|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 15, 2016 18:11:38 GMT
You have to be careful of forming your opinions based on all this-- First-most of the controversial slander stuff from the U of Tenn was done by the one other coach--Rollo the one who actually was calling her a lesbian and other names--along with others doing it but it was carefully worded by the author of this newest article that he did not say that Peyton was calling her those names. A large majority of the actual court records--the accusations with depositions were about the her being accused of having a vulgar mouth. The accusations on blaming any incident on another player to keep her job were also done by the coaching staff not Peyton. Look at Peyton's history the last 13 years--do you really think all that was a lie? And it was NOT "by all accounts" the woman being driven from 2 jobs by the Mannings--the coaches, athletic staff, Peyton did not attend the 2nd university that she was employed at, and it was there coaches/staff who were responsible for her departure. I cannot imagine that the Mannings had that much power over these decisions then. Regarding the incident at U of Tenn, from what I read it was settled and closed, we don't know what was settled upon. This second incident and suit came about because of the mysterious packet delivered to her office. Think about it--do you think the Mannings would go to those lengths to regurgitate what was already over with (remember they settled it) and drag their names through the mud all over again? I don't think so. Oh I should mention that I don't care about Peyton manning at all. What bugs me about this article is the timing and so much of the actual lying and bullcrap was said and done by people around him, that because he just won the Super Bowl media is digging on him. Or it could be that someone is trying to avenge a past issue. The whole thing now is just off! Regardless of who was the one actually doing the blaming it still comes down to Payton putting his testicles and rectum on her face. Also in the 2nd court case he did testify about her supposed vulgar mouth and not one person has stepped in and backed him up. He is a disgusting POS but for whatever reason the media has been mesmerized by him. I suspect it is because of his dad. Hopefully he gets his comeuppance that is due to him. Re:the 2nd case (actually the first for him) that is why he lost that one. She sued for defamation--his defense was that she had a vulgar mouth, no witness to back his claims up, she won. He already has had his "comeuppance". The case has been over for sometime. 10 years, at least! There has not been anything new in that long! It's just media now dredging it all up just because he won the Super Bowl. |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 15, 2016 18:13:43 GMT
What does it say about our society when these types of men are continually glorified and made successful with money and accolades practically thrown at them. Time and Time again it's the same story. And yet EVERY time the woman is trashed and her life torn to shreds. They guy gets off with no damage. What the heck does that say about us a a greater society?
|
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Feb 15, 2016 18:18:43 GMT
You have to be careful of forming your opinions based on all this-- First-most of the controversial slander stuff from the U of Tenn was done by the one other coach--Rollo the one who actually was calling her a lesbian and other names--along with others doing it but it was carefully worded by the author of this newest article that he did not say that Peyton was calling her those names. A large majority of the actual court records--the accusations with depositions were about the her being accused of having a vulgar mouth.
The accusations on blaming any incident on another player to keep her job were also done by the coaching staff not Peyton.Look at Peyton's history the last 13 years--do you really think all that was a lie? And it was NOT "by all accounts" the woman being driven from 2 jobs by the Mannings--the coaches, athletic staff, Peyton did not attend the 2nd university that she was employed at, and it was there coaches/staff who were responsible for her departure. I cannot imagine that the Mannings had that much power over these decisions then. Regarding the incident at U of Tenn, from what I read it was settled and closed, we don't know what was settled upon. This second incident and suit came about because of the mysterious packet delivered to her office. Think about it--do you think the Mannings would go to those lengths to regurgitate what was already over with (remember they settled it) and drag their names through the mud all over again?I don't think so. Oh I should mention that I don't care about Peyton manning at all. What bugs me about this article is the timing and so much of the actual lying and bullcrap was said and done by people around him, that because he just won the Super Bowl media is digging on him. Or it could be that someone is trying to avenge a past issue. Plus the fact that it wasn't Peyton who was sued for defamation--it was the U of Tenn that was and lost!! The whole thing now is just off! The second lawsuit came about because Peyton & Archie defamed Naughright in their book. Not because a mysterious envelope was delivered to her office. Why did they do it? Arrogance? Feeling their were untouchable? Ignorance? |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 15, 2016 18:23:41 GMT
You have to be careful of forming your opinions based on all this-- First-most of the controversial slander stuff from the U of Tenn was done by the one other coach--Rollo the one who actually was calling her a lesbian and other names--along with others doing it but it was carefully worded by the author of this newest article that he did not say that Peyton was calling her those names. A large majority of the actual court records--the accusations with depositions were about the her being accused of having a vulgar mouth.
The accusations on blaming any incident on another player to keep her job were also done by the coaching staff not Peyton.Look at Peyton's history the last 13 years--do you really think all that was a lie? And it was NOT "by all accounts" the woman being driven from 2 jobs by the Mannings--the coaches, athletic staff, Peyton did not attend the 2nd university that she was employed at, and it was there coaches/staff who were responsible for her departure. I cannot imagine that the Mannings had that much power over these decisions then. Regarding the incident at U of Tenn, from what I read it was settled and closed, we don't know what was settled upon. This second incident and suit came about because of the mysterious packet delivered to her office. Think about it--do you think the Mannings would go to those lengths to regurgitate what was already over with (remember they settled it) and drag their names through the mud all over again?I don't think so. Oh I should mention that I don't care about Peyton manning at all. What bugs me about this article is the timing and so much of the actual lying and bullcrap was said and done by people around him, that because he just won the Super Bowl media is digging on him. Or it could be that someone is trying to avenge a past issue. Plus the fact that it wasn't Peyton who was sued for defamation--it was the U of Tenn that was and lost!! The whole thing now is just off! The second lawsuit came about because Peyton & Archie defamed Naughright in their book. Not because a mysterious envelope was delivered to her office. Why did they do it? Arrogance? Feeling their were untouchable? Ignorance? I clarified that in another post-sorry didn't go back. The woman didn't sue Peyton until that book (2yrs after) was published. And I was meaning that I didn't believe that it was the Mannings who dropped that book off to her at the new school office. Not sure why she was let go there when there was nothing going on there with her and Peyton wasn't involved in that school. I think it was someone trying to say to the woman--hey, they made comments insinuating you in this book and now you should sue them since you had a confidentiality agreement ! |
|
|
|
Post by tinydogmafia on Feb 15, 2016 18:30:18 GMT
And it was NOT "by all accounts" the woman being driven from 2 jobs by the Mannings--the coaches, athletic staff, Peyton did not attend the 2nd university that she was employed at, and it was there coaches/staff who were responsible for her departure. I cannot imagine that the Mannings had that much power over these decisions then. This second incident and suit came about because of the mysterious packet delivered to her office. Think about it--do you think the Mannings would go to those lengths to regurgitate what was already over with (remember they settled it) and drag their names through the mud all over again? Who do we think sent the packet to the second job? Only someone with knowledge of the book could have had that sent to her. And seeing as her employer then read it, and subsequently let her go over the accusations, they are indeed directly responsible for her loss of TWO jobs. Even though her work, and professionalism spoke volumes about her character. That's how much pull the Mannings have in her life. I say this all with a heavy heart. I was Peyton Manning fan his entire NFL career. In fact until Saturday I would have defended him over almost anything. I defended him over the use of HGH, even though it looks to be a bit sketchy that his wife received those deliveries. But this... changes everything I thought about him. However we want to dissect it we will never know the entire story. We will never know the redacted part of the story. I do strongly believe he was rejected by her and then treated her horribly right along with the coaching staff. Even in that incredibly hostile work environment she stayed professional. Not one other person could corroborate anything Manning said about her. The second article linked makes it all sound like this was brought to light over racial bias against Cam Newton. Cam acted like a big baby after his loss. He pouted and was curt in the aftermath of a bad loss. That's unfortunate for him and I hope it was a learning experience for him. Peyton shoved his genitals into a woman's face and instead of learning from that and humbling himself and suffering the repercussions, instead he was given a squeaky clean all American spin. And now it doesn't seem so unlikely that he took the HGH and that he shilled for Budweiser on purpose after the game. This new information certainly makes me question everything about his character. And if this was suppose to deflect the negativity from Cam Newton, well... it only adds fuel to all fires. We hold these athletes to a high standard because they are on TV and can be seen as role models. They make more money than any of us can comprehend. And instead they show their true colors and it's disappointing to everyone. Because IMHO, if you are going to stand there in the limelight and soak it up when someone says you're awesome, you better put on your big boy underpants and act like an adult when you fail. But this is not the case. These athletes are continuously rewarded with $$$, endorsements and everything else. Yet teachers, service men and women, police, firemen, EMS, nurses and so many others are giving themselves everyday to people in need for a fraction of the $$$ and very little thanks. You'll have to excuse me while I stop my rant here and put my big girl underpants on to go to work.  I realize some of what I've said here can be inflammatory and in no way am I trying to fight or call anyone out. These are just my personal feelings on this, and if I have offended anyone, I apologize. |
|
basketdiva
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,619 
|
Post by basketdiva on Feb 15, 2016 18:40:20 GMT
"Regardless of who was the one actually doing the blaming it still comes down to Payton putting his testicles and rectum on her face."
