Good grief, it just won't stop...

[VOLveeta]

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.   

[HerbTarlekVol]

biting.... my.... tongue.   

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. 

[TheRealOrange]

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.

[VOLveeta]

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.

[Black Diamond Vol]

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. 

[TheRealOrange]

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.

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.

[Creek Walker]

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.

[HerbTarlekVol]

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.

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.

[tshadow]

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.

[BanditVol]

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.   

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.

[BanditVol]

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.... ...just the thought is.... )
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.   

[Creek Walker]

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.   

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.

No, it's mentioned in the lawsuit.

[VOLveeta]

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

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?

[Creek Walker]

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.

[VOLveeta]

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.

[TheRealOrange]

Thank you.  That covers the actual "mooning" and Saxon.  So it appears that the "hack" was regurgitating real info and wasn't libeling Peyton?  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?  I don't think YOU suggested as much, will have to review the thread.  But my point is, dismissing the writer as a hack makes none of this less "real".  And it certainly won't be a way to help resolve it.

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.

[BanditVol]

No, it's mentioned in the lawsuit.

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.

[Creek Walker]

Thank you.  That covers the actual "mooning" and Saxon.  So it appears that the "hack" was regurgitating real info and wasn't libeling Peyton?  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?

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.)

[Creek Walker]

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?

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

[BanditVol]

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?

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.....

[VOLveeta]

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

[Black Diamond Vol]

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.

[HerbTarlekVol]

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

[Black Diamond Vol]

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.

[Creek Walker]

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.