Peyton Manning sexually assaulted a woman in college.

[Chamillitary Click]

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-peyton-manning-squeaky-clean-image-built-lies-article-1.2530395?cid=bitly

Sorry, Shallow.

[Sccit]

Sav

[Shallow]

Sorry for what? This was news over ten years ago. There are no new developments. And all the report shows is the plantiff's legal case against Peyton, not a court ruling, or a defense of those claims.

And even if all true; big fucking deal. The best it's a locker room mooning that accidentally ended up with his dick on the top of this chicks head. At worst he put his dick on the top of this chicks head. You mean to tell me that a life long silver spooned prince is also a misogynistic douche? Say it ain't so.

My regard for Peyton has to do with the skill set he displayed between 2003 and 2013 on the field. He could be found to to have "sexually assaulted" 100 women. Doesn't change anything for me. I don't look up to people as human beings. I just have opinions and defend those opinions, for my own sake.

The only part of this being a story now that bothers me is that it'll probably push him to retire and I don't get to see if he can turn around LA's offense using his system.

[Shallow]

And for the record the Lawsuit that she won initially was against the University and it was for her 33 claims of misconduct dating back to 1990. The Manning incident was 1 of those 33.

The second lawsuit she settled with Manning was over Peyton apologizin for the incident which he said was accidental and the original settlement with the University that claimed Peyton couldn't mention it. He did and even though he didn't name her it was enough for a Judge to say it should go to court and to avoid court he paid her off.

[M Dogg™]

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.

[Shallow]

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.

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.

[Hack Wilson - real]

i def think different (in a bad way) about Peyton after re-reading this story

but at the same time it's all some hater writers looking for attention by re-hashing this shit


then again it's fair game because he's a public figure so....shrug

[Shallow]

i def think different (in a bad way) about Peyton after re-reading this story

but at the same time it's all some hater writers looking for attention by re-hashing this shit


then again it's fair game because he's a public figure so....shrug

Just remember he's just publishing the plaintiff's case. Jason Whitlock wrote a response  to the articles sting it'd be like writing an article 20 years from now about the Trayvon case and only citing Zimmerman's lawyers side.

And of course it from the same paper that routinely writes stories about Elvis bring alive and written that loser white guy who pretended to be black so he could get an Oprah scholarship and head up black lives matter.

[Hack Wilson - real]

If that is the case this is irresponsible journalism

[Shallow]

If that is the case this is irresponsible journalism

It's irresponsible journalism regardless. Read up on Shaun King and watch some videos of him. The guy is a disgrace to himself. A self hating white guy who wishes he were black to the point of fraud because he has no self worth.

Just read Whitlock's article. Whitlock hates Manning but still comes out and says the story is a smear campaign

[Shallow]

http://j.school/post/139247969165/cam-peyton-victims-of-social-media-race-war

"Because Cam has been criticized as a poor sport, left-wing race-bait media/tweeters are now retelling Peyton Manning’s story of inappropriate behavior at the University of Tennessee 20 years ago. The untrained-journalist-turned-columnist at the New York Daily News, Shaun King, who breathed new life into the Manning story argued that the media ignored the Manning court documents years ago because the media protected Manning. Not true. Years ago the media adhered to standards of fairness. We tried to recognize the things we could not know. We recognized that some things stated in a court document could be misleading or untrue. You know, just like police reports mislead, so do court documents.

That is not written to excuse what appears to be poor behavior by Manning as a college student. It’s written to state that King’s salacious, one-sided, overwritten story did not reveal some buried truth. This Manning story has been told multiple times. King just timed and framed his telling in the most sensational way possible and when Newton defenders most desperately wanted a white QB to be villainized.  "

And here's a list of all the articles that reported this back in 96/97

http://thebiglead.com/2016/02/13/here-is-what-was-written-about-the-peyton-manning-trainer-incident-back-in-1996-and-1997/

Notice that they quote Peyton as ssaying exactly what he said again in the book. This goes directly against the blatant lie that Shaun King said about Peyton changing his story for the book.

[M Dogg™]

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.

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.

[Shallow]

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.

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.

[Shallow]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/15/shaun-king-doubles-down-in-his-crusade-against-peyton-manning/

Here's how an actual journalist covers the story.

[Chamillitary Click]

All I really took from all of this is...

Brady > Manning.