VTTW Board Index

This is the second or third rehash of this I've seen on Facebook this week... In addition to the lawsuit, I swear it seems like there is a big fat bullseye on anything and everything "Tennessee".

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-peyton-manning-squeaky-clean-image-built-lies-article-1.2530395 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-peyton-manning-squeaky-clean-image-built-lies-article-1.2530395)

Checkout the racist "writer"

King is a racist pig who hates Manning because of the color of his skin. He isn't the first to drag this old skeleton out of the closet the last couple of weeks, though...and he probably won't be the last. Our culture loves to place folks on a pedestal and then tear them down. We derive the same sort of pleasure from that as the Romans must have felt when they flocked to the Colosseum to see lives lost. Was there anything more to that 1996 incident than a simple mooning? I don't know...and to be completely honest, I don't care. Manning's reputation speaks for itself. Not just regarding Manning but anyone in a similar circumstance, I've always considered a media expose built on a civil lawsuit to be a non-starter...folks tend to forget that anyone can say anything (especially when they're chasing fame or fortune) in a lawsuit with very little burden of proof.

Whatever the case is with King's motive, what bothers me is... according to the court documents, regarding this woman's "character", the ONLY persons who had anything to offer other than incredibly glowing character references were the Mannings.  The comments by Lane disturb me as well.  Not one person had ever heard the woman utter a single expletive, but Peyton, whom I've seen sling f bombs freely, was so "disturbed" by this woman's ill character?  They couldn't find one other person who honestly could have witnessed ONE incident?  The letter from Malcolm Saxon???

Something stinks.  I don't want any of this to be true but I'm starting to have my doubts and if it was this much of a priority to do anything necessary to sweep it under the rug, and I look at Peyton's "furious denial" about the HGH... sorry.  I love him.  But my doubts are growing.  Call me a traitor, I suppose.

Read this: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/13/release-of-13-year-old-court-document-dusts-off-peyton-manning-incident-at-tennessee/

The reason there is no other evidence is because this is the plaintiff's document; it would present only one side.

Thank you for this.  I felt King's piece was melodramatic, no doubt.  But the "court document" being written by Naughright's lawyers changes a lot.  Thank you greatly.

The defendants had filed a motion for summary judgment, which seeks to have the court rule in their favor based solely on the law.  That can be done only if there is no dispute of any material facts, and the document was the plaintiff's response.  In a "he said, she said" type of case, there is almost always a dispute sufficient to proceed, and judges usually will let such suits proceed so a jury will hear and rule on the evidence, and that's what happened in this case.  The judge ultimately ruled there was sufficient evidence for a jury to hear Naughright's case.  The ruling didn't address the validity of the evidence, just that it created a dispute of the facts.  Fairly standard.  I believe the case eventually settled.

Could you translate this for an actor, please?   :dance:

I sue you saying you hit me; you say you didn't.  You file a motion asking the court to rule in your favor based on the law  I say there is a dispute as to the facts.  Court says let a jury decide.  :wink:

So why do you think there was a settlement?

Could be any number of reasons.  My guess is a weak case by the plaintiff coupled with a desire by the defendants to avoid protracted litigation and associated publicity and costs.  Usually defendants will settle for nuisance value.  Even untrue information can stick in the court of public opinion. 

Thanks buddy.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1694048 (http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1694048)

King is a male version of Rachel Dolezal. 

And all the others who've condemned Peyton of late?  Are they just fraudulent a-holes as well?  Or do we simply have a different slanted perspective of Peyton ourselves?  Sorry, this kind of instant dismissal when the article has some meat to it... does little to help.

Let's also note that the plaintiff in the case has made herself a nice little career of this, having sued two subsequent employers after she left UT.  So, draw your own conclusions. :frown:

Got a link?  That would be good info to see.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020130507B51/NAUGHRIGHT%20v.%20WEISS

The Karan Defendants have asserted that Naughright has an extensive history of filing repetitive lawsuits against or involving public figures, apparently having "spent the majority of eight years [1998 through 2005] filing legal complaints against or about [Peyton] Manning... [some of which] had no basis in law or in fact and were fueled only by [plaintiff's] relentless search for revenge." Naughright v. Peyton Manning, No.: 05 Civ. 637 (2005), Document #16 at p. 1, 7 (M.D. Fla. 2005); see also Naughright v. Univ. of Tenn., et al., EEOC Complaint #25A963209 (1996); Naughright v. Peyton Manning, et al., No.: 02 Civ. 1026 (2002) (M.D. Fla. 2002). Also noted by the Karan Defendants is another personal injury action currently pending in Circuit Court, Polk County, Florida filed five months prior to the commencement of this lawsuit and in which Naughright seeks compensation for physical injuries of the kind she has alleged herein. See Naughright v. Deli Delicacies, Inc., et al., No.: 2010CA-005205-0000 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2002).

Excellent, thanks buddy.

I will say this much, it was beyond idiocy for Peyton to bring this back up in the book.  By breaking the confidentiality agreement, he guaranteed this was unearthed again.  Utter stupidity.

Actually, it was Archie

It was stupid.

Which begs another question:  How is it that this episode gets mentioned in Peyton's book, WITHOUT mentioning her by name, and he gets dinged for breeching the confidentiality agreement, but she (or her legal team- potato, potahto) can leak this entire 74 page document to the media, and that's NOT a breech?

Naughright's extensive history filing lawsuits is the most damning part of this. King (and those who are latching onto this story) are portraying her as a professional who was defamed by the Mannings and twice lost her job as a result. In reality, she certainly appears to be a money grubber.

Take a chill pill, Double V.  The guy really IS a male version of Rachel Dolezal.  He was born to white parents, has white siblings, yet he claims to be a black man. 

Google is a wonderful thing.  It's not hard to find his story. 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/family-member-confirms-to-cnn-that-blacklivesmatter-activist-shaun-king-is-white/ 

He has also lied about being "racially" attacked, and he has been implicated in missing funds involving a "Black Lives Matter" group.

biting.... my.... tongue.   :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Why bite your tongue?

The guy is a fraud, and he has regurgitated a 20 year old issue that has been settled - period. 

If you want to put your eggs in his basket, then by all means have at it, but that's not going to change the fact that he is a fraud.  Nothing can change that. 

Fraud or not, he is now getting exactly what he set out to get--more publicly and tarnishing Manning's reputation with allegations rather than facts. He is clearly very good at deception and misdirection to further his goals.

Thank you.  Some damage is done and the anti-Peyton shills will run as far with this as they can.  Calling this guy every expletive in the world does N.O.T.H.I.N.G. to lessen the impact REGARDLESS of how much he deserves the labeling.  We've entered this era of IMMEDIATELY DISCREDITING everyone we disagree with to a point that even when the individual likely does deserve being discredited, it's been so overused and easily common that it has lost its effect.  In politics now we immediately dismiss EVERYONE we disagree with as "idiots" and nothing is accomplished.  Legit or not, TRUE OR NOT this "journalist" has unearthed some very ugly accusations on the heels of Peyton's HGH "scandal".  Screaming "Liar" and "fake ethnicity" and "plagiarist" does nothing more than state your own, possibly even popular slant.  But, those who are out to get Peyton don't care.  They relish this shi7.

Another thing I see people saying is, "If Manning is innocent, then why didn't he fight the charges?"  

Think about the timing.  This happened in 1996, and Peyton was about to be the #1 pick in the 1997 draft.  If this case goes to trial, and he has a protracted lawsuit hanging over his head, he's not #1.  In fact, he's probably not even a first rounder.  Remember, there was no rookie wage scale at the time like there is today, so teams had a lot more to lose if they whiffed on a first round pick.  Even if Peyton had fought the charges and won, he still would've cost himself millions.  It was clearly a business decision.

Peyton was a soft target, and don't think for a minute that the plaintiff didn't know it.  She had every confidence that she would get a quick settlement. 

