Scathing article in NYDN on Peyton Manning

[26CornerBlitz]

 

that is a much more thought out piece but still sensational. the points on the NDA are accurate.

This reminds me of the Paula Dean non-story a few years ago.

i already took my applause and celebration. you want an encore? [intro to enter sandman begins]

i was wrong in stating that handing footballs to attendees was illegal. throwing footballs to the attendees is. i admitted i was wrong in that thread. i've been wrong before and will be again. thank you for pointing that out. when you form an original opinion i will check it for factual accuracy, if you request.

[lights dim] thank you, thank you, we will be back! we will be back! we love you Grand Rapids!"[music stops]

 

what part do you need help understanding? you can't just paint with a broad stroke brush a one sided argument and sell it as a factual piece as King did.

 

the arguments i am making have nothing to do with Manning's behavior. it has everything to do with King's approach.

 

what he wrote was not true in that he presented and said his evidence - the affidavit by the plaintiff is entirely true. its one sided in a two sided case and has serious issues with credibility as such - mostly pertaining to the NDA.

 

 

The only one applauding your nonsense is you.

[boyst]

She sued and the Mannings elected to settle after the Polk County judge made his findings. Big difference.

depends how you view the judicial systems. the Mannings could have likely got their case moved to an appellate court - they had the money to do so disirregardless of the issue.

 

the settlement they made was obvious. they had no interest in continuing with it, so they paid her off. she was smart to have fought this legally - the NDA which i have not read - with the breaking of the nda.

 

i am arguing legalities and technicalities. something king did not do; which further, i am arguing his article was sensational media and politically motivated.

 

to break it down more what i'm trying to say. manning exposed himself to the girl and brushed them up against her. not arguing that it happened. the level of which, why it happened, those details - i'm not touching on because they do not matter.

 

what i am arguing is that when he released the book it was likely very few people if anyone knew it was her by deduction. the only person i know who has read a book on manning was my nephew. he was 6 at the time and read a sports book on him for children. also read one on Jeter, and a few others.

 

so, even the slightest chance that the nda was broken is terrific grounds for filing a legal paper. strategically speaking it's perfect. manning wants no part of this in the media and will do whatever he can to keep it out of the headlines. whether initially willful, accidentally or with ignorance he did choose to write about the incident in is book, though. one that was a rather important part of his past - so i sort of get it. without knowing that passage off of the top of my head i am sure he could have reworded it or excluded it to some degree.

 

nonetheless, since she likely knew manning would want nothing of it she then sues. what lawyer wouldn't want the case and fight their arse off to get a chunk of it? its sure fire. manning will pay. manning will basically be blackballed either way. of course, she had a case, it only got worse. manning fought it, should he not have? manning fought it and lost, but so did she. disirregardless of the findings, she lost. her name is now out there and there is no doubt it was her and she can make the argument her life is forever changed because of manning because she came out so boldly. this was strategy. now she can claim more hardship - that she'll never work again... dollars go up and up and up.

 

does she deserve compensation for the nda being breached? i don't have the full nda, but i would think manning should be held to it - he should know it. his legal team should know it. but i am not sure it was truly breached.

 

she now walks away $$$$ in her pockets, a slandered name... and we expect all of us to still hold manning up to his actions for 20 years ago.

 

most of us have forgave michael vick. most of us have forgave ray lewis. most of us have forgave peyton manning. most of us realize that forgiving and forgetting is the right thing to do.

 

this is not an apology for his actions, this is a statement on why this is news. this is money. this is nothing but money. she got hers. King gets his - his job to bring awareness to causes which he makes his living. he fuels fires of diversity and then makes money off of it. he's like a war monger. this story is less to do about manning and the story than it is king. afterall, how many here know her name?

 

the trainer is the victim turned profiteer. manning was the idiot, stereotypical jock turned hero figurehead. king is a douche bigot.

 

Sorry, I don't need help understanding anything. The arguments you are making are whatever random crap you can throw out; hopefully with enough of that you'll land on one that actually makes sense.

 

There's really no point in this anymore.

entertainment [applause]

 

there was no point in this issue coming up in the fashion that it was brought by King. When Newton wins a Super Bowl in a few years will it also come out about his arrests? when chad kelly wins a super bowl, will such headlines be made of his arrests and reputation?

