|
Post by angryfan on Feb 14, 2016 16:27:54 GMT -5
The story's author has...a bit of a history, but let me just say this, though I'll admit I'm not Peyton Manning fan, have never been. When you settle out of court not once but twice with someone who alleges sexual assault to close a case, again TWICE, then either you're the easiest mark on the planet, a total moron, or there's something there.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by BRV on Feb 14, 2016 16:58:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Feb 14, 2016 17:00:57 GMT -5
Mentioned that in the ESPN story where ESPN is finally taking notice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 17:09:27 GMT -5
Yep....Super Bowl 50 is more looking like something all of us may want to forget. Carolina fans for how bad our team played and Denver fans because the star quarterback may be one level under Rae Carruth. Really, because this was also the same Super Bowl that gave us Coldplay as the halftime show and introduced us to Puppymonkeybaby. That said, if this is true... and obviously there's a lot of people out there that will want to clasp their ears and go "La la la la la, I'm not listening!", then it's pretty frightening. Of course, my bigger issue isn't the fact that Shaun Effing King did this thing, but rather that it's another example of how influential college sports can be in the court of law and legal affairs, all the while maintaining a double standard. It's okay to molest young boys, but it's not okay to help a homeless player get shelter.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Feb 14, 2016 17:56:32 GMT -5
I...gotta say who a the Rae Carruth comparison. I mean, I cant' stand Manning, but Rae put a hit out on his pregnant girlfriend. That's...just...different. If this stuff is true, and as I said, two settlements to keep her quiet tells me that there's more than just smoke here (conjecture, but as a behavioralist I call's em like I see's em), but Carruth is a whole different can of scumbag.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Feb 14, 2016 18:13:19 GMT -5
We're way past a statute of limitations for sexual assault criminal charges anyway. This happened almost 20 years ago. And the civil case is already over and settled with. But now, after considerable effort by powers that be to cover the incidents up, it's starting to come to light in the public eye.
Peyton Manning is certainly not Rae Carruth. His accused sexual assault wasn't rape so I wouldn't even put him on the same level as the accusations leveled against Jameis Winston or Ben Roethlisberger. But it definitely tarnishes his legacy, at least in my mind. And I'm hoping that such debauchery doesn't run in the family beyond Archie and Peyton, and Eli really is the pure cinnamon roll as he appears to be.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Feb 14, 2016 18:13:48 GMT -5
I...gotta say who a the Rae Carruth comparison. I mean, I cant' stand Manning, but Rae put a hit out on his pregnant girlfriend. That's...just...different. If this stuff is true, and as I said, two settlements to keep her quiet tells me that there's more than just smoke here (conjecture, but as a behavioralist I call's em like I see's em), but Carruth is a whole different can of scumbag. There was never meant to be a comparison. That was the point of saying one level below in saying this is one of the worst things he could have done that doesn't involve murder. I'm a Carolina Panthers fan so I know exactly what kind of scumbag Carruth is and I also know that there is a reason Panthers fans don't want to talk about his sorry ass.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by BRV on Feb 14, 2016 18:22:48 GMT -5
We're way past a statute of limitations for sexual assault criminal charges anyway. This happened almost 20 years ago. And the civil case is already over and settled with. But now, after considerable effort by powers that be to cover the incidents up, it's starting to come to light in the public eye. Peyton Manning is certainly not Rae Carruth. His accused sexual assault wasn't rape so I wouldn't even put him on the same level as the accusations leveled against Jameis Winston or Ben Roethlisberger. But it definitely tarnishes his legacy, at least in my mind. And I'm hoping that such debauchery doesn't run in the family beyond Archie and Peyton, and Eli really is the pure cinnamon roll as he appears to be. It's the combination of things. It's not just allegedly sexually assaulting a trainer. It's harassing her after the fact; smearing her name almost 10 years later causing her to lose her job; using his daddy's autobiography to belittle her and basically all female trainers, therapists, or reporters in the process by basically contending that they have no right to be in a locker room. Combine that with all that's come out of the Al-Jazeera and Washington Post allegations and you really see just what kind of person Peyton Manning truly is. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face: he's football's Lance Armstrong. But unlike Armstrong, we haven't yet had that singular moment where we can look back and say, "How did any of us ever support this sleazebag?"
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Feb 14, 2016 18:27:57 GMT -5
I...gotta say who a the Rae Carruth comparison. I mean, I cant' stand Manning, but Rae put a hit out on his pregnant girlfriend. That's...just...different. If this stuff is true, and as I said, two settlements to keep her quiet tells me that there's more than just smoke here (conjecture, but as a behavioralist I call's em like I see's em), but Carruth is a whole different can of scumbag. There was never meant to be a comparison. That was the point of saying one level below in saying this is one of the worst things he could have done that doesn't involve murder. I'm a Carolina Panthers fan so I know exactly what kind of scumbag Carruth is and I also know that there is a reason Panthers fans don't want to talk about his sorry ass. Oh, I know, as a Cleveland sports fan, my teams have their share of...unsaovory bastards, and I dnt' like to bring them up either. I just was going off the "one step below" part is all, that's why I said what I said. Carruth is a scumbag, even as a die hard Gator alum, I can say that there is no place other than UNDER the damn prison for Aaron Hernandez and his technically serial killing ass.
|
|
|
Post by Clover Star on Feb 14, 2016 20:29:05 GMT -5
First, I will say that I think Shaun King is awesome and I'm glad someone is reporting this. It should be seen by everyone.
Second, I've always disliked Peyton Manning, but for the longest time, I never really had a reason. I just didn't like the guy. But now? There's reason enough. And yes, he's the NFL's Lance Armstrong. And probably worse.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,037
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Feb 14, 2016 21:39:00 GMT -5
What Carruth did was just all kinds of awful. However, with that said, the way he was caught is just hilarious in it's stupidity.
My man laid in the trunk of a car with bottles of his own piss and candy bars to keep himself comfortable. No bullshit.
Surprisingly, he was caught.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Feb 14, 2016 22:07:42 GMT -5
Ok, read King's piece a a couple others. Here are my bullet points: No law enforcement investigation has ever and apparently will ever occur with this--that means it is now and shall always be she said/he said/no proof one way or the other No evidence or judgment has ever corroborated either Dr. Whited's sexual assault charge or Manning's purported slander--out of court settlement is not and NEVER should be taken as an admission of guilt The article linked on page one is slanted one direction. This is the only article I found slanted totally toward one party or the other Could Manning have at age 22, exposed himself during a medical exam? Yes. Student athletes are noted for sophomoric humor and inappropriate behaviors often of a sexual nature Could the Dr. Be lying? I've been in law enforcement for most of my adult life, anyone can and will lie to you. But why would she lie? Liars usually have a reason to lie unless they are a pathological type and are nearly incapable of telling the truth. I cannot and won't speculate on the Dr.'s mental health but it would seem she is a normal human being who is driven to succeed in a tough profession for female medical professionals or care givers Bottom line assessment: still not enough to form a judgement one way or the other. There is an appearance of motivation to hide something like this on the Manning side, but not an apparent reason to fabricate on the Dr.'s side. That does not prove a thing it merely gives reason for closer scrutiny but the burden of proof is not satisfied either way. This one will fall to the mercy of the court of public opinion and unfortunately for any party involved that means opinion becomes fact in the minds of the viewer, right or wrong. While we don't have video evidence of what happened, the circumstantial evidence in theses stories and court documents is so heavily weighted to one side that's it seems a touch... artless to give Manning the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean he could be found criminally liable, but the other players comments on the attempted cover up seem pretty damning, and we know from other cases (Hey, Paterno!) how police departments on major college campuses often treat football players. I don't owe Peyton Manning a single thing. I don't know him and I'm not tainted by being a fan because I'm not a fan of his. So I don't really want to even bother with any further explaination of what my thought were or are in this. I articulated my stance. Yes it looks stronger on one side vs the other but I won't call for HS head without th burden of proof. For what it's worth you mentioned circumstantial evidence as being heavily one sided. (End of Peyton manning specific side of my reply) Circumstantial ecpvidence is exactly that and not many well contacted court cases are won or lost on such evidence. Video? That alone wouldn't do it. Cooroboration of all evidence against the totality of circumstances is how all cases are decided. (End of legalese of my reply/not wholly related to the original matter under discussion.)