Sad to say that type of activity was the norm back then and more than likely still happens in locker rooms across the country. I'm sure there are many,many more athletes out ther, as well as colleges and universities that have settled similar lawsuits. Why is it that only those that we consider to be a "star" athlete are outed for this type of behavior. Any and all of these situations should be publicized, be the people involved an athlete, a garbageman,or politician.
|
|
tduby1
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,979
|
Post by tduby1 on Feb 15, 2016 18:41:18 GMT
This second incident and suit came about because of the mysterious packet delivered to her office. Think about it--do you think the Mannings would go to those lengths to regurgitate what was already over with (remember they settled it) and drag their names through the mud all over again? My understanding was that incident was because they lied about her in a book they published, still for sale today. So yes, I do think the Mannings, would and clearly, by published evidence did, go to those lengths to regurgitate what was already over with (after settling it) and drug HER name through the mud all over again.
How can this be denied when the evidence is the book they wrote. They wrote the book with the lies!
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 15, 2016 18:47:35 GMT
She's a proven liar too...   |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Feb 15, 2016 18:47:47 GMT
Not one other person could corroborate anything Manning said about her. I agree with everything you wrote, but wanted to highlight this sentence and take it a step further. People named as witnesses to specific events by Manning completely refuted his versions. I think the HGH use is going to go the way drug use for Lance Armstong did - deny, deny, deny, it wasn't my fault, please forgive me. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 15, 2016 18:51:22 GMT
This second incident and suit came about because of the mysterious packet delivered to her office. Think about it--do you think the Mannings would go to those lengths to regurgitate what was already over with (remember they settled it) and drag their names through the mud all over again? My understanding was that incident was because they lied about her in a book they published, still for sale today. So yes, I do think the Mannings, would and clearly, by published evidence did, go to those lengths to regurgitate what was already over with (after settling it) and drug HER name through the mud all over again.
How can this be denied when the evidence is the book they wrote. They wrote the book with the lies!
It wasn't being denied. She sued him for defamation (being called on as having a vulgar mouth, which no one substantiated) and won. They settled. It was done!In the book, it was all about her having a vulgar mouth and a mention of the mooning incident. |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Feb 15, 2016 18:51:54 GMT
She's a proven liar too... egads, since when does having a lawsuit dismissed = proven liar  |
|
|
|
Post by giatocj on Feb 15, 2016 18:53:03 GMT
I read it two days ago and will be waiting to see how it plays out. It looks pretty damning, though...and has quite a ring of truth to it. It's already played out. The school settled with her, and she won her defamation case. AND he was forced to re-settle the defamation case again after he violated its terms (which, by the way, she has always honored). That I understand from reading the article. I'm more interested to see how it plays out with the Mannings. Will they address it? How will they spin it? Will it just go away...again? I know there's nothing that can be done at this point, but I'd love to hear what the Mannings have to say (which is probably some serious wishful thinking on my part). I've never been a fan of Peyton Manning, but I never thought I'd hear this kind of stuff about him. It sucks, because even though I personally don't like him, I did kind of always think he was one athlete who just kept his head down, did the work and stayed out of trouble. Sounds like I was wrong. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:29:31 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 18:56:38 GMT
You have to be careful of forming your opinions based on all this-- First-most of the controversial slander stuff from the U of Tenn was done by the one other coach--Rollo the one who actually was calling her a lesbian and other names--along with others doing it but it was carefully worded by the author of this newest article that he did not say that Peyton was calling her those names. A large majority of the actual court records--the accusations with depositions were about the her being accused of having a vulgar mouth. The accusations on blaming any incident on another player to keep her job were also done by the coaching staff not Peyton. Look at Peyton's history the last 13 years--do you really think all that was a lie? And it was NOT "by all accounts" the woman being driven from 2 jobs by the Mannings--the coaches, athletic staff, Peyton did not attend the 2nd university that she was employed at, and it was there coaches/staff who were responsible for her departure. I cannot imagine that the Mannings had that much power over these decisions then. Regarding the incident at U of Tenn, from what I read it was settled and closed, we don't know what was settled upon. This second incident and suit came about because of the mysterious packet delivered to her office. Think about it--do you think the Mannings would go to those lengths to regurgitate what was already over with (remember they settled it) and drag their names through the mud all over again? I don't think so. Oh I should mention that I don't care about Peyton manning at all. What bugs me about this article is the timing and so much of the actual lying and bullcrap was said and done by people around him, that because he just won the Super Bowl media is digging on him. Or it could be that someone is trying to avenge a past issue. Plus the fact that it wasn't Peyton who was sued for defamation--it was the U of Tenn that was and lost!! The whole thing now is just off! I read this over again and you have SO MUCH misinformation here. It's really rich that you are chiding everyone else when you are presenting more wrong information than anyone else here. 1. Naughright sued U of T for sexual harassment. That settled for $300,000. She did not individually sue Peyton Manning for sexual harassment. 2. After Manning released his book, years later, and discussed her in it, she sued him for defamation. This was settled, including a confidentiality agreement. U of T was not sued for defamation. 3. Manning subsequently broke the confidentiality agreement from that settlement with his comments about her and that situation on ESPN in a documentary on him. The case was re-settled due to his violation. 4. The allegation that this is only coming up now because of the Super Bowl makes no sense. This is not his first Super Bowl nor his first Super Bowl win. His previous win was right around the same time as when he broke the confidentiality agreement. There was some talk about this in sports media then, but the public at large didn't pay much attention. I would wager the public is paying attention now because of the prevalence of social media, which tends to make this kind of information get shared far past the ESPN viewership, which is pretty much where this story stopped before. 5. The "mysterious packet" you refer to was excerpts of Manning's forthcoming book. The defamation lawsuit was based on the content of the published book, so yes, that's related, but not exactly. And if you think that just because none of the Mannings went to that school that there wouldn't be a desire by the athletic department to curry favor with them - or at least not risk reprisal from them - you are missing the bigger picture. Top tier collegiate and professional football is a pretty small world. No coach, AD, etc. is going to want to be on the Mannings' bad side because it could severely limit their future advancement with other schools/teams. |
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Feb 15, 2016 18:57:15 GMT
I think that many players like Peyton Manning keep their hands relatively clean in these kind of matters. They have all sorts of handlers to take care of the dirty work, that way they remain "innocent" of the harassment.
