+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Around the NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-11.html)
+--- Thread: Manning lawsuit (/thread-5206.html)
Pages:
1
2
Manning lawsuit - SunsetBengal - 02-15-2016
I find it quite ironic that winning the Super Bowl, in what was assumed to be the swan song of a future H.O.F. QB, that these alleged sexual assault lawsuits are just now being discovered. All of this information has been available for years. Why bring it up, when the guy is getting ready to retire? I have a lot of respect for Peyton Manning's football accomplishments, but could never be accused of being a "fan", as he always played for teams that I had no rooting interest in. Personally, I see this as an ugly smear campaign by a sportswriter just trying to build his own reputation.
How do you see it?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/new-documents-reveal-additional-lawsuits-between-peyton-manning-sex-assault-accuser/ar-BBpvA10?ocid=spartandhp
RE: Manning lawsuit - CKwi88 - 02-15-2016
Peyton was very lucky that he sexually assaulted a woman before the advent of social media.
RE: Manning lawsuit - GMDino - 02-15-2016
(02-15-2016, 12:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I find it quite ironic that winning the Super Bowl, in what was assumed to be the swan song of a future H.O.F. QB, that these alleged sexual assault lawsuits are just now being discovered. All of this information has been available for years. Why bring it up, when the guy is getting ready to retire? I have a lot of respect for Peyton Manning's football accomplishments, but could never be accused of being a "fan", as he always played for teams that I had no rooting interest in. Personally, I see this as an ugly smear campaign by a sportswriter just trying to build his own reputation.
How do you see it?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/new-documents-reveal-additional-lawsuits-between-peyton-manning-sex-assault-accuser/ar-BBpvA10?ocid=spartandhp
It has been brought up because he didn't get the same treatment Cam got for being a sore loser.
IMHO the two are not equal (mannings is much, much worse) but that doesn't mean you can't take either one to task for their actions. Manning's just happened before social media would burn him down for it.
I saw a post over the weekend that reproduced a 74 page report on what Manning did...only to find out through another source that it was written by the victim's lawyers so was completely one sided (as it should have been) but not necessarily 100% accurate.
I said there, and will say here, the bigger problem is anyone considers these athletes as anything more than human with all that faults and foibles we all have.
Manning may have done something awful in his past. He also has had 20 years to change his life. Cam may be a sore loser (and also done a few very questionable things in his past) but he also has a chance to change that. He just has to suffer through the criticism until then.
There will always be critics...the question is how you handle them.
RE: Manning lawsuit - SunsetBengal - 02-15-2016
(02-15-2016, 01:12 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Peyton was very lucky that he sexually assaulted a woman before the advent of social media.
Was it truly a "sexual assault"? What I'm getting from the reading, sounds like a "tea bagging" type prank. Somewhat typical tasteless prank that was popular among mischievous young men, in that time era. Sounds to me like someone told her that she should not have accepted it as a joke, and that there was great profit to be made from screaming "sexual assault". That is just my personal take on the matter. The truth is likely something a bit more in the middle of the two scenarios.
RE: Manning lawsuit - rfaulk34 - 02-15-2016
All the hubbub seems to be that Manning has always claimed he was mooning a teammate and it was (paraphrasing here since i'm not sure of the exact terminology) an accident. In a book he makes claims about a woman sleeping around with football players and being very vulgar. Both of those claims have been denied by people "in the know", specifically a past teammate that was asked to stick to a certain story and the player not only claimed it didn't happen that way, he feels Peyton is lying and won't take responsibility.
RE: Manning lawsuit - CKwi88 - 02-15-2016
(02-15-2016, 01:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Was it truly a "sexual assault"? What I'm getting from the reading, sounds like a "tea bagging" type prank. Somewhat typical tasteless prank that was popular among mischievous young men, in that time era. Sounds to me like someone told her that she should not have accepted it as a joke, and that there was great profit to be made from screaming "sexual assault". That is just my personal take on the matter. The truth is likely something a bit more in the middle of the two scenarios.
The definition of sexual assault:
Quote:US Department of Justice:
Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.
So yeah, a true sexual assault. Maybe you'd be cool having a man's testicles and rectum placed on your face, who knows, you might enjoy it as a prank. I'm not as much of a fan. I don't think anybody should be subject to it.