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Feb 14, 2016 23:32:18 GMT -5
I don't owe Peyton Manning a single thing. I don't know him and I'm not tainted by being a fan because I'm not a fan of his. So I don't really want to even bother with any further explaination of what my thought were or are in this. I articulated my stance. Yes it looks stronger on one side vs the other but I won't call for HS head without th burden of proof. For what it's worth you mentioned circumstantial evidence as being heavily one sided. (End of Peyton manning specific side of my reply) Circumstantial ecpvidence is exactly that and not many well contacted court cases are won or lost on such evidence. Video? That alone wouldn't do it. Cooroboration of all evidence against the totality of circumstances is how all cases are decided. (End of legalese of my reply/not wholly related to the original matter under discussion.) I never said you owed him anything, and I apologize if I gave off that impression. I'm just saying that I disagree with the notion that there's not enough to make a judgment about Manning on this. There's a saying in medicine if you hear hoofbeats, you think horses, not zebras. That means that, in the abscense of absolute concrete proof (of which, there isn't any in this case), then your conclusion should be what's most likely based on the information available. So what's the information we have available? The judge, prior to settling in the second lawsuit, stated after seeing all the evidence that there was enough there that a jury trial would have found Manning knowingly lied about the doctor. The settlement itself can't be taken to mean anything, like you said, but that admonishment seems to be as close to an official ruling as we'll get, because Manning would have been a fool to continue to fight the allegations after that statement was made. And her opinion would be corroborated by all the people who refute the story created by the Manning camp to attack this doctor's character. Is it possible that there are people who support Manning's side that weren't in that story? Sure, but we can't really assume contradictory statements exist when we have none. This alone seems to paint Manning as a malicious liar. Could all of these people be lying for one reason or another? Sure, but that's much less plausible than the alternative. A jury trial isn't going to stamp one or the other as absolute fact anymore than we could. From a legalistic standpoint, you're right that it can't be proven what Manning did or didn't do. But the hoofprints here are that he's a liar, and that his explanation of mooning another athlete to be another of those lies.
|
|
Professor Chaos
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bringer of Destruction and Maker of Doom
Posts: 16,332
|
Post by Professor Chaos on Feb 14, 2016 23:40:33 GMT -5
Did he ask her to cut that meat?
