OT-Peyton Manning...might NOT be a good dude.

Submitted by TNBlue1977 on

I had heard rumors about this incident before (including on this board) but never anything in a legitimate news outlet until I saw this article in the NY Daily News this morning. 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-peyton-manning-squeaky-cl…

Obviosuly both sides have their own version of events but this is not a good look for Peyton or the Manning family and some of it is pretty disturbing.

I've never been a big fan of Manning because I think he's a phony who smiles for the camera and is probably not the great guy everyone makes him out to be in his off-camera life but this is worse than I thought.

MGoBoard
Football
peyton manning

Magnus

February 13th, 2016 at 2:03 PM ^

There are two separate issues you're talking about, though.

Part of PREVENTION is removing situations where bad things can happen. If you don't want children, abstinence is an effective way to prevent children. If you don't want to get mugged, staying off the street after dark is a good way to prevent being mugged.

Another part of PREVENTION is education, which is what you're discussing.

If you put women in these situations, bad things will happen. How do I know? Because bad things have happened. Education may lower the risk, but it won't prevent these things from happening every time.

The decision comes in how much you want to risk to give women these opportunities. Is it worth 5% of women (a random number) being sexually assaulted/harassed in order to open doors for more women to have the opportunities for those careers? That's the real discussion. But some people on here are incapable of having that discussion, and would rather hurl insults instead.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

bacon1431

February 13th, 2016 at 2:11 PM ^

Education would have the best long term outputs. We will never eradicate sexual harrassment. But not allowing women in male spaces will do nothing to prevent it - other in that specific instance. Doing so allows a mysognistic attitude to persist, particulary amongst athletes. It also denise women employment opportunities. Sexual harassment and rape occur less often than they used to. Is it because we've removed women from the presence of men? Hardly. It's been due to an increase in women's rights and the changing of attitudes toward women. 

Increase women's rights. Allow them the same jobs as men. Even in male dominated environments. Make it the norm. These things happen because men think they have the power in the situation. Make it egalitarian. Educate the young men. Let them see you treat females as equals. 

Joined: 07/26/2008

MGoPoints: 25285

Erik_in_Dayton

February 13th, 2016 at 2:32 PM ^

The post just above this makes some very good points. I'll add that we often know that - in the aggregate - a certain amount of crimes will happen when people are walking home from work, going to school, in dorm rooms, etc. And some situations are more dangerous than others. But we tend - rightly, I think - not to exclude people (adults at least) from situations because a given percentage of them will over time be victims of crimes. A woman has to decide whether she wants to take the risk of being a trainer for male athletes or, to use another example, a member of the armed forces. And she'll expose herself to a greater risk of sexual assault if she chooses either path. But that doesn't mean someone is legally or morally to blame for allowing her to make that choice. The law is built in part on the fiction that people can always control themselves. They can't, of course, but to start making concessions to bad behavior runs the risk in this instance of elevating the propensity of X% of athletes to be boorish over the freedom of employment of would-be female trainers.

Joined: 12/03/2008

MGoPoints: 59152

Magnus

February 13th, 2016 at 3:27 PM ^

I agree with everything you said. Like I mentioned above, it's a matter of how much bad behavior you find to be acceptable. I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to prevent people from being hired by your organization based on the legal/moral issues it might present. We are all allowed to pursue our dreams, but organizations should not be required to put themselves at risk to support me chasing my dream. 

And if you hire someone who presents a potential issue such as that, then you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences if/when something goes wrong.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

Honk if Ufer M…

February 14th, 2016 at 4:22 PM ^

Since men are the perpetrators here and if perpetration might happen there needs to be segregation, shouldn't it be the perpetrating group that's banned from the scene? No men in locker rooms because they are liable to assault or rape women. 