I agree with almost everything except for the bolded portion.  He didn't unearth anything.  This was all known and widely reported in the early 2000s.  We simply didn't have social media to spread the allegations.  He simply rehashed information over a decade old in an attempt to smear Peyton's name and somehow show media bias against Cam Newton.  It's a hack job completely devoid of current relevance, but he has made it news once again.  I wonder why he didn't do the same about the Kobe Bryant rape allegations, Duke lacrosse sexual assault allegations, etc.?  Oh, that's right, they wouldn't play as big given the timing.  It's a shame, but it's a perfect demonstration of the "journalistic" world in which we now live.

Precisely. There's precious little new in King's column. And there's no "journalism" to it. It's simply opinion-driven drivel. I hate shoot the messenger mentality but in this case, where the guy has an agenda and is pushing it hard, his credibility must be considered.

The guy has come up with nothing new on Manning's situation, and he has discredited himself by his own actions.  

Nobody is excusing UT if they are in the wrong.  I have said over and over that I want to see the truth exposed, no matter who is involved.  I have a daughter and I am about to have a granddaughter.  I don't want them to ever be at risk.

But to regurgitate the Manning story from 20 years ago, and state that what he is writing is fact is just not accurate.  The guy is a plagiarist, he totally misrepresents even something as basic as his race, and he is obviously has an agenda that he is going to get out there without proof, because the only proof has been sealed, and sealed at the approval of the accuser.  

It's total bullshizzle to bring that in to his agenda.  

And there is no HGH scandal.  The accuser has recanted, and even if HGH was delivered to Manning or his wife it wasn't banned until later in 2011 and the NFL didn't begin testing for it until 2014.

The reason for the settlement is Ut v Ut; a house divided against itself... The article is strictly hyperbole and the only one that should be raked over the coals by it is the author ("reporter"). I don't know all the details but if it is simply that she got a close up of his danglies then you gotta question her judgment in her choice of electives.


Ok, I've read enough about it now to hope it goes to court. But the two cases should definitely be severed since Ut is not mentioned in her present lawsuit. What has made me conclude that is the referenced affidavits of Peytons former ut teammates. If Peyton impugned her reputation in his book then we are NOT talking about 20 years ago.

On ESPN radio this morning they stated that the twenty year old allegations about Manning are part of the current lawsuit in which they cite it as an example of allowing a culture of sexual assault.

It may be that the journalist reporting that was mistaken, but if not, it's ludicrous to include something from 20 years ago, when Fulmer was the coach, Dickey the AD, and Johnson the Prez, as somehow relevant to the current lawsuit.  Unless, of course, it was done for publicity. Which would never happen.   :rolleyes:

I think the guy on ESPN meant that "due to the recent lawsuit something from 20 years ago is being seen in a new light".  But I would not be surprised at all if the plaintiffs added the Peyton stuff in.

A bammer friend actually brought all this up last week and I had no idea what he was talking about, or more to the point, why a 20-year old case was suddenly relevant.

What I recall from 1996 is that the lady in question had actually 5-6 things she complained about, of which the "mooning" was only one.  They were:

1. Fulmer made an inappropriate comment "do you like big men"  ( to which.... :hurl:...just the thought is.... :hurl: :hurl: :biggrin:)
2. The team watched porn on the bus on the way to games while she was present
3. A lot of coaches and athletes called her "bumper", but at the time, this was said to be a reference to the size of her breasts and not the "c--- bumper" cited in the 2003 plaintiff statement that Shaun King published.  But whatever.
4. The Peyton Manning mooning incident.  More on this below.
5. A constant environment of inappropiate sexual remarks by male coaches and team members (though not necessarily directed towards her).

Those are the ones I recall.

As for no. 4, I haven't heard it referred to as a "tea bagging" incident until just now.  And this is the only new thing that has come to light for me.  One of Peyton's nicknames has always been "Peyton Mooning", and any true Vol fan from that era knows that it's tied to this exact incident! 

The plaintiff statement from 2003 alleges that Mike Rollo invented that story to cover up how allegedly more serious it was (to  wit, that Peyton actually tea bagged her while she was working on his foot).

That could well be an exageration to encourage a settlement, but the plaintiff did present a statement from the player that Peyton allegedly mooned who said it was not a mooning.

My take is that the allegations in the 2003 lawsuit are quite serious...if Peyton reallydid a teabag her then yes, it can be described as an assault.

I think whether that actually happened is highly debateable though, as it was not what was said in 1996.   

No, it's mentioned in the lawsuit.

Apparently you had far more access to this info years ago than I did.  I had no idea that the "mooning" was suggested as far more abusive by the accuser, I had no access to the info regarding the "broken confidentiality agreement", I had no idea of the accusations she was a "foul mouthed woman who 'frequented' the dorms", I had no idea that it was intimated that Rollo suggested this lady blame a black student, I had no idea of the supposed plea by another player telling Peyton to "come clean".

That's all new to me.  Bully for you it's all regurgitated "info" you already knew about.  As for the veracity of this stuff, I have NO idea but it's all new to me.  I congratulate you on your universal knowledge of what this "hack journalist" got hold of when he procured this document.  How did you happen to come upon it before anyone else did because apparently none of this is new to you?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/2003-11-06-brennan_x.htm

That USA Today column is from 2003. Most of this stuff has been common knowledge for a long time.

Thank you.  That covers the actual "mooning" and Saxon.  So it appears that the "hack" was regurgitating real info.  The original article that started this conversation listed the actual items listed in the document.  How does libeling the writer make any of this less disturbing or true of its existence?  My point is, dismissing the writer as a hack makes none of this less "real".  Does it suggest intent?  Perhaps.  But it certainly has revived something that potentially could harm an incredible legacy if it's not refuted intelligently.  "He's a hack" does little to make these documented "facts" less real.

Or real at all.  It's just a one-sided court document.  I've seen dozens of such documents that have absolutely no truth in them, even when supported by sworn affidavits. It's just normal life in litigation.  This will never be any more resolved.  It's a completed legal matter.  With that, I leave the conversation.  It deserves no more of my time.

It's mentioned in the 2003 lawsuit that has just been made public or perhaps remade public.  So I'm saying it was, as far as I'm concerned, new to that year although I and most are only just now seeing it.

It was never mentioned in 1996, to my knowledge.  Are you saying there are documents from 1996 saying the same thing?

Edit....I now realize you are saying the current lawsuit mentions it, which is ridiculous. 

My points about 2003 vs. 1996 stand though.

First of all, I don't think anyone has suggested that King is libeling Manning. And no one here is libeling King. The things that have been said about King are well-documented. That isn't libelous. And they're very relevant to the conversation because they speak to his motive. Again, this isn't a journalistic "news" story. This is an opinion piece that includes some new revelations. But it's also heavily embellished and sensationalistic. So the writer's motive absolutely deserves to be called into question. Does that make a difference to a lot of unbiased observers who read it? Unfortunately, no. But why take folks on this forum to the woodshed for discussing it?

Seriously, once you brush away all the sensationalism and hyperbole, what exactly did King make us aware of for the first time that is damning towards Peyton Manning? Serious question. Obviously the tidbits about Whited being asked to blame the incident on another athlete -- if substantiated -- are pretty damning. (Gotta be honest, though -- that seems very unlikely. As I read it, Whited claimed she was asked to deflect the blame as part of the settlement agreement. By that time the incident had long since been heavily reported.) But it's damning towards UTAD...not towards Manning. No one has suggested Manning was involved in that request from UTAD at all.

What does that leave? 1.) He may have been lying about Whited having a vulgar mouth. 2.) He repeated a rumor that a number of other people were repeating at the same time about Whited being promiscuous with black athletes at UT.

What am I missing? (And, btw, #2 was never revealed publicly by Manning...it was made public by Whited's second lawsuit.)

I meant the Manning "mooning" incident and the school's response are mentioned in the CURRENT lawsuit.

And by implication, I am saying that, if this is something that was not public or part of a lawsuit in 1996, but came out later in 2003, then for me at least it's less credible.