But hey, boys will be boys right?
RE: Manning lawsuit - SunsetBengal - 02-15-2016
(02-15-2016, 02:49 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: The definition of sexual assault:
So yeah, a true sexual assault. Maybe you'd be cool having a man's testicles and rectum placed on your face, who knows, you might enjoy it as a prank. I'm not as much of a fan. I don't think anybody should be subject to it.
But hey, boys will be boys right?
Yeah, yeah I get the technical definition of the term. I was speaking of the typical notion of sexual assault being where one party forces the other to actually have sex, or to perform some sort of gratification on them. I did say tasteless, when I alluded to it being a prank. Your implication that I may somehow enjoy that sort of thing was unwarranted, and over the top.
RE: Manning lawsuit - RoyleRedlegs - 02-15-2016
It was stupid and dumb. It was also 20 years ago and for all intents and purposes, settled.
Anyone who truly reaches greatness in ultra-competitive fields like sports, business etc, are prone to being assholes. It's just a part of how they are wired.
If we had the social media and communication skills we have now back in the 20s, 30s etc our "heroes" wouldn't be heroes. But assholes, just like all of the modern players.
Peyton then kept his nose clean for 20 years. He earned his reputation.
Seems silly to me to punish him for something 20 years ago that was stupid and immature but not a terrible crime that deserves jail time or anything.
FYI, the original complaint by the lady involved never mentioned contact with any part of Peyton...that came much later.
RE: Manning lawsuit - CKwi88 - 02-15-2016
(02-15-2016, 03:04 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yeah, yeah I get the technical definition of the term. I was speaking of the typical notion of sexual assault being where one party forces the other to actually have sex, or to perform some sort of gratification on them. I did say tasteless, when I alluded to it being a prank. Your implication that I may somehow enjoy that sort of thing was unwarranted, and over the top.
That's called rape.
I'm sorry you took my comment as meaning you'd enjoy the act. I was speaking of the enjoying the typical notion of it being a prank, not the action. Sorry you thought of the possibility of taking some sort of gratification from a dude's balls in your grill.
Nevertheless, had that been my intention, it would be no less unwarranted than thinking that a woman took Manning to court because she couldn't "accept it as a joke" or because "there was a great profit to be made." She was sexually assaulted. There's nothing to be taken as a joke.
RE: Manning lawsuit - SunsetBengal - 02-15-2016
(02-15-2016, 03:30 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: That's called rape.
I'm sorry you took my comment as meaning you'd enjoy the act. I was speaking of the enjoying the typical notion of it being a prank, not the action. Sorry you thought of the possibility of taking some sort of gratification from a dude's balls in your grill.
Nevertheless, had that been my intention, it would be no less unwarranted than thinking that a woman took Manning to court because she couldn't "accept it as a joke" or because "there was a great profit to be made." She was sexually assaulted. There's nothing to be taken as a joke.
Remember, we're talking about 20 years ago. Times were different, as well as what many would consider sexual assault, or an ugly, tasteless prank. Either way, I think Manning likely regretted his actions, and obviously thought better than to ever put himself in such a compromising position, where his reputation and livelihood were at stake.
RE: Manning lawsuit - BengalHawk62 - 02-15-2016
"Teabagging" is now considered sexual assault? Whoa, I'm glad I grew up in the time before social media and cell phones and cameras. You guys would pry not have the pleasure of knowing me otherwise! I'd probably be locked away in jail convicted of teabagging and pissing in public, an offense I learned which can land you on the 'sex offender list'.
RE: Manning lawsuit - fredtoast - 02-15-2016
When the victim first made the claim it was just a "mooning" where he exposed his buttocks to her. I never heard about him "teabagging" her.
Also the suit filed is not against Peyton at all. It is against the University of Tennessee for the way they handled multiple claims of improper sexual conduct by athletes.
I have no idea what Peyton really did, but i wuold not be surprised if he was protected by the University when it happened.
RE: Manning lawsuit - Nately120 - 02-17-2016
(02-15-2016, 03:04 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yeah, yeah I get the technical definition of the term. I was speaking of the typical notion of sexual assault being where one party forces the other to actually have sex, or to perform some sort of gratification on them. I did say tasteless, when I alluded to it being a prank. Your implication that I may somehow enjoy that sort of thing was unwarranted, and over the top.
Why, does it insult you when people insinuate that you should either dismiss or enjoy being sexually assaulted? Just think if someone stuck his balls in your face and then when you made a fuss about it people went back into your history and came up with dirty jokes and/or explicit things you did or said to "prove" that it either didn't happen or you wanted it.
Ouch, I says!
(02-15-2016, 03:50 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Remember, we're talking about 20 years ago. Times were different, as well as what many would consider sexual assault, or an ugly, tasteless prank.
Wait, so 20 years ago if some guy put his balls in your face it would have been ok?
(02-15-2016, 04:12 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: "Teabagging" is now considered sexual assault? Whoa, I'm glad I grew up in the time before social media and cell phones and cameras. You guys would pry not have the pleasure of knowing me otherwise! I'd probably be locked away in jail convicted of teabagging and pissing in public, an offense I learned which can land you on the 'sex offender list'.
Not to sound all judgy or anything, but did you really place your testicles in the faces of unwilling women when you were in your 20s? I must have missed out on just being one of the guys, but that sounds a bit extreme.
Anywho, to any of the guys who think forcing your balls in a woman's face is ok...do your wives and/or daughters share your sentiment? Sounds like I have a lot of living to catch up on!
RE: Manning lawsuit - Awful Llama - 02-17-2016
(02-17-2016, 07:13 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Not to sound all judgy or anything, but did you really place your testicles in the faces of unwilling women when you were in your 20s? I must have missed out on just being one of the guys, but that sounds a bit extreme.
And dangerous. Is it ever a good idea to put your balls in the face of someone who's not ok with them being there? Better watch those teeth
RE: Manning lawsuit - GMDino - 02-17-2016
Good read with links.
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2016/2/16/10985008/peyton-manning-ut-sexual-assault-jamie-naughright-1996
Some insight on the 74 page paper that King released and some other different info.
RE: Manning lawsuit - Bmoreblitz - 02-18-2016
I'm surprised this surfaced again. I mentioned it before.
I thought he paid her off though many years ago.
RE: Manning lawsuit - BengalHawk62 - 02-18-2016
(02-17-2016, 07:13 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Why, does it insult you when people insinuate that you should either dismiss or enjoy being sexually assaulted? Just think if someone stuck his balls in your face and then when you made a fuss about it people went back into your history and came up with dirty jokes and/or explicit things you did or said to "prove" that it either didn't happen or you wanted it.
Ouch, I says!
Wait, so 20 years ago if some guy put his balls in your face it would have been ok?
Not to sound all judgy or anything, but did you really place your testicles in the faces of unwilling women when you were in your 20s? I must have missed out on just being one of the guys, but that sounds a bit extreme.
Anywho, to any of the guys who think forcing your balls in a woman's face is ok...do your wives and/or daughters share your sentiment? Sounds like I have a lot of living to catch up on!
You've never done anything stupid while drunk in college? Sorry if I sound judgy but not everyone lived our college years in the monastery with all the other nuns.
RE: Manning lawsuit - RoyleRedlegs - 02-18-2016
(02-18-2016, 08:03 AM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: I'm surprised this surfaced again. I mentioned it before.
I thought he paid her off though many years ago.
The University settled with her in 96.
Then Peyton wrote (very briefly) about it in a 2003 book.
She sued him for breaching the non-disclosure agreement.
Then she changed her story from, he mooned her (signed affidavit in 96 says no actual contact) 7 years later, she starts the teabag claim.
Peyton cannot comment on the story due to the non-disclosure agreement.
Basically, everyone is giving her the benefit of the doubt, which there is legitimate question as to which she deserves, for her interpretation of the events 7 years after it happened.
RE: Manning lawsuit - fredtoast - 02-18-2016
Not that it changes anything that Peyton did, but the guy that broke this story, Shaun King, is crazy.
Jason Whitlock claims that he is a white guy posing as a black guy, and is such an over-the-top race hustler that he has been kicked out of the Black Lives Matter movement.
RE: Manning lawsuit - Interceptor - 02-18-2016
Isn't there like a statute of limitations on this sort of thing?