Mannings mooning incident on ESPN.

#226
#226
If you're a female and you take a job that involves working in a men's locker room then you better count on seeing naked men. Maybe up close. They don't walk around with their junk in a box.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#229
#229
I wonder if they are having second thoughts about mentioning Peyton's incident as evidence of their lawsuit. It has become all about Peyton, the trainer, and Shaun King instead of the rest of the lawsuit. The more recent and more serious alleged crimes aren't being talked about much in the media that I am seeing and hearing. I know they did it for more publicity, but I don't think this is what they wanted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#230
#230
Kristy* said:
Does bring more question to her credibility. Also, before the Manning accusation, she had filed grievances with the university for unfair pay, claiming gender discrimination. She was out for money long before any of the lawsuits.
Click to expand...

ArettaVol said:
I wonder if they are having second thoughts about mentioning Peyton's incident as evidence of their lawsuit. It has become all about Peyton, the trainer, and Shaun King instead of the rest of the lawsuit. The more recent and more serious alleged crimes aren't being talked about much in the media that I am seeing and hearing. I know they did it for more publicity, but I don't think this is what they wanted.
Click to expand...

This could prove to be a huge error in judgment by the plaintiff attorneys IMO. If it causes animosity against their side in the minds of he jurors, it could absolutely cause their side to lose.
 
#231
#231
LA Vol said:
It has been Trash the Mannings Monday on ESPN. Peyton, Archie, Eli, Ashley-- all were pilloried. I wonder if they'll dig up something on Cooper and Olivia-- maybe the grandkids-- and rake them over the coals tomorrow?
Click to expand...

I wonder if the Fox Pregame Show won the bidding war, and ESPN Is now lashing out in a butthurt response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#232
#232
SteelerVol said:
If you're a female and you take a job that involves working in a men's locker room then you better count on seeing naked men. Maybe up close. They don't walk around with their junk in a box.
Click to expand...

seeing/accepting a naked body and having someone put their rectum, balls, and penis in your facial and head region (allegedly) are not even close to the same......
 
#236
#236
griffdog14 said:
yall are defending peyton blindly and it's pretty disgusting.
Click to expand...

No, it's the exact opposite. We're recounting the facts of what happened and putting it in its proper context. If you'll take a minute or two to educate yourself, you'll see this for what it is....a very poor, stupid decision by a young Peyton Manning which wound up costing him a lot of time, money and grief, in large part because of to whom he executed said poor decision with. She's proven herself to be a gold digging liar after having changed her original story of what happened with Manning....her original affidavit said nothing of him making physical contact with her or doing any of the graphic things she later accused him of in the defamation suit....you know, when she was trying to get paid by a very rich professional athlete.

And with her also going after a "Donna Karan employed physical therapist" in 2010 where she also sought legal damages, she's further demonstrated exactly who she is.

And then, when you throw in the political aspects here with the race baiting motives of disgraced "black guy" Shaun King....

You're trying too hard to be "objective" and in so doing, you're missing the forest for the trees.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#237
#237
wesleydmartin said:
seeing/accepting a naked body and having someone put their rectum, balls, and penis in your facial and head region (allegedly) are not even close to the same......
Click to expand...

To be sure, you're correct. The problem is that her story changed....her original affidavit said nothing of "tea bagging" or any physical contact from Peyton. 7 years later, when she sued Manning for defamation, the details of what happened somehow became much more graphic and "serious". And given that she had a similar case thrown out of court in 2010, where she went after a physical therapist for damages, the veracity of her statements and content of her character have to come into question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#238
#238
KBVol said:
To be sure, you're correct. The problem is that her story changed....her original affidavit said nothing of "tea bagging" or any physical contact from Peyton. 7 years later, when she sued Manning for defamation, the details of what happened somehow became much more graphic and "serious". And given that she had a similar case thrown out of court in 2010, where she went after a physical therapist for damages, the veracity of her statements and content of her character have to come into question.
Click to expand...

my statement was a direct answer to what steelerVol stated......

maybe i am wrong for thinking more happened, maybe you are wrong for thinking nothing did, regardless my statement was a direct response to that...we cant make blanket statements like you can expect this or that because there may be naked bodies around in your workplace....

even if that is just mooning, if the mooning is unwanted.....fair or no?
 
#239
#239
wesleydmartin said:
seeing/accepting a naked body and having someone put their rectum, balls, and penis in your facial and head region (allegedly) are not even close to the same......
Click to expand...

So, trying to visualize this being physically possible in one maneuver.
Peyton would have to back up while pulling the ole....grab and tuck, tuck, and push, push...Omaha ! Omaha!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#240
#240
It is fascinating that cowards such as colored font (sometimes green) will not respond to the charges here that Jamie Naughright is a gold digger... I guess you don't have much to work with anymore do you?
 
#241
#241
wesleydmartin said:
my statement was a direct answer to what steelerVol stated......

maybe i am wrong for thinking more happened, maybe you are wrong for thinking nothing did, regardless my statement was a direct response to that...we cant make blanket statements like you can expect this or that because there may be naked bodies around in your workplace....

even if that is just mooning, if the mooning is unwanted.....fair or no?
Click to expand...

I never said "nothing" happened, clearly something did. All I'm doing is looking at the full story and timeline of what she said happened ..... and it's clearly documented that she changed her story, from him "exposing himself"/mooning her, to something much more graphic and involved seven years later when she directly sued him for damages due to defamation. And since she's had another case(s) where she's sued for damages, she's been referred to as a "serial litigant"....to me that's relevant to whether or not she was being honest about what happened.

Here....this is an excerpt from an article by Clay Travis that pieces together what likely happened based on her original affidavit....


The trainer signed an affidavit that mentioned no physical contact from Peyton Manning in 1996.

She also didn't mention any contact in the interview with Tennessee, which was conducted after her sexual harassment claim. Here is a link to that document. And here's what she said then.


"She (the trainer) was working on (redacted, but it's Peyton Manning's) foot when she heard laughter and looked up to see his exposed rear end. She stated that she then pushed (Peyton Manning) and said, "You're an ass."
So this woman is on record under penalty of perjury saying that Manning never touched her back in 1996. Isn't that kind of an important detail to include in any story about this incident? She suddenly changes her story in 2003 after having made statements that don't mention him touching her seven years ago. The law generally favors the most contemporary version of events possible since it's the one least likely to be altered by memory. So it's important to note that in this trainer's original statement to the University of Tennessee as part of her sexual harassment investigation she made no mention of Manning touching her.

Who's more believable, the person telling the same story for twenty years or the person who abruptly changes her story seven years later?


Let's talk the physics of this mooning.

If Manning isn't facing her and drops his pants, wouldn't she, since she's working on his foot, have seen his pants around his ankles? I don't know about you, but when I drop my pants or shorts they end up around my ankles. She says she noticed his actions because she heard "laughter and looked up to see his exposed rear end" from others in the training room, not because his pants appeared around his ankles. That means Manning didn't even drop his pants, he just pulled them down. Which is, you know, exactly what you do when you moon someone. You just pull down your pants in the back.

It also makes it harder to see how Manning's scrotal region could ever come in contact with her -- as she has claimed since 2003 -- unless he has superhuman clinching ability, it's hard to see how Manning could keep his pants from falling down once his pants and underwear passed his ass. (Yes, this is why i went to law school, to analyze the physics of mooning.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#242
#242
KBVol said:
I never said "nothing" happened, clearly something did. All I'm doing is looking at the full story and timeline of what she said happened ..... and it's clearly documented that she changed her story, from him "exposing himself"/mooning her, to something much more graphic and involved seven years later when she directly sued him for damages due to defamation. And since she's had another case(s) where she's sued for damages, she's been referred to as a "serial litigant"....to me that's relevant to whether or not she was being honest about what happened.

Here....this is an excerpt from an article by Clay Travis that pieces together what likely happened based on her original affidavit....


The trainer signed an affidavit that mentioned no physical contact from Peyton Manning in 1996.

She also didn't mention any contact in the interview with Tennessee, which was conducted after her sexual harassment claim. Here is a link to that document. And here's what she said then.


"She (the trainer) was working on (redacted, but it's Peyton Manning's) foot when she heard laughter and looked up to see his exposed rear end. She stated that she then pushed (Peyton Manning) and said, "You're an ass."
So this woman is on record under penalty of perjury saying that Manning never touched her back in 1996. Isn't that kind of an important detail to include in any story about this incident? She suddenly changes her story in 2003 after having made statements that don't mention him touching her seven years ago. The law generally favors the most contemporary version of events possible since it's the one least likely to be altered by memory. So it's important to note that in this trainer's original statement to the University of Tennessee as part of her sexual harassment investigation she made no mention of Manning touching her.

Who's more believable, the person telling the same story for twenty years or the person who abruptly changes her story seven years later?


Let's talk the physics of this mooning.

If Manning isn't facing her and drops his pants, wouldn't she, since she's working on his foot, have seen his pants around his ankles? I don't know about you, but when I drop my pants or shorts they end up around my ankles. She says she noticed his actions because she heard "laughter and looked up to see his exposed rear end" from others in the training room, not because his pants appeared around his ankles. That means Manning didn't even drop his pants, he just pulled them down. Which is, you know, exactly what you do when you moon someone. You just pull down your pants in the back.

It also makes it harder to see how Manning's scrotal region could ever come in contact with her -- as she has claimed since 2003 -- unless he has superhuman clinching ability, it's hard to see how Manning could keep his pants from falling down once his pants and underwear passed his ass. (Yes, this is why i went to law school, to analyze the physics of mooning.)
Click to expand...

She sounds like a liar.
 
#245
#245
This is what should be being reported by the media. First word that comes to my mind is "disgusting".
 
#248
#248
Did Naughright brimg any of this up? I don't think she did. It was a writer for the NY Daily News. She can't control what they type.

It's not her fault the media and morons think this is a current issue.
 
#249
#249
Her motto is, "I want money and I don't want to work for it." Stick it Shaun King. Both of you are filth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#250
#250
I haven't done my due diligence in the research of the suit, but is Peytons' accuser (naughtrite or whatever her name is), one of the 6 plaintiffs in the current title IX suit?
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top