FWIW, I think there are more Peyton Mannings out there that we don't hear about. We so revere our athletes, from high school on, that they get an inflated sense of who they are. At my girls' HS last year, the star tennis player (on state no 1 team) was beaten by his younger brother. The senior took his racket and smashed it on the court and had a tantrum. Consequence? Missed 1 game. The Lacrosse team (no 2 in the state) was found to be drinking - the whole team - and the boys sat on the bench one game. Two big LAX players cheated through exams (and were caught) The baseball team (not so good), smoked pot, but not on school grounds, across the street and had no consequence. Everyone still in NHS. What was the entire Baccalaureate ceremony about? The adulation of these athletes. They are great athletes, but they were allowed to get away with everything. We are small time here in my town. I cannot imagine what the Mannings were in their town. Just look at Johnny Manziel. He is the epitome of what happens to spoiled, entitled athletes. Such a shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 15, 2016 18:58:16 GMT
whatever did or didn't happen in the first place, If negative press comes from this the Manning's have no one to blame but themselves. Had they left the issue securely under the rug they had swept it under, I doubt we would be hearing anything about it now or ever. But they couldn't leave well enough alone and had to fabricate things to defame the woman even after the issue was 'past' So, when you write a book full of lies about another person it does seriously plant some doubt about your credibility as a person. Absolutely every other person denied the things Manning wrote, all of them. What ever negativity he reaps from this I absolutely feel he sowed it himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 15, 2016 19:02:24 GMT
The original suit (sexual harassment) filed by her against U of Tenn made 33 claims against the university, one being the incident with Peyton. If those 33 claims by her, only 4 were proven. The University also charged back during this time that she was also shared in the responsibility for some of the claims because of her own behavior that was discovered during the investigations of the claims.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:29:31 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 19:03:19 GMT
She's a proven liar too... WTF does this have to do with anything? Because a defense attorney said she files repetitive law suits that means... what exactly? OF COURSE a defense attorney is going to avail themselves of everything possible to attempt to diminish the credibility of the plaintiff. That's a defense attorney's job. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 15, 2016 19:05:16 GMT
I did..certainly did not know most of the allegations, etc. What I didn't like was the author over and over and over again playing the race card! I don't understand what you mean by "playing the race card." Are you talking about the writer of the news article linked? There was barely any mention of race and when it was mentioned, he was mostly reporting facts, such as the rumor being spread that she slept around with black athletes. The only bit of opinion I saw that mentioned race was when he said he doubted a black athlete would have received such a pass on bad behavior. Is that what you consider to be "playing the race card" over and over again? ETA and once again I missed that there was a whole other page of posts. I am so out of it. But still wondering. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 15, 2016 19:17:20 GMT
You have to be careful of forming your opinions based on all this-- First-most of the controversial slander stuff from the U of Tenn was done by the one other coach--Rollo the one who actually was calling her a lesbian and other names--along with others doing it but it was carefully worded by the author of this newest article that he did not say that Peyton was calling her those names. A large majority of the actual court records--the accusations with depositions were about the her being accused of having a vulgar mouth. The accusations on blaming any incident on another player to keep her job were also done by the coaching staff not Peyton. Look at Peyton's history the last 13 years--do you really think all that was a lie? And it was NOT "by all accounts" the woman being driven from 2 jobs by the Mannings--the coaches, athletic staff, Peyton did not attend the 2nd university that she was employed at, and it was there coaches/staff who were responsible for her departure. I cannot imagine that the Mannings had that much power over these decisions then. Regarding the incident at U of Tenn, from what I read it was settled and closed, we don't know what was settled upon. This second incident and suit came about because of the mysterious packet delivered to her office. Think about it--do you think the Mannings would go to those lengths to regurgitate what was already over with (remember they settled it) and drag their names through the mud all over again? I don't think so. Oh I should mention that I don't care about Peyton manning at all. What bugs me about this article is the timing and so much of the actual lying and bullcrap was said and done by people around him, that because he just won the Super Bowl media is digging on him. Or it could be that someone is trying to avenge a past issue. Plus the fact that it wasn't Peyton who was sued for defamation--it was the U of Tenn that was and lost!! The whole thing now is just off! I read this over again and you have SO MUCH misinformation here. It's really rich that you are chiding everyone else when you are presenting more wrong information than anyone else here. 1. Naughright sued U of T for sexual harassment. That settled for $300,000. She did not individually sue Peyton Manning for sexual harassment. 