Not to say I am giving Peyton a pass on whatever happened in 1996, but I am definitely allowing that the 2003 case may have exagerated or even distorted things.

If almost identical things were said originally in 1996, well, then.....

Gents, I apologize.  I'm being stubborn and argumentative.  I am overly sensitive to dismissals of people who say things we don't like, and it has a lot to do with my frustration with politics.  PLEASE understand, I want Peyton to be exonerated of anything he had no part of.  He has been my biggest hero for twenty years now.  Due process is how to make that happen and convenient dismissals of "he's a hack" seem to be kicking the can down the road rather than digging in and getting real with the conversation.  But you guys are on the same board as I.  I got a little miffy and argumentative there and I sincerely apologize.  I just want accuracy and truth.

Sorry.

yer dramatic pal,
VOLveeta

I still would like to know how the release of this document doesn't also violate the non-disclosure agreement.  Is it null and void now?  Can the defense release all of their discovery?  Because I'm sure that would show things in a whole new light.

Edit: TRO, I know you said you're bowing out of this thread, but I'd really like to hear your insight on this.

A sport journalist from Indy make a damned fine counter argument right here:

http://www.wthr.com/story/31219107/kravitz-raising-some-questions-on-the-daily-news-story-on-peyton-manning

He brings up a good question:  If this happened exactly the way Naughright claims it did, then it clearly rose to the level of sexual assault.  That being the case, why didn't she bring criminal charges?  I know victims of sex crimes are often scared to come forward out of shame, but that obviously wasn't the case here, or else she wouldn't have filed the civil suit.  If the UT community had this monster in its midst, why wouldn't she want to see him put away?  Just think of all those later ensuing sex crimes Manning committed that could have been prevented.  Oh, that's right...there WEREN'T any. 

So instead of bringing criminal charges, she goes for a quick payday.  Why?  Could it be that she knew she couldn't satisfy the burden of proof in criminal proceedings?  Was she afraid of what would come out in discovery?

Also, her current occupation is listed as "self-employed personal trainer".  Maybe that's working out well for her.  But I think we all know that 90% of the time, that's code for "unemployed".  It's interesting that this "force of nature" who is "at the top of her field" couldn't find work elsewhere.  Could it be because at least three of her previous employment experiences ended in litigation?  Naaaah. :frown:

A former player contacted me yesterday re: Whited. He said he never saw or heard anything specific about her behavior, positive or negative, but she was always the subject of conversation among many players. Which isn't exactly earth-shattering info; we knew that. He raises a good point, which is that he never understood at the time why an attractive young girl was thrown into an environment like that with so many hormone-filled young guys.

This article says quite eloquently what some of you guys have been saying... and it goes in step with how I feel about what has happened in our politics.  ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK... regardless of facts.  Malign, assassinate character and move on to the next.  

"Or maybe, this is us dredging up dirt to win an argument."


http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4695020-peyton-manning-case-title-ix-sexual-assault-timing-jamie-naughright-victim-cam-newton?eadid=SOC%2FTwi%2FSNMain (http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4695020-peyton-manning-case-title-ix-sexual-assault-timing-jamie-naughright-victim-cam-newton?eadid=SOC%2FTwi%2FSNMain)

Funny pic here, and at the risk of being labeled "insensitive", these two have both brought it upon themselves by claiming to be something that biology and their own DNA says they are not. 

Found this little gem... "your breast is dead". The fact that anyone would take this lady seriously is absurd.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/12/31788.htm (http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/12/31788.htm)

Regarding the whole "vulgar mouth" allegation that Manning made in the book, which sparked the 2003 lawsuit, which brings all of this up today, it hasn't been mentioned anywhere (that I've seen) that as part of its report that was made part of the 1996 sexual harassment lawsuit, UT concluded that Naughright often used profanity "to prove that she was one of the boys." (The university also claimed that Naughright claimed responsibility for some of the sexual harassment because she exhibited the same behavior towards the guys that she turned around and complained about.)

And five months prior to that, she sued something called "Deli Delicacies", for very similar "injuries".  I can't find any details on that case, but it's mentioned in the defense statement for the Karan lawsuit.

Something I learned today, or maybe I knew and had forgotten, is just how significantly Naughright's story changed between her original lawsuit in 1996 and her second lawsuit in 2002.

In 1996, she described the "mooning" like this: "He pulled his pants down and exposed himself to me, as I was bent over examining his foot after asking me personal questions. I reported this to my supervisor, who referred to it as 'merely a prank,' and no action was taken in regard to this until after I formally complained."

Six and a half years later, her attorney beefed up the claim, saying that the "mooning" was "of such a gross, crude and indecent nature that it would have offended even the most callous individual." During her deposition, Naughright made the infamous "naked butt and rectum" statement, saying, "It was the gluteus maximus, the rectum, the testicles, and the area in between the testicles. And all that was on my face when I pushed him up and off."

Now let's examine this for just a minute. In 1996, she's suing UT for a laundry list of sexual harassment claims. Money is, quite literally, on the line. If you've never read that lawsuit, you should. She mentions just about everything she could mention -- from movies that were shown on the team bus that included sexual content to members of the football team making statements about Nicole Brown when the OJ Simpson verdict was read to Phillip Fulmer asking her if she liked big guys. She even included old man Gus Manning, for pete's sake. Yet she didn't say ANYTHING about Manning forcing his butt and balls onto her face. She just said he "pulled his pants down and exposed himself."

That seems telling.

Also, King has made much of Malcolm Saxon's letter to Manning refuting the original story that Manning mooned Saxon instead of Naughright (which I've never believed anyway). It's interesting that the letter was not written until December 2002, after Naughright's lawsuit had been filed. And Saxon mentions in the letter that he had spoken to both Naughright and her attorney. Red flag, anyone? Also, while Saxon refutes the suggestion that Manning was mooning HIM and not HER, he doesn't offer ANY evidence to support Naughright's claim that Manning forced his butt onto her face. In fact, his wording -- "I still don't know why you dropped your drawers" -- seems to corroborate Manning's description of how it went down (or Naughright's description in 1996).

Now why hasn't Shaun King made any mention of the discrepancies in Naughright's accounts of what happened?

Because they don't fit his narrative.
Besides, he is but-hurt that his sweet thing Cam was (correctly) called out for his being a sore loser.

Could one of you legal types shed some light onto this please? Why would the document have been ordered deleted by the judge?

http://qbspeak.com/2016/02/15/74-page-document-touted-by-shaun-king-was-ordered-by-court-to-be-deleted/ (http://qbspeak.com/2016/02/15/74-page-document-touted-by-shaun-king-was-ordered-by-court-to-be-deleted/)

I'm not a legal type so I can't answer your question, but if I recall correctly, it has been reported that the entire thing was destroyed by the court in 2014. That speaks to what BDV has said more than once, re: the double standard between Manning mentioning the original case in his 2001 book, and Naughright releasing this document to King now. I mean, the Mannings are being raked over the coals for destroying this well-respected professional's career because he wrote a couple of paragraphs in his book without mentioning her by name, and that was NOTHING compared to the incendiary information in the now-infamous 74-page document. Fair is fair, right?

(Along those lines, maybe TRO can answer this question: was Manning's inclusion of the case in the book really a violation of the non-disclose agreement? Is there typically a non-disclose agreement that is separate from the terms of the settlement? Because after reading through the settlement order of the '96 lawsuit, it doesn't seem to me that the confidentiality clause even applies to Manning -- and he certainly didn't sign it; only the university signed it.)

This is the guy the main stream sports media is putting their faith in.

He is a lying sack of shizzle.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/20/shaun-king-confession-i-have-no-idea-who-my-father-is/   (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/20/shaun-king-confession-i-have-no-idea-who-my-father-is/)

Well, my failed point all along is that, regardless of how clearly sordid and rancid this man clearly is... the effect has been precisely what he intended.  At least Michael Wilbon called him out.  But King brought out stuff I didn't even know about and regardless of how questionable his intent or character is, Peyton has been fairly or unfairly brought back into the spotlight for something that only feeds the haters.  To them, I'm sure King is a peach for feeding their Peyton-hate.

I don't care if you've got videos of Shaun King raping a turtle, the dominos have already started.  Give them a nugget to tear down the hero?  The won't question whom offered the nugget:

"Deadspin unearthed and analyzed the history of Jamie Naughright's claims of sexual harassment against the University of Tennessee on Tuesday — and the complaints extend beyond Peyton Manning."

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football-news/4695134-peyton-manning-case-nydn-report-jamie-naughright-tennessee-title-ix-philip-fulmer (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football-news/4695134-peyton-manning-case-nydn-report-jamie-naughright-tennessee-title-ix-philip-fulmer)

The Manning allegations are one thing, but I really hate to see the entirety of that '96 lawsuit hashed out all over again under a national spotlight. There's a reason it really didn't catch on in '96, and it wasn't just because there were no social media networks back then. It's because the allegations were largely viewed as ridiculous. I encourage anyone who isn't up to speed on what her claims were to read the actual affidavit she filed in its entirety. There were so many things and they were so petty for the most part. She said she was sexually harassed by Gus Manning, for pete's sakes. Gus freakin' Manning! I know it was 20 years ago but I'm pretty sure Gus hasn't had a sexual thought in his mind for at least 50 years. She included a complaint because players made off-color remarks about Nicole Brown -- and they weren't even made to her; she just happened to overhear them. One of the more serious allegations she made was that athletes had told her that she needed to be afraid for her safety -- insinuating that other athletes were going to rape her. When UT investigated, she REFUSED to say who had told her that so that the claim could be investigated.

GUS?!?!?!  He was the sweetest gentleman!!!  I met the man twice.   That is a L.I.E.

This was my initial reaction.  I followed the issue extensively in 96, although if memory serves, it was mostly played out in the press in 1997.  And while you are correct that there was no twitter, facebook, etc, as it turns out sports message boards had hit the big time in 1996 and believe me, it was all over the Vol and other SEC sports message boards. I can't comment on other parts of the country because I didn't frequent those, but Tider Insider, the Dawg Run and the old GatorSports message board that was the predecessor to the Mudlizard had a field day with it.

And the allegations that came out in that time frame, as you say, were a lot more innocuous sounding and down right trivial in some cases.

Where I differ with you is I think it would be good to put it in the spotlight, precisely due to what you and I both think about it, which is that it seems she was really reaching on at least some of those.  Questions can and should be raised about what changed so dramatically between 1996 and 2003, and when you add in that the 2003 document was biased towards the plaintiffs, it really actually helps Peytons's cause IMO.  For instance, King simply ignored all the other items in 1996 (because he was unaware of them I am sure) to focus on just one of the items in her complaint while, though in 1996 was probably the one that got the most publicity, was not even viewed as the most serious at the time.  If anything, the comment by Fulmer was considered more serious or just the general atmosphere she described (which, after all, IS A LOCKER ROOM!  Lmao).  The Peyton incident was considered comical and embarassing but not even remotely criminal.

But it was all over the media for months and months, and people remembered it years later.  Circa 2008, a bammer fan mentioned in at a local bar and hostilities almost commenced.   :biggrin:

To be specific, he said the NCAA didn't do anything about Fulmer sexually harassing the trainer.  I could have pointed out that whatever happened was never determined to be sexual harassment, but instead I went for the low hanging fruit of pointing out that it was literally A FEDERAL LAWSUIT, and that, while the NCAA has a weak jurisdiction (they can't file subpoenas or compel witnesses to testify, etc) over cheating in recruiting, they DO NOT ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW.  I think the words "typical dumbass bama fan" also came out of my mouth.   

He didn't respond much, fortunately, but that might have been because most of the crowd was Auburn fans.   :dielaughing:  I do know how to pick my battles occasionally.   :naughty: