bbb Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Can someone explain to me what race has to do with the Manning allegations? AFAIK nothing, except that this was written by a race baiting white guy who claims to be black, who when he trends on twitter seems to be hated by people of every color - for the crap he's pulled. Today's journalism - take an old story and make it racial - have a firestorm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 You doubt this because? I'm sure the Judge will appreciate the argument that providing due process to the accused amounts to creating a hostile sexual environment. This lawsuit has almost no basis in reality, even saying that playing a Lil' Jon rap song during games promotes rape culture. The plaintiffs say that UT’s administrative hearing process, which is utilized by public universities across the state, is unfair because it provides students accused of sexual assault the right to attorneys and to confront their accusers through cross-examination and an evidentiary hearing in front of an administrative law judge. The administrative law judge who hears the case is appointed by Cheek, the lawsuit says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I'm with you. Race plays an insignificant and unnecessary part in the much larger Manning story. Unfortunately that unnecessary part is all that some are able to focus on. I'd love to see Manning's lawyers version of the document. That's the only way we'd get an idea of the full true story, averaging out the two highly biased versions are forge story. We will never see that though because he has nothing to gain by releasing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 Polian talked about the situation surrounding Peyton on ESPN radio last night http://m.espn.go.com/general/play?id=14784631 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisonbrigade Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 THe NYDN is a piece of trash run by liberal trash. If you do not believe me ask Donald Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baskingridgebillsfan Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 AFAIK nothing, except that this was written by a race baiting white guy who claims to be black, who when he trends on twitter seems to be hated by people of every color - for the crap he's pulled. Today's journalism - take an old story and make it racial - have a firestorm. How about take a story that was swept under the rug , bring it to light and let Manning face the music THe NYDN is a piece of trash run by liberal trash. If you do not believe me ask Donald Trump. you know Donald Trump is Liberal . Polian talked about the situation surrounding Peyton on ESPN radio last night http://m.espn.go.com/general/play?id=14784631 hopefully he know more about this then he did about the Bills Oline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Horseheads Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 THe NYDN is a piece of trash run by liberal trash. If you do not believe me ask Donald Trump. Great now instead of race we have "liberal trash". and Donald Trump is just trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baskingridgebillsfan Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I know this has been stated here before, but I don't think people are getting it as the discussion goes on and on. This incident with Peyton Manning happened 20 years ago. He was 19. That doesn't excuse it for sure, but his behavior 20 years ago has nothing to do with Cam Newton's behavior after the SB. The article was racially motivated and it has done it's job because people are still talking about it as if it were relevant. It's not. When cam was 20 and stole a lap top we sure heard plenty about. Peyton not so much you see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) I'd love to see Manning's lawyers version of the document. That's the only way we'd get an idea of the full true story, averaging out the two highly biased versions are forge story. We will never see that though because he has nothing to gain by releasing it. Why doesn't he just release his response? Where is it that he refuted the sworn testimony of all of those people deposed for questioning about claims Peyton and Archie made regarding this woman's character (she swears a lot, she told him to deal with some annoying kids on a trip, she slept with a lot of black student athletes, etc.)? He should just violate the NDA (again) and release his legal response to all of that was mentioned in the 74 page document. What's holding him back at this point? He must have his own solid affidavit's from back then, no? He should be able to back up all of the things he and his daddy said about her. Edited February 16, 2016 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martifal Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Manning made a stupid mistake that amounted to assault. The subject was buried and both sides were gagged. Manning brought the subject to the forefront again by writing about it in his book and slandering another person. That someone feels that a settlement somehow justifies this assault is galling to me. That someone continues to obfuscate facts and hide behind political correctness gone amok and an author