Skip to content

Shaun King doubles down in his crusade against Peyton Manning

USA - SEPTEMBER 20: Peyton Manning of the Tennessee Volunteers looks on against the Florida Gators  on September 20, 1997. (Photo by Sporting News via Getty Images) Getty Images

When I first saw Saturday’s item in the New York Daily News regarding a 13-year-old legal document filed in a case involving Peyton Manning, I’d never heard of Shaun King.

Well, actually, I had. I personally know Shaun King, the former football player. He’s the gregarious analyst who was a member of the original Pro Football Talk on NBCSN family, who also tells a hilarious story about once trying to confront former NFL safety Rodney Harrison after Harrison applied a hard hit former Cardinals quarterback Josh McCown when King was the backup in Arizona. Harrison said to King, “Shut up. You can’t even beat out that bum.”

I didn’t know anything about the other Shaun King, the one who writes for the Daily News and whose item regarding Manning would be blamed on the other Shaun King, with his Twitter timeline littered with attacks and ridicule. The other Shaun King presented a one-sided summary of a 74-page document filed by Jamie Naughright’s lawyers in the case against Manning, with no balance or objectivity or apparent effort to contact Peyton Manning or Archie Manning for a response.

On Monday, after being fairly and extensively criticized for essentially taking a piece of advocacy and assuming that everything in it was completely true, King has published a highly defensive follow-up to his original item in which he claims that the characterization of his work as “one-sided” is an “egregious misrepresentation of what we released,” and that “it causes me to sincerely question the motives of anyone who says such a thing.”

Frankly, King’s second column causes me to sincerely question the intelligence or motives of King, and of his editors.

The best evidence of King’s failure to understand the legal process or deliberate disregard of it in his latest #longread on the matter comes from the portion of the article in which he bastardizes a snippet of a ruling from Judge Harvey A. Kornstein denying an effort by Peyton and Archie Manning to dismiss the defamation lawsuit filed by Naughright.

Here’s what Judge Kornstein wrote, as quoted by King:  “Even if the plaintiff is a public figure, the evidence of record contains sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that a genuine issue of material fact exists that would allow a jury to find, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of actual malice of the part of the defendants. Specifically, there is evidence of record, substantial enough to suggest that the defendants knew that the passages [from the book Manning] in question were false, or acted in reckless disregard of their falsity. There is evidence of record to suggest that there were obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of Peyton Manning’s account of the incident in question. The court further finds that there is sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendants entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the passages in this case.”

King incorrectly interprets those words to mean that Judge Kornstein actually and affirmatively found that clear and convincing evidence of malice on the part of the Mannings exists. “Judge Harvey Kornstein did not arrive at his conclusion that ‘clear and convincing’ evidence of malice existed because one woman said it did, but because overwhelming evidence proved such a thing,” King writes. However, that’s NOT what Judge Kornstein found.

Judge Kornstein found that “the evidence of record contains sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that a genuine issue of material fact exists that would allow a jury to find, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of actual malice of the part of the defendants.” In English, this means that Judge Kornstein believed there was enough evidence to permit a jury of reasonable people to find that the Mannings acted with malice toward Naughright, a key ingredient in a defamation case against a public figure (if Naughright were deemed to be a public figure in her defamation case against the Mannings).

This is one of those moments where I remember how inadequate I felt when getting into this business because I had no journalistic training (and it showed), and how I later wondered how inadequate I would feel in this business if I had no legal training. King and his editors either have no legal training, no access to a lawyer, or no sensitivity to when a lawyer needs to be consulted for explanation or elaboration. Judge Kornstein’s words mean only that a jury could have found that the Mannings acted with malice, not that they definitely did. If Judge Kornstein believed the Manning definitely acted with malice and that no reasonable jury could have found otherwise, he would have entered what lawyers call “summary judgment” in Naughright’s favor on that point.

King’s loud insistence that Judge Kornstein actually and affirmatively found “clear and convincing evidence” of malice isn’t surprising, since it props up the flawed assessment of the document that King crafted on Saturday, and on which King has now doubled down. He has taken the criticism directed at him very personally (which is always a mistake), and he is now desperately groping for a silver bullet to prove that anyone who would question his work or his motives should have their own work or motives questioned.

To the trained eye, King’s work and motives should be questioned, and his failure (accidental or deliberate) to understand that key passage from Judge Kornstein’s ruling proves it not just with clear and convincing evidence, but beyond any and all doubt.

As to the rest of the latest article, King continues to erroneously blurs the line between allegation and proven, undeniable fact. Just because something is presented by one party to a lawsuit as factual doesn’t mean it actually happened. All evidence in a disputed case must be vetted through the judicial process, culminating in a jury hearing conflicting evidence and making decisions. That never happened in this case, because the case settled.

Because Naughright and the Mannings chose to settle the case, no one knows what actually happened because a jury never heard the evidence, sorted and sifted through it, and reached a conclusion. The document on which King’s column was based was cobbled together by lawyers with a sworn duty to zealously represent Naughright. They wouldn’t be doing their jobs if they didn’t put together something that appeared to be compelling on the surface.

The real question is how those allegations hold up when the surface is scratched by the opposing lawyers and, ultimately, a jury. No one knows what would have happened in this case because the parties eventually decided to wrap up the case and move on with their lives, which the vast majority of litigants in civil cases eventually do.

Permalink 170 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Denver Broncos, Home, Indianapolis Colts, Rumor Mill
170 Responses to “Shaun King doubles down in his crusade against Peyton Manning”
  1. randygnyc says: Feb 15, 2016 5:01 PM

    I love when racially centric liberals eat eachother up. King is a BLM activist who’s motives are only race based in response to his perception of Cam being mistreated. If you know how mentally ill all liberals are, it’s not hard to decipher what they are saying and why. Don’t believe, go to the liberal cesspool that is DailyKos and examine king’s writings there before his gig at the daily news.

  2. GERMEX says: Feb 15, 2016 5:06 PM

    And his readers have no legal training.

  3. kurdishpats1 says: Feb 15, 2016 5:08 PM

    He got paid off by manning.

    Just like his trainer.

    These are facts.

  4. truthfactory says: Feb 15, 2016 5:09 PM

    A few major holes in this womans story.

    1. She did not mention that Mannings “genatalia” touched her until 7 years later. Her story was very different as time went on.

    2. She claims Manning did this to her while she was evaluating his foot. Manning claims he was mooning someone behind him.

    Now imagine someone is down near your foot as if they were tying your shoes and you are wearing a pair of shorte. Can you imagine a scenario where you are able to pull off your pants and keep that persons head there without them being able to move?? It sounds extremely far fetched.

    On the other hand, quickly mooning someone behind you would be very easily done.

    I don’t know what happened, and I don’t really care. Our current president has admitted to drug use when he was that age and I don’t hold it against him now.

    Either way, her story doesn’t exactly add up… And even if it did, I think all of us have things we would be ashamed of that we did when we were teenagers if it became national headlines when we turn 40. This is a smear campaign. Nothing more.

  5. bebopa says: Feb 15, 2016 5:10 PM

    will wonders never cease i thought Tom Brady could walk on water and i was certain Peyton Manning could,lol. What is the world coming to??!!

  6. pw1265 says: Feb 15, 2016 5:11 PM

    Manning is dirty and guilty.

  7. coltsreign says: Feb 15, 2016 5:14 PM

    Man the kings ( Peter and Shawn) really are enigmas

  8. youhurtmyfeelings says: Feb 15, 2016 5:17 PM

    This guy is really angry about the outcome of the Superbowl. I think he needs help, and I’m not joking. He seems mentally ill.

  9. ygghh says: Feb 15, 2016 5:17 PM

    Manning cheated for years. And he was given a pass. Its funny to watch his fake clean image tarnished aliitle. Maybe even Karma biting him in the ass.

  10. opinevain says: Feb 15, 2016 5:18 PM

    I love that Shaun King is being discredited because it is Peyton Manning and the media swears they are thought Peyton had a squeaky clean image. Okay.

  11. footballfan says: Feb 15, 2016 5:20 PM

    No matter how many articles Shaun King writes it won’t make a difference. Peyton Manning won and Cam Newton lost.

  12. nfceastfan says: Feb 15, 2016 5:22 PM

    randygnyc says:
    Feb 15, 2016 5:01 PM
    I love when racially centric liberals eat eachother up. King is a BLM activist who’s motives are only race based in response to his perception of Cam being mistreated.
    =======================================
    That’s actually perfectly put. I find it hard to believe anyone didn’t know his motive. It’s just part of an overall problem in society today where groups of people are pegged as victims, so much that eventually they believe in themselves. That and some individuals are so mentally immature they use the victim card to cover up their real issues.

  13. stealthjunk says: Feb 15, 2016 5:23 PM

    As if we needed further confirmation, Shaun King is about as intelligent as a pea. I wish I could file a lawsuit against him for trying to make everyone in the world as stupid as him. And then in an ironic twist, I will publish an article citing to my own lawsuit to “prove” that he is an idiot. Not that there isn’t enough other “clear and convincing” evidence out there…

  14. pedrov1 says: Feb 15, 2016 5:23 PM

    Not worth reporting about no one gives a damn

  15. micknangold says: Feb 15, 2016 5:29 PM

    Good job of explaining the law to non-lawyers. That’s a critical skill that all attorneys need.

  16. edelmanfanclub says: Feb 15, 2016 5:39 PM

    She waited to smear Peyton until now? Why not after his first superbowl win? Everyone discounts that one but at least Sexy Rexy wasnt a pansy wearing a fake superman cape with gold shoes.

  17. gimmeabruschi says: Feb 15, 2016 5:39 PM

    But wait!

    Manning and his lawyers did tell the other side of the story.

    They settled. That really says it all.

  18. mathprof84 says: Feb 15, 2016 5:42 PM

    The intelligence of the reporter and/or his political affiliations or motives matter not a whit as to whether this deplorable alleged incident took place.
    Nor would it matter if the reporter was a perennial Pulitzer winner and a Rhodes Scholar. The facts of the case are the facts of the case.
    The settlement(s) and what I know about the case would lead me personally to opine that the allegations were true, but I, like everybody else that was not there, can only make an educated guess. That guess has nothing to do with who the reporter might have been who merely directed public attention to an old court case.

  19. terry1824 says: Feb 15, 2016 5:43 PM

    What king is failing to understand is that this all his been public. This is not new news. It’s a complete smear campaign. Hey mr king.. Look up OJSimpson. There’s something fishy about him.

  20. mogogo1 says: Feb 15, 2016 5:45 PM

    I’m sure they have access to a lawyer and would be quite surprised if one hasn’t been consulted by now just to cover their behinds lest they stray too far into the land of possible defamation. It’s naive to assume that facts are their primary goal: It’s eyeballs on the story and as long as they’re accomplishing that they’ll continue “misinterpreting” things in manners that support their viewpoint.

  21. orange and blue owns the NFL says: Feb 15, 2016 5:50 PM

    gimmeabruschi says:
    Feb 15, 2016 5:39 PM
    But wait!

    Manning and his lawyers did tell the other side of the story.

    They settled. That really says it all.
    ==========
    Says a little something about the alleged “victim” as well.

    Gee, I can see this through and have him punished by the criminal justice system, or….. I can take this boatload of cash. Hmmm

    And before all you disingenuous Patriots fans label me insensitive, consider this; Jared Fogle got away with the crap he did for a long time because people took money instead of justice and doing the right thing. Those people bear some responsibility for every subsequent victim.

  22. tajuara says: Feb 15, 2016 5:51 PM

    Great article Florio. I think that the NYDN is letting Shaun King run wild because they only want to get clicks, and they are accomplishing that. If things go awry, they can always say that King’s opinions don’t represent the opinions of the NYDN.

  23. hippieway says: Feb 15, 2016 5:51 PM

    Because Manning did some stupid teenage trick 40 years ago so now liberals are dog scum.
    Man, some of you guys are a piece of work. It really is hard to follow the logic.

  24. mongo3401 says: Feb 15, 2016 5:53 PM

    Honest. Outside of the dozen or so people that follow this guy, does anyone really care ? Manning is a HOF QB. Cam is a wanna be and above all, the case is closed so! Big Deal. Methinks this Shawn King has a man crush on Cam.

  25. VenerableAxiom says: Feb 15, 2016 5:54 PM

    gimmeabruschi says:
    Feb 15, 2016 5:39 PM
    But wait!

    Manning and his lawyers did tell the other side of the story.

    They settled. That really says it all
    ======
    Just like the pats accepting the fines and loss of a #1 draft pick over deflategate. really says it all, correct.

  26. patriotsticketssince1978 says: Feb 15, 2016 5:55 PM

    So Kornstein believed there was enough evidence to permit a jury of reasonable people to find that Mannings acted with malice toward Naughright.

    I guess it’s a major jump and egregious error to suggest the judge found the evidence, he just believed it existed due to the evidence that was presented to him.

    Clearly the judge didn’t find the evidence and Shaun King is a blazing idiot for thinking that. The Judge simply said it existed because it was shown to him.

    Major and huge difference.

  27. purpleguy says: Feb 15, 2016 6:02 PM

    Manning may have acted improperly, and maybe he deserves more grief for what happened 20 years ago, but no newspaper editor with half a brain (or any legal advice) should have allowed that erroneous follow-up to be published.

  28. Mr. Wright 212 says: Feb 15, 2016 6:06 PM

    Plain and simple, it was covered up all these years, and now that his career is over, and so much time has elapsed, most of what she will claim in court will hold little weight. She’ll get another settlement, but that’s about it.

    The Mannings violated the gag order with the lies they printed in the book, and that’s what gave rise to her newest suit. If you really go back and look at how they tried to get others to the the fall for Peyton, even the time-honored “6’4, 250 black guy” thing they tried to pull, you get an idea of how far they went to discredit her.

    Nevertheless, to bring this back up now is petty on all fronts.

  29. tajuara says: Feb 15, 2016 6:09 PM

    I love that Shaun King is being discredited because it is Peyton Manning and the media swears they are thought Peyton had a squeaky clean image. Okay.

    ———————————————————–

    King is being discredited because he is twisting the facts on his favor. He wrote a second article because regurgitating the statements from his first article, but this time he is being more bold.

  30. mrwalterisgod says: Feb 15, 2016 6:10 PM

    I clicked on King’s twitter profile. Noticed he’s a big Bernie Sanders fanboy.

    Yep. This guy is a moron looking for attention. Just like his BLM homies.

  31. gints1017 says: Feb 15, 2016 6:12 PM

    Daily news is Garbage

  32. youknowiknowitall says: Feb 15, 2016 6:15 PM

    Regardless of what King said, rather than throw the case out of his court, the judge still said there was “sufficient evidence” and “substantial evidence” against Manning.

  33. monkeesfan says: Feb 15, 2016 6:17 PM

    The problems for Manning and critics of Shaun King’s piece remain the same – the behavior of Manning then is the same as what he did in the HGH issue in that he lied about it and was caught trying to intimidate a witness.

    For Manning to win this he has to prove he DIDN’T do these things, and where the facts are going is in the direction that he in fact did do these things.

  34. fofrenchy says: Feb 15, 2016 6:17 PM

    I wish people would try to avoid ad hominem attacks – it would make the world a much better place.

  35. bigwinintx says: Feb 15, 2016 6:24 PM

    I can’t believe that people really think this about a Super Bowl or Cam Newton…

    It’s not fellas.

  36. luvpeytonmanning says: Feb 15, 2016 6:25 PM

    It just gets me that people bring up stories that happened 13 years ago and than think it is current. This is just another black person jealous about a white persons success. That is why he is a big supporter of Black Lives Matter.

  37. flyerfan78 says: Feb 15, 2016 6:29 PM

    I wonder if Shaun King was this enthusiastic about “bringing justice” when Ray Lewis was in the super bowl a few years ago…

  38. fanboyarmy says: Feb 15, 2016 6:32 PM

    Manning should have peed on her.

  39. swineflooo says: Feb 15, 2016 6:33 PM

    Hghton manning is guilty of ped use and teabagging a hard working trainer. Its pathetic espn told its employees not to comment in hghton manning. Its even sadder people are defending this cheater and sexual assaulter

  40. swineflooo says: Feb 15, 2016 6:35 PM

    Wonder if peyton hired some goons to show up at shaun kings house like he did when he was outted using hgh

  41. giants2pats0 says: Feb 15, 2016 6:36 PM

    New Papa John’s meal deal. 2 medium pizzas, an order of breadsticks, a chocolate chip cookie pizza and a box of teabags for $18.18. Deal expires in 20 years.

  42. genericnflfan says: Feb 15, 2016 6:47 PM

    I no longer respect Peyton Manning.

  43. oruacat2 says: Feb 15, 2016 6:47 PM

    Here’s all you need to know about Shaun King: he is allowed to question the motives of anyone and everyone, while anyone who questions his motives is an obvious racist troll.

  44. postintelligence says: Feb 15, 2016 7:08 PM

    This whole thing is a pity because regardless of what did or didn’t happen with Peyton on that training table in 1996, Shaun King’s and/or the NY Daily News’ refusal to do the legwork necessary to get the facts right has pretty seriously undermined the story. It ends up looking more like a hit piece than serious journalism.

  45. mjsully123 says: Feb 15, 2016 7:15 PM

    Some interesting arguments presented here… True, a settlement certainly does not make someone guilty, for those who can pay their way out of a situation, I am sure that it is often better off to pay and end it. That can be taken either way, but our system is a presumption of innocence.
    One person writes, why did she bring it up 7 years later? My understanding of the facts is that there was a settlement with a confidentiality agreement… hence, why would she bring it up if it was to remain confidential. However, The Mannings felt the need to bring it up again and again, paid a settlement…Full me once, shame on you…fool me twice? Shame on me.
    As another article I read said, if he never wrote the book and mentioned it in the book, it would have all been forgotten as college tomfoolery.. However, he keeps, repeatedly, bring it up, over and over
    Then, it was again brought up by Manning in an ESPN event, where , shockingly, he settled again. I have no idea what it all means… but it doesn’t look good on a resume

  46. thegreatgabbert says: Feb 15, 2016 7:25 PM

    So if you and Shaun King the football player have a radio show it would be the “Gregarious & Hilarious Show”. Everyone would say, which is which?

  47. patriotsticketssince1978 says: Feb 15, 2016 7:30 PM

    Meh Kornstein was tasked with determining if enough evidence existed for a jury to find guilt-not tasked with finding guilt.

    The Manning team submitted their brief that indicated Manning simply mooned the trainer when he thought she wasn’t looking. They said he often helped her and once drove several players to a symposium on drug use to assist her.

    The Naughright team submitted their brief which included eyewitness affidavits from the players Manning said he drove around and the player he said he mooned. They didn’t support him. The judge probably didn’t like that but who knows-maybe he likes it when a superstar QB blows smoke up his butt.

    Kornstein ruled in her favor and said the case could proceed to trial. The Manning team settled.

    King should have said the judge ruled in her favor rather than what he did but it is all legal semantics. The judge was referring to the affidavits of several witnesses who cast doubt on the veracity of Manning. I’m not sure why Florio is so appalled. It was the correct ruling. When one party obviously is lying directly to the court it usually doesn’t go in their favor.

  48. genericnflfan says: Feb 15, 2016 7:34 PM

    The silver spoon Manning’s have been getting away with such ridiculous things for years, while supposedly being good people. Glad to see people can now begin to realize what some already knew (whether you want to admit it or not aka in denial).

    this media/fanboy squirm to desperately restore the image of the golden boy is pure gold.

    tears have surely filled the streets of Tennessee, Indy, and Denver by now.

    salute.

  49. sxk129 says: Feb 15, 2016 7:38 PM

    VenerableAxiom says:
    Feb 15, 2016 5:54 PM
    gimmeabruschi says:
    Feb 15, 2016 5:39 PM
    But wait!

    Manning and his lawyers did tell the other side of the story.

    They settled. That really says it all
    ======
    Just like the pats accepting the fines and loss of a #1 draft pick over deflategate. really says it all, correct.

    —————————————
    Nope, false equivalency.
    Patriots (the team) do not contractually have the option of contesting the commissioner’s decision.
    (Brady does, as he is protected by the CBA, and he seems to be doing pretty well, so far).

    Manning, on the other hand, was perfectly free to let the judicial process decide the merits of his accuser’s case.
    He intentionally chose not to, deciding to settle instead.

    Apples and oranges.

  50. trolling the trolls says: Feb 15, 2016 7:38 PM

    I don’t know, I think I still prefer someone who may have teabagged another person to a vile cheater. Especially when the cheater is a serial offender and the teabagger isn’t.

  51. davew128 says: Feb 15, 2016 7:38 PM

    VenerableAxiom says:
    Feb 15, 2016 5:54 PM

    gimmeabruschi says:
    Feb 15, 2016 5:39 PM
    But wait!

    Manning and his lawyers did tell the other side of the story.

    They settled. That really says it all
    ======
    Just like the pats accepting the fines and loss of a #1 draft pick over deflategate. really says it all, correct.
    ============
    Patriots didn’t settle. They simply didn’t have an avenue to fight in. Owners don’t have appeals rights like players do, and litigation is in theory supposed to be not available as per the terms of franchise.

  52. dawsonleery says: Feb 15, 2016 7:42 PM

    This Shaun King is just looking to make some money, sad really.

  53. nflfan22 says: Feb 15, 2016 7:43 PM

    The funny thing is that Florio is so out of his head about it. What’s this, the 4th or 5th 12 paragraph story about this? Well done, Mr. King. The worst sports has to offer in terms of class reporting fell for it!

  54. hbegley6672 says: Feb 15, 2016 7:56 PM

    Shaun King doesn’t write a story that isn’t race related. He has his agenda, no surprise here

  55. ch1ggs says: Feb 15, 2016 7:57 PM

    Nothing but character assassination by King, plain and simple.

  56. thetruthstings says: Feb 15, 2016 8:00 PM

    How Humble and Respectful Peyton Manning Carries himself alone should tell the whole story here. He Shows Total Class while Fig Newton is a Big Boaster who can’t even BACK IT UP!!! Denver 24 Cam 10!

    Just a bunch of haters trying to Extort Money from Manning! If he is Smart he should not pay and Counter Sue them!!! I believe nothing that comes from Trashy Chun Kings Mouth!!!

  57. bmacwillconn says: Feb 15, 2016 8:06 PM

    I cut and pasted this from an earlier post I wrote when King’s article on the Manning complaint was first critiqued by PFT. Very happy to see this clown and his newspaper are being revealed for the bottom feeders they are.

    ——————————————————————
    As soon as I saw what newspaper had broken this story, I knew something about the “facts” were not right.

    The Daily News – a once great NY institution – has morphed into a liberal rag that regularly espouses anti-american, anti capitalism, anti religion, anti cop rhetoric. The paper is staffed by writers and editors who are left wing fanatics with a journalistic standard below that of a weekly ad circular. Who knows what Manning did. If he violated any woman’s rights he should be held accountable and punished accordingly.

    However, for future reference, please find a reliable and ethical source to follow this story from. The Daily News is not that source.

  58. kd75 says: Feb 15, 2016 8:07 PM

    Either way, Peyton and Archie broke out the can opener by even mentioning this incident in the book, leading the the creation of the “74 page document” in the first place.

  59. patriotsticketssince1978 says: Feb 15, 2016 8:15 PM

    One of the interesting parts of the brief submitted by the Manning team is where he says that Naughright had a vulgar mouth. She was at the University for 10 years before he assaulted her and yet he couldn’t produce a single witness affidavit supporting this statement. Conversely Naughright submitted multiple affidavits from colleagues praising her professionalism.

  60. bencoates57 says: Feb 15, 2016 8:15 PM

    The person who comes out looking the sleaziest is Archie Manning. He engineered the cover up and let’s not forget how he encouraged Eli to cheat the game back in 2004.

  61. suncawy says: Feb 15, 2016 8:18 PM

    This is relevant several years after the fact because….? Gee, its like the Cosby accussers coming out of the closet. Did King wake up and realize this was important somehow ? Its his way of trying to garner attention for the BLM.

  62. dexx57 says: Feb 15, 2016 8:19 PM

    The same shaun king who is white and poses as black

  63. bencoates57 says: Feb 15, 2016 8:19 PM

    It says a lot about this country that we would overlook sexual assault (and a retaliatory cover up, harassment, and defamation) and yet rake another player overy the coals for some missing air pressure that the scientific community strongly suggests was a consequence if natural causes

  64. jjeastwald says: Feb 15, 2016 8:21 PM

    randygnyc says:
    Feb 15, 2016 5:01 PM
    I love when racially centric liberals eat eachother up. King is a BLM activist who’s motives are only race based in response to his perception of Cam being mistreated
    ————————————————–
    Well put.

    Peyton got caught up in the politics of the oppressed victim narrative. Any criticism of Newton was clearly racist based, and Peyton praise was simply white privilege run amok. King sees himself as a crusader to unmask the evil in every white man.

    It’s pretty comical this entire movement that is associated to liberals, but I can tell you it’s just a small portion of the Democrat party. The majority of them are embarrassed by the whole thing.

  65. inallsincerity says: Feb 15, 2016 8:25 PM

    This is reminds me of the Bill Cosby accusations, why wait so long before you want to start writing about this? What ulterior motives are at work here?

  66. davefromtheburgh says: Feb 15, 2016 8:32 PM

    I’m a lawyer and routinely read dense legal material. I have to say that the way King writes is incredibly opaque and difficult to follow. If he has a case, he needs to present it in a more clear and easy to understand fashion. A lot of good cases have been lost because the person making the case couldn’t do it effectively.

  67. sfm073 says: Feb 15, 2016 8:44 PM

    If he really tea bagged this women at 20 years old does that really make him this terrible human being for the rest of his life? If you think everything he did the last 20 years was a fake persona and a made up image by the media and his family then so be it, but it doesn’t take away the fact that he’s been one of the most respectable and gracious athletes in our generation and one bad prank doesn’t take that away.

  68. sdelmonte says: Feb 15, 2016 8:50 PM

    There is a lot more to this than Shaun King. Discredit him, perhaps, but don’t decide that just because he says something that the thing is wrong.

    Personally, I tend to believe allegations made by women against men because time after time, such allegations are true. The number of false accusations of rape or assault or abuse are vastly outnumbered by the real ones. And frankly, a teenaged male doing something that gross seems likely.

  69. trolling the trolls says: Feb 15, 2016 8:56 PM

    Like flies to crap, here comes the Patriots Internet Defense team, out for blood and in full ISIS jihad mode.

  70. patriotsticketssince1978 says: Feb 15, 2016 8:57 PM

    trolling the trolls says:
    Feb 15, 2016 7:38 PM

    I don’t know, I think I still prefer someone who may have teabagged another person to a vile cheater. Especially when the cheater is a serial offender and the teabagger isn’t.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I guess I agree. I think Elway has always been a despicable character for cheating the game multiple times but the allegations of HGH use and the new information concerning his sexual assault really has lowered Manning down to his level. They both wallow in the lowest portions of the cesspool.

  71. pmoore54 says: Feb 15, 2016 8:57 PM

    Man imagine if the trainer had been black….

  72. dallascowboysforever says: Feb 15, 2016 9:01 PM

    Why does it matter how long ago it was? No one knew half of what was mentioned in that 74 page court document until this past Saturday. You don’t pay someone off when you’re innocent nor do you attack their reputation for the next six years when you’re innocent as well. Why would the University of Tennessee need to try to cover for Peyton by asking Naughright to blame the whole incident on a black student if you’re innocent? The witness, Malcolm Saxon, defended his own statements on how Peyton Manning didn’t actually moon him and he has wanted Peyton to come clean till this very day.

  73. dallascowboysforever says: Feb 15, 2016 9:03 PM

    Jamie Naughright won $300,000 from the University of Tennessee in a defamation lawsuit on top of Peyton Manning paying her off twice. Why would a person possessing a doctorate degree need money? She had a GPA of 3.9 at that same university at one point and she played sports there so needless to say, she has a lot of history tied to that university. The University of Tennessee still wanted the whole entire incident blamed on a black student. Imagine that? Forget about the fact that the court document is one-sided. Peyton Manning did not act innocent.

    The witness present at the time of the incident still wants Peyton Manning to come clean till this very day. Peyton Manning started rumors on how she was a lesbian and Archie Manning started rumors how she was sleeping around with black students. The witness stated how Peyton Manning never mooned him and you know what? After Peyton Manning went out of his way to ruin Jamie’s reputation in that book along with starting false rumors, Malcolm Saxon could easily be telling the truth. Additionally, Archie and Peyton Manning still sent an envelope to a college in Florida with hate speech in it to Jamie, which later caused her to get fired. The witness, the lying about the mooning, and the payoff is all the evidence.

  74. thegreatgabbert says: Feb 15, 2016 9:08 PM

    Shaun King pretending to be black in order to get a date with Jamie Naughright? That’s na right.

  75. veddermn8 says: Feb 15, 2016 9:08 PM

    “with no balance or objectivity or apparent effort to contact Peyton Manning or Archie Manning for a response.”

    ……..

    why would Manning comment, he already had to pay a settlement for breaking a court order by speaking publicly about the case

  76. eagles1960 says: Feb 15, 2016 9:09 PM

    Face of the nfl. Big headed high user. Saint Peyton oh lord

  77. trolling the trolls says: Feb 15, 2016 9:10 PM

    patriotsticketssince1978 says:
    Feb 15, 2016 8:57 PM
    trolling the trolls says:
    Feb 15, 2016 7:38 PM

    I don’t know, I think I still prefer someone who may have teabagged another person to a vile cheater. Especially when the cheater is a serial offender and the teabagger isn’t.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I guess I agree. I think Elway has always been a despicable character for cheating the game multiple times but the allegations of HGH use and the new information concerning his sexual assault really has lowered Manning down to his level. They both wallow in the lowest portions of the cesspool.
    ****
    who was given the biggest fine in nfl history? who’s been stripped of multiple first round draft picks? who had every single other owner turn their back on them because of their vile cheating? who had a player suffer a stroke due to anabolic steroids? who had a player under federal investigation for hgh? who signed every criminal and clown from haynesworth to moss to browner?

    why your disgusting, cheating, greasy, crooked Patriots!!!

  78. terrellblowens says: Feb 15, 2016 9:12 PM

    I’m sure he’s also working on his exposé on Cam Newton’s alleged laptop thievery and potential recruitment violations. I like both Cam and Peyton and the Super Bowl was boring. That’s the story as far as I am concerned.

  79. trolling the trolls says: Feb 15, 2016 9:13 PM

    You don’t pay someone off when you’re innocent

    – Robert Kraft

  80. dallascowboysforever says: Feb 15, 2016 9:16 PM

    Peyton Manning fans can down-vote my above comment all they want but it doesn’t make it any less true. Don’t even try to act like none of it happened.

  81. tajuara says: Feb 15, 2016 9:17 PM

    Why would the University of Tennessee need to try to cover for Peyton by asking Naughright to blame the whole incident on a black student if you’re innocent?

    —————————————————-

    The University of Tennessee wasn’t trying to protect Manning. Jaime Whited (her name at the time she was working at the UofT) filed a suit against multiple employees arguing sexual discrimination. Ultimately the University had to pay her $300,000 and let her go. The fact that people is saying that Archie Manning destroyed this woman career at the UofT is just a misinterpretation of the true. In her initial complain she claimed (under affidavit) that Manning exposed himself to her, later on she changed the story to actual contact. Google Augusta Chronicle Manning Mooing. The article is from 1997.

  82. dallascowboysforever says: Feb 15, 2016 9:18 PM

    You don’t pay someone off when you’re innocent

    – Robert Kraft

    __________________________

    Why would Robert Kraft say that? I don’t know why people can’t just admit that no one cared about the PSI in footballs until it just happened to concern the Pats. If it involved the Cowboys, people would care almost as much.

  83. dallascowboysforever says: Feb 15, 2016 9:23 PM

    Will Peyton Manning finally retire? Will Tom Brady win a fifth championship? Will Tom Brady finally lose in deflategate? Did Peyton Manning use HGH in his NFL career? Did Peyton Manning sexually assault a female trainer? Are Tom Brady and Peyton Manning both cheaters? Tune in next time on a brand new episode of Dragon Ball Z.

  84. jerry944 says: Feb 15, 2016 9:24 PM

    Manning is lying just like he is lying about the hgh his wife had shipped to her during his rehab time of neck surgery..and he is lying about what way he plays the field..i dont kiss my friends or coworkers or business partners ..he and pappa john have it going on

  85. mmack66 says: Feb 15, 2016 9:29 PM

    trolling the trolls says:
    Feb 15, 2016 7:38 PM

    I don’t know, I think I still prefer someone who may have teabagged another person to a vile cheater. Especially when the cheater is a serial offender and the teabagger isn’t.
    —————-

    You’re in luck! With Peyton Manning you don’t have to choose, because he is both!

  86. patriotsticketssince1978 says: Feb 15, 2016 9:30 PM

    dallascowboysforever says:
    Feb 15, 2016 9:03 PM

    Archie and Peyton Manning still sent an envelope to a college in Florida with hate speech in it to Jamie.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    This is blatantly false information.

    Everyone knows Ashley handles all mail correspondence for team Manning. It was her return address in the upper left hand corner of the envelope. Archie and Peyton have no idea what Ashley does in her role as leader of their personal fulfillment house.

  87. dallascowboysforever says: Feb 15, 2016 9:34 PM

    The University of Tennessee wasn’t trying to protect Manning. Jaime Whited (her name at the time she was working at the UofT) filed a suit against multiple employees arguing sexual discrimination. Ultimately the University had to pay her $300,000 and let her go. The fact that people is saying that Archie Manning destroyed this woman career at the UofT is just a misinterpretation of the true. In her initial complain she claimed (under affidavit) that Manning exposed himself to her, later on she changed the story to actual contact. Google Augusta Chronicle Manning Mooing. The article is from 1997.

    ___________________________________

    The University of Tennessee wanted the incident blamed on a black student; that’s the point. After everything I just posted, you’re going to cherry-pick that piece of information? Malcolm Saxon was still present at the time of the incident and told the public how he never mooned him. I’m willing to believe the witness more than Naughright or Peyton Manning if you ask me. “In an affidavit, Saxon refuted Manning’s story and made it clear that Manning never mooned him. In a letter to Manning, Saxon, who stated that he lost his eligibility as a student-athlete over it, practically begged him to come forward and tell the truth”.

    There’s your evidence. If no one is going to believe Manning or Naughright, believe Saxon. Not only did Peyton Manning tarnish Jamie’s reputation in that book, he made it so that Malcolm Saxon was no longer an eligible student athlete.

  88. jjeastwald says: Feb 15, 2016 9:36 PM

    dallascowboysforever says:
    Feb 15, 2016 9:16 PM
    Peyton Manning fans can down-vote my above comment all they want but it doesn’t make it any less true. Don’t even try to act like none of it happened.

    ========================================

    He never denied he dropped his drawers. He just denied her version of the story. Of course he was incensed that his family was being exploited for something college kids do every day, and joke about it.

    If Manning had any sort of problem you’re going to see dozens and dozens of girls come out of the woodwork, and say they were mooned as well. The fact it seems to be just one, and ever since that incident we haven’t seen any signs of wrongdoing on his part tells me all I need to know about the charge.

    But I digress. It’s something that’s been over with decades ago, and it’s hard to find somebody that cares now.

  89. dallascowboysforever says: Feb 15, 2016 9:41 PM

    This is blatantly false information.

    Everyone knows Ashley handles all mail correspondence for team Manning. It was her return address in the upper left hand corner of the envelope. Archie and Peyton have no idea what Ashley does in her role as leader of their personal fulfillment house.

    _______________________

    Are you kidding me? Ashley has nothing to do with this conversation whatsoever. An envelope was still sent to the college in Florida. “When she arrived at her office, she found a large manilla envelope in a receptacle on her door with the words “Dr. Vulgar Mouth Whited” printed on it”. Who do you think this could have been from?

    Archie and Peyton Manning still brought up the whole incident in their book breaking a court agreement. For a person, who is supposed to be innocent that’s trying to move on, Peyton Manning never moved on from it.

  90. jjeastwald says: Feb 15, 2016 9:45 PM

    dallascowboysforever says:
    Feb 15, 2016 9:01 PM
    Why does it matter how long ago it was? No one knew half of what was mentioned in that 74 page court document until this past Saturday. You don’t pay someone off when you’re innocent nor do you attack their reputation for the next six years when you’re innocent as well. Why would the University of Tennessee need to try to cover for Peyton by asking Naughright to blame the whole incident on a black student if you’re innocent? The witness, Malcolm Saxon, defended his own statements on how Peyton Manning didn’t actually moon him and he has wanted Peyton to come clean till this very day.
    ————————————————————–
    A lot of people remember it they just forgot the first time it was mentioned a couple decades ago.Time has that affect on people.

  91. jedilogic says: Feb 15, 2016 9:48 PM

    dallascowboysforever says:
    Feb 15, 2016 9:41 PM
    This is blatantly false information.

    Everyone knows Ashley handles all mail correspondence for team Manning. It was her return address in the upper left hand corner of the envelope. Archie and Peyton have no idea what Ashley does in her role as leader of their personal fulfillment house.

    _______________________

    Yeah we know Ashley handles all their shipments, there was a different story written about that

  92. anusfur says: Feb 15, 2016 9:48 PM

    Manning is a huge phony and liar. He’s been protected his entire life.

  93. dallascowboysforever says: Feb 15, 2016 9:49 PM

    He never denied he dropped his drawers. He just denied her version of the story. Of course he was incensed that his family was being exploited for something college kids do every day, and joke about it.

    If Manning had any sort of problem you’re going to see dozens and dozens of girls come out of the woodwork, and say they were mooned as well. The fact it seems to be just one, and ever since that incident we haven’t seen any signs of wrongdoing on his part tells me all I need to know about the charge.

    But I digress. It’s something that’s been over with decades ago, and it’s hard to find somebody that cares now.

    _______________________________

    Forget about both versions of the story. Look at what Malcolm Saxon had to say about it all, the witness that was present to watch the whole thing:

    “First, I have stuck to my same story throughout this drama. I told Mike Rollo the next day and Coach Fulmer a week or two afterwards. I had nothing to hide at that point and I have nothing to hide today. I have never been on Jamie’s side or on your side (contrary to what the athletic department was telling you and telling her). I stuck to the truth and I lost my eligibility for it. My redshirt request sat on Mike Rollo’s desk for months as the process was going forward. I’m not angry about it anymore, just getting a little tired of it!

    Peyton, you messed up. I still don’t know why you dropped your drawers. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe not. But it was definitely inappropriate. Please take some personal responsibility here and own up to what you did. I never understood why you didn’t admit to it. Coming clean is the right thing to do.”

    People testified in court how what Peyton Manning said was wrong such as “She has a dirty mouth”. No one knew what Peyton Manning was talking about with Naughright.

  94. jjeastwald says: Feb 15, 2016 9:59 PM

    dallascowboysforever says:
    Feb 15, 2016 9:34 PM

    The University of Tennessee wanted the incident blamed on a black student; that’s the point.
    —————————————————————————
    That’s that victim mentality again. The kid Peyton used as a scapegoat happened to be black which makes no difference.

    There’s a big difference between blaming someone for the incident then saying they were the target of the alleged moon assault.. I’m sorry. The whole thing is quite comical.

    The disturbing part is it’s tied in with real assaults as if Manning were involved in those to.The intent of the writer is brutally transparent for anyone with a brain that’s kept up with the Obama I’m a victim mentality that we see today

  95. dexx57 says: Feb 15, 2016 10:00 PM

    King is a race baiter. And this is scary sjw 1984 stuff, an accusation is now treated like somebody actually did it.

  96. tajuara says: Feb 15, 2016 10:04 PM

    The University of Tennessee wanted the incident blamed on a black student; that’s the point. After everything I just posted, you’re going to cherry-pick that piece of information? Malcolm Saxon was still present at the time of the incident and told the public how he never mooned him. I’m willing to believe the witness more than Naughright or Peyton Manning if you ask me. “In an affidavit, Saxon refuted Manning’s story and made it clear that Manning never mooned him. In a letter to Manning, Saxon, who stated that he lost his eligibility as a student-athlete over it, practically begged him to come forward and tell the truth”.

    There’s your evidence. If no one is going to believe Manning or Naughright, believe Saxon. Not only did Peyton Manning tarnish Jamie’s reputation in that book, he made it so that Malcolm Saxon was no longer an eligible student athlete.

    ———————————————————

    Cherry picking? In 1996 Jamie Whited filed a complain and in an affidavit claimed that a student athlete (a.k.a. Peyton Manning) exposed himself while she was examining him. When the University when to investigate she was nowhere to be found and took a long leave absence. They asked a witness (probable Saxton?) who corroborated Manning’s story. Then she came back and filed a complain against multiple staff members of the UofT alleging sexual discrimination. She settle for $300K with the University and was let go. Saxon’s statement came up later on, and is only showed in one side of the story (as stated by Florio in this and in a previous article). I am stating facts backed down by links and documents. You are mentioning Saxon as your key witness yet he is nowhere to be found just like the accuser.

  97. sariff420 says: Feb 15, 2016 10:09 PM

    The victim card is way overplayed. This girl is not physically hurt or even sexually penetrated. If it were a guy, everyone would be having a hardy laugh. When people say what if it was your sister, daughter or mother; that is the dumbest statement ever. Its completely irrelevant and an emotional argument. Its the reason emotional arguments arent allowed in court. Also Anyone whos ever had anything happened ever is the kin of someone. Men included. But the daughter statement only ever gets brought up when the alleged victim is female.

  98. senatorblutarsky says: Feb 15, 2016 10:11 PM

    Go, King, go. manning is a greedy phony.

  99. youknowiknowitall says: Feb 15, 2016 10:22 PM

    Wow. It looks like trolling the trolls is on suicide watch. Hang in there kid.

  100. ohand16 says: Feb 15, 2016 10:30 PM

    He’s RIGHT

    #fraudgate

  101. omeimontis says: Feb 15, 2016 10:31 PM

    There is a media campaign trying to boot Peyton Manning out of Denver. It started when some in the media predicted Denver would cut Manning (it didn’t happen), and they they claimed that Manning will retire (they still do), and now they are using Shaun King to conduct a “crusade” against Peyton Manning. The FBI should go check Shaun King’s refrigerator and see if there is a load of cash inside that he got for conducting his crusade.

  102. Angry Orange Man says: Feb 15, 2016 10:35 PM

    Shawn King is an unabashed racist. He’s just the opposite end of what he claims to fight against. As Florio pointed out, King just lacks the intelligence to self examine and realize what he is.

    Literally every story I’ve seen from him has the words black or white in it because that’s all he’s got. If he were born white he would be unemployed because he’s got nothing other than screaming racism like the boy who cried wolf. Kudos to Florio for calling this ignorant turd out.

  103. Lady Bramble says: Feb 15, 2016 10:35 PM

    I read all 74 pages of the court documents — not just King’s article, but the actual court documents. It pains me to say this because I live in Denver and couldn’t have been more ecstatic just a few short days ago, but there are a few problems with NBC’s article. First, while the documents ARE plaintiff’s response to a motion for summary judgment (meaning they are a skewed argument on behalf of the plaintiff), they contain something that’s very, very damning: deposition testimony. This is sworn testimony, and many of Peyton’s cohorts admitted to lies and rumor-spreading during their depositions. It’s one thing to railroad in private, quite another to do it under oath. Most weren’t willing to lie in a court setting. Worse, it was Peyton and his attorney that requested the incident that originally caused bad blood between Manning and Naughright to be sealed — not her. Also, it was revealed by Mike Rollo that the “mooning” incident was basically a cover-up. The player Manning supposedly mooned (Malcom Saxon) has continually refused to cooperate and go along with Manning’s lie. The irony is that everything would have remained quiet had Manning simply left it alone. They both signed a non-disclosure agreement and Naughright left the university. But he violated it in his book. This resulted in the defamation suit (from which the court documents came from). Had he simply left well enough alone, few would have been the wiser.

  104. itsgettingchippy says: Feb 15, 2016 11:06 PM

    truthfactory says:
    Feb 15, 2016 5:09 PM

    2. She claims Manning did this to her while she was evaluating his foot. Manning claims he was mooning someone behind him.

    Now imagine someone is down near your foot as if they were tying your shoes and you are wearing a pair of shorte. Can you imagine a scenario where you are able to pull off your pants and keep that persons head there without them being able to move?? It sounds extremely far fetched.
    ___________________________

    Exactly! I thought the same thing when I read it. It didn’t make sense that she would be examining Manning’s foot while he was naked from the waist down. And if he was wearing shorts she would have noticed him pulling down his shorts.

  105. example89297 says: Feb 15, 2016 11:22 PM

    When it comes to misrepresentation: Pot, meet Kettle, and meet Mr. Shaun King. (At least two out of the three are really black)

  106. ivanpavlov0000 says: Feb 15, 2016 11:28 PM

    This isn’t about Manning defending himself from Dr. Naughright (MD). It’s the opposite. It’s about her defending herself from allegations made by him.

    In his 2000 book, Manning alleged Dr. Naughright had sex with multiple student athletes and had a “vulgar mouth.”

    In 2003 Dr. Naughright sued Manning for defamation. The 74 page document in question is the “Facts of the Case” document that Dr. Naughright’s attorney provided in the defamation lawsuit.

    It’s worth noting that Manning has never produced a witness who will testify that any of his allegations are true. He made the allegations about her. The burden of proof is on him.

    As for the 1996 incident … the following facts are not in dispute:

    Manning’s junk landed on the face of Dr. Naughright (MD) where it was clearly unwelcome.

    Manning claimed he was mooning teammate Malcolm Saxon and the incident was an accident.

    Malcolm Saxon signed sworn affidavit that he was never mooned by Manning.

    Malcolm Saxon then lost his student-athlete eligibility.

    There are additional allegations against Manning in the Facts of the Cast document, which have yet to have their day in court. But considering that in 2016 FSU doesn’t care if their student athletes commit rape, it’s not hard to believe University of Tennessee’s athletic department had a less than enlightened attitude towards the treatment of women. What we don’t know is how big of a role Manning played in all of that — but when he was in college it sounds like he thought he could do anything he wanted and get away with it.

  107. example28060 says: Feb 15, 2016 11:34 PM

    these right wing manning idjits are neglecting the fact that this woman had 3 witnesses to the infraction that backed her side of things…Manning had none, zero, zip…secondly she recieved commendations from several olympic athletes she worked with for over 10 years…face it..manning looks guilty stop using your puny minds to figure out ridiculous things such as how she couldn’t see him drop his shotrts…maybe she looked into her bag for a second…whatever the case you and I won’t know but the WITNESSES DID ! and the Mannings settled twice, that’s 2 for 2 already

  108. coalcreekrabbit says: Feb 16, 2016 12:09 AM

    Love Manning, hate Manning… Love Cammie, hate Cammie…. It doesn’t matter, it is an obvious smear campaign, its just sad Shaun king is using this woman to do it, he didn’t care about her two years ago, five minutes, and won’t after his name is relevant again. It is his way of making a name for himself, and fruit to take anither down. Oh, by the way……. I am in no way a Denver, Colts or a Manning fan, and I am a woman.

  109. skyy77 says: Feb 16, 2016 12:36 AM

    Despite Shaun King’s motive or lack of understanding of the judicial process, the fact remains that PEYTON MANNING has yet to find one person/teammate to corroborate any part of his story. Furthermore, his transgressions as a teen are far more excusable than his continued efforts as a GROWN MAN to defame this woman. That makes the “20-year-old story” a bit more relevant as it relates to his character TODAY! He’s evidently the same jerk he was 20 years ago!!!!!!

  110. hamlet423 says: Feb 16, 2016 12:39 AM

    I hope Mike Florio reads the story that Whitlock posted to his j school blog

    It starts with this “I may be proven wrong later, but it’s difficult for me to believe that in 1996 Peyton Manning pulled his pants down and sat on the face of a University of Tennessee female trainer.”

    then he continues “At the moment, I don’t believe it. It’s difficult for me to believe any college football player would be that crude, predatory and stupid. Not in a training room. Not without the influence of alcohol or some drug.”

    Uh…how many college football players does Whitlock know?
    I would not bet your job on that.

    wasn’t that the case that peyton settled, then twice more when kept violating the gag order to try to promote his story? Peyton, if what you said is what happened, why did you settle? and why does Whitlock believe you?

  111. bobsnygiants says: Feb 16, 2016 3:37 AM

    Manning is guilty, and his HGH IS GUILTY

  112. itsgettingchippy says: Feb 16, 2016 3:48 AM

    example28060 says:
    Feb 15, 2016 11:34 PM
    these right wing manning idjits are neglecting the fact that this woman had 3 witnesses to the infraction that backed her side of things…Manning had none, zero, zip…secondly she recieved commendations from several olympic athletes she worked with for over 10 years…face it..manning looks guilty stop using your puny minds to figure out ridiculous things such as how she couldn’t see him drop his shotrts…maybe she looked into her bag for a second…whatever the case you and I won’t know but the WITNESSES DID ! and the Mannings settled twice, that’s 2 for 2 already
    ___________________________________

    First, one of the witnesses, Saxon, stated in his letter to Manning, “I never understood why you didn’t admit to it; you would have endeared yourself to your fans who thought/think highly of you.”

    From Saxon’s letter it does sound like Manning did something inappropriate. It definitely doesn’t sound like Manning did what Naughright accused him of doing.

    It makes no sense for Saxon to think Manning would have endeared himself to his fans if he had admitted to putting his gluteus maximus, rectum, testicles and the area in between his testicles on her face. This is what Naughright claimed (p. 14 of the 74 page doc).

    Second, you have no idea if Manning had witnesses regarding what happened in the training room. The plaintiff’s attorneys certainly weren’t going to include testimony that directly refutes Naughright’s claims in the document they filed. This is why it is one sided.

    Third, if Manning is sitting on a table having his foot examined it is not ridiculous to wonder why he wouldn’t have shorts on or how he could maneuver himself to lower his shorts without her noticing him moving and looking up.

  113. tjirish34 says: Feb 16, 2016 6:02 AM

    I actually agree with Randy the first poster on why King wrote this article. It was linked to what he thought was mistreatment of Cam Newton vs Manning at the Superbowl. Having said that:

    I consider myself a liberal and Hey Randy not all Libs are mentally ill and eat each other up. I also challenge you Randy to go get some libs and some rightwingers together in a discussion and see who is deranged. I mean the right is trying to put a guy into the whitehouse who has never served in politics or held any kind of politico office. Real intelligent there RANDY!!

  114. tjirish34 says: Feb 16, 2016 6:05 AM

    Something missed in this story is not about Peyton but the recent suit that says Tennessee has a history of looking the other way when it comes to sexual harassment. This Manning suit was settles. But it does allege all way back to late 89 a history of Tenn looking the other way.

  115. tdubdizzle says: Feb 16, 2016 7:32 AM

    This is what happens when people don’t educate themselves.

    Shaun King has a platform to babyl on.

  116. seanumich says: Feb 16, 2016 7:37 AM

    So wait, a RICH guy from a RICH family settles lawsuits against him when he was just mooning somebody. The fact is, if Manning is so “innocent” why did he write a check AND have a non-disclosure? Is it not worth it to fight it?

  117. paulrevereshorse1775 says: Feb 16, 2016 7:40 AM

    “The document on which King’s column was based was cobbled together by lawyers with a sworn duty to zealously represent Naughright. They wouldn’t be doing their jobs if they didn’t put together something that appeared to be compelling on the surface.”

    ———–

    I need an explanation on this one. Are you saying it’s a lawyer’s job to embellish the truth and make up stuff in order to win, or to even get the case heard?

    Nice career path.

  118. intrafinesse says: Feb 16, 2016 7:51 AM

    Once Manning announces his retirement, do we even care?

  119. bucko40 says: Feb 16, 2016 8:04 AM

    So Mr. King, where is your outrage over Jameis Winston? He basically he is accused the same as Manning. How about writing that? Or is this reverse racism?

  120. eddievortex says: Feb 16, 2016 9:00 AM

    VenerableAxiom says:
    Feb 15, 2016 5:54 PM

    gimmeabruschi says:
    Feb 15, 2016 5:39 PM
    But wait!

    Manning and his lawyers did tell the other side of the story.

    They settled. That really says it all
    ======
    Just like the pats accepting the fines and loss of a #1 draft pick over deflategate. really says it all, correct
    _______________________________
    Correct and not correct…I’ve mentioned this before and so have other commenters on these pages…The Patriots and Kraft have to accept the fines and loss of picks because of the NFL Ownership Bylaws that say owners can’t sue the NFL…Just look up Al Davis and you’ll see why.

    With that said March 3rd is not to far away, and if the 3 judge panel backs Berman’s decision THEN things will really start to get interesting…

  121. moosey7195 says: Feb 16, 2016 9:10 AM

    I don’t get it Florio. King had over 12 points in his double-down piece. Why do you think by defeating one you’ve defeated the entire argument? He presented sworn testimony from several witnesses that poke holes all up and down Mannings story. Is that sworn testimony, subject to perjury, “one sided”. I don’t get it. When Tom Brady put his hand on the bible before his Deflategate appeal, it was a big deal. But when Peyton’s former teammates and witnesses to the incident do so, it isn’t worthy of discussion?

  122. deepwater805 says: Feb 16, 2016 9:14 AM

    Shaun King is a opportunist bottom feeder. His type are the ones who chase the ambulance like a pack of feral dogs. Which pretty much sums up this low life’s attempt to cash in on Manning’s fame by defaming him. Typical of todays parasitical society, and this King blood sucker is one of the worst.

  123. mikep426 says: Feb 16, 2016 9:43 AM

    For me the bigger issue is why everything Manning-related is treated with kid-gloves if not outright buried by major media outlets. It’s not a matter of guilt or innocence in either of these cases (no one really cares if an NFL player uses HGH, and this case was settled)

    Why is that? I think that’s where the outrage is (at least for me). Just about every possible infraction (outside of PED – we all turn a blind eye there) by an NFL player is under the microscope and discussed ad nauseum – why does ESPN and CBS not just give Peyton a pass, but actually denounce any reports that put a bad light on Peyton?

  124. wayzupusc says: Feb 16, 2016 10:00 AM

    Pretty ironic that Florio disparages King for not reaching out to Manning for comment yet does the exact same in this piece.

    That notwithstanding, the fact that both UT and Manning settled with this woman TWICE instead of standing up and defending themselves as the side of truth is, in my opinion (yes, only an opinion), very telling and a precursor to Manning’s present actions regarding the HGH allegations.

    If what Manning says happened in this case actually happened….why settle? If his wife never received HGH or other PED’s from the Guyer Clinic in Indianapolis, why the need to hire professional liar Ari Fleischer and multiple PI’s to hunt down and intimidate the source of the rumors to the point the family felt the need to call 911? Innocent people don’t do that….the laugh it off, deny deny deny and let the BS story wither on the vine.

    Thing about Naughright and the 96 incident, Manning was caught lying about it back then and again 6 years later. Yet all the Manning defenders (Florio included apparently) focus on Shaun King and his affiliation with BLM. What about the facts that were upheld in court? What about the fact that Mannings paid to have the story buried instead of defending themselves or counter-suing (for exponentially less than what they likely settled for) Naughright for defamation themselves?

    Long story short, Manning did not act like one would if they were innocent of the allegations back then & he’s not currently on the HGH allegations.

  125. papatoad says: Feb 16, 2016 10:12 AM

    Who cares anyway? What’s done is done… Let it go already. Let’s go back to our sub $100K jobs and let these millionaires get going with the rest of theirs!

  126. mangeleno says: Feb 16, 2016 10:19 AM

    @ givemeabruschi & others who submit that Manning is somehow guilty because the case settled – I am no fan of Peyton Manning – lifelong Giants’ fan here – however, I do know something about case management having managed litigation at the Home Office level for two different insurance companies.

    Cases such as this, which are essentially “he said-she said” cases are both difficult and expensive to take to verdict. If insurance is involved, the defense (the Mannings) could not even decide whether or for how much the case might settle. That decision belonged to the insurers per the terms of the policy.

    So, in the REAL world, the fact that the case settled means that a couple of bureaucrats decided that it was better to put some bucks on the table and make a KNOWN problem that had the potential to become a disaster, simply go away. I know that it sounds cold-blooded, but that is precisely how the matter gets evaluated.

  127. ionsports says: Feb 16, 2016 10:25 AM

    The entire media has held up Manning as the great white golden boy his entire career. I just find the push back by those who raked Brady over the coals as the worst person ever for “possibly” knowing some footballs were slightly underinflated kind of amusing. You managed to sweep the HGH thing under the rug to protect him during the playoffs, and what actually makes you angry is that this story cuts to the heart of your lying: HE WAS ALWAYS SHADY and should never have been the golden boy to begin with.

  128. patriotsticketssince1978 says: Feb 16, 2016 10:28 AM

    mangeleno says:
    Feb 16, 2016 10:19 AM

    Cases such as this, which are essentially “he said-she said” cases are both difficult and expensive to take to verdict.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    This case is a he said-they said case where the witness had his eligibility as a student athlete compromised for not going along with the cover up.

  129. bebronco35 says: Feb 16, 2016 10:31 AM

    So let me get this straight. This lady has settled out of court twice.

    Once for the incident.
    Second for defamation.

    Think of your life’s mistakes being constantly ran through the coals..

    Have you heard of Double Jeopardy?

  130. manninglayshisballsuponyou says: Feb 16, 2016 10:36 AM

    So this Tom Brady guy gets crucified in the streets by the NFL for possibly deflating his balls, a minor infraction that warrants a $25k fine that he may or may not have been guilty of but Peyton Manning lays his balls on a woman’s face and is handed the superbowl MVP…
    Nice.

  131. gmfw7 says: Feb 16, 2016 10:45 AM

    manning probably did it, and he was a stupid, disrespectful young kid if he did. but all the people saying “it says something” that he settled are wrong. settling the case means absolutely nothing in terms of whether he was guilty or not. public figures with lots of money settle these types of claims all the time and not always because they are guilty. it’s just a lot easier to give someone a nice chunk of change that amounts to basically nothing in the eyes of the defendant instead of allowing it to go to court, make it to the the media and the public’s radar and then have your name tarnished by both. the bottom line is manning would have let this go to court and become a national headline for the better part of a year, whether he ended up being found guilty or innocent, there would be people on this very website all these years later who would bring it up every time a story about him was written. the same way there will be people for the next 50 years who make some asinine comment about ball pressure and asterisks in the record books every time a story is written about tom brady. sadly, these people are found innocent or guilty in the public eye long before a court makes a ruling and those societal verdicts last a very long time despite the outcome in the court room

  132. joeypeepee says: Feb 16, 2016 10:50 AM

    Seriously, who cares what Manning did as an immature teenager 20 f’n years ago? It was settled twice. The end. Now everybody wants to pretend like Peyton has been living a lie for the past two decades. Gimme a break. Nobody talks about Kobe’s rape case. Why? Because it was settled, the end. Nobody talks about Big Ben’s FAR more serious allegations over the years. Why? Because they were settled. It’s such a joke that this has become a semi-big story all because the silliest ‘journalist’ in America wrote a one-sided novella about it in the least credible rag in the world. Poor woman got 7 figures for a dumb prank. What an awful experience it must’ve been her. How did she ever make it through life.

  133. tylawspick6 says: Feb 16, 2016 10:59 AM

    I think King is pointing out Goodell’s hypocrisy with how he leads the NFL as as corrupt commissioner.

    Goodell all by greased the wheels for Gomer to ride off into the sunset, assisting in cheating.

    Between the penalties favoring Denver in many key games this year, including the SUper Bowl, which was an officiating disgrace and clear bagjob, and the HGH thing with Manning leaving the team this year, going AWOL, only to return like all spry, corruption is rampant on Park Ave.

    Gomer has been an entitled fraud his entire career.

  134. trolling the trolls says: Feb 16, 2016 11:06 AM

    tylawspick6 says:
    Feb 16, 2016 10:59 AM
    I think King is pointing out Goodell’s hypocrisy with how he leads the NFL as as corrupt commissioner.
    ****

    yes corruption is rampant, you will never see another super bowl clown. how do you like that justice? they’re all out to get you. just wait till brady is about to retire, imagine all the slime that will ooze out of the cracks about that cheat.

  135. PokeSalad says: Feb 16, 2016 11:07 AM

    Just because something is presented by one party to a lawsuit as factual doesn’t mean it actually happened. All evidence in a disputed case must be vetted through the judicial process, culminating in a jury hearing conflicting evidence and making decisions.

    Wow, too bad this wasn’t applied to the Jameis Winston case……

  136. mvtheshark says: Feb 16, 2016 11:26 AM

    Why would anyone decide to moon another player while a female trainer is working on their foot? I read a comment above with some Bronco fan questioning her side of the story. I question Mannings.

  137. lapantherfan86 says: Feb 16, 2016 12:02 PM

    Honestly, the people on here saying the woman’s story isn’t true are just as evil as scumbag Manning. Hope this never happens to a woman you care about, but if it does, you can thank yourselves when others question her story.

  138. Al in MIA says: Feb 16, 2016 12:03 PM

    I never understood why King chose to nexus Manning’s legal past w/ Cam Newton’s post game behavior. It’s silly to compare public sentiment on both events since the events are entirely different (Cam’s behavior is not a legal issue). The Manning situation mirrors Jameis Winston’s legal past if anything.

  139. itsgettingchippy says: Feb 16, 2016 12:03 PM

    mvtheshark says:
    Feb 16, 2016 11:26 AM

    Why would anyone decide to moon another player while a female trainer is working on their foot? I read a comment above with some Bronco fan questioning her side of the story. I question Mannings.

    ______________________________

    I question both. I suspect what Manning did falls somewhere in between an innocent prank of mooning and actually putting his gluteus maximus, rectum, testicles and the area in between his testicles on her face. There are three sides to every story – in this case her side, his side, and the truth. And the witnesses do not support her side when it comes to what happened in the training room. The witnesses support her side regarding her alleged “vulgar mouth”.

  140. patriotsticketssince1978 says: Feb 16, 2016 12:30 PM

    I wonder if Malcolm Saxon has had any visits from police er….agents working on the behalf of the Mannings too.

  141. manninglayshisballsuponyou says: Feb 16, 2016 12:38 PM

    So I wonder if Goodell is going to spend 500 million dollars investigating Peyton’s balls…

  142. midenginerearwheeldrive says: Feb 16, 2016 12:52 PM

    I’m confused. Lots of lawyerly gobbledygook in here.

    So, it’s not the former Lions backup QB Shaun King that is stirring this pot, but that white BLM activist guy who is trying to convince everyone that he’s black.

    That guy?

  143. mikeleasara says: Feb 16, 2016 12:53 PM

    Peyton Did after all Admit to it and the victim did get paid twice for Nothing? I doubt it. I also doubt the shipments of HGH peyton claims were for his wife!

  144. cjas9298 says: Feb 16, 2016 12:57 PM

    King misunderstands the significance of the Judge’s ruling that the case could go forward. Okay. Did he also misunderstand the pages of testimony where every witness contradicts Manning version of events and confirms hers?

  145. curtrd says: Feb 16, 2016 1:44 PM

    Holy Crap Batman. I read an article in SI about manning. It was very very long, and I ended up with a new found very deep respect for him. It ran back to his grade school days. Honor was everything. Both of the recent events can be dismissed by the fact that too many people exist that take shots at celebrities, such that, for sure, there are tons and tons of false accusations, some that even get settled, when they were false in the first place. But, honor is first. And the way the Mannings handled these two events show lack of honor. One should even honor their enemies and try and show love to them even if they are bearing false witness. This is something I know the Mannings have been taught. Yet,….., so, even though I do not know, I have lost that respect for the manning family. They are family first before honor. I hate that. That means you and yours are somehow entitled to more rights, respect and honor than non members of your family. Well guess what. No, no you are not. Honor, Family, Tradition, Donuts. The four most important things in life, in that order.

  146. shyts7 says: Feb 16, 2016 2:00 PM

    “truthfactory says:Feb 15, 2016 5:09 PM

    A few major holes in this womans story.

    1. She did not mention that Mannings “genatalia” touched her until 7 years later. Her story was very different as time went on.

    2. She claims Manning did this to her while she was evaluating his foot. Manning claims he was mooning someone behind him.”

    Wow I don’t even know where to start. Maybe you should go and do some research before commenting on here.

    1. She reported the incident about an hour after it happened. So you’re wrong. Her story has never changed because we haven’t heard the whole story, only parts of it have come out. Manning was “punished” after the incident if you want to call it that. There was even another player in the locker room who saw the whole thing go down and after telling the truth about what he saw, was turned into a pariah.

    2. He claims….She claims….Why are you so quick to take his side? Just do some research on Manning. He is not this “awe shucks” guy that is so good. The guy has a long history of being a jerk going back to high school. Combine that with the fact that his dad tried to cover this incident up and even autographed the book Manning talked about it in and sent it to the woman as a sick joke.

  147. routerunner says: Feb 16, 2016 2:18 PM

    Gee Manning was a spoiled, entitled arrogant little brat going back to youth. What a surprise. And you know that HGH was his too. Lie to yourself all you want but objective people know the truth.

  148. luvhatepeace says: Feb 16, 2016 2:24 PM

    Non disclosure means that both sides have agreed to disagree and to not talk about this anymore. Isn’t there some kind of law against bringing up a case that was supposed to be placed in this category. Obviously both sides thought they were right, but neither wanted to go to court over it so they are both kind of wet in some ways. Manning had the buckos and the most to lose, so he ponied up… It does not mean he undeniably did it, guilty!!! This guy is a sore loser because his wittle teamy weamy wost the pooper bowl…. Baby

  149. melikefootball says: Feb 16, 2016 2:40 PM

    It is odd how pay off by Manning and Daddy dearest is not an admission of guilt. Yet everyone on this site points guilty at every other player in trouble, paying off someone, is an admission of guilt. Obvious he was involved in a hide up deal when Daddy get involved and money passes hands.

  150. wj2016 says: Feb 16, 2016 3:02 PM

    Shaun King is white. That is an old story. Just a male Dolezal. That is all you need to know about the source. A lying weird looking little creep pretending to be black.

    Personally, I could not care less what Manning did or didn’t do. I am just perplexed at black people who would believe this lying poser.

  151. starcrunch061 says: Feb 16, 2016 3:08 PM

    A lot of these posts are silly. Really silly.

    1) Of course you pay off people whether you are innocent or guilty. Businesses do this literally ALL THE TIME with unruly customers. You just get rid of them. Simply paying someone a hush fee shows neither guilt nor innocence.

    2) There is no question that Manning did SOMETHING 20 years ago. This has been known to most anyone for a long time. Manning himself hasn’t shied from it – he even brought it up in his book. Was this the smartest move? Nope, but it certainly isn’t the behavior of someone running away.

    3) Let’s not kid ourselves about King – he’s lapping this up. He created a click-bait article which basically said, “You know, I decided to read about something that happened 20 years ago, and this is what I think!” That’s fine – that’s his prerogative, and if the Daily News wants to publish it, more power to them. But simply doubling down on his viewpoint makes it no less true (otherwise, Donald Trump has never stated a falsehood).

    Let’s be smart here, people. I know it’s hard.

  152. gonesouth61 says: Feb 16, 2016 4:29 PM

    I didn’t read either “article” but I’ve seen a lot of the controversy it’s spawned.
    Let me ask though,King brought this up,something that happened approaching 20 years ago because he didn’t think it was fair that Newton was being criticized for how he acted after a game less than a month ago?
    That seem to be equal.
    It’s not like 1 thing happened almost Newton’s lifetime ago and the other is current.
    Oh,wait…………………

  153. julzheimer says: Feb 16, 2016 4:41 PM

    Ancient history, youthful hijinks, angry nobody reporter looking for his 10 seconds of fame.

  154. segodsoe says: Feb 16, 2016 6:21 PM

    It appears that she was demoted and lost he job because of the “Dr. Vulgar Mouth Whited” letter sent to her boss from the Mannings (one would suspect. Brady gets castigated by an immoral NFL and ignorant media as an immoral cheat for something that many scientists and physics professors say did not happen (i.e. Mother Nature made to psi go down). He was innocent and the Mannings are the immoral ones who lied, cheated, manipulated and ruined a woman’s career and worse. I predict nothing will happen to Peyton and the corrupt NFL will continue to hold him up as an exemplary person.

  155. nfl123 says: Feb 16, 2016 6:29 PM

    The reason the Daily News printed the story was because they know Manning did it and there’s no way Manning’s lawyers would sue them- because he did it. He didn’t moon anyone, he shoved his butt in her face, there was a witness.
    Harper’s magazine did the same thing 15 years ago with Henry Kissinger, calling him a war criminal. They knew Kissinger wouldn’t sue, because he did it, he was a war criminal.

  156. manninglayshisballsuponyou says: Feb 16, 2016 6:34 PM

    He probably learned it from his dad Archie…

  157. g2-9650ccf438b2298f09849da0cd08ee66 says: Feb 16, 2016 6:34 PM

    these comments exhibit what a bunch of racist, misogynistic, ignorant pricks abound in this godforsaken country. It’s too much for these kind of people to read, before barfing up sh*t from the endless supply that fills their brains.

  158. infectorman says: Feb 16, 2016 6:42 PM

    Why did Manning* settle?

  159. thecoltsfan76 says: Feb 16, 2016 7:27 PM

    infectorman says:
    Feb 16, 2016 6:42 PM
    Why did Manning* settle?

    *************************

    I’m gonna go with…to just make the issue go away. I’m betting the family was worried about the impact this issue could have on his draft status.

    I see 2 sad points here;
    1. Shaun King (not the football player) got exactly what he wanted with this BS story, he got national exposure. He is now a household name, unfortunately.
    2. The fact that he is still employed blows my mind

  160. bigeasy09 says: Feb 16, 2016 7:37 PM

    Shaun King is a real TOOL… Do us a favor “Don’t go away mad… Just go away”

  161. charliecharger says: Feb 16, 2016 7:37 PM

    The fact that none of this stuff was important for the past 13 years tells me all I know to know. Please put me on the jury. The accuser, not Peyton, would be going to prison. I would award all her money to Peyton.

  162. fogisgone says: Feb 16, 2016 8:03 PM

    I cannot believe that some people think that everything said in a brief to the court IS evidence! Even when there is so-called depositions in the doc! That does not mean that all parties are telling the truth! That’s what they use to get the case into a courtroom and before a jury! Then and IF they get a hearing before a judge or jury on the ALLEGATIONS set forth in the brief to the court, the FACTS of the case will be determined by either a judge or jury! Not by either side’s attorneys and what they wrote in doc (called a brief) to the court!
    When a person settles a lawsuit, it does NOT mean that they are necessarily guilty of ANY of the allegations that the PLAINTIFFS lawyers have set forth in the brief or that the depos are even true! All that needs to be determined by a the trier of FACT in the case, IF and when it goes to a court proceeding. Most of the time, people settle issues out of court because it would be advantageous to do so for many different reasons, one of which is that you would want it to go away so that it didn’t follow you into a promising career. But, it is NOT an admission of guilt! To the contrary and usually that is also stated in the settlement documents.
    For the plaintiff to take money instead of prosecuting the defendant for the alleged vile and despicable actions that he allegedly performed is an unsettling fact to me because if the action had happened as the plaintiff has said, said plaintiff could have prosecuted and then filed lawsuit also! By forgoing the prosecution, she lost not only a great deal of possible evidence uncovered at criminal trial to use in the civil side, she also lost all credibility as far as I’m concerned. She wanted a payday! Period! And now, Shaun King wants to try to dirty up PFM because Cam and the Panthers were beaten in SB50 and he really was happy that Cam Newton was now the “new face” of the NFL! King’s continual harping about racism is a clanging that needs to be stopped since he has been named in an investigation about funds that were intended for use by BLM and he, the way that I understand, used them for something personal. So, that isn’t being an advocate for BLM, if true!

  163. sariff420 says: Feb 16, 2016 9:17 PM

    The question that must be asked is why did the trainer settle instead of pursuing prosecution?

  164. raiders4ever says: Feb 17, 2016 1:14 AM

    you people who back up Manning and refuse to believe any thing bad thats fine but dont tell me Barry Bonds did steroids when he was found not guilty in COURT..and what do you know under oath he wasnt lying after all as all you people accused him right there just because Mcguire and Giambi admitted it you thought Bonds should of also but as the big court day came and went you dont even hear about it because Bonds was INNOCENT OF ALL accusations including taking PEDs …so if you stick up for your guy Manning then Bonds should be in the HOF as he had to go to court to prove his innocence…!

  165. midenginerearwheeldrive says: Feb 17, 2016 9:00 AM

    This is just silly to me. It’s obvious that ‘fake black guy’ D’ShAunee Lartraveous King (real name, Evan Sullivan or something) is angered because of the ‘racist’ reaction to Cam Newton.

    Let’s see – Cam is a loudmouth, showboating, front running, immature athlete who smiles big while winning and pouts while losing. People don’t like that and are annoyed by showboating and not winning AND losing with grace and class and the associated media aggrandizement. That means they are clearly racist?

    Now, let’s think of another athlete who fits the exact same description. That athlete got similar criticism (actually much more).

    That athlete appears in body paint in Sport Illustrated Swimsuit Issue this week.

    That athlete is white.

    Just like Shaun King.

  166. ajames35 says: Feb 17, 2016 10:17 AM

    “She reported the incident about an hour after it happened. So you’re wrong. Her story has never changed”
    ________________

    This is half unknown and half flatly wrong. Regarding when she reported it – her harassment claim from 1996 only mentioned that she told her boss the next day. Only in 2002 did she claim that she immediately went to an Assault Crisis Center. That claim was added later and has not been verified.

    Regarding her story changing – it absolutely did. Neither her affidavit nor the original claim in 1996 mentioned any physical contact, only that he “exposed himself.” Only in a 2003 defamation filing did she first add the physical contact allegation. That’s a pretty big detail to omit… Who knows which of her stories is true, but it’s 100% fair to ask if she added this “un-proveable” detail as a way to add leverage in her defamation case.

  167. manninglayshisballsuponyou says: Feb 18, 2016 7:17 AM

    What is Roger Goodell going to do about Peyton Manning’s sexual assault and use of HGH??

  168. moseszd says: Feb 18, 2016 3:34 PM

    Also, this isn’t her only complaint about UT athletes. The Total UT investigation covered over TWO DOZEN ALLEGED COMPLAINTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

    Of which she (a) refused to name players and (b) refused to cooperate with the investigation.

    That too is a matter of public record and you can see in the previously linked document that she was not cooperative.

    So, yes, Manning was childish jerk. But she’s got her issues.

  169. breadmeatcheese says: Feb 19, 2016 5:00 PM

    in short, manning good, king (and fire) bad.

  170. Central Cali Chiefs says: Feb 21, 2016 7:48 PM

    Not a Peyton Manning fan, but I respect the man and his accomplishments both on the field and off.
    In time this situation will fade, regardless of anything that people like Shaun King write.
    Everything shouldn’t always be politicize despite being of varying beliefs.
    This whole conversation, should have never been about race and political ideology.
    Its about a stupid juvenile act, that should have died in 1996 or whenever it first took place.
    The lawsuit in 2003 was settled, because of an I’ll timed autobiography that opened an old wound; (victims perspective). I’m a fan of this sport and I enjoy reading the comments and the articles.
    Please lets try to keep it respectful and civilized!!!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!