Sports

[Stray]

I take these stories with a grain of salt....there have been negative stories about Pope Francis and John Paul....the Mannings are a good family, altruistic and do a lot of local charity work.....

[gardenman]

---

@liliblu wrote:

---

@gardenman wrote:

I kind of question the credibilty/sanity of the reporter. He describes getting a 74 page PDF court document while waiting for a plane and then reading it a hundred times while waiting for the flight. Either he's a really, really fast reader or that was the most delayed flight in the history of mankind, but 74 pages read a hundred times would be 7400 pages. For some perspective, "War and Peace" is about 1500 pages. He's essentially claiming to have read "War and Peace" five times while waiting for his flight. Call me crazy, but I'm not buying his story. This feels like a hatchet job to me. Peyton's on top of the world and this reporter is trying to knock him down.

---

The story is true.  Christine Brennan wrote about it in USA Today.  The story has been down played for years.  Manning has paid out two settlements because of the lies he and his family spread about the doctor.

---

Just because someone pays a settlement doesn't mean the original charges were accurate. Settling a case is often the cheapest, easiest, smartest way to resolve an issue even if the party paying the settlement is completely innocent. Legal fees can mount up quickly and a few thousand dollars to make something go away is often the smartest move. Add in the impact of negative publicity on a person's reputation and a settlement can be the only real option. Too many people look at a settlement as an admission of guilt. "I'd never settle if I was innocent! I'd fight to the bitter end to clear my name!"

In the real world, many/most of these accusations become your word against the other person's word, and even winning the case won't erase the damage to your reputation/brand. There will be people who are convinced forever afterwards that you got away with something and you're a bad guy/gal. You may also end up paying ten times in legal fees what it would have cost to settle.

Anyone can accuse pretty much anyone else of anything. Unless you film your entire life then any accusation comes down to your word against the other person's. You can fight it out in court and hope to win, or pay less to make it go away before the accusation has a chance to seriously damage your reputation. Most people opt to pay to make the charge go away.

The writer who revived this old story is the guy whose credibility I seriously question. He claims to have read the 74 page PDF a hundred times while waiting for his plane. That's 7400 pages of reading all while waiting for a plane. That seems a tad extreme to me.

[liliblu]

---

@gardenman wrote:

---

@liliblu wrote:

---

@gardenman wrote:

I kind of question the credibilty/sanity of the reporter. He describes getting a 74 page PDF court document while waiting for a plane and then reading it a hundred times while waiting for the flight. Either he's a really, really fast reader or that was the most delayed flight in the history of mankind, but 74 pages read a hundred times would be 7400 pages. For some perspective, "War and Peace" is about 1500 pages. He's essentially claiming to have read "War and Peace" five times while waiting for his flight. Call me crazy, but I'm not buying his story. This feels like a hatchet job to me. Peyton's on top of the world and this reporter is trying to knock him down.

---

The story is true.  Christine Brennan wrote about it in USA Today.  The story has been down played for years.  Manning has paid out two settlements because of the lies he and his family spread about the doctor.

---

Just because someone pays a settlement doesn't mean the original charges were accurate. Settling a case is often the cheapest, easiest, smartest way to resolve an issue even if the party paying the settlement is completely innocent. Legal fees can mount up quickly and a few thousand dollars to make something go away is often the smartest move. Add in the impact of negative publicity on a person's reputation and a settlement can be the only real option. Too many people look at a settlement as an admission of guilt. "I'd never settle if I was innocent! I'd fight to the bitter end to clear my name!"

In the real world, many/most of these accusations become your word against the other person's word, and even winning the case won't erase the damage to your reputation/brand. There will be people who are convinced forever afterwards that you got away with something and you're a bad guy/gal. You may also end up paying ten times in legal fees what it would have cost to settle.

Anyone can accuse pretty much anyone else of anything. Unless you film your entire life then any accusation comes down to your word against the other person's. You can fight it out in court and hope to win, or pay less to make it go away before the accusation has a chance to seriously damage your reputation. Most people opt to pay to make the charge go away.

The writer who revived this old story is the guy whose credibility I seriously question. He claims to have read the 74 page PDF a hundred times while waiting for his plane. That's 7400 pages of reading all while waiting for a plane. That seems a tad extreme to me.

---

You can read the court documents for yourself.  Manning made several assertions about the doctor and every witness present backed the doctor and not Manning.  Peyton Manning assaulted this woman and the University of Tennessee helped him to cover it up.  He then defamed her in the book he wrote with he father.  When he tried to get the lawsuit dismissed the judge found that the Mannings acted with malicious intent to harm Dr. Naughright.  The judge wouldn't dismiss her case and found it had merit.  The Mannings even sent a copy of their book to her new employers.  They destroyed a very promising and respected career.  There are several articles about what Manning did.  Are all the writers questionable?   

[MarieIG]

So, what I see is no arrest, no criminal prosecution, no criminal conviction, not even a plaintiff's verdict in a civil case.  Further, when I opened the attachment (no way am I reading through it) it referred to plaintiff's case, which means it was prepared by plaintiff's attorneys who are looking to slant the case in their favor. 

I really don't see why I should give the writer, who had no personal knowledge of anything that went on, any weight. And no, I don't believe that the writer read the document a hundred time. 

BTW, no, I'm not a fan, I just came across this thread, and now, I'm moving on. 

[liliblu]

---

@MarieIG wrote:

So, what I see is no arrest, no criminal prosecution, no criminal conviction, not even a plaintiff's verdict in a civil case.  Further, when I opened the attachment (no way am I reading through it) it referred to plaintiff's case, which means it was prepared by plaintiff's attorneys who are looking to slant the case in their favor. 

I really don't see why I should give the writer, who had no personal knowledge of anything that went on, any weight. And no, I don't believe that the writer read the document a hundred time. 

BTW, no, I'm not a fan, I just came across this thread, and now, I'm moving on. 

---

After the judge found her case had merit Manning promptly settled the case.  Did you read Mr. Saxon's letter to  Manning about the incident?  Did you read what the other athletes had to say about Dr. Naughright?  She was respected and well liked.  Manning destroyed her career.

[gardenman]

The website Monday Morning Quarterback (part of Sports Illustrated) has looked into this and interviewed lots of people, and there's now another side of the story that supports Peyton Manning's version of events.

[DKNJ]

To the poster who said the author of the article claims he read the 74 page court document 100 times, I think you need to read that part of the article again.  

This is what is printed:

"I read every single page in the airport before I boarded my flight.  Maybe a good hundred times, I wondered to myself, why - and how - had all of this been kept secret for so long?"

He stated he read the 74 pages while awaiting his flight.  Period. New sentence.  Then, he thought it over about 100 times in his mind.  Period.  Talk about misconstrued.    Before you "question the credibility/sanity of the reporter," at least get your facts straight.

[gardenman]

---

@DKNJ wrote:

To the posters who said the author of the article claims he read the 74 page court document 100 times, I think you need to read that part of the article again.  

This is what is printed:

"I read every single page in the airport before I boarded my flight.  Maybe a good hundred times, I wondered to myself, why - and how - had all of this been kept secret for so long?"

He stated he read the 74 pages while awaiting his flight.  Period. New sentence.  Then, he thought it over about 100 times in his mind.  Period.  Talk about misconstrued.

---

You're right that that's what the article says now. I'm pretty sure in the original that comma after "times" was a period and not a comma. I could be wrong, but I read the article when it was originally printed and not more than a month later. You really want to read the MMQB article too if you want a full understanding of the story.

[Hoovermom]

I find it so interesting how people dismiss any hint of scandal if they like the athlete involved in such situations.  Now it is a horse of a different color if they don't like the athlete...........................

[gardenman]

---

@Hoovermom wrote:

I find it so interesting how people dismiss any hint of scandal if they like the athlete involved in such situations.  Now it is a horse of a different color if they don't like the athlete...........................

---

Which is why it's important to hear both sides of the situation. If you only go by the first article, it's easy to draw one set of conclusions. When you include the MMQB article however, you get a more balanced view.