clickbait that hopefully intelligent people realize that but still..it's not helping out the original point of King's story
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700012176459853825
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700010554711212032
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700007429212401664
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700006799156584448
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700004673454022657
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700003342047703040
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700002381010989058
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700001957197570048
not every tweet will embed for some reason
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700010554711212032
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700007429212401664
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700006799156584448
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700004673454022657
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700003342047703040
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700002381010989058
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/700001957197570048
not every tweet will embed for some reason
This, at least to me, is a fascinating undertone of what Archie and Peyton tried to pull off that isn't getting the attention it deserves. Archie and Peyton made it a point to mention "a black athlete" or "a group of black athletes" as to who Naughtright was sleeping with in their attempt to smear her. They were very specific in it not just being athletes but black athletes. That speaks to either the Manning's racism (thinking that that makes it more slanderous+makes her look worse that not only was she sleeping with a lot of people but that she was sleeping with a lot of black people) or that they knew that their audience was made up of racists and that this would lower Naughtright even more in those people's eyes.
I think the answer is that it's a mix of both but I am somewhat shocked (especially due to the fact that there is a pretty healthy sized group of writers/bloggers/journalists willing to turn everything into a racial issue) that such obvious bigotry in this whole story is being swept aside and not brought to the light.
Yeah, it's a cheap ad-hominem fallacy. I wouldn't have posted Tanier's piece if he hadn't then moved beyond that into a discussion of the subject matter.
The cynic in me has believed from minute-one that's a major part of what has made SAS so vocal.
A few days ago Shaun King wrote that he knew the details of the redacted material (by request of the Mannings) and was going to disclose it. As that material was sealed (or whatever the legal process is called) can he do so without legal repercussion from either party?
The racist undertones of how the Mannings attempted to control the story are certainly reprehensible and insufficiently covered by the mainstream media. They are also, I feel, the most logical way to connect this "old news" story back to the more recent HGH allegations. Peyton Manning should no longer get the benefit of the doubt simply because he has been such a fine role model in the community or whatever bullshit was said when the HGH story first broke.
That, and the petty vindictiveness of the Mannings in trashing Naughright in the book. What does it say about them that they not only felt the need to revisit the incident but then proceeded to paint the victim in the worst possible light?
Tanier's piece was definitely worth posting, just disappointing in parts.
Not quite NOW, but here's a woman's group demanding sponsors drop Peyton:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14793870/women-group-urges-sponsors-suspend-ties-peyton-manning
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14793870/women-group-urges-sponsors-suspend-ties-peyton-manning
Meanwhile:
In the immediate wake of the filing of the Title IX lawsuit:
One Tennessee football player was arrested for soliciting a 14 year old, and
One Tennessee football player was arrested for choking and beating the shit out of an ex girlfriend.
"What it means to be a Vol for life!"
In the immediate wake of the filing of the Title IX lawsuit:
One Tennessee football player was arrested for soliciting a 14 year old, and
One Tennessee football player was arrested for choking and beating the shit out of an ex girlfriend.
"What it means to be a Vol for life!"
Lead story on First Take this morning. Guess that so called ban on talking about the topic on ESPN is over.
If this actual scandal takes hold - and I hope it does - then Manning is the Marquise Isabelle de Merteuil:
Today's SF Chronicle's Ann Killiion weighs in and Manning is held accountable:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/article/Complicit-in-the-Peyton-Manning-story-6837860.php?t=08a6d301ccda9fb8e6&cmpid=twitter-premium
http://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/article/Complicit-in-the-Peyton-Manning-story-6837860.php?t=08a6d301ccda9fb8e6&cmpid=twitter-premium
Here is Chris Kluwe talking with Manning apologist Clay Travis (https://www.periscope.tv/w/1PlJQneDgMXxE) Kluwe brings up some solid points and Travis does the equivalent of plugging his ears and going "I can't hear you!!" and just repeats himself over and over.
On a side note, I had never heard Travis talk before but my God what an asshat. I can't tell if he is a Trump like caricature or is serious but holy hell.
On a side note, I had never heard Travis talk before but my God what an asshat. I can't tell if he is a Trump like caricature or is serious but holy hell.
That's a good article.
The thing that bothers me is that this is not even really a he-said/she-said -- at least not in the sense that truly matters. This is not a dispute about whether something happened, or a dispute about whether there was consent or anything like that. In other words, most of the time in a he-said/she-said, the difference between the stories is fundamental and you can only accept one side's truth (leading to exoneration) or the other side's truth (leading to guilt) and you really don't have much of an anchor to decide from the stories themselves which is more likely to be true. So, you throw up your hands.
Here, if you really want to try to figure out what happened, Peyton's own story tells you what you need to know. He is not denying that something happened on or near the training table involving nakedness. He is not calling her an outright liar who has simply made up a story about something happening. His story is that he mooned another player while she was working on him. To be sure, there is some significant difference between the he-said and the she-said -- in one, he is engaging in sexual assault and in the other he is engaging in a lack-of-judgment prank with her close by. But his story is an admission of having his genitals exposed in the general area of the trainer on the very occasion when she claims something worse happened. Even putting aside the witness that doesn't support him, that leaves only two possibilities: (1) that a couple of hours after a mere mooning she decided to say something worse happened for reasons uncelar, or (2) that he put his junk on her head and then made up a story that doesn't even make sense in some misguided attempt to say not that she was mistaken about something weird happening but mistaken about the details.
Which is more likely? It's such a stupid fucking question that it barely seems worth asking. Providing an alternative version in which he's mooning, to me, is almost as good as an admission of guilt. Using the he-said/she-said nonsense would make sense if Manning had said, "she worked on my foot and nothing happened." But calling this a "he-said/she-said" as though it's on equal footing with how that term is typically used in a harassment or assault context is such an obvious ploy at distraction that it doesn't even pass the smell test.
The thing that bothers me is that this is not even really a he-said/she-said -- at least not in the sense that truly matters. This is not a dispute about whether something happened, or a dispute about whether there was consent or anything like that. In other words, most of the time in a he-said/she-said, the difference between the stories is fundamental and you can only accept one side's truth (leading to exoneration) or the other side's truth (leading to guilt) and you really don't have much of an anchor to decide from the stories themselves which is more likely to be true. So, you throw up your hands.
Here, if you really want to try to figure out what happened, Peyton's own story tells you what you need to know. He is not denying that something happened on or near the training table involving nakedness. He is not calling her an outright liar who has simply made up a story about something happening. His story is that he mooned another player while she was working on him. To be sure, there is some significant difference between the he-said and the she-said -- in one, he is engaging in sexual assault and in the other he is engaging in a lack-of-judgment prank with her close by. But his story is an admission of having his genitals exposed in the general area of the trainer on the very occasion when she claims something worse happened. Even putting aside the witness that doesn't support him, that leaves only two possibilities: (1) that a couple of hours after a mere mooning she decided to say something worse happened for reasons uncelar, or (2) that he put his junk on her head and then made up a story that doesn't even make sense in some misguided attempt to say not that she was mistaken about something weird happening but mistaken about the details.
Which is more likely? It's such a stupid fucking question that it barely seems worth asking. Providing an alternative version in which he's mooning, to me, is almost as good as an admission of guilt. Using the he-said/she-said nonsense would make sense if Manning had said, "she worked on my foot and nothing happened." But calling this a "he-said/she-said" as though it's on equal footing with how that term is typically used in a harassment or assault context is such an obvious ploy at distraction that it doesn't even pass the smell test.
So if any part of this is proven to be untrue, Pey-Pey has a legal problem, right?