2. After Manning released his book, years later, and discussed her in it, she sued him for defamation. This was settled, including a confidentiality agreement. U of T was not sued for defamation. 3. Manning subsequently broke the confidentiality agreement from that settlement with his comments about her and that situation on ESPN in a documentary on him. The case was re-settled due to his violation. 4. The allegation that this is only coming up now because of the Super Bowl makes no sense. This is not his first Super Bowl nor his first Super Bowl win. His previous win was right around the same time as when he broke the confidentiality agreement. There was some talk about this in sports media then, but the public at large didn't pay much attention. I would wager the public is paying attention now because of the prevalence of social media, which tends to make this kind of information get shared far past the ESPN viewership, which is pretty much where this story stopped before. 5. The "mysterious packet" you refer to was excerpts of Manning's forthcoming book. The defamation lawsuit was based on the content of the published book, so yes, that's related, but not exactly. And if you think that just because none of the Mannings went to that school that there wouldn't be a desire by the athletic department to curry favor with them - or at least not risk reprisal from them - you are missing the bigger picture. Top tier collegiate and professional football is a pretty small world. No coach, AD, etc. is going to want to be on the Mannings' bad side because it could severely limit their future advancement with other schools/teams. Uh before you get all hand slappy on me--- And I am not "chiding anyone here" I just said that one needs to be careful with what gets represented by "media reporters". 1. I said EXACTLY the same thing that you did here, so I'm not sure what your problem is with this one. 2. Again, I said exactly the same thing!!! 3. I agreed with this too!! Not sure why you're going off on me!!!!  4. I still stand by that it's because of his recent super bowl win, add to that the question of he might retire. Further reading on my part has also got me wondering if this King writers source leading him to checking more into it had an axe to grind too, because by any accounts so far, nothing new with these cases has happened in 10 years. Any punishment, repercussions and comeuppance happened 10 years ago! 5. I don't think that the Mannings were the ones sending those experts to her office --if they were trying to get her fired, wouldn't they have just sent them to her bosses? I think someone sent them to give her info to sue them. I haven't read anyone acknowledging as to who it was sending the parts of the book to her. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:29:31 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 19:24:09 GMT
The woman didn't sue Peyton until that book (2yrs after) was published. And I was meaning that I didn't believe that it was the Mannings who dropped that book off to her at the new school office. Not sure why she was let go there when there was nothing going on there with her and Peyton wasn't involved in that school. I think it was someone trying to say to the woman--hey, they made comments insinuating you in this book and now you should sue them since you had a confidentiality agreement ! She sued for defamation based on what he said in the book. There was no confidentially agreement until AFTER the defamation suit was settled, so this theory doesn't hold water. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 15, 2016 19:25:00 GMT
She's a proven liar too... WTF does this have to do with anything? Because a defense attorney said she files repetitive law suits that means... what exactly? OF COURSE a defense attorney is going to avail themselves of everything possible to attempt to diminish the credibility of the plaintiff. That's a defense attorney's job. It wasn't just that a defense attorney said she filed repetitive lawsuits. Jesus you need to read before you go off on people again!! Not only did she file a suit, which is her prerogative, the courts found in favor of what the defense proved. She filed (false) claims against Karan et al, the defense proved it. She had filed yet another suit claiming the SAME personal injury to herself 5 months prior to the suit against Karan. In the U of Teen suit she filed only 4 of the 33 claims she made were proven to be true!!! For the record, I believe that Peyton tea bagged her. He got and she accepted the punishments doled out back then. When he made the defamation claims regarding the book, he paid (settled) and she accepted those too. Now reading that she had a litigious history and that all the claims she has made over the last 10-13 have not all been true, it's hard to dump all the stuff that has crossed her oath on just the Mannings!! |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 15, 2016 19:29:23 GMT
The woman didn't sue Peyton until that book (2yrs after) was published. And I was meaning that I didn't believe that it was the Mannings who dropped that book off to her at the new school office. Not sure why she was let go there when there was nothing going on there with her and Peyton wasn't involved in that school. I think it was someone trying to say to the woman--hey, they made comments insinuating you in this book and now you should sue them since you had a confidentiality agreement ! She sued for defamation based on what he said in the book. There was no confidentially agreement until AFTER the defamation suit was settled, so this theory doesn't hold water. You are wrong on this one. "Even though Manning and Naughright had moved on from the University of Tennessee and signed a mutual non-disclosure agreement, Manning went on to write (with a ghostwriter..."." (Sports Illustrated also confirms it) The defamation suit on Peyton (and Haper Collins) came after the book was written BECAUSE he made reference to the incidences in the book. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:29:31 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 19:36:47 GMT
I read this over again and you have SO MUCH misinformation here. It's really rich that you are chiding everyone else when you are presenting more wrong information than anyone else here. 1. Naughright sued U of T for sexual harassment. That settled for $300,000. She did not individually sue Peyton Manning for sexual harassment. 2. After Manning released his book, years later, and discussed her in it, she sued him for defamation. This was settled, including a confidentiality agreement. U of T was not sued for defamation. 3. Manning subsequently broke the confidentiality agreement from that settlement with his comments about her and that situation on ESPN in a documentary on him. The case was re-settled due to his violation. 4. The allegation that this is only coming up now because of the Super Bowl makes no sense. This is not his first Super Bowl nor his first Super Bowl win. His previous win was right around the same time as when he broke the confidentiality agreement. There was some talk about this in sports media then, but the public at large didn't pay much attention. I would wager the public is paying attention now because of the prevalence of social media, which tends to make this kind of information get shared far past the ESPN viewership, which is pretty much where this story stopped before. 5. The "mysterious packet" you refer to was excerpts of Manning's forthcoming book. The defamation lawsuit was based on the content of the published book, so yes, that's related, but not exactly. And if you think that just because none of the Mannings went to that school that there wouldn't be a desire by the athletic department to curry favor with them - or at least not risk reprisal from them - you are missing the bigger picture. Top tier collegiate and professional football is a pretty small world. No coach, AD, etc. is going to want to be on the Mannings' bad side because it could severely limit their future advancement with other schools/teams. Uh before you get all hand slappy on me--- And I am not "chiding anyone here" I just said that one needs to be careful with what gets represented by "media reporters". 1. I said EXACTLY the same thing that you did here, so I'm not sure what your problem is with this one. 2. Again, I said exactly the same thing!!! 3. I agreed with this too!! Not sure why you're going off on me!!!! 4. I still stand by that it's because of his recent super bowl win, add to that the question of he might retire. Further reading on my part has also got me wondering if this King writers source leading him to checking more into it had an axe to grind too, because by any accounts so far, nothing new with these cases has happened in 10 years. Any punishment, repercussions and comeuppance happened 10 years ago! 5. I don't think that the Mannings were the ones sending those experts to her office --if they were trying to get her fired, wouldn't they have just sent them to her bosses? I think someone sent them to give her info to sue them. I haven't read anyone acknowledging as to who it was sending the parts of the book to her. 1. We do know what was settled. Regarding the incident at U of Tenn, from what I read it was settled and closed, we don't know what was settled upon. 2. You have this backwards. Plus the fact that it wasn't Peyton who was sued for defamation--it was the U of Tenn that was and lost!! 3. You seem unclear about the when/why of the defamation cases. The suit came about because of what was printed in the book. Peyton Manning's book. He had not settled with her before, because she had not sued him before. And yes, he appeared to want to drag *her* name through the mud all over again. And he AGAIN did it on ESPN - against the court ordered confidentiality agreement - after the defamation suit was settled the first time, and that caused it to have to be re-settled. This second incident and suit came about because of the mysterious packet delivered to her office. Think about it--do you think the Mannings would go to those lengths to regurgitate what was already over with (remember they settled it) and drag their names through the mud all over again? 4. Fine. This is purely opinion - on both your side and mine. 5. I don't know who sent it either, and it doesn't matter. The lawsuit was based on what was published in the book, not on what was sent to her office. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 15, 2016 19:45:12 GMT
Uh before you get all hand slappy on me--- And I am not "chiding anyone here" I just said that one needs to be careful with what gets represented by "media reporters". 1. I said EXACTLY the same thing that you did here, so I'm not sure what your problem is with this one. 2. Again, I said exactly the same thing!!! 3. I agreed with this too!! Not sure why you're going off on me!!!! 4. I still stand by that it's because of his recent super bowl win, add to that the question of he might retire. Further reading on my part has also got me wondering if this King writers source leading him to checking more into it had an axe to grind too, because by any accounts so far, nothing new with these cases has happened in 10 years. Any punishment, repercussions and comeuppance happened 10 years ago! 5. I don't think that the Mannings were the ones sending those experts to her office --if they were trying to get her fired, wouldn't they have just sent them to her bosses? I think someone sent them to give her info to sue them. I haven't read anyone acknowledging as to who it was sending the parts of the book to her. 1. We do know what was settled. Regarding the incident at U of Tenn, from what I read it was settled and closed, we don't know what was settled upon. 2. You have this backwards. Plus the fact that it wasn't Peyton who was sued for defamation--it was the U of Tenn that was and lost!! 3. You seem unclear about the when/why of the defamation cases. The suit came about because of what was printed in the book. Peyton Manning's book. He had not settled with her before, because she had not sued him before. And yes, he appeared to want to drag *her* name through the mud all over again. And he AGAIN did it on ESPN - against the court ordered confidentiality agreement - after the defamation suit was settled the first time, and that caused it to have to be re-settled. This second incident and suit came about because of the mysterious packet delivered to her office. Think about it--do you think the Mannings would go to those lengths to regurgitate what was already over with (remember they settled it) and drag their names through the mud all over again? 4. Fine. This is purely opinion - on both your side and mine. 5. I don't know who sent it either, and it doesn't matter. The lawsuit was based on what was published in the book, not on what was sent to her office. It's not me who is unclear. What you have just in this re-quoted post was from earlier that I clarified/cleared up down thread. I was talking about the first case with UT on both accounts and further explained. Keep up because you are confusing all over and it's getting tiring repeating all this!! |
|
|
|
Post by mom2ja2 on Feb 15, 2016 20:27:15 GMT
I thought some might be interested in the article about Peyton that our local Indy sports writer just wrote regarding this topic. www.wthr.com/story/31219107/kravitz-raising-some-questions-on-the-daily-news-story-on-peyton-manningI've never considered Peyton a saint. And I agree with Kravitz, I don't think he ever tried to act like one. He did a lot for our city, that is true. And everyone seems to know someone who knows for sure he cheated on his wife - but they are still together so I take that with a grain of salt. Maybe he did, but if so they clearly worked it out. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 13:29:31 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 20:34:56 GMT
My apologies, I was unaware of the NDA relating to the U of T case. I'm wrong there. But the re-settlement of the defamation case is due to Manning's violation of the confidentiality agreement that was part of the case (about the book) between her and him, not the U of T.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 15, 2016 20:42:11 GMT
I was never a Colts fan, so really didn't know anything about Peyton Manning before he joined the Broncos. I don't find any of this surprising. A college athlete putting his testicles in a female trainers face, a powerful father pulling every string he can find to protect his son's undeserved reputation and future paychecks, a grudge holding, egotistical athlete thinking he can spin history any way he would like. Unfortunately the NFL is full of individuals such as these - hell a huge portion of athletes and entertainers are as far from hero worthy as possible, with an almost perfectly inverse relationship with fame and wealth and their behavior. The only thing I find surprising is anyone thinks that this makes Cam Newton look better - which was clearly the authors intent. I mean do we really want to look closely as HIS and his father's behavior in college?
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 15, 2016 21:06:50 GMT
I thought some might be interested in the article about Peyton that our local Indy sports writer just wrote regarding this topic. www.wthr.com/story/31219107/kravitz-raising-some-questions-on-the-daily-news-story-on-peyton-manningI've never considered Peyton a saint. And I agree with Kravitz, I don't think he ever tried to act like one. He did a lot for our city, that is true. And everyone seems to know someone who knows for sure he cheated on his wife - but they are still together so I take that with a grain of salt. Maybe he did, but if so they clearly worked it out. AMEN TO THIS ARTICLE!!! Perfectly stated!! |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 15, 2016 21:08:26 GMT
My apologies, I was unaware of the NDA relating to the U of T case. I'm wrong there. But the re-settlement of the defamation case is due to Manning's violation of the confidentiality agreement that was part of the case (about the book) between her and him, not the U of T. M You keep repeating yourself. I've never said anything different! |
|
|
|
Post by colleen on Feb 15, 2016 21:27:32 GMT
What bothers me is that this is written as an editorial, not a news article. Why not write it as straight news without all the opinions? Probably because he didn't want to bother with other sources so the author is either lazy or there is no other evidence. Doesn't mean it is untrue, but does make me question it.
|
|
