Mannings mooning incident on ESPN.

#76
#76
normalfootballfan said:
That's what I alway thought. I would think that, for a doctor, albeit a female doctor, this sort of thing can happen in a college boys locker room. It's not like he laid them on the shoulder of Gert sitting in the pew in front of him at church.
Click to expand...

"Damn"..... Signed Gert
 
#77
#77
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#78
#78
wfd53 said:
You state no one knows exactly what happened immediately after speculating it was more than just mooning. So which road you taking, high or low?
Click to expand...

You're right, I can see where it seems contradictory. So just to be clear, I think something happened and I don't think Peyton is completely innocent. I think it's reasonable, based on what we do know (not speculation), that he acted improperly. He's pretty-much acknowledged that, from what I understand. But that doesn't mean the trainer's version of events is 100% accurate -- or that it rose to the level of sexual assault.

I think what happened was an ill-advised prank that went wrong. I think that the Peyton Manning of today (or even 15 years ago) would not have done this (whatever it was, exactly). But he was a young man and he made a bad decision. I don't think it was anything that was done out of malice or intent to harm the trainer. I think he used bad judgement, like a lot of young people do. And because of it, he made himself vulnerable to an accusation.

I admit that I am speculating, based on information I have seen over the past 20 years. I wasn't there. None of us were. So I don't know. That's why I think the presumption of innocence is so important.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#81
#81
"Craziest UT settlement detail is this woman asked for a 1996 citrus bowl ring. The 1996 citrus bowl ring!"

-tweet from Clay Travis
 
#82
#82
Isn't there a "statute of limitations" on this??

If true, this was a hazing incident, nothing more!

You can't compare something like this from the 90's to the HYPER sensitivity of today!

I guess there is no Time Limit on SMEARING a Manning! :banghead2::banghead2:





.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#83
#83
Chilmonty said:
Isn't there a "statute of limitations" on this??

If true, this was a hazing incident, nothing more!

You can't compare something like this from the 90's to the HYPER sensitivity of today!

I guess there is no Time Limit on SMEARING a Manning! :banghead2::banghead2:





.
Click to expand...

Manning isn't being sued. It's being discussed. There is no statute of limitations discussing something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#84
#84
Dragging PM & a 20 year old prank that was already settled shows they're grasping & trying to get something for nothing. I'm thinking UT will fight this & not settle.
 
#85
#85
I thought I had asked this before:

Wasn't Jamie Whited (when she was on the staff) married to John Whited? The same John Whited whose father was UT Baseball coach for several years AND is related to Coach Majors?

During all this (when it first happened) I remember the comment she attributed to Fulmer "...You like big men don't you?" when she was taping his foot or something like that.

Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong.
 
#86
#86
volboy81 said:
Dragging PM & a 20 year old prank that was already settled shows they're grasping & trying to get something for nothing. I'm thinking UT will fight this & not settle.
Click to expand...

You obviously have not read the Depostion....

This was not a prank, it's starting to become very clear what Peyton's intentions were!
 
#87
#87
This was perfectly orchestrated by plaintiffs' attorney. The fact that manning and the Broncos went to the super bowl and won just increased the spectacle. This time period is severe wasteland in sports talk. There is NOTHING to talk/write about. There are six weeks until March madness giving any new story, or scandal, unrivaled air time.
 
#88
#88
i was around the program very closely during these days. this happened in an area of the locker room no females should have been at the time as i recall. This young lady sued basically because he was fixing to sign a multi million dollar contract and she was traumatized by seeing his butt.This whole mess comes down to one thing... the police. They are responsible to investigate and arrest suspects of rape! Not UT, as i recall we have suspended every player accused of rape or sexual assault until the investigation was complete. What else can UT or any other school do. I know for a fact the UT Police teaches RAD. Its a rape and sexual assault class to both men and girls. I am pretty sure that every freshman is required to have this class. These cases are often very hard to investigate and prove because of the circumstances of how these things happen. Due process is very important for any person accused of a crime. More times than not these girls report these things for many reasons. A lot of times police find out that the female doesn't always tell all of the facts and the suspect is cleared from any criminal issues. Thats the reason for the RAD Classes. It is meant to teach both men women how these parties and drinking can go wrong and result in decisions they regret later. That doesn't always lead to criminal arrest. I think UT should suspend any student accused of sexual assault or rape. For the athletes they have to know that these type incidents hold a greater harm to them than the normal student... and stay away from these situations. There is a wrong response to this,ignoring accusations and continuing to allow the student/ athlete to participate in sports or school is wrong. BUT everyone deserves DUE PROCESS the victims and the suspects. I believe Butch Jones and UT have done right by the victims/accusers in these cases. But again, because they are football/basketball...ect players the assumption is they received favorable decisions when accused. Think of this... If UT POLICE or KPD want to charge a athlete with rape or any other charge... they can't be stopped by Butch or UT. The officers would not stand for it nor would the victims! THIS WHOLE THIMG IS A MONEY GRAB!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#90
#90
Hacksaw said:
There's this quaint little legal principle called presumption of innocence. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway.
Click to expand...

Legally that door swings both ways; the accusor is not presumed to be a gold-digger or otherwise acting without justification until shown to be.

In UT football land, however, the door has but one knob if these postings are indication.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#91
#91
TennVols423 said:
You obviously have not read the Depostion....

This was not a prank, it's starting to become very clear what Peyton's intentions were!
Click to expand...

Please. 20 years later it's just now starting to become clear? I guess in the year 2036 we might actually really know something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#92
#92
Chilmonty said:
He is named in the lawsuit! Is he not?



.
Click to expand...

His name is mentioned in regards to this episode from 20 years ago pertaining to the "culture" at UT. Manning isn't being sued.

The Jalen Hurd incident from Dec. 2014 is also mentioned...Hurd isn't being sued.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#93
#93
NCFisher said:
Legally that door swings both ways; the accusor is not presumed to be a gold-digger or otherwise acting without justification until shown to be.

In UT football land, however, the door has but one knob if these postings are indication.
Click to expand...

LOL! Listen, I admit I'm not an attorney. Maybe we have one here who can correct me if I'm wrong. But there's no way the legal principle of "presumption of innocence" pertains to anyone but the accused.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#94
#94
BigorangeBoy said:
I thought I had asked this before:

Wasn't Jamie Whited (when she was on the staff) married to John Whited? The same John Whited whose father was UT Baseball coach for several years AND is related to Coach Majors?

During all this (when it first happened) I remember the comment she attributed to Fulmer "...You like big men don't you?" when she was taping his foot or something like that.

Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

That is correct. Fulmer's comment that "You like big men don't you?" was a reference to Jamie Whited having dated some linemen on the football team. Jamie Whited also went by the nickname "Bumper" which was given to her by athletes and that she didn't discourage those male athletes from calling her that until she cited it's use in her civil lawsuit against the University of Tenn.

In the settlement, it was acknowledged that Whited had sent mixed signals to athletes regarding what was appropriate behavior but she still took home $300K.
 
#95
#95
I think she's running low on $ and wants to sell her story again. Nydaily news probably bit.
 
#96
#96
Hacksaw said:
Please. 20 years later it's just now starting to become clear? I guess in the year 2036 we might actually really know something.
Click to expand...

I almost named my son Peyton, this hurts....

Peyton is wrong, the Mannings are wrong....instead of being a man and owning up to his childish "prank" he instead trashed the woman.

Believe me, I felt same way up until I read the deposition and the letter from Saxson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#98
#98
The 2003 suit was because it caused difficulties for her after she was referred to (anonymously) in Mannings book.

I'm sure she'll be having those same difficulties now after all of this publicity. But who does she sue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#99
#99
What kills me is some on ESPN are comparing this to Ray Rice and Greg Hardy.

This is the same ESPN that employs Ray Lewis and probably pays him big bucks.
 
Last edited:
#100
#100
Hacksaw said:
You're assuming that's what happened. If you weren't there at the time, then you don't know. We shouldn't state things as a matter of fact when we have no way of knowing one way or the other. That's how these rumors get perpetuated and established as false facts in the minds of the public.
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming anything.
I gleaned that from the court documents!
Aside from that, the university wouldn't have paid Dr. Naughright a settlement of $300,000 back then for something that didn't happen.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top