|
|
Wailord Man
Trap-Jaw
Float like a Wailord sting like a Beedrill
Posts: 257
|
Post by Wailord Man on Feb 14, 2016 23:43:11 GMT -5
Yep....Super Bowl 50 is more looking like something all of us may want to forget. Carolina fans for how bad our team played and Denver fans because the star quarterback may be one level under Rae Carruth. Really, because this was also the same Super Bowl that gave us Coldplay as the halftime show and introduced us to Puppymonkeybaby. And both those things should be forgotten about asap.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,612
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 15, 2016 2:52:01 GMT -5
This 20 year old story is seriously a trending news story this week? Really? REALLY? I mean, I get the outrage over what he did. But where's the point? This is something from 96 that I first remember hearing about 15 years ago. And several, several times since then. It's no little secret. It's just dragged up because he could be retiring and some "reporter" needs page views? Is that the gist of it? This is the keyboard activist outrage of the week, and next week it will fall to the way side. Now, I don't condone what he did. But let's look at this thing transparently. It's a non-story.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Feb 15, 2016 2:58:28 GMT -5
This 20 year old story is seriously a trending news story this week? Really? REALLY? I mean, I get the outrage over what he did. But where's the point? This is something from 96 that I first remember hearing about 15 years ago. And several, several times since then. It's no little secret. It's just dragged up because he could be retiring and some "reporter" needs page views? Is that the gist of it? This is the keyboard activist outrage of the week, and next week it will fall to the way side. Now, I don't condone what he did. But let's look at this thing transparently. It's a non-story. It's also being brought up because of a lawsuit against the University of Tennessee that references this incident. This is not a non-story. and the situations where PIs hired by him to visit the HGH guy's parents house 24 hours before he recanted his story is about a man's legacy and his brand that he has very much created for himself off the field.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,612
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 15, 2016 3:08:00 GMT -5
This 20 year old story is seriously a trending news story this week? Really? REALLY? I mean, I get the outrage over what he did. But where's the point? This is something from 96 that I first remember hearing about 15 years ago. And several, several times since then. It's no little secret. It's just dragged up because he could be retiring and some "reporter" needs page views? Is that the gist of it? This is the keyboard activist outrage of the week, and next week it will fall to the way side. Now, I don't condone what he did. But let's look at this thing transparently. It's a non-story. It's also being brought up because of a lawsuit against the University of Tennessee that references this incident. This is not a non-story. and the situations where PIs hired by him to visit the HGH guy's parents house 24 hours before he recanted his story is about a man's legacy and his brand that he has very much created for himself off the field. Not the Peyton brand! And a lawsuit that references what has been pretty common knowledge in sports circles for almost 20 years. The actual meat of this story is so old, it's rotten. Again, non-story. The HGH issue is a separate matter entirely, and lumping it in with this undercuts the weight of this as much as bringing it up 20 years after the fact, if that's even possible.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Feb 15, 2016 3:15:43 GMT -5
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Feb 15, 2016 8:02:21 GMT -5
I don't owe Peyton Manning a single thing. I don't know him and I'm not tainted by being a fan because I'm not a fan of his. So I don't really want to even bother with any further explaination of what my thought were or are in this. I articulated my stance. Yes it looks stronger on one side vs the other but I won't call for HS head without th burden of proof. For what it's worth you mentioned circumstantial evidence as being heavily one sided. (End of Peyton manning specific side of my reply) Circumstantial ecpvidence is exactly that and not many well contacted court cases are won or lost on such evidence. Video? That alone wouldn't do it. Cooroboration of all evidence against the totality of circumstances is how all cases are decided. (End of legalese of my reply/not wholly related to the original matter under discussion.) I never said you owed him anything, and I apologize if I gave off that impression. I'm just saying that I disagree with the notion that there's not enough to make a judgment about Manning on this. There's a saying in medicine if you hear hoofbeats, you think horses, not zebras. That means that, in the abscense of absolute concrete proof (of which, there isn't any in this case), then your conclusion should be what's most likely based on the information available. So what's the information we have available? The judge, prior to settling in the second lawsuit, stated after seeing all the evidence that there was enough there that a jury trial would have found Manning knowingly lied about the doctor. The settlement itself can't be taken to mean anything, like you said, but that admonishment seems to be as close to an official ruling as we'll get, because Manning would have been a fool to continue to fight the allegations after that statement was made. And her opinion would be corroborated by all the people who refute the story created by the Manning camp to attack this doctor's character. Is it possible that there are people who support Manning's side that weren't in that story? Sure, but we can't really assume contradictory statements exist when we have none. This alone seems to paint Manning as a malicious liar. Could all of these people be lying for one reason or another? Sure, but that's much less plausible than the alternative. A jury trial isn't going to stamp one or the other as absolute fact anymore than we could. From a legalistic standpoint, you're right that it can't be proven what Manning did or didn't do. But the hoofprints here are that he's a liar, and that his explanation of mooning another athlete to be another of those lies. I think I did a poor job in beginning my reply. I meant to say I was impartial with Manning, not that you painted me in any way as supporting, not supporting etc.. My bad
|
|