[Ontario51]

NYDN is a rag that creates sensational lies everyday, why would you believe this? They are not creditable.

[boyst]

NYDN is a rag that creates sensational lies everyday, why would you believe this? They are not creditable.

because there is truth to the events that happened - they happened.

 

half truths, though, are still lies. but people swallow them up.

[Billsmovinup]

i should have said throwing the football to the stands. which is against the rules. even then, i'll concede i was wrong.

 

let me help you here, son.

 

http://powerstates.com/10-cognitive-thinking-errors/

 

and...i gracefully bow,, accept my applause, thank the crowd and offer my sentiment of withdrawal [boyst exits the stage].<scene>

Yea. Everyone applaud the angry moron. He has low self esteem. He needs to be proper up.

[mannc]

When you posted "what he wrote was not true," I thought clarification may be in order.

He has been asked repeatedly to identify an untrue statement in the article and we are still waiting. I'm guessing it won't happen.

[boyst]

He has been asked repeatedly to identify an untrue statement in the article and we are still waiting. I'm guessing it won't happen.

an untrue statement with regard to what, again... i have addressed this.

 

the untrue statement is this is entirely premised on a one sided argument. one side, the plaintiffs.

 

what King is saying is sensationalized. do you not understand that concept?

 

if not, than i need go no further, but i've given these same statements over and over again. what are you not getting?

[K-9]

depends how you view the judicial systems. the Mannings could have likely got their case moved to an appellate court - they had the money to do so disirregardless of the issue. ...

Well, I think this particular court and this particular judge can only be viewed in one way as spelled out in his findings. The judge flat out stated her case had merit and both Mannings lied about certain facts and knew they lied about them. That is unequivocal by anyone's standards.

 

How does a case get moved to an appeals court when it hasn't been heard by a lower court first? I honestly plead ignorance here.

[boyst]

Well, I think this particular court and this particular judge can only be viewed in one way as spelled out in his findings. The judge flat out stated her case had merit and both Mannings lied about certain facts and knew they lied about them. That is unequivocal by anyone's standards.

 

How does a case get moved to an appeals court when it hasn't been heard by a lower court first? I honestly plead ignorance here.

i am not a legal expert, either... but if it was plead out, it would not have. if there had been a verdict than it would have likely been appealed. it was in everyones best interest to plead out the deal.

 

there was a great op ed i read about michael jackson. there was an entire argument saying that he never had wrong doing with any children. the argument went through the process to say that every time allegations came up the record labels were the backing of the defense and insisted upon plea deals. that they simply used the money as shush money. that there was a number of overwhelming bits of evidence to show that he may have never done anything - but regardless of that he now looks extremely guilty because of choice to settle.

 

it is a flaw in the court system today. if one party sues another that has money or power and even has a little bit of a morsel of a case - the money and power will want to resolve it as quickly as possible as they have something to lose.

 

manning had a lot to lose. getting this out of the news as quickly as possible is the reasoning for the plea. manning did not even put up a fight about the nda.

 

edit

her findings were not a final verdict, it is worth mentioning. this is specifically saying that while she noted this, it is a preliminary finding. a case would have to be held on this. its no different than a warrant or other such legal action in which a judicial review of a situation is expected.

 

in this case her ruling was that there was enough evidence to go forward, it seems for a case to be had. again, she heard one side of the story without a full defense.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Boyst62

[White Linen]

why are all white people good and blacks bad.

 

Because he wrote this article for people that think/act like you.

[boyst]

 

He has been asked repeatedly to identify an untrue statement in the article and we are still waiting. I'm guessing it won't happen.

ok here we go, just pointed facts of error. not an entire list, but it will help you get what logical sense should allow.

 

1)

I read every single page in the airport before I boarded my flight. Maybe a good hundred times, I wondered to myself, Why — and how — had all of this been kept secret for so long?

It was not a secret for so long. It was not at all. This was national news in the sports world when it happened and back when he released his book and was sued for the NDA. but King sensationalizes it to make it look like a cover up - in essence he simply lies by omission. which is not factual. had he looked in to this more, he'd have seen it.

 

2)

 

 

Determined to persevere without jeopardizing her career, Naughright began writing policies for the program prohibiting foul or abusive language. First she instituted the policies for athletic training rooms, then later the male cheerleading program. Eventually she would train a variety of student athletes on the proper and professional use of appropriate language.

