It's May 14, 2024, 08:22:18 PM
All I really took from all of this is...Brady > Manning.
Quote from: Chamillitary Click on February 15, 2016, 05:28:54 PMAll I really took from all of this is...Brady > Manning.Not Eli
Quote from: M Dogg™ on February 15, 2016, 12:58:04 PMQuote from: Shallow on February 13, 2016, 08:54:28 PMQuote from: M Dogg™ on February 13, 2016, 08:13:14 PMThis just sounds like some college prick stuff. I'm sure he did it, I'm sure it was covered up, and in a court of law I'm sure nothing would have came out of it. College standards are different than legal standards for sexual assault. In a college setting, and this might be why she won, you don't have to prove without a reasonable doubt, but instead only prove that more than likely it's sexual assault. But in the court of law you have to prove without a reasonable doubt someone is guilty. So if a court saw this and said, hey, more than likely this happened in the university did nothing, then she would win the case. But the same evidence and everything can be put in front of a court of law, and the judge could find Peyton not guilty because there needs to be more evidence to punish Peyton so bad that they'd lock him up.I just hate how garbage like this gets called assault. It's a slap in the face to all the weapon that are pinned down and physically hurt during real sex assaults. It's a 27 year old blonde woman with dozens worth of incidents according to her hanging around a guys locker room.I don't know why it's simply not a rule in universities that no opposite sex trainers are allowed in athletes locker rooms. It's asking for trouble.After reading more into it, it looks like they had a confidentiality agreement, which Peyton himself broke. So basically this is being brought up because Peyton mentioned it somewhere.Overall, this would be assault. Like I said, in a court of law, to put someone in jail over it, you need hard proof, proof that doesn't always exist. Like Kobe in Colorado, who knows what happens in that room but if something illegal did happen you can't prove it because there was no rape kit, there was no video and there was no eye witnesses. In this case, genital on the head is assault. But there is no video, the eye witnesses have a conflict of interest and there was no rape. But all the evidence says more than likely this happened, and even Peyton took a settlement instead of going through the college process, which would have found more than likely he did something. So looking at everything, lets just say this, if Peyton was anyone else, he might have caught a case. But instead it looks like his dad had this covered up. At the same time, he brought it back up, and he now going to have to suffer the backlash. In the 90's, this was boys being boys. Bringing this back up now, this is clearly assault and he'll get judged for it.On top of that, the "Asking for trouble" thing doesn't cut it. If Peyton is an adult, even at 19, then he needs to act like one. "Asking for trouble" is not a defense. That's a strawman argument that does no one any good. If he did and he was so brazen as to bring it up again in the book and lie, then yes he has every right to be publicly shamed and his legacy as a public figure should be tainted.But I'm also a strong believer in "asking for it". If I walk into a Mosque and start byzantine prayers I'm asking to get yelled at and thrown out. If I piss on a Quran I'm asking to be attacked. Why? Because you know the nature of the world you are entering. Just like if you walk into a church in rural Mexico or rural Greece on Easter and put your exposed dick on the virgin Mary's face you're asking for a beat down. These are simply the people you are dealing with. If someone did that right in front of me in my church I'd gladly grab him and drag him out of the church. People less mature than me would gladly beat him down.I think we need to stop holding this insanely high view of the world for the sake of equality, which in itself is bullshit, because we aren't all equal. We're stronger, and weaker, and taller, and shorter, and smarter and dumber. It's human nature. Putting opposite sex trainers in teenagers locker rooms is asking for trouble, just like hiring a pedophile in a day care is (I must clarify I don't mean molester, or ex con who was criminally charged for touching kids). If someone comes to a daycare and says his sexual preference is children you simply don't hire him. because if he acts on it, its as much your fault as his. In my high school the male gym teachers were not allowed in the girls change room, and neither were any of the male students. Even now in adult Gyms across the fucking world there is a male change room and and female change room, and going into the other results in penalty and is not allowed, so why would you nit only allow but pay for opposite sex trainers to treat teenage boys in College's. I would never allow my teenage daughter to have her thigh massaged by a 27 year old man just because he went to school for sports therapy, just as I would never give inner thigh massages to teenage girls. And fuck the law. I know the law says assault. Spitting on someone is assault, legally speaking. But both diminish the word assault and water it down to the point where real assault starts to lose its value.Now, if Peyton's side is the truth than its nothing. Just a 19 year old trying to moon his buddy and a woman incidentally lifting her head up at the wrong time. Then the book just makes mention of the already publicized incident without naming her and only did so as an apology for his immaturity. I don't know what is the truth and I don't care. I don't look to athletes as heroes or role models. Especially ones barely older than me.
Quote from: Shallow on February 13, 2016, 08:54:28 PMQuote from: M Dogg™ on February 13, 2016, 08:13:14 PMThis just sounds like some college prick stuff. I'm sure he did it, I'm sure it was covered up, and in a court of law I'm sure nothing would have came out of it. College standards are different than legal standards for sexual assault. In a college setting, and this might be why she won, you don't have to prove without a reasonable doubt, but instead only prove that more than likely it's sexual assault. But in the court of law you have to prove without a reasonable doubt someone is guilty. So if a court saw this and said, hey, more than likely this happened in the university did nothing, then she would win the case. But the same evidence and everything can be put in front of a court of law, and the judge could find Peyton not guilty because there needs to be more evidence to punish Peyton so bad that they'd lock him up.I just hate how garbage like this gets called assault. It's a slap in the face to all the weapon that are pinned down and physically hurt during real sex assaults. It's a 27 year old blonde woman with dozens worth of incidents according to her hanging around a guys locker room.I don't know why it's simply not a rule in universities that no opposite sex trainers are allowed in athletes locker rooms. It's asking for trouble.After reading more into it, it looks like they had a confidentiality agreement, which Peyton himself broke. So basically this is being brought up because Peyton mentioned it somewhere.Overall, this would be assault. Like I said, in a court of law, to put someone in jail over it, you need hard proof, proof that doesn't always exist. Like Kobe in Colorado, who knows what happens in that room but if something illegal did happen you can't prove it because there was no rape kit, there was no video and there was no eye witnesses. In this case, genital on the head is assault. But there is no video, the eye witnesses have a conflict of interest and there was no rape. But all the evidence says more than likely this happened, and even Peyton took a settlement instead of going through the college process, which would have found more than likely he did something. So looking at everything, lets just say this, if Peyton was anyone else, he might have caught a case. But instead it looks like his dad had this covered up. At the same time, he brought it back up, and he now going to have to suffer the backlash. In the 90's, this was boys being boys. Bringing this back up now, this is clearly assault and he'll get judged for it.On top of that, the "Asking for trouble" thing doesn't cut it. If Peyton is an adult, even at 19, then he needs to act like one. "Asking for trouble" is not a defense. That's a strawman argument that does no one any good.
Quote from: M Dogg™ on February 13, 2016, 08:13:14 PMThis just sounds like some college prick stuff. I'm sure he did it, I'm sure it was covered up, and in a court of law I'm sure nothing would have came out of it. College standards are different than legal standards for sexual assault. In a college setting, and this might be why she won, you don't have to prove without a reasonable doubt, but instead only prove that more than likely it's sexual assault. But in the court of law you have to prove without a reasonable doubt someone is guilty. So if a court saw this and said, hey, more than likely this happened in the university did nothing, then she would win the case. But the same evidence and everything can be put in front of a court of law, and the judge could find Peyton not guilty because there needs to be more evidence to punish Peyton so bad that they'd lock him up.I just hate how garbage like this gets called assault. It's a slap in the face to all the weapon that are pinned down and physically hurt during real sex assaults. It's a 27 year old blonde woman with dozens worth of incidents according to her hanging around a guys locker room.I don't know why it's simply not a rule in universities that no opposite sex trainers are allowed in athletes locker rooms. It's asking for trouble.
This just sounds like some college prick stuff. I'm sure he did it, I'm sure it was covered up, and in a court of law I'm sure nothing would have came out of it. College standards are different than legal standards for sexual assault. In a college setting, and this might be why she won, you don't have to prove without a reasonable doubt, but instead only prove that more than likely it's sexual assault. But in the court of law you have to prove without a reasonable doubt someone is guilty. So if a court saw this and said, hey, more than likely this happened in the university did nothing, then she would win the case. But the same evidence and everything can be put in front of a court of law, and the judge could find Peyton not guilty because there needs to be more evidence to punish Peyton so bad that they'd lock him up.
Criminal.
I'm not hero worshipping shit. Fuck Manning. This is about you and people like you that want to believe one side over the other. I refuse to believe this woman was fired from a University because of one paragraph in one book where she went unnamed. And I refuse to take a Plaintiff's allegation sheet as a judgment or ruling on the case. Maybe she is right because if someone accused me of sitting on her face with my balls and I didn't I'd be taking heads off in court.But that doesn't mean he's guilty. Her complaint in 2001 was different than 96. None of her witnesses were cross examined by the defense. It's perfectly logical to think given the time in Manning's career it was better to avoid a public trial and settle. Whatever our guts tell us don't mean shit. The law is the law. You follow it or not. But you can't convict if you ignore it.And as for asking for it. Yes Peyton was asking for it when he put anything about it in his book after the settlement. But now it's in the open. I'm not sure what he can do now legally but I'd take action against King and the paper if I were innocent.
He wasnt charged the first time with assault. What charged two times? And I hope they do charge so that all these witnesses can testify and see if anyone actually says he touched with his ass and balls. I hope they put her on the stand and ask her why she signed a sworn testimony in 96 making no mention of any touching then changed the story in 03 yo include touching.If he did it he should be criminally punished but he should be socially punished based on one sided advocacy.
A lot is sealed but a lot was reported in 1996 and Manning was never criminally charged. The guy who wrote the letter to him never said he sat on her face. The woman never said anything about him sitting on her face in 1996 in her deposition. And it wasn't breaking the agreement in the book it was defamation she sued for. If Manning had signed an agreement to not discuss the case it would have been an easy win in 2002 for her. But it wasn't. You also have to wonder why she wouldn't press criminal charged in 02 when she took him to court for defamation and accused him of sitting on her face with bare ass and testicles. All I'm saying is there is more than enough to doubt both sides of the story and to just jump on one side is bias and not logical.You can look up at least a dozen articles about this case in 96 and 2003. You can also look up the DRES report from 1996. It's not hard to find counter claims to her lawyers advocacy report.
Quote from: Shallow on February 17, 2016, 06:41:10 AMA lot is sealed but a lot was reported in 1996 and Manning was never criminally charged. The guy who wrote the letter to him never said he sat on her face. The woman never said anything about him sitting on her face in 1996 in her deposition. And it wasn't breaking the agreement in the book it was defamation she sued for. If Manning had signed an agreement to not discuss the case it would have been an easy win in 2002 for her. But it wasn't. You also have to wonder why she wouldn't press criminal charged in 02 when she took him to court for defamation and accused him of sitting on her face with bare ass and testicles. All I'm saying is there is more than enough to doubt both sides of the story and to just jump on one side is bias and not logical.You can look up at least a dozen articles about this case in 96 and 2003. You can also look up the DRES report from 1996. It's not hard to find counter claims to her lawyers advocacy report.Like mentioned before, the 1996 case Manning was just one example of 22 of incidents that caused her a hostel work environment. The suit wasn't against Manning, it was against the University, which the University settled and everything was suppose to be sealed and a settlement was reached. The 2003 case was a result of Manning writing about it in his book, and then she sued Manning for breaking the agreement which cost her her job and harm, so the Manning incident was just drove into further.