OT: Manning HGH Controversy Deepens; Sly was Indeed Employed in 2011

Submitted by BornSinner on

Many ESPN reporters, ie Mort, instantly "debunked" Al-Jazeera's source Charlie Sly as an intern in 2013 instead of 2011 when Manning was receiving neck treatment from the Guyer Institute. 

Well, after all the scrutiny Al-Jazeera's Deborah Davies just released a video containing a verification call to the Guyer Institute a month ago to confirm that Sly was indeed employed for 3 months after October 17th, 2011. 

This goes directly against Dr. Guyer's statement saying that Sly was employed in 2013.

Oh snap. (Inserts popcorn.gif here) 

 

MGoBoard

JamieH

December 29th, 2015 at 2:21 AM ^

I know, innocent until proven guilty and all that.  But in almost every one of these drug cases, the smoke has almost always led to fire.

 

Honestly, the guy was trying to recover from a major, career threatening neck injury that a  lot of people said he wasn't coming back from.  If he needed HGH to fix his damn neck, I don't see why he shouldn't have been able to get it.  As long as he didn't continue to take it while he was playing, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

He sat out the entire 2011 season right?  If he used HGH during the time he was sitting out to try and fix his neck, and stopped using it before he suited up again, I say more power to modern medicine and let's get on with it.  The only real problem I would have is if he kept using it while he was playing. 

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 28331

Jinxed

December 29th, 2015 at 2:30 AM ^

He was under contract during the season. If using PEDs while injured is ok because you're not playing then why isn't it ok during the offseason? 

It gives you an unfair advantage over players trying to recover while sticking to the rules.

Joined: 09/15/2009

MGoPoints: 1993

JamieH

December 29th, 2015 at 3:41 AM ^

You can't just have every "injured" player shooting up with steroids and HGH during the offseason.  My point was more that he was incredibly severly injured, to the point that many people doubted he was ever going to play again.  Seems like that would be a situation where he might be able to get some sort of an "experimental treatment" waiver or something, as long as he didn't continue to use the stuff once he was going to start playing again.

 I guess I view this differently than a player trying to get stronger/faster/etc. by juicing.  Manning (if he did it) was trying to get his freaking neck to work properly again.  If it took HGH to get him healed and able to play again, then isn't that what the fans wanted to see?   Would it really be that much different than a surgically repaired knee? 


Again, I'm not endorsing him continuing to use HGH or other substances after his injury was healed.  And I honestly don't know if HGH really could have helped him with whatever was wrong with his neck.   I just think that severly injured players who are on the shelf for significant periods of time (especially those facing career-ending injuries) should be able to pursue aggressive treatment to try and get better as long as they aren't allowed to continue that treatment while they are playing. 

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 28331

BornSinner

December 29th, 2015 at 3:44 AM ^

The problem is that even under the rules of modern medicine, HGH is only applicable for very few conditions and even fewer legally. I know there are now experiments that do support claims of anti-aging, fertility help etc. but we're still years away from proper validity. 

The legal conditions are AGHD, Turner Syndrome, Prader-Willi Syndrome and some cases of HIV and renal failure. So unless his wife has one of these problems, he's looking pretty guilty right now. 

I know US governmental policy when it comes to medicine and drugs is quite often archaic and behind the experimental evidence, but it seems like Manning would have to be illegally prescribed HGH according to not only NFL law but federal law as well. 

Joined: 09/20/2014

MGoPoints: 14672

You Only Live Twice

December 29th, 2015 at 1:21 PM ^

FDA approved the prescribing of HGH for a few conditions as noted above, otherwise illegal and known to be widely abused by athletes.  Whatever benefits it confers in terms of muscle building, the side effects are not worth the risk and that is why all sporting organizations (ostensibly) test for its use among players.

Again - it's supposed to be about the players' safety

Joined: 09/14/2013

MGoPoints: 9615

wolpherine2000

December 29th, 2015 at 11:26 AM ^

...from the league's PED policies, and I have to think that if Manning was using HGH under the direction of a doctor as part of a recognized therapy he shouldn't have had any difficulty getting one.  Perhaps Manning's therapy was off-label, but that doesn't mean it wasn't medically appropriate or unjustifiable.*

If any of this is true, and Manning's people didn't at least have a discussion with the NFL about this I don't think Goodell is going to be very sympathetic.  Although the NFL's PED program is a total sham and acts more as an intelligence test, there is enormous potential for players to retroactively claim that they used a PED under the direction of a doctor if they get caught.

*Though it is possible that the doctor refused to participate as his unsanctioned prescription of the drug might be exposed.

 

Joined: 07/10/2009

MGoPoints: 8833

JamieH

December 29th, 2015 at 4:38 AM ^

the article even mentions HGH used in conjunction with platelet-rich plasma therapies as an experimental treatment for certain injuries. Sounds like something you might try if you had a potential career-ending neck injury. This seems like a hard thing to generate a ton of outrage over, unless of course he kept taking the HGH long after his neck got better. 

 

If the NFL can prove he took HGH, he will need to be suspended for a few games, but I don't see this as some sort of career tarnishing thing if it was done strictly to try and fix his busted neck. 

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 28331

BornSinner

December 29th, 2015 at 5:26 AM ^

Idc if he does it for rehabilitation. w/e. Just admit it. 

If America can forgive ARod, then we certainly can forgive Peyton. 

It's just eerily coincidental that they started testing in 2014, the same year in which his arm strength completely went down the drain midway through and still hasn't recovered. Yet the 2.5 seasons before that, he was breaking every record in the book after overcoming a potential career ending neck problem... hmm...

Could be father time for sure, but this Al-Jazeera story certainly opens up the past few years of Manning's career to speculation. 

Joined: 09/20/2014

MGoPoints: 14672

DomIngerson

December 29th, 2015 at 7:57 AM ^

Spot on. Back in 2011, there were many who thought his career was over. He then came back and broke every record in the book. His extreme performance drop-off this year should raise some eyebrows. If he came out and admitted to this for recovery purposes then most would shrug and move on. The fact that his denial was so emphatic is what makes this a big story to follow. Will be interesting to see how the media treats this compared to the Deflategate witch hunt.

Joined: 11/30/2014

MGoPoints: 3886

MileHighWolverine

December 29th, 2015 at 11:36 AM ^

The problem is once you admit to taking it for recovery......what's to stop you from continuing on well after that fact? And when you look at how quickly his body has fallen apart, the circumstancial evidence points in the wrong direction for him. We know so little about HGH in general that it's hard to form definitive conclusions from all of this. 

 

Joined: 09/02/2008

MGoPoints: 7749

JamieH

December 29th, 2015 at 11:51 AM ^

if he started taking HGH while rehabbing and decided it felt so good that he kept using it, well then that is obviously a big problem.  I wasn't aware of the time-frame coincidence between the league starting their HGH testing and Manning's performance collapse. 

 

You would think if he only used it for rehab he would just come out and admit it.  I would think most fans would shrugh that off pretty quickly. 

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 28331

coldnjl

December 29th, 2015 at 7:10 AM ^

It will absolutely be a career tarnashing event...deflating footballs did it to Brady. The only thing that I care about in this case is how the NFL is going to act...I think they HAVE to do something and do it all the way due to their past against Tom Brady, but will do it kicking and screaming.

Joined: 12/31/2009

MGoPoints: 13934

goblue224

December 29th, 2015 at 7:17 AM ^

I love how all day sunday and into monday moring ESPN and Mort were convinced that this whole thing was fabricated. They were ontop of the story before a lot of people even had a chance to find out what was going on. Now that there seems to be some evidence to support the orginal report they've gone complete radio silence on the issue.

Joined: 09/28/2014

MGoPoints: 2475

lilpenny1316

December 29th, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^

Back in 2001-2002, I was confused as how Al Jazeera was always dropping Bin Laden's latest video.  I had to do some reading up to see they were a reputable organization.  

Before labelling someone a racist on this, I would at least say they are ignorant of Al Jazeera's status as media outlet.

Joined: 11/19/2009

MGoPoints: 61836

Indiana Blue

December 29th, 2015 at 11:39 AM ^

owned 100% by the Royal family of Qatar.  This "family" reportedly supports the Muslim Brotherhood and some "terrorists netorks".  Qatar is a kingdom - hence the term family, but unlike the Royal Family in England - this family does RUN the entire nation of Qatar.  The Royal Family of Qatar adheres strictly to Islamic law - which is essentially about as opposite as you can get from democracy (ok - representative republic).  If you really believe this is a truly independent news source - you have a strange definition of independent.

The family has "gabillions" of dollars - entirely "earned" by using US technology to produce oil.  There is no question that Al Qaeda trusted them to broadcast the terrorist claims, including Bin Laden's videos ... do you really think this family has changed its thinking ?  

It is plainly obvious that all media today has bias.  All one has to do is look at who runs that media outlet to determine their specific bias.  To me - this one is rather obvious.  

Sorry - very OT.

Go Blue! 

Joined: 09/19/2010

MGoPoints: 5677

LSAClassOf2000

December 29th, 2015 at 8:46 AM ^

This is the sort of talk that destroyed a previous attempt at a thread on this story, and it was rather disappointing to read. If we could, let's keep our discussion here focused on the content of the story presented, not the outlet which is providing the story or any personal misgivings (misconceptions too) one might have about them. 

I would just rather not have to can a thread because it turned into a "my source is more reputable than your source for reasons X, Y and Z, none of which really have anything to do with journalism" pissing match. 

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130661