This paints her a martyr, almost.

 

also. please take special note about her nickname bumper. she has been the victim many times in her life. i guess its just coincidence. and than going to the crisis center was just bizzare, i personally believe.

 

3.

I'm embarrassed to even be typing such things, but imagine if a grown man forced his genitals on to the face of your daughter or sister or mother or beloved colleague.

 

Odd that in this article he is a grown man at 19 years old.

but in this Shawn King article a 19 year old is just a teenager.

 

sensationalism.

 

4.

Colleagues who saw her after opening it testified that she was shaken up by what she read. Manning and his father, Archie, had written a book called "The Mannings" and perhaps wanting to put their stamp on the incident in Knoxville before it ever reached the public, they threw Naughright under bus.

 

Wild speculation on some parts, but mostly, and completely wrong. therefore a major error.

 

it was already in the public light, the public knew of the incident in 1996. and again in 2001/02.

 

she was let go from a position and never sued florida southern - the premier flagship of sports in the NCAA? was there more at play? according to what i remember, yes. she has been a bit of a thorn about whining and hard to work with - though, professionally quite talented.

 

5.

Until this very day, have you ever seen a single interview with Dr. Jamie Naughright trashing Peyton Manning? Me neither. I never knew that any of this happened until last week. My understanding is that she has not worked in college athletics since being let go from Florida Southern.

 

Until last week he had never heard of Jamie Naughright.

 

and what is not mentioned is she probably does not have to work anymore due to the probably +$1mm in settlement she got.

 

again, the truth and errors are not just about flat out bold faced lies. it is much more than that.

[Beerball]

 

lets play a game. Since you are unable to play this game. I will play it for you.

 

1. Why is he bringing this up now?

Political motivation. He has interests personally that this story can inflame and propagate.

 

2. Is it wrong to write about this story?

Not necessarily, but the approach and the bias shown reveals disturbing portrayals of the authors viewpoints.

 

3. Does this have anything to do with Cam Newton?

No.

 

4. Is earning shares and likes on Facebook now deemed a credible token in life and the story of it?

WTF, I don't even. And stay off my lawn.

 

5. His constant self injection. "Now, I get a lot of crap posted on my Facebook page, but I decided, on a whim, to Google "Peyton Manning sexual assault University of Tennessee."

Now, I get a lot of likes, and women to request to add me every day, but I decided on a whim to AskJeeves "Shaun King NY Daily News"

 

F. Why did he seed his article with other OpEd's about race?

Agenda: **** Stir.

 

G. So, before he ever read the article what did he think of Peyton Manning?

It would indicate he already saw a division likely based on race, as he eludes to and the PDF he received only fueled his ability to protest the alleged racial bias he sees.

 

9. The stating that the documents sent to him... this is his statement on court documents...

This, is hands down, no doubt spin. It is sensationalism, too. To equate a court document sent to him as stating that Peyton Manning is a facade means to me that he has reading comprehension problems, is a dullard, did not read it or is trying to hype up what a court document is. They're boring as hell.

 

Instead, what we are reading is his interpretation of what he saw in the court documents whilst he insinuates the court document is a story.

 

8. Him sourcing an article by the plaintiffs legal team means that every little bit of that action happened?

Nope. That's just one side of the story. Even when he puts in the title of that article "The Facts Of The Case" does not mean they're actually facts. They're one persons truth, not the whole truth, not nothing but the truth, so help you Allah.

 

9.

 

So, we are going to put out an op-ed without including the full information? Uh, ok. Maybe Manning and the woman dated? Maybe she sold him pottery in a Walmart parking lot to give to his mom on mothers day?

 

 

 

Again, the entire source of Shaun King's article is a one sided piece. It's just ridiculous to go on working on this scathing piece of ****ty journalism.

 

 

Either way, I'd go on, but instead, I'll just post this video which helps you understand who Faron Young is...

 

 

Pardon me for saying, but, you are sounding like an idiot.

 

Stop linking silly videos in your posts they clutter the place up.

 

On the first page of this thread...way too much copy/paste. A sentence or two only & a link.

entertainment [applause]

This does you no good.

 

Knock it off.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

IMO, the most damning aspect of that article was the finding by the Polk County Circuit Judge in 2001, which found that her suit not only had merit, but that Manning and his dad lied about certain facts and KNEW they lied about those facts. Small wonder they agreed to settle.

 

If Manning had simply adhered to the original non-disclosure agreement reached several years earlier none of this would be a topic for discussion today. Idiot.

 

Yep

[outsidethebox]

Who really cares? How many players in the NFL who doesn't have skeletons in there closet? Good lord!!!!! It happened 20 years ago. Let it go. This King guy seems to have a personal agenda against Manning. The timing of his story is a little dubious.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Well, I think this particular court and this particular judge can only be viewed in one way as spelled out in his findings. The judge flat out stated her case had merit and both Mannings lied about certain facts and knew they lied about them. That is unequivocal by anyone's standards.

 

How does a case get moved to an appeals court when it hasn't been heard by a lower court first? I honestly plead ignorance here.

 

I don't believe it can be, unless there's some procedural error in the lower court that gets appealed before the case is heard? Really uncertain. I know of a case in MO that was dismissed without being heard by the circuit court, the plaintiffs appealed and the dismissal was ruled to be in error with the case sent back to the lower court, I think similar can happen before a case is heard if it is believed the lower court has committed procedural errors or lacks jurisdiction. Really uncertain here though.

Who really cares? How many players in the NFL who doesn't have skeletons in there closet? Good lord!!!!! It happened 20 years ago. Let it go. This King guy seems to have a personal agenda against Manning. The timing of his story is a little dubious.

 

I don't think he has a personal agenda against Manning. I believe he has a personal agenda to show that black athletes in general, and Cam Newton in particular, are being treated unfairly and he is seizing on this 13 year old issue NOT being dredged up (the woman's lawsuit was settled in 2003) as evidence of unfair treatment. Nothing against Manning, just fodder to make a point.

 

I personally agree that if someone doesn't have a continuing pattern of poor behavior, Move On. Mike Vick takes his pet dog to obedience classes at PetsMart. Big Ben is a married man and a father and hasn't had any rape or sexual assault claims filed since. Cam Newton hasn't received any more stolen laptops. Winton hasn't stolen more crab legs. Move On!

 

Johnny Football, OTOH, is taking a pounding in the media because he's still demonstrating the same behavior. King is carefully not using him as an example because it wouldn't fit his agenda of Unfair Media Treatment Accorded to Black Athletes.

Until last week he had never heard of Jamie Naughright.

and what is not mentioned is she probably does not have to work anymore due to the probably +$1mm in settlement she got.

 

How do you know the size of the settlement she got, since the details are confidential?

 

If she enjoyed her work and wanted to continue work in her field but couldn't due to the reputation created by the Manning book, that's a problem of justice regardless of whether she has financial independence from the court settlement.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Hopeful

[hondo in seattle]

Another angle (though Clay Travis isn't the most respected writer either)

 

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/peyton-manning-newest-target-of-fake-internet-outrage-brigade-021316

 

It's crap journalism with unneeded ad hominem attacks... and yet he makes some good points.

[mannc]

 

 

 

ok here we go, just pointed facts of error. not an entire list, but it will help you get what logical sense should allow.

 

1)

It was not a secret for so long. It was not at all. This was national news in the sports world when it happened and back when he released his book and was sued for the NDA. but King sensationalizes it to make it look like a cover up - in essence he simply lies by omission. which is not factual. had he looked in to this more, he'd have seen it.

 

2)

This paints her a martyr, almost.

 

also. please take special note about her nickname bumper. she has been the victim many times in her life. i guess its just coincidence. and than going to the crisis center was just bizzare, i personally believe.

 

3.

Odd that in this article he is a grown man at 19 years old.

but in this Shawn King article a 19 year old is just a teenager.

 

sensationalism.

 

4.

Wild speculation on some parts, but mostly, and completely wrong. therefore a major error.

 

it was already in the public light, the public knew of the incident in 1996. and again in 2001/02.

 

she was let go from a position and never sued florida southern - the premier flagship of sports in the NCAA? was there more at play? according to what i remember, yes. she has been a bit of a thorn about whining and hard to work with - though, professionally quite talented.

 

5.

Until last week he had never heard of Jamie Naughright.

