Mannings mooning incident on ESPN.

#276
#276
vol66 said:
Again, you are focusing on Manning...When your direct supervisor calls you a C*&% Bumper referring to the fact that she came from the women's department and that implies everyone on that side is a lesbian it shows a disdain for half the department and if they call all of these disgruntled people, that UT has settled with previously to the stand they might be able to prove a pattern of behavior that suggests to a jury that the culture was not positive for women...which is the point.
Click to expand...

Okay, that is bad, but none of it has anything to do with the plaintiffs' direct claims.

The biggest problem for UT is Rogers IMO. His testimony most likely will be devastating.
 
#277
#277
RobsPics said:
What lie did she say in her original settlement statement in the 90's?
Click to expand...

No, no one is saying she lied in her original statement. It's the fact that her story changed so drastically in 2003 when giving her statement of what originally happened in her defamation suit vs Manning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#278
#278
EZE said:
Okay, that is bad, but none of it has anything to do with the plaintiffs' direct claims.

The biggest problem for UT is Rogers IMO. His testimony most likely will be devastating.
Click to expand...

As for these plaintiffs, their attorney will want to show that there is a culture of trying to protect the athletes, keeping them eligible, etc...just as that direct supervisor did when he labeled the incident you are referring to with Manning "a mooning" and a prank in order to "fix" the situation.
 
#279
#279
KBVol said:
No, no one is saying she lied in her original statement. It's the fact that her story changed so drastically in 2003 when giving her statement of what originally happened in her defamation suit vs Manning.
Click to expand...

Is the drastic change you are referring to the accuser's description of what occurred between the accuser and Manning? From what I have read, it's not a drastic change. Rather the 2003 description is more detailed than the previous one.
 
#280
#280
timesfreepress.com has posted article where attorney who filed lawsuit is shocked about amount of coverage generated by citing Peyton Manning incident in lawsuit. This is Chattanooga newspaper.
 
#281
#281
vol66 said:
As for these plaintiffs, their attorney will want to show that there is a culture of trying to protect the athletes, keeping them eligible, etc...just as that direct supervisor did when he labeled the incident you are referring to with Manning "a mooning" and a prank in order to "fix" the situation.
Click to expand...

Well, according to the original statement Naughright gave, Clay Travis pretty much reconstructed the sequence of events and proved it really could've only been a "mooning" and nothing more. So, we can speculate all we want about how Rollo tried to "fix" the situation....but it sure looks like he mooned her and that's pretty much it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#282
#282
When a person tells two different stories, unless you know the truth, it's hard to pick out the truth.

Both her and Peyton said moon, and she got paid $300,000.

Then Peyton brought it back up in his book(that was a backfire), and he ended up having to pay her more, and she raised the stakes by saying teabag. She should have said teabag the first time and gotten more money.

The point is she can't say moon in 97 then teabag in 2001 and one not be a lie, this making her a liar.

I would rather be lied to than teabagged.
 
#284
#284
KBVol said:
Well, according to the original statement Naughright gave, Clay Travis pretty much reconstructed the sequence of events and proved it really could've only been a "mooning" and nothing more. So, we can speculate all we want about how Rollo tried to "fix" the situation....but it sure looks like he mooned her and that's pretty much it.
Click to expand...

I did get to listen to Travis on Finebaum today and I was not impressed.

I'm neither defending or attacking either party here just expressing my view on what the tactics might be in this latest suit.

As for the Manning incident, she's sued him twice, once in 2003, terms never disclosed and again in 2005 over an ESPN show called Sports Century and based on the Deadspin article which says, "This case stayed in federal court, where it eventually was closed, possibly via a settlement. Many of those documents remain under seal."

The guy has all the money in the world and he sure seems like he wants history to tell his narrative, why does he keep settling with her? I just find it curious, not making a judgement.
 
#287
#287
vol66 said:
I did get to listen to Travis on Finebaum today and I was not impressed.

I'm neither defending or attacking either party here just expressing my view on what the tactics might be in this latest suit.

As for the Manning incident, she's sued him twice, once in 2003, terms never disclosed and again in 2005 over an ESPN show called Sports Century and based on the Deadspin article which says, "This case stayed in federal court, where it eventually was closed, possibly via a settlement. Many of those documents remain under seal."

The guy has all the money in the world and he sure seems like he wants history to tell his narrative, why does he keep settling with her? I just find it curious, not making a judgement.
Click to expand...

The fact that he has that much money so why concern himself, by missing work to go to court, risk a jury of her peers, ruling how much money she will get. Not worth the gamble, just come up with a number and move on. His time on the job is worth more than the amount she was willing to settle for.

All over a mooning or a Teabagging. I stand by preferring to be lied to than teabagged.
 
#288
#288
RobsPics said:
People that aren't trying to hide statements don't have the records sealed.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I'm certain Manning would love to have the mooning part sealed also, so this incident wouldn't be rehashed 20 years later and he wouldn't be getting slandered by wannabe reporters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#289
#289
Quick survey: anybody else not super-thrilled with their behavior or decisions 20 years ago, as a college student? What effect would it have on you if those times were suddenly recast in the public spotlight? PM is a grown man now with a family, kids, countless people looking up to him as a role model (a role he serves very well, IMO).

The media should be ashamed at the way it has handled a "story" nearly two decades old that has been bastardized by a frivolous lawsuit, a sensational "news" website, and a hack "journalist."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#290
#290
KBVol said:
No, no one is saying she lied in her original statement. It's the fact that her story changed so drastically in 2003 when giving her statement of what originally happened in her defamation suit vs Manning.
Click to expand...
Exactly KB, you must have watched as well. That the accused suddenly and years later comes up with a level of detail she happened not to mention and changed the events of the encounter significantly does not pass the red face test on one end of her account timeline or the other. In the 90s she initiated contact pushing him away, in 2003 suddenly it was Peyton who initiated contact, so her events cannot be squared with each other, her supporters are forced to choose, which was the lie, the 90s or 2003? Both events cannot be correct and the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#291
#291
kiddiedoc said:
Quick survey: anybody else not super-thrilled with their behavior or decisions 20 years ago, as a college student? What effect would it have on you if those times were suddenly recast in the public spotlight? PM is a grown man now with a family, kids, countless people looking up to him as a role model (a role he serves very well, IMO).

The media should be ashamed at the way it has handled a "story" nearly two decades old that has been bastardized by a frivolous lawsuit, a sensational "news" website, and a hack "journalist."
Click to expand...

I totally agree... but today's media is seldom ashamed. The profession no longer has ethics. The currency is clicks and page views, and the hacks don't care how they get them or how many people they hurt. They are unconcerned with facts, and when they're wrong, they no longer print retractions or apologize. Shaun King is the poster hack for all that's wrong with the media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#294
#294
RobsPics said:
What lie did she say in her original settlement statement in the 90's?
Click to expand...

she had a minimum of 2 opportunities to bring it up in the first case in '96. First, she would have to write or tell a police officer what happened in that locker room, and if she was telling the officer, he was writing it down, and then gave her a copy of the report to sign and validate.
Secondly, at the deposition the attorney would have asked her to describe what happened, and she should have brought that up then.

There would have been a third time, at trail but I'm not sure it went to trial since the University settled it.
 
#295
#295
vol66 said:
I did get to listen to Travis on Finebaum today and I was not impressed.

I'm neither defending or attacking either party here just expressing my view on what the tactics might be in this latest suit.

As for the Manning incident, she's sued him twice, once in 2003, terms never disclosed and again in 2005 over an ESPN show called Sports Century and based on the Deadspin article which says, "This case stayed in federal court, where it eventually was closed, possibly via a settlement. Many of those documents remain under seal."

The guy has all the money in the world and he sure seems like he wants history to tell his narrative, why does he keep settling with her? I just find it curious, not making a judgement.
Click to expand...

First off, from reading your last paragraph, I'd say you've already passed judgment.

Second, he was bound by a nondisclosure agreement from the 1996-97 lawsuit Naughright brought against the University. He broke that nondisclosure agreement when he wrote his book a few years. I haven't read the book but from what I heard yesterday, he didn't actually mention her name when briefly recounting what happened. Just said what happened from his perspective and said the trainer had a filthy mouth. So a quick question....if it was more than what he said, was actually what she later changed her story to, had already been settled and done with, why in the world would he dredge the story back up which would ultimately only cause him and his reputation harm? Doesn't make sense. If he felt like he got off easy or gotten away with something because what was a much more serious incident was only written off as a mooning, why in the world would he bring it back up and risk that the real truth get out and cause him serious damage? IMHO, no one would do that, hence, why I think his story is more credible and hers is not, especially since her story changed.

Third, if I'm a rich dude with millions in the bank, and something like this happens and I'm advised that I can essentially part with some pocket change to make something go away that's gonna hurt my reputation, I'd very likely part with the cash to make it go away as quickly and painlessly as possible, rather than spend time in court and the national media's headlines.

Finally, in Naughright's original lawsuit, she listed 32 instances of "sexual harassment"....THIRTY-TWO.....including saying that Phil Fulmer had come onto her and that Gus Mannning had "inappropriate communication" with her. Geez, that sounds legit. I casually knew Jamie when I was a student at UT in the late 80s when she lived in Humes and I lived in Reese Hall in presidential courtyard. She was acquaintances with my girlfriend and I actually helped coach an intramural flag football team she played on (before she hurt her knee, tore an ACL iirc). She was a skinny, unattractive Jersey girl....long stringy bleach blonde hair, big ass nose, walked like a dude, just not very attractive at all. A large rack was about all she had going for her. Perhaps that has something to do with all this....perhaps a little insecurity and a thirst for large sums of "easy money" from people and institutions with deep pockets? Probably helps explain her other lawsuit(s) vs Donna Karan as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#296
#296
kiddiedoc said:
Quick survey: anybody else not super-thrilled with their behavior or decisions 20 years ago, as a college student? What effect would it have on you if those times were suddenly recast in the public spotlight? PM is a grown man now with a family, kids, countless people looking up to him as a role model (a role he serves very well, IMO).

The media should be ashamed at the way it has handled a "story" nearly two decades old that has been bastardized by a frivolous lawsuit, a sensational "news" website, and a hack "journalist."
Click to expand...

Well said:salute:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#297
#297
BowlBrother85 said:
It is her fault that she is a gold digger who filed a frivolous lawsuit against Donna Karan.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the Title IX lawsuit? NOTHING. Peyton Manning isn't on trial. That case was settled 19 years ago.

Who cares if she filed a frivolous lawsuit against Donna Karan? It has nothing to do with UT.

montanatenn said:
Is she a plaintiff in the current title IX suit?
Click to expand...

No, she isn't. People are getting wound up over something that happened 20 years ago and trying to make it sound like this person is in a current legal battle with Manning...which she isn't.
 
#299
#299
KBVol said:
First off, from reading your last paragraph, I'd say you've already passed judgment.

Second, he was bound by a nondisclosure agreement from the 1996-97 lawsuit Naughright brought against the University. He broke that nondisclosure agreement when he wrote his book a few years. I haven't read the book but from what I heard yesterday, he didn't actually mention her name when briefly recounting what happened. Just said what happened from his perspective and said the trainer had a filthy mouth. So a quick question....if it was more than what he said, was actually what she later changed her story to, had already been settled and done with, why in the world would he dredge the story back up which would ultimately only cause him and his reputation harm? Doesn't make sense. If he felt like he got off easy or gotten away with something because what was a much more serious incident was only written off as a mooning, why in the world would he bring it back up and risk that the real truth get out and cause him serious damage? IMHO, no one would do that, hence, why I think his story is more credible and hers is not, especially since her story changed.

Third, if I'm a rich dude with millions in the bank, and something like this happens and I'm advised that I can essentially part with some pocket change to make something go away that's gonna hurt my reputation, I'd very likely part with the cash to make it go away as quickly and painlessly as possible, rather than spend time in court and the national media's headlines.

Finally, in Naughright's original lawsuit, she listed 32 instances of "sexual harassment"....THIRTY-TWO.....including saying that Phil Fulmer had come onto her and that Gus Mannning had "inappropriate communication" with her. Geez, that sounds legit. I casually knew Jamie when I was a student at UT in the late 80s when she lived in Humes and I lived in Reese Hall in presidential courtyard. She was acquaintances with my girlfriend and I actually helped coach an intramural flag football team she played on (before she hurt her knee, tore an ACL iirc). She was a skinny, unattractive Jersey girl....long stringy bleach blonde hair, big ass nose, walked like a dude, just not very attractive at all. A large rack was about all she had going for her. Perhaps that has something to do with all this....perhaps a little insecurity and a thirst for large sums of "easy money" from people and institutions with deep pockets? Probably helps explain her other lawsuit(s) vs Donna Karan as well.
Click to expand...


A person's subjective physical appearance has nothing to do with whether that person was sexually harassed, or is just being litigious. A "beautiful" person could be very litigious, while an unattractive person could also be legitimately sexually harassed.
 
#300
#300
RobsPics said:
A person's subjective physical appearance has nothing to do with whether that person was sexually harassed, or is just being litigious. A "beautiful" person could be very litigious, while an unattractive person could also be legitimately sexually harassed.
Click to expand...

I agree. Just giving some personal observations and some other possible reasons for her motivations. Never know what makes a person tick. And she's ticking.... Given what I think we know of her, I'm obviously not a fan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top