As you might have heard, men have also raped in schools, in every type of work place, in houses, apartments, bedrooms, living rooms, kitchens, bathrooms, basements, attics, rooftops, gardens, porches, crawl spaces, parks, gyms, pools, ice cream trucks, fire trucks and houses, police stations and cars, sporting goods stores, convenience stores, shoe stores, porn shops, pawn shops, prawn shops, pro shops, produce stands, pro life rallies, protest marches, propane factories, probate court supply rooms, prose writing workshops, prophylactic manufacturing plants, product showrooms, producers offices, piano stores, pie shacks, piss pots, pantries, patisseries, permitting departments, paddocks, podiatrists, pancake emporiums, pizzaria's, porta potties, pho houses, foam parties (phonetic), patios, planned parenthood, piccadilly circus, paramus catholic high, pennsylvania, plattsburg, pacific palisades, podunk, poughkeepsie, peoria.... so no men allowed in any of those places... in fact, there are quite a few more places men have been known to rape so they are now banned from them too.

Hey, where are you now Magnus? Sorry, you're there? Well if a man is there rape is possible so get the fuck out! You're not allowed there you potential fucking rapist!

Joined: 02/22/2015

MGoPoints: 591

MGJS SuperKick Party

February 14th, 2016 at 8:10 AM ^

Your star player, all conference, all state, D-1 talent, does something to a lesser degree, throws something at a kid across the hall, breaks the kids glasses and knocks out a tooth. Doesn't matter if the kid instigated it or not, do you kick him off the team?

What if it's a kid that isn't a starter, c student, etc?

The real issue here is what I am getting at. Sexual Assault is sexual assault. Payton was just used to never being punished for his actions, so he wasn't.

Joined: 08/04/2010

MGoPoints: 14460

Huss

February 13th, 2016 at 1:11 PM ^

Once could type a lengthy response detailing what an ignorant, dimwitted buffoon that you are, but your history on this site has shown you will always be a loser who checks off all of the above character traits.  Pointing out the error in your ways is fruitless when it is 2016 and you are still making halfassed arguments like that.

You should be ashamed of yourself.  Your very existence sets humanity back.  Congrats, I guess.

Joined: 07/08/2008

MGoPoints: 1925

grumbler

February 13th, 2016 at 11:02 PM ^

The other problem, of course, is that Peyton Manning pulished his lies and, either recklessly or maliciously harmed the career of this woman years after the event, and years afer it was supposedly settled.  You can't blame that on "hormones."

He is not a nice person, and he doesn't deserve to have nice things happen to him.  He's an asshole, and what goes around hopefully comes around.  

Joined: 08/17/2011

MGoPoints: 14112

bacon

February 13th, 2016 at 12:26 PM ^

Peyton is not a good dude. The Washington post had an article on Peyton's legal team potentially intimidating a witness in the HGH case. I'm not sure if the "not legitimate" part was a shot at the Washington post, but I thought they were respected. I get that a lot of people have an issue with Al Jazeera and I won't wade into that, but maybe you meant Al Jazeera was "not legitimate". Then again, it's hard to know these days since legitimate news organizations breaking big stories these days are usually yahoo news (Reggie bush), TMZ (Ray rice), and the National Inquirer (yeah, they broke the tiger woods story). https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/inside-peyton-mannings-secret-inv…

Joined: 01/04/2009

MGoPoints: 18646

JimHarbaughFacts

February 13th, 2016 at 12:41 PM ^

There were also rumors of her sleeping with a bunch of the student athletes though.  Not sure if started by the Manning family to further discredit her or she was indeed a bit too cozy with the boys.

Either way you look at it, she was givien the old in and out treatment.

Joined: 02/04/2016

MGoPoints: 41

bacon1431

February 13th, 2016 at 1:04 PM ^

I am sure this goes on in college campuses and athletic domains all the time. That doesn't make it okay. Part of the blame goes to our hero worship of athletes. There's also so much money involved that administrations are going to take a second look at things because they don't want to harm their bottom line or program perception. That is a major problem, along with sexism and victim blaming. 

Joined: 07/26/2008

MGoPoints: 25285

SBayBlue

February 13th, 2016 at 1:13 PM ^

I was in a frat at UM. Doing stupid stuff comes naturally when you attend an all boys school and then in a fraternity. Thankfully, Twitter was not around. Taking crap from my fellow brothers was enough to put you through the ringer.

Even with the hormones flowing at frat parties, I can't think of a time when I would do something so vulgar, even after purple punch Everclear parties with sororities. Then, I would lie about the event, blame it on someone else, which caused them to lose their position on a team, then essentially get the victim fired, then rub the victim's nose in it, slander them with racially-themed overtones about promiscuity and all around trash mouth them.

No, this isn't a college prank. This is something that is much more vicious. 

The coverup is much worse than the crime, which is pretty bad in itself.

He does though deserve his day in court...wait, that happened.

 

Joined: 06/29/2015

MGoPoints: 3586

Clarence Beeks

February 13th, 2016 at 1:20 PM ^

I'm going to preface this with the fact that I absolutely DESPISE Peyton Manning. Here's what I don't like about this article, though: it's largely based on "facts" that are derived from the Plaintiff's statement of the facts (in other words, the facts as the plaintiff views them) in a motion for summary judgment and it completely misstates what the judge's statement means (it doesn't mean it DID happen, just that a reasonable juror COULD conclude that it did, thus it's a question of fact for the jury to decide). The fact that the motion for summary judgment was denied explicitly means that the plaintiff statement of facts are NOT indisputable facts. In other words, the author twists (probably not intentionally, although who knows) legal aspects that were absolutely in question and presents them as undeniable truths, and couples that with the fact that it was settled, to present it as fact. That's just not how it works. Settlement isn't an admission that it actually happened, it's just a reflection that you don't want to roll the dice with a jury at trial. Happens all the time with criminal plea deals. No matter how compelling the author's story is, and no matter how much I dislike Peyton Manning, I have a hard time putting much credibility in this article because of the author's mangling of what the documents actually present.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 22814

bronxblue

February 13th, 2016 at 1:36 PM ^

This has been brought up, but the 74 page document King references was written by the plaintiff in that case, so it is not remotely close to objective. Manning is probably a bit of an ass, and 20 years ago I'm sure he wasn't much better. But at the same time, all I hear is that people deserve second chances, especially for indiscretions while in college, even though sexual assault is a pretty major violation.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171742

bronxblue

February 13th, 2016 at 2:49 PM ^

Oh yeah, it doesn't look good for Manning, and my assumption is he absolutely assaulted this woman and should be held accountable.  I'm just saying that the author (seemingly intentionally) took the plaintiff's argument as truth, when I'm guessing the facts were somewhat in dispute.  But I doubt "sticking my balls on this woman's face" wasn't factually correct.

Also, and I hate to take this stand because I have a young daughter and would murder a guy who did this to her or murder her if she did this to someone else, but it also happened basically a lifetime ago with Manning.  Manning was a dumb college kid born into privilege; chances are he was entitled the moment he stepped onto the campus in Knoxville.  But I'm not sure if every transgression of dumb college kids should be held against them forever as proof they haven't evolved.

Also, I've read enough Daily News articles from guys like King (and the Post, which is the same level of crap) to know that there are ulterior motives than "the truth" in these types of things, so I'm probably a bit salty anyway.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171742

bronxblue

February 13th, 2016 at 5:18 PM ^

I'll admit to not having read the 74 pages, but I'd like to know the wealth of examples (actually, provable examples, not conjectures in a lawsuit) of his inability to evolve as a human being.

Again, nobody here is saying Manning is a saint, and the media love for him definitely has protected him from some scrutiny, but this was something that happened 20 years ago and I haven't heard of numerous other situations in the intervening years where Manning acted as maliciously as he did here.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171742