 

and what is not mentioned is she probably does not have to work anymore due to the probably +$1mm in settlement she got.

 

again, the truth and errors are not just about flat out bold faced lies. it is much more than that.

Thank you. You've now proven that you are unable to identify a single falsehood in the article. The closest you've come is 1), but calling the episode a "secret" is at most just a bit of hyperbole. I think I've been paying attention the past 20 years, but I'd never heard of these incidents until now. And of course there HAS been secrecy--Manning paid handsomely for her silence when he settled the two lawsuits.

 

The question isn't whether Manning should go to jail for what he did; the reason this is still relevant is that Manning makes tens of millions of dollars a year in endorsements, and probably will for years to come, trading on a squeaky clean image that, based on the FACTS cited by the author, appears to be utterly fraudulent.

 

It's crap journalism with unneeded ad hominem attacks... and yet he makes some good points.

I agree that it's poorly written, but the facts are pretty damning, and their impact is not much diminished by the likelihood that the writer has an agenda. Edited February 14, 2016 by mannc

[Coach Tuesday]

Wow. This thread is interesting. I'm scared to wade into it. Here are some thoughts:

 

I did some sh- in college that I'm not proud of. Maybe none of it involved my rectum but still. Have any of you people ever made youthful mistakes, ever?

 

Manning is a brand. Brands get protected. It's not always pretty or commendable. I too question the author's agenda but I also question people who get spoon-fed their view of the world, including the images of athletes and other celebs. Gosh, Peyton Manning might be an a-hole? Who is shocked by this? I don't know the guy, I only know the folksy image that he and his handlers have created to spoon-feed the masses. I don't take that image as true. I take it as marketing and I mostly ignore it. We don't know these people, even though they want us to think we do.

 

I agree that black athletes are viewed through a different lens, sometimes. But so are white athletes, sometimes. It's very complicated. If Ritchie was black and Martin was white, would the story have been about "bullying"? I'm not sure. But I'm not entirely sure which way that cuts.

 

Jboyst, I too am sick of the Politics of Grievance. And wary of the Subtle Racism of Lower Expectations.

 

Some posters in this thread don't understand what "allegations" are or how the legal process works. You can tell which ones.

 

This story may come up again, big time, when Manning runs for Senate...

Edited February 14, 2016 by Coach Tuesday

[nucci]

Who really cares? How many players in the NFL who doesn't have skeletons in there closet? Good lord!!!!! It happened 20 years ago. Let it go. This King guy seems to have a personal agenda against Manning. The timing of his story is a little dubious.

about a sexual assault? Think about if it happened to a family member of yours.....

[YoloinOhio]

 

I don't believe it can be, unless there's some procedural error in the lower court that gets appealed before the case is heard? Really uncertain. I know of a case in MO that was dismissed without being heard by the circuit court, the plaintiffs appealed and the dismissal was ruled to be in error with the case sent back to the lower court, I think similar can happen before a case is heard if it is believed the lower court has committed procedural errors or lacks jurisdiction. Really uncertain here though.

 

 

I don't think he has a personal agenda against Manning. I believe he has a personal agenda to show that black athletes in general, and Cam Newton in particular, are being treated unfairly and he is seizing on this 13 year old issue NOT being dredged up (the woman's lawsuit was settled in 2003) as evidence of unfair treatment. Nothing against Manning, just fodder to make a point.

 

I personally agree that if someone doesn't have a continuing pattern of poor behavior, Move On. Mike Vick takes his pet dog to obedience classes at PetsMart. Big Ben is a married man and a father and hasn't had any rape or sexual assault claims filed since. Cam Newton hasn't received any more stolen laptops. Winton hasn't stolen more crab legs. Move On!

 

Johnny Football, OTOH, is taking a pounding in the media because he's still demonstrating the same behavior. King is carefully not using him as an example because it wouldn't fit his agenda of Unfair Media Treatment Accorded to Black Athletes.

 

 

How do you know the size of the settlement she got, since the details are confidential?

 

If she enjoyed her work and wanted to continue work in her field but couldn't due to the reputation created by the Manning book, that's a problem of justice regardless of whether she has financial independence from the court settlement.

in the other article, it said she got 300k in the settlement. Edited February 14, 2016 by YoloinOhio