with an agenda is galling to me. That someone continues to demean others in this thread galls me. That someone who has continuously demeaned others in this thread continues to preach tolerance galls me. That someone feels that time heals all wounds tells me that someone has never been wounded himself. That someone should do the wise thing and leave this thread. That someone can carry on this conversation via PM with anyone who is interested in continuing it because I doubt he has anything of substance to offer here. Well said, I couldn't agree more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 How about take a story that was swept under the rug , bring it to light and let Manning face the music you know Donald Trump is Liberal . hopefully he know more about this then he did about the Bills Oline "Swept under the rug?" Really? Are there really so many people who are so inattentive that this story is the first they're hearing about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 @awfulannouncing Detroit radio host thinks Peyton Manning accuser “looks a little loose” http://dlvr.it/KX0hNs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Is the above the price to be paid for impugning the hagiographic status of Saint Peyton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 THe NYDN is a piece of trash run by liberal trash. If you do not believe me ask Donald Trump. Donald Trump is an expert at trash; he starred in a show which was all about trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 "Swept under the rug?" Really? Are there really so many people who are so inattentive that this story is the first they're hearing about this? I didn't know that Manning tried to get a teammate to lie about "mooning" him. I didn't know that the Mannings broke the confidentiality agreement of the first settlement so they could throw some shade on this woman in their Peyton bio book. I didn't know that Archie put it out there that this woman was sleeping around with black Tenn athletes. But that's the real story here--that they went to these lengths to bury this and impugn this woman's character. You knew all this way back then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsmovinup Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) An ESPN employee finally weighs in, and it's very well done IMO http://espn.go.com/espnw/voices/article/14778120/sarah-spain-said-peyton-manning-sexual-assault-allegations A huge round of applause to the writer of that ESPN article. The Lance Armstrong comparison is perfect. Manning tried to destroy this woman's career, plain and simple. Listened to Polians take and he sounds incredibly naive to me. Just cause Manning spent 15 hours in the film room doesn't mean he doesn't have a dark side. The most damning thing is Manning's inability to corroborate his characterization of this woman's character. This guy just couldn't let it go. Maybe the DAILY NEWS writer has an agenda. I didn't really give it much thought when I first read the article. I was more focused on the relationship between Manning and this woman. But that doesn't excuse what IMO is absolutely reprehensible behavior on the part of Manning and his father. I used to love OJ too. Sometimes we just don't know the person behind the facemask. Edited February 17, 2016 by Billsmovinup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) I'm sure the Judge will appreciate the argument that providing due process to the accused amounts to creating a hostile sexual environment. This lawsuit has almost no basis in reality, even saying that playing a Lil' Jon rap song during games promotes rape culture. Ah, OK, I think I see where you're coming from, but you're missing that the adminstrative hearing process is one-sided in its "due process" regard. From this article: A regular Title IX hearing treats the accused and the person who reported exactly the same in terms of who gets to present evidence, question the evidence, have a lawyer present, and cross-examine witnesses. The lawsuit calls the UAPA "one-sided" and says it is a tactic used repeatedly "to delay and altogether avoid sanctions and discipline for sexual assault." The UAPA, unlike a regular Title IX hearing, "allows only accused perpetrators of sexual assaults (and not victims) to have the right to confrontation, cross-examination, and a right to an evidentiary administrative hearing." A vice-chancellor and a director of student judicial affairs have voiced concerns and resigned/been fired over concerns about this process and the UT environment. I don't know what the right or wrong of the case is, but I'm quite certain it's not as "no basis" as you think. Based upon the above, the ladies have a valid point. You wouldn't make a good plaintiff's attorney. You don't think any lawyer would look to claim a pattern of behavior on the part of the Athletic Department and the University itself? Really? No? I wouldn't make a good any sort of attorney but that's another story. The timeline of the pattern matters, WEO. If I were trying to prove BigCompanyX had discriminatory hiring practices today or over the last 4-5 years, I wouldn't bother going back 20 years unless I could show that exactly the same people were making hiring decisions. Usually over 20 years, there's a lot of turnover, and the defense would simply point to all the changes and argue that "20 years ago today Sargent Pepper taught the band to play" is not relevant to the last 4-5 years. It weakens the case. I would need to look at and demonstrate a pattern of behavior over a relevant timeline. If many of the administrators and officials have been there for 20 years, well, that would be different then. Edited February 17, 2016 by Hopeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Ah, OK, I think I see where you're coming from, but you're missing that the adminstrative hearing process is one-sided in its "due process" regard. From this article: A regular Title IX hearing treats the accused and the person who reported exactly the same in terms of who gets to present evidence, question the evidence, have a lawyer present, and cross-examine witnesses. The lawsuit calls the UAPA "one-sided" and says it is a tactic used repeatedly "to delay and altogether avoid sanctions and discipline for sexual assault." The UAPA, unlike a regular Title IX hearing, "allows only accused perpetrators of sexual assaults (and not victims) to have the right to confrontation, cross-examination, and a right to an evidentiary administrative hearing." A vice-chancellor and a director of student judicial affairs have voiced concerns and resigned/been fired over concerns about this process and the UT environment. I don't know what the right or wrong of the case is, but I'm quite certain it's not as "no basis" as you think. Based upon the above, the ladies have a valid point. I wouldn't make a good any sort of attorney but that's another story. The timeline of the pattern matters, WEO. If I were trying to prove BigCompanyX had discriminatory hiring practices today or over the last 4-5 years, I wouldn't bother going back 20 years unless I could show that exactly the same people were making hiring decisions. Usually over 20 years, there's a lot of turnover, and the defense would simply point to all the changes and argue that "20 years ago today Sargent Pepper taught the band to play" is not relevant to the last 4-5 years. It weakens the case. I would need to look at and demonstrate a pattern of behavior over a relevant timeline. If many of the administrators and officials have been there for 20 years, well, that would be different then. Of course you would go back to a story 20 years ago involving that school's most famous student athlete ever--you aren't suing individuals, you are suing the University. It's the culture of tolerance over decades, spanning many supervisors and employees (as though it is taught and propagated), for this type of behavior that strengthens your case, not weakens it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 I didn't know that Manning tried to get a teammate to lie about "mooning" him. I didn't know that the Mannings broke the confidentiality agreement of the first settlement so they could throw some shade on this woman in their Peyton bio book. I didn't know that Archie put it out there that this woman was sleeping around with black Tenn athletes. But that's the real story here--that they went to these lengths to bury this and impugn this woman's character. You knew all this way back then? I'd heard the first two before. The third...I tend to not pay much attention to Papa Manning, but there's not much he could do that would surprise me (not after !@#$ing around with Eli's draft). And none of them are something I'd go around blaming on the "culture of tolerance over decades" at the University of Tennessee. Really...you're linking the alleged breaking of a confidentiality agreement on a university culture a decade prior and uninvolved in said breaking? Because of a single slanted story sourced on a single court filing? That's just irrational. And you're welcome to your irrationality...your moral outrage is noted, but don't pretend it has a factual basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) I'd heard the first two before. The third...I tend to not pay much attention to Papa Manning, but there's not much he could do that would surprise me (not after !@#$ing around with Eli's draft). And none of them are something I'd go around blaming on the "culture of tolerance over decades" at the University of Tennessee. Really...you're linking the alleged breaking of a confidentiality agreement on a university culture a decade prior and uninvolved in said breaking? Because of a single slanted story sourced on a single court filing? That's just irrational. And you're welcome to your irrationality...your moral outrage is noted, but don't pretend it has a factual basis. No I'm not. read it again. I'm saying it would make sense for a plaintiff's attorney to do so. In fact, it's would be his/her best move. That complaint is littered with alleged bad behavior of the training and athletic staff. They all work/worked for the same employer now being sued for the same type of stuff in the Manning complaint. I didn't think the post was that hard to follow. I was responding to another poster who said it wouldn't make sense to include that old story. Of course it would if you are trying to claim institutional bad behavior. Edited February 17, 2016 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts