National Football League

[Alpe d'Huez]

Speaking of pot, why does the NFL even bother testing for it? In no way is it performance enhancing. It's legally used for pain management in a medicinal way in 23 states. It's also legal for recreational amounts in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Miller's state of Colorado. Furthermore, let's' be honest, as a society no one really gives a crap anymore if someone smokes pot in their own home, as long as they aren't doing stupid things with it, like giving it to kids, or driving completely stoned.

As to Cam, I'm not sure what to make. I think the fumble showed indecision as much as anything, as the game was slipping away. But he's right in that one play doesn't make a game. I'm just hoping he learns from this, he certainly showed a lot of talent all season.

Jeffrey Gorman, who was a media relations VP for the Colts for years, and worked with Peyton Manning for nearly that entire time, he had some interesting things to say about the HGH. He tiptoed around it, but basically said he felt it was bunk, because if you knew Manning, you'd know how completely controlled his life is around him. Everything he does is very calculated, very well planned out, several layers deep. Also, it's, ahem, easy for players in the NFL to get this stuff if they look for it (you're not surprised, are you?). So for PM, if he wanted to do HGH he'd have much easier access, and much more discrete ways, than visiting some shady clinic and having it shipped to his wife. Does this mean it's all BS? Gorman thinks so. But he may be covering for PM as much as anything (I do get the feeling his relationship with him was a bit strained though), but it does add a wrinkle to the story.

 

[Beech Mtn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgO8aBkhjho

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

As you may have heard, LeSean McCoy and a few of his criminal friends were identified as individuals who brutally beat two off duty police officers. TMZ obtained footage of it, and it's definitely him. But what struck me as quite savage is if you watch it a few times, at one point after one of the cops is on the ground and hurt, McCoy appears to attempt to foot stomp him in the head. So any notion of "just defending myself" isn't likely to hold up.

Soooooo, does anyone think just maybe Chip Kelly had a hint this guy was a total knucklehead, or even a thug? And that McCoy insisting Kelly was a racist was just bitter retaliation when Chip was done dealing with him?

http://m.tmz.com/#article/2016/02/09/lesean-mccoy-bar-fight-video-meek-mill/

 

[Catwhoorg]

Packers resign Guion
3 years $11.25 million

I am a little surprised, I thought his off season arrest (and subsequent suspension) may have caused a lack of interest by the Packers.

 

[Merckx index]

You thought Manning has an HGH problem? A sportswriter recently obtained court documents that reveal some new details in a sexual harassment case that has been pretty much buried in Manning’s past. When he was a college player at Tennessee, his foot was being examined for a possible stress fracture by Dr. Jamie Naughright, Director of Health and Wellness for the Men’s Athletic program. He pulled down his pants and shoved his crotch—his genitals and his butt—into her face. He didn’t just expose himself, he made physical contact.

This led eventually to a sexual harassment suit, with Naughright being asked to leave the university; she found another position at a school in Florida. There was also collateral damage, first apparently revealed in this NYDN story. Manning put pressure on another athlete who was there at the time to testify that he was just mooning him, not touching the woman or even directing his naked genitals to towards her. The young man refused, wrote a letter to Peyton expressing puzzlement that he would lie about something that he clearly did, and as a result lost his eligibility as a student-athlete. Manning also tried to smear the woman, accusing her of having a “vulgar mouth”, when numerous witnesses came forward to deny they had ever heard her use foul language, that she always acted professionally. Manning’s father Archie allegedly tried to spread a story that the Dr. was sleeping with black students in the dorms to impeach her character further.

A few years later, Manning, who had signed a NDA as part of the settlement, published a book in which he mentioned the incident. Though he apologized for it in the book, and didn’t mention the woman’s name, he again referred to her as having a “vulgar mouth”. Dr. Naughright claimed that before the book was published, someone mailed her a folder containing photocopies of the pages in which the incident was discussed. The envelope was addressed to Dr. Vulgar Mouth. She sued him again, and when the story came out, with all Manning’s smears, she lost her job at that school, too.

Like any story of this kind, there will be different versions out there, but there doesn’t seem to be any question that Manning did shove his genitals into her face, then tried to lie about it. One sportswriter, rather pathetically IMO, has argued that this was just a “prank”, “inappropriate” behavior that happened about twenty years ago, and should be forgotten. We all do things as teen-agers we later regret, but I ask myself, what kind of sick individual would do this, particularly to a professional woman who was trying to do her job? Even Bret Favre, whose last years were marred by an incident in which he texted pictures of his genitals to a female sportswriter, at least did not physically assault her.

The author of the article, Shaun King, says he has more information that he will be releasing in the next few days. He’s particularly upset because, while we all know that other athletes have done disgusting things like this, Manning has that Mr. Clean image, which allows him to make millions hawking junk foods and beer (which causes far more deaths and injuries that the marijuana that his teammate Von Miller got sanctioned for back in 2011). The cases have been settled, there isn’t any question AFAIK of other charges being filed, but it looks weird for someone like this to be hiding such an ugly incident in his past. Looks like Manning will be busy this offseason, or in his retirement.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-peyton-manning-squeaky-clean-image-built-lies-article-1.2530395?cid=bitly

 

[movingtarget]

You thought Manning has an HGH problem? A sportswriter recently obtained court documents that reveal some new details in a sexual harassment case that has been pretty much buried in Manning’s past. When he was a college player at Tennessee, his foot was being examined for a possible stress fracture by Dr. Jamie Naughright, Director of Health and Wellness for the Men’s Athletic program. He pulled down his pants and shoved his crotch—his genitals and his butt—into her face. He didn’t just expose himself, he made physical contact.

This led eventually to a sexual harassment suit, with Naughright being asked to leave the university; she found another position at a school in Florida. There was also collateral damage, first apparently revealed in this NYDN story. Manning put pressure on another athlete who was there at the time to testify that he was just mooning him, not touching the woman or even directing his naked genitals to towards her. The young man refused, wrote a letter to Peyton expressing puzzlement that he would lie about something that he clearly did, and as a result lost his eligibility as a student-athlete. Manning also tried to smear the woman, accusing her of having a “vulgar mouth”, when numerous witnesses came forward to deny they had ever heard her use foul language, that she always acted professionally. Manning’s father Archie allegedly tried to spread a story that the Dr. was sleeping with black students in the dorms to impeach her character further.

A few years later, Manning, who had signed a NDA as part of the settlement, published a book in which he mentioned the incident. Though he apologized for it in the book, and didn’t mention the woman’s name, he again referred to her as having a “vulgar mouth”. Dr. Naughright claimed that before the book was published, someone mailed her a folder containing photocopies of the pages in which the incident was discussed. The envelope was addressed to Dr. Vulgar Mouth. She sued him again, and when the story came out, with all Manning’s smears, she lost her job at that school, too.

Like any story of this kind, there will be different versions out there, but there doesn’t seem to be any question that Manning did shove his genitals into her face, then tried to lie about it. One sportswriter, rather pathetically IMO, has argued that this was just a “prank”, “inappropriate” behavior that happened about twenty years ago, and should be forgotten. We all do things as teen-agers we later regret, but I ask myself, what kind of sick individual would do this, particularly to a professional woman who was trying to do her job? Even Bret Favre, whose last years were marred by an incident in which he texted pictures of his genitals to a female sportswriter, at least did not physically assault her.

The author of the article, Shaun King, says he has more information that he will be releasing in the next few days. He’s particularly upset because, while we all know that other athletes have done disgusting things like this, Manning has that Mr. Clean image, which allows him to make millions hawking junk foods and beer (which causes far more deaths and injuries that the marijuana that his teammate Von Miller got sanctioned for back in 2011). The cases have been settled, there isn’t any question AFAIK of other charges being filed, but it looks weird for someone like this to be hiding such an ugly incident in his past. Looks like Manning will be busy this offseason, or in his retirement.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-peyton-manning-squeaky-clean-image-built-lies-article-1.2530395?cid=bitly

Manning and his father sound like grubs. Too much of this happens in sport and elsewhere and I bet a lot goes unreported where people just want to get on with their lives instead of being involved in legal nightmares.

 

[jmdirt]

You thought Manning has an HGH problem? A sportswriter recently obtained court documents that reveal some new details in a sexual harassment case that has been pretty much buried in Manning’s past. When he was a college player at Tennessee, his foot was being examined for a possible stress fracture by Dr. Jamie Naughright, Director of Health and Wellness for the Men’s Athletic program. He pulled down his pants and shoved his crotch—his genitals and his butt—into her face. He didn’t just expose himself, he made physical contact.

This led eventually to a sexual harassment suit, with Naughright being asked to leave the university; she found another position at a school in Florida. There was also collateral damage, first apparently revealed in this NYDN story. Manning put pressure on another athlete who was there at the time to testify that he was just mooning him, not touching the woman or even directing his naked genitals to towards her. The young man refused, wrote a letter to Peyton expressing puzzlement that he would lie about something that he clearly did, and as a result lost his eligibility as a student-athlete. Manning also tried to smear the woman, accusing her of having a “vulgar mouth”, when numerous witnesses came forward to deny they had ever heard her use foul language, that she always acted professionally. Manning’s father Archie allegedly tried to spread a story that the Dr. was sleeping with black students in the dorms to impeach her character further.

A few years later, Manning, who had signed a NDA as part of the settlement, published a book in which he mentioned the incident. Though he apologized for it in the book, and didn’t mention the woman’s name, he again referred to her as having a “vulgar mouth”. Dr. Naughright claimed that before the book was published, someone mailed her a folder containing photocopies of the pages in which the incident was discussed. The envelope was addressed to Dr. Vulgar Mouth. She sued him again, and when the story came out, with all Manning’s smears, she lost her job at that school, too.

Like any story of this kind, there will be different versions out there, but there doesn’t seem to be any question that Manning did shove his genitals into her face, then tried to lie about it. One sportswriter, rather pathetically IMO, has argued that this was just a “prank”, “inappropriate” behavior that happened about twenty years ago, and should be forgotten. We all do things as teen-agers we later regret, but I ask myself, what kind of sick individual would do this, particularly to a professional woman who was trying to do her job? Even Bret Favre, whose last years were marred by an incident in which he texted pictures of his genitals to a female sportswriter, at least did not physically assault her.

The author of the article, Shaun King, says he has more information that he will be releasing in the next few days. He’s particularly upset because, while we all know that other athletes have done disgusting things like this, Manning has that Mr. Clean image, which allows him to make millions hawking junk foods and beer (which causes far more deaths and injuries that the marijuana that his teammate Von Miller got sanctioned for back in 2011). The cases have been settled, there isn’t any question AFAIK of other charges being filed, but it looks weird for someone like this to be hiding such an ugly incident in his past. Looks like Manning will be busy this offseason, or in his retirement.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-peyton-manning-squeaky-clean-image-built-lies-article-1.2530395?cid=bitly

No new revelations, just the court docs from 2001.

"On Sunday, matters grew worse for Manning when Shaun King of the New York Daily News revisited a 74-page court document from a 2001 lawsuit that depicts ugly details of an alleged sexual assault by Manning."

“The 74-page document is a piece of advocacy,” Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio, a lawyer, writes. “The 74-page document is something that was written by the lawyers representing Jamie Ann Naughright in her defamation case against the Mannings. The 74-page document is, necessarily, one-sided.

“The 74-page document is not objective. The 74-page document is not supposed to be objective. The 74-page document is not a court order or any other decision made by a neutral party. And, ultimately, the 74-page document is incomplete without comparing it to the corresponding ‘Facts of the Case’ document submitted by the defendants in the case.”

-Tee-bagging a peer is a popular prank, but tee-bagging a trainer certainly crosses some kind of line.
-It seems like the "men" in this case are more to blame for the "cover-up" than the teen who put his genitals on someone's head. It would have been much less significant (the case, not the incident) had PM just admitted to being a punk and taken a token punishment then, but the college and Archie couldn't take that.
-The fact that he has a good image now is testament to the fact that he got his sht together at some point. Do King and MI prefer athletes who never get their sht together? Never stop being frat boys? Was PM grossly wrong in 2001? Absolutely! But does his behavior as a teen define him for life? I hope not.

 

[Eagle]

No new revelations, just the court docs from 2001.

"On Sunday, matters grew worse for Manning when Shaun King of the New York Daily News revisited a 74-page court document from a 2001 lawsuit that depicts ugly details of an alleged sexual assault by Manning."

“The 74-page document is a piece of advocacy,” Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio, a lawyer, writes. “The 74-page document is something that was written by the lawyers representing Jamie Ann Naughright in her defamation case against the Mannings. The 74-page document is, necessarily, one-sided.

“The 74-page document is not objective. The 74-page document is not supposed to be objective. The 74-page document is not a court order or any other decision made by a neutral party. And, ultimately, the 74-page document is incomplete without comparing it to the corresponding ‘Facts of the Case’ document submitted by the defendants in the case.”

-Tee-bagging a peer is a popular prank, but tee-bagging a trainer certainly crosses some kind of line.
-It seems like the "men" in this case are more to blame for the "cover-up" than the teen who put his genitals on someone's head. It would have been much less significant (the case, not the incident) had PM just admitted to being a punk and taken a token punishment then, but the college and Archie couldn't take that.
-The fact that he has a good image now is testament to the fact that he got his sht together at some point. Do King and MI prefer athletes who never get their sht together? Never stop being frat boys? Was PM grossly wrong in 2001? Absolutely! But does his behavior as a teen define him for life? I hope not.

He wasn't a teen when it happened, he was 20, he also wasn't a teen in 2000 when "Manning: A Father, His Sons, and a Football Legacy" was released which cost her her job, and he wasn't a teen in 2005 when he claimed she had taken advantage of him in an ESPN documentary.

Edit: Sorry he was still 19 when the incident happened, my bad

 

[jmdirt]

No new revelations, just the court docs from 2001.

"On Sunday, matters grew worse for Manning when Shaun King of the New York Daily News revisited a 74-page court document from a 2001 lawsuit that depicts ugly details of an alleged sexual assault by Manning."

“The 74-page document is a piece of advocacy,” Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio, a lawyer, writes. “The 74-page document is something that was written by the lawyers representing Jamie Ann Naughright in her defamation case against the Mannings. The 74-page document is, necessarily, one-sided.

“The 74-page document is not objective. The 74-page document is not supposed to be objective. The 74-page document is not a court order or any other decision made by a neutral party. And, ultimately, the 74-page document is incomplete without comparing it to the corresponding ‘Facts of the Case’ document submitted by the defendants in the case.”

-Tee-bagging a peer is a popular prank, but tee-bagging a trainer certainly crosses some kind of line.
-It seems like the "men" in this case are more to blame for the "cover-up" than the teen who put his genitals on someone's head. It would have been much less significant (the case, not the incident) had PM just admitted to being a punk and taken a token punishment then, but the college and Archie couldn't take that.
-The fact that he has a good image now is testament to the fact that he got his sht together at some point. Do King and MI prefer athletes who never get their sht together? Never stop being frat boys? Was PM grossly wrong in 2001? Absolutely! But does his behavior as a teen define him for life? I hope not.

He wasn't a teen when it happened, he was 20, he also wasn't a teen in 2000 when "Manning: A Father, His Sons, and a Football Legacy" was released which cost her her job, and he wasn't a teen in 2005 when he claimed she had taken advantage of him in an ESPN documentary.

Edit: Sorry he was still 19 when the incident happened, my bad

I want to make it clear that what he did, and what 'they' did afterward is completely wrong. I strongly believe that the narrative was crated by *Rollo and Archie, and PM had no choice but to be the lead actor. That doesn't make PM any less at fault, but can you image those two telling him that he could destroy the football team, his career, and his family name? Now maybe PM was all in, but is it ultimately a 19 year old athlete's responsibility, or Rollo and Archie's to do the right thing? Refereeing to her in the book was arrogant at best!

*EDIT: "When Rollo learned of the complaint, he allegedly concocted a story that Manning actually pulled down his pants to moon another student-athlete, Malcolm Saxon, who was nearby. "

If you dig through colleges, Hollywood, music industry, and politics, you could write a whose who list of prominent people, and an even bigger list of unknown people, who have a past like this. That does not make it OK, but if they are going to dig up old news, keep digging, and name everyone.

 

[Merckx index]

No new revelations, just the court docs from 2001.

That's not quite true. My understanding is that Saxon's letter to PM is a new revelation. Saxon was the student-athlete present at the time, and who verified Naughright's description of what happened, even though it cost him his eligibility. In the letter to Manning, he makes it very clear what he saw, and can't believe Manning would lie about it.

“The 74-page document is a piece of advocacy,” Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio, a lawyer, writes. “The 74-page document is something that was written by the lawyers representing Jamie Ann Naughright in her defamation case against the Mannings. The 74-page document is, necessarily, one-sided.

“The 74-page document is not objective. The 74-page document is not supposed to be objective. The 74-page document is not a court order or any other decision made by a neutral party. And, ultimately, the 74-page document is incomplete without comparing it to the corresponding ‘Facts of the Case’ document submitted by the defendants in the case.”

All of the essential charges have been confirmed: what Manning did; his attempt to lie about it; what he wrote in the book. I think it's really grasping at straws to fall back on "there are two sides to the matter". In fact, it makes Manning's side look even worse, because by trying to argue that Naughright's description is not correct, they're showing that they understand how serious the charges are. If they really thought it was a harmless prank by a teen-ager, why are they even bothering to dispute what he did? If shoving your genitals in the face of a woman is no big deal, why lie that it was just mooning another guy who was there?

Tee-bagging a peer is a popular prank, but tee-bagging a trainer certainly crosses some kind of line.

I don't know what you mean by tee-bagging, but shoving your genitals in the face of anyone who doesn't want to be treated in that way is pretty scummy. And Naughright was not a trainer. She had a Ph.D. and was head of the Wellness program. She was in effect like a professor in that situation. The fact that Manning would do that to someone in that position of authority strongly suggests a sense of entitlement, that he believed the normal rules of respect didn't apply to him.

Let's be clear: what Manning did was not simply sick and disgusting, it was illegal.

The fact that he has a good image now is testament to the fact that he got his sht together at some point. Do King and MI prefer athletes who never get their sht together? Never stop being frat boys? Was PM grossly wrong in 2001? Absolutely! But does his behavior as a teen define him for life? I hope not.

In the first place, we don't know that Manning has changed. We're fed an image, which may or may not be accurate. In the second place, no, I don't think one incident (though I doubt it was the only one) should define him for the rest of his life. But no one's talking about Manning's going to jail, or not being allowed to have a job, or go anywhere without meeting protesters. The issue is that he's making millions as a pitchman for junk food and a drug that causes far more death and injuries than marijuana (no sportswriter in America, of course, has the cojones to point that out). He's a typical greedy celebrity, for whom millions as a star athlete isn't enough, he has to have more money just because he can, and just because people are stupid enough to buy anything because someone they admire is pitching it. I don't think it's too much to ask that someone who makes that much money off a supposed clean image reveal some of the darker secrets of his past.

Edit: Betsy Andreu has come out in support of Naughright: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4695131-peyton-manning-case-jamie-naughright-lance-armstrong-ryan-braun-betsy-andreu

Some more useful information, including documented statements, here: http://deadspin.com/how-tennessee-s-sexual-harassment-allegations-caught-up-1759118435

This link documents some of the more than 30 incidents of sexual harassment that Naughright claimed against the UT. The book passage is also shown, and is very interesting, as it makes it clear Manning thought women didn't belong in locker rooms, and certainly paints him as someone who would harass women just for intruding in his domain. But he does admit his behavior was inappropriate, so he in effect he admits to lying earlier about what happened. Also there are Archie's disgusting comments suggesting she slept with black men, managing to combine sexism and racism. Unbelievable, I had no idea he was such a scumbag--and he played in the integrated NFL all those years.

One interesting note is that Naughright originally simply accused Manning of exposing himself to her, she didn't say he made physical contact. She only claimed that later, in the lawsuit over the book passage. The one person who could clear this up is Saxon, who clearly said that Manning did something wrong, but also did not specify whether physical contact was made. Naughright also claimed that Manning "sat on the face" of two other women.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

In the first place, we don't know that Manning has changed. We're fed an image, which may or may not be accurate... He's a typical greedy celebrity, for whom millions as a star athlete isn't enough, he has to have more money just because he can, and just because people are stupid enough to buy anything because someone they admire is pitching it. I don't think it's too much to ask that someone who makes that much money off a supposed clean image reveal some of the darker secrets of his past.

I have to say you're in fine order here. Not often do we get to see you with both your thinking cap on, and as assertive as you've been on this topic. Usually it takes Scott to bring it out of you.

Interesting story overall, if I may say. And it all seems to go in hand with what Jeffrey Gorman said about Manning having a very controlled image of himself at every step.

 

[movingtarget]

Testing a Football Helmet Prototype !

http://www.flipcdn.com/images/2015/09/09/44-0.jpg

 

[jmdirt]

No new revelations, just the court docs from 2001.

That's not quite true. My understanding is that Saxon's letter to PM is a new revelation. Saxon was the student-athlete present at the time, and who verified Naughright's description of what happened, even though it cost him his eligibility. In the letter to Manning, he makes it very clear what he saw, and can't believe Manning would lie about it.

“The 74-page document is a piece of advocacy,” Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio, a lawyer, writes. “The 74-page document is something that was written by the lawyers representing Jamie Ann Naughright in her defamation case against the Mannings. The 74-page document is, necessarily, one-sided.

“The 74-page document is not objective. The 74-page document is not supposed to be objective. The 74-page document is not a court order or any other decision made by a neutral party. And, ultimately, the 74-page document is incomplete without comparing it to the corresponding ‘Facts of the Case’ document submitted by the defendants in the case.”

All of the essential charges have been confirmed: what Manning did; his attempt to lie about it; what he wrote in the book. I think it's really grasping at straws to fall back on "there are two sides to the matter". In fact, it makes Manning's side look even worse, because by trying to argue that Naughright's description is not correct, they're showing that they understand how serious the charges are. If they really thought it was a harmless prank by a teen-ager, why are they even bothering to dispute what he did? If shoving your genitals in the face of a woman is no big deal, why lie that it was just mooning another guy who was there?

Tee-bagging a peer is a popular prank, but tee-bagging a trainer certainly crosses some kind of line.

I don't know what you mean by tee-bagging, but shoving your genitals in the face of anyone who doesn't want to be treated in that way is pretty scummy. And Naughright was not a trainer. She had a Ph.D. and was head of the Wellness program. She was in effect like a professor in that situation. The fact that Manning would do that to someone in that position of authority strongly suggests a sense of entitlement, that he believed the normal rules of respect didn't apply to him.

Let's be clear: what Manning did was not simply sick and disgusting, it was illegal.

The fact that he has a good image now is testament to the fact that he got his sht together at some point. Do King and MI prefer athletes who never get their sht together? Never stop being frat boys? Was PM grossly wrong in 2001? Absolutely! But does his behavior as a teen define him for life? I hope not.

In the first place, we don't know that Manning has changed. We're fed an image, which may or may not be accurate. In the second place, no, I don't think one incident (though I doubt it was the only one) should define him for the rest of his life. But no one's talking about Manning's going to jail, or not being allowed to have a job, or go anywhere without meeting protesters. The issue is that he's making millions as a pitchman for junk food and a drug that causes far more death and injuries than marijuana (no sportswriter in America, of course, has the cojones to point that out). He's a typical greedy celebrity, for whom millions as a star athlete isn't enough, he has to have more money just because he can, and just because people are stupid enough to buy anything because someone they admire is pitching it. I don't think it's too much to ask that someone who makes that much money off a supposed clean image reveal some of the darker secrets of his past.

Edit: Betsy Andreu has come out in support of Naughright: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4695131-peyton-manning-case-jamie-naughright-lance-armstrong-ryan-braun-betsy-andreu

Some more useful information, including documented statements, here: http://deadspin.com/how-tennessee-s-sexual-harassment-allegations-caught-up-1759118435

This link documents some of the more than 30 incidents of sexual harassment that Naughright claimed against the UT. The book passage is also shown, and is very interesting, as it makes it clear Manning thought women didn't belong in locker rooms, and certainly paints him as someone who would harass women just for intruding in his domain. But he does admit his behavior was inappropriate, so he in effect he admits to lying earlier about what happened. Also there are Archie's disgusting comments suggesting she slept with black men, managing to combine sexism and racism. Unbelievable, I had no idea he was such a scumbag--and he played in the integrated NFL all those years.

One interesting note is that Naughright originally simply accused Manning of exposing himself to her, she didn't say he made physical contact. She only claimed that later, in the lawsuit over the book passage. The one person who could clear this up is Saxon, who clearly said that Manning did something wrong, but also did not specify whether physical contact was made. Naughright also claimed that Manning "sat on the face" of two other women.

What PM did was wrong.

No doubt we are fed an image of most/all top athletes. Based on the number of insiders who support PMs 'good guy' image I am lead to assume that it is true. If it was just coming out of his camp, eh, but when people like Tony Dungy, Bill Cower, Bob Costas, etc. support the image it makes it believable. You know that Costas would love to bust that myth if a crack was there.

FYI: tee-bagging is when you put your balls at least above someone's face if not actually in it (like a tee bag dipping in water).

EDIT: Yes, I have been a PM fan for many years, even though I 'knew about him tee-bagging a trainer'. Knowing more details about the incident certainly darkens my fanism. However, I have never had heros that I don't personally know so in the big picture I don't care about PM's image or reality, he's just another athletic star that I have enjoyed watching.

 

[jmdirt]

33 cases of sexual harassment! That is so wrong that I can't even find words for it. Why did she stay though? She shouldn't have to deal with that, but if the college is that messed up, call the police, and get out!

MI: Saxon's letter was from 2002 so not new news (in the NYDN, and Deadspin links).

 

[Merckx index]

I’ve enjoyed following Manning’s career, too, and wanted him to win another SB. He’s not a monster, obviously, other athletes have done far worse, and the Naughright allegations don’t invalidate what he did on the football field. But again, as a matter of truth-in-advertising, I think they’re relevant to deciding whether he should be a spokesman for commercial products. Supposedly those gigs are given to individuals who are not simply beyond some verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but above suspicion, outstanding beyond the level of ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

That’s what so many of the writers who in recent days have been questioning King’s motives and evidence are missing. They're acting like Manning is on trial for his life, and because the evidence against him is not 100% slam-dunk, he's unfairly being sent to the slammer. Come on.

The HGH is another matter. If Manning retires—and I think he’d be nuts not to (and a team like the Rams, say, dumb to hire him if he doesn’t—he won’t have to worry about it. But it raises an interesting question. Suppose, somehow, a strong case emerged that he did use it. The NFL would probably never reveal this, arguing, among themselves, that since he was retired, they couldn’t sanction him, anyway.

But we cycling fans know that athletes can be sanctioned retroactively, LA being the case that even non-cycling fans are aware of. They can be stripped of achievements and awards that occurred during the period when the athlete was, or could have been, taking advantage of the PEDs. In theory, if Manning were shown to have used HGH to recover from his surgeries, one could ask why he shouldn’t be stripped of the MVP he won in 2013, and the Broncos be forced to vacate their recent Super Bowl trophy. As preposterous as that may sound, it’s not so different from Reggie Bush’s being forced to forfeit his Heisman Trophy, and USC its Orange Bowl win, because Bush received gifts and cash in violation of NCAA rules.

Was what Bush did worse than taking PEDs? Would the NFL argue that taking PEDs is a relatively minor issue, that cheating by elevating your physiology to unnatural, in some cases risky, levels is not as bad as cheating by giving athletes some of the millions of dollars that flow into universities as a result of their performances on the field? Bring it on, I want to hear someone rationalize this.

I don't know for sure, but I get the impression that most American NFL fans don’t care much if players take PEDs or not. If that’s actually the case, why shouldn’t the NFL be forced to answer why PEDs are banned at all? There is so much hypocrisy going on, a Manning case could bring all of this into the light where maybe a meaningful discussion would finally be possible.

Do you think players should be allowed to use steroids and HGH to bulk up and recover? If so, what do you say about the correlation between increased bulk and concussion risk? And if you’re allowing players to use whatever they want, how do you tell young kids who look up to players that they shouldn’t be taking these substances? Would you want your kids to be doing this? Let’s stop the BS, all the pretending that there really isn’t a problem.

 

[jmdirt]

I’ve enjoyed following Manning’s career, too, and wanted him to win another SB. He’s not a monster, obviously, other athletes have done far worse, and the Naughright allegations don’t invalidate what he did on the football field. But again, as a matter of truth-in-advertising, I think they’re relevant to deciding whether he should be a spokesman for commercial products. Supposedly those gigs are given to individuals who are not simply beyond some verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but above suspicion, outstanding beyond the level of ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

That’s what so many of the writers who in recent days have been questioning King’s motives and evidence are missing. They're acting like Manning is on trial for his life, and because the evidence against him is not 100% slam-dunk, he's unfairly being sent to the slammer. Come on.

The HGH is another matter. If Manning retires—and I think he’d be nuts not to (and a team like the Rams, say, dumb to hire him if he doesn’t—he won’t have to worry about it. But it raises an interesting question. Suppose, somehow, a strong case emerged that he did use it. The NFL would probably never reveal this, arguing, among themselves, that since he was retired, they couldn’t sanction him, anyway.

But we cycling fans know that athletes can be sanctioned retroactively, LA being the case that even non-cycling fans are aware of. They can be stripped of achievements and awards that occurred during the period when the athlete was, or could have been, taking advantage of the PEDs. In theory, if Manning were shown to have used HGH to recover from his surgeries, one could ask why he shouldn’t be stripped of the MVP he won in 2013, and the Broncos be forced to vacate their recent Super Bowl trophy. As preposterous as that may sound, it’s not so different from Reggie Bush’s being forced to forfeit his Heisman Trophy, and USC its Orange Bowl win, because Bush received gifts and cash in violation of NCAA rules.

Was what Bush did worse than taking PEDs? Would the NFL argue that taking PEDs is a relatively minor issue, that cheating by elevating your physiology to unnatural, in some cases risky, levels is not as bad as cheating by giving athletes some of the millions of dollars that flow into universities as a result of their performances on the field? Bring it on, I want to hear someone rationalize this.

I don't know for sure, but I get the impression that most American NFL fans don’t care much if players take PEDs or not. If that’s actually the case, why shouldn’t the NFL be forced to answer why PEDs are banned at all? There is so much hypocrisy going on, a Manning case could bring all of this into the light where maybe a meaningful discussion would finally be possible.

Do you think players should be allowed to use steroids and HGH to bulk up and recover? If so, what do you say about the correlation between increased bulk and concussion risk? And if you’re allowing players to use whatever they want, how do you tell young kids who look up to players that they shouldn’t be taking these substances? Would you want your kids to be doing this? Let’s stop the BS, all the pretending that there really isn’t a problem.

I'll admit to being a doping hypocrite. I want my cycling clean, but don't care if I'm watching other sports on turbo. I attribute that to the fact that I raced professionally so I feel more connected, but I didn't play any other sport beyond a HS level so there's little emotional connection.

To add to you bulking up resulting in more injuries, its not just that they are bulking up, but 300 pound guys are faster than 200 pound guys used to be. More mass + more speed = more injuries.

As to our discussion about PM's sexual abuse mess: King basically reprinting an old case is tabloid journalism really, but I suspect that it will come out in the Ten case anyway. How often do you recycle old news just for sensationalism? Can we expect to read about the PM case again when one of his kids is a HS star? "Marshal is an amazing ______ player, did you know his dad tee-bagged a trainer 35 years ago (w/ a messy attempted cover up) ?" King, and other, aren't going to dig up no-names who have done similar things because he knows there won't be a buz, and that's what he was going for.

EDIT: " I think they’re relevant to deciding whether he should be a spokesman for commercial products. Supposedly those gigs are given to individuals who are not simply beyond some verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but above suspicion, outstanding beyond the level of ordinary, law-abiding citizens. "

I don't think that is necessarily true. I think those gigs are given to who they feel can sell the most product. I remember adds with Rodman in them. PM is in the Papa Johns adds because he owns 20-25 of them. He plugged for Bud because his distributors move Bud, Nationwide wanted someone to give them cred with football fans. Your criteria may or may not have played a part in the decision for nationwide, but it clearly doesn't apply for PJ's and Bud.

EDIT 2: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexreimer/2016/02/15/peyton-manning-jamie-naughright-sexual-assault-story-was-overlooked/#e7826071f010

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Well, USA Today has weighed on on the PM issue right on their front page.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/brennan/2016/02/17/peyton-manning/80477446/

"This cannot be the sendoff Peyton Manning imagined.

A social media firestorm about a 20-year-old college training room incident, viewed not in historical perspective but through the prism of the post-Ray Rice NFL.

A league investigation into allegations that he received human growth hormone, a substance banned by the NFL.

Conversations not about legacy, sportsmanship and class, but about mooning, court documents and settlements."

Combine starts next week.

 

[jmdirt]

I'm not sure what the Rams are planning releasing Long and Lourinaitis, but building a strong defense doesn't seem to be it. They got some cap space sure, but at what cost? Maybe the gamble is they can bring in few free agents, and a few from the draft to fill those spots, but that's risky.

 

[jmdirt]

I don't know for sure, but I get the impression that most American NFL fans don’t care much if players take PEDs or not. If that’s actually the case, why shouldn’t the NFL be forced to answer why PEDs are banned at all? There is so much hypocrisy going on, a Manning case could bring all of this into the light where maybe a meaningful discussion would finally be possible.

Do you think players should be allowed to use steroids and HGH to bulk up and recover? If so, what do you say about the correlation between increased bulk and concussion risk? And if you’re allowing players to use whatever they want, how do you tell young kids who look up to players that they shouldn’t be taking these substances? Would you want your kids to be doing this? Let’s stop the BS, all the pretending that there really isn’t a problem.

MI, A USA family: Dad is on T to get his levels up (to 18 year old levels), mom shoots botox to smooth out wrinkles and maybe even has some new boobs (or at least a lift), Jr. takes adderall so that he doesn't spend his days in the Principal's office (or JD) and he smokes a little CO bud while gaming, and the little miss is on Prozak to keep her from cutting herself. Do they care if athletes are using pharma? Probably not, but if they do, they are hypocrites.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

You left out 3 out of 4 grandparents on perscription pain relief of some sort (Vicodin, Oxy, etc.), and uncle Bob the alcoholic.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I for one care about NFL players steroid and HGH use. Allowed to go on in the NFL, it has reached the high school level. But it would be a tough battle to eliminate completely. I have seen and heard too many stories either first hand or from close reference of players with serious injury who try to come back the clean way, and just can't. With big NFL contracts there is too much incentive for players to not try steroid and HGH (which is why I'm convinced PM used one or the other, or both. But that's another topic). And, as I have said before, poor low income kids in the high schools will try disreputable sources of goods, which may be tainted due to sloppy manufacturing processes. It's a bad deal worth fighting.

Madiot and others like Merckx have suggested a life ban for mechanical doping in cycling. Well, why not a life ban for HGH and steroid use in the NFL? And making college players who are caught using HGH and steroids ineligible to play the rest of their college career? That's what needs to be done to have any chance of winning the battle.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

As for the combine and draft, this draft class is deep at several positions, and all of them on defense. The draft is deep in the secondary, especially at corner, deep at defensive tackle and end positions as well. So the team looking for value at the mid to lower draft order may want to focus there.

In the NFL there are always teams needing QB and OL help. Not much depth this year at QB and not a ton of depth on the OL positions. Both are partly why I think teams may target defenders this year more than offense, which in recent years has been pretty deep at WR, OL, and QB.

On the OL, I ended up watching a little film of the top 4 ranked LOTs in the draft. The draft gurus have them ranked in the following order: 1-Laremy Tunsil, close 2nd-Ronnie Stanley, 3-Taylor Decker, and 4-Jack Conklin.

Laremy Tunsil (LOT Ole Miss) – I don't know why Tunsil is the top ranked LOT. I think they think he has more upside potential. While that might be true, he is not as pro ready as a few (Stanley for sure, and maybe Conklin). Tunsil played in a typical spread offense using zone blocking scheme, where finesse rules over power. Positives: Has all athletic aspects you look for in LOT (strength, arm length, athletic, quick, moves well in space) and has more upside potential. Keeps shoulders square to the line and does not get out of position. Negatives: does not finish blocks (partly due to zone scheme), not a mauler, is a work in progress, needs to improve footwork & balance, can be beaten by inside rush, and can be overpowered. At the start of the season, during pass blocks he would start the snap by keeping feet nearly side by side and shuffle, opposed to the pro style. By mid-season you could see where he had been coached up to use a pro style kick step, but at times would lapse back to a side by side foot position, not quite comfortable with the kick step. As such was often beaten by inside rush without a defender using much of a hard outside first step. Needs work on footwork and leverage to keep from getting overpowered. Tunsil fits a zone blocking scheme that features more pass than run. If I was an NFL team that emphasized run, I'd probably stay away from Tunsil.

Ronnie Stanley (LOT Fighting Irish) – Good size, quickness, pretty good strength, but gets overpowered at times. Good firing off ball and good in space. Good footwork most of the time, but can be beaten by quick speed rushers with good moves (e.g. spin). Pretty good run blocker. Is more pro-ready than Tunsil technique wise, and should be a better fit for teams needing run support as much as pass support.

Taylor Decker (LOT Buckeyes) – 6’8” tall and plays like it. Not enough of a knee bender. Lacks leverage and can be easily stood up. Projected as mid-first rounder. I think that is a reach.

Jack Conklin (LOT MSU Spartans) – Might project as ROT. Not as athletic as Stanley or Tunsil, but athletic enough to pull. Plays with good balance. Better run blocker than the other 3 guys IMO, and decent pass blocker, but not as good in space as the more athletic guys above.

At this point before the combine I'd put them in this ranking for the LOT position: Stanley-Conklin-Tunsil-Decker.

 

[jmdirt]

Who will run the 40 in 4 this year? Will Johnson's' record stand?

NFL news: Kaep to stay in SF.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Nobody's coming close to 4.0. World class sprinters wouldn't break 4.1.

Of all the combine events, 40 time is prolly the one I pay least attention to. Look at Brady - oops - he's a QB. Well then, look at Steve Largent, Fred Biletnikoff. Actually, the combine is more of a spectacle than something of value. Want value? Watch game film. Talk to, not analyze (like the Wonderlic), players. There's more value in those two things (sans the Wonderlic) than combine results. Of all the combine events the ones that have more value though are the ones involving change of direction.

Ha! JPP is suing ESPN and Adam Schefter over release of JPP's medical records when he was hospitalized for his July 4 hand injury. Hope JPP wins. I think he will. I actually saw the release of the records in a Schefter tweet not long after the accident occurred. I was appalled. Bad form by Schefty, the gossip queen.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...n-adam-schefter-over-released-medical-records

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Good posts on3m@my! I like watching the Combine, because you see the future of the NFL, and this comes just after the grueling post-season, and litany of injuries, and players ending careers, often due to broken bodies over the years.

I agree some if not many of the Combine drills don't show much. Even ones like the cone drill for example, which does show agility, can be trained for to improve your time.

Since all the talk is on QB's I must say don't expect to see much of them at the Combine, as it's likely Wentz, Goff and maybe Lynch won't even throw. Maybe not Cook either. This can open up doors for other QB's to rise up. So maybe someone like Dak Prescott or Christen Hackenberg to shine. Vernon Adams, who played at Oregon says he wants to play in Kelly's system and can. He talks like he's the next Russell Wilson, but watching him, I don't think so.

We'll have to see their Pro Day, but just looking at some film, Wentz looks like a prototypical QB you can develop. He has good size, moves very well, and seems to get the ball out and into tight spaces. Wishful thinking says he could be something between Alex Smith and Andrew Luck. On the other hand Goff looks more like a gunslinger, and is likely the best QB to step in day one and deal with the speed of the NFL, but he's also likely to make more mistakes, and may not blossom as well as Wentz, lacking the natural upside.