Skip to content

Critical Manning witness was never questioned under oath

web1_manning Getty Images

As more evidence is dredged up regarding the 1996 incident involving Peyton Manning and Jamie Naughright, one key reality has become clear: The only witness to the incident, Malcolm Saxon, was never questioned under oath.

Both Manning and Naughright gave hundreds of pages of deposition testimony in connection with the defamation lawsuit she filed against Peyton Manning and others in 2002. Amazingly, Saxon was questioned under oath by neither side.

Saxon’s involvement in the defamation lawsuit happened in two other ways. Saxon signed an affidavit, and he sent a letter sent to Peyton Manning regarding the incident. The circumstances and the content of both submissions cried out for Manning’s lawyers to question him in a deposition setting. For whatever reason, they didn’t.

This is by no means an “attack” on Malcolm Saxon. It’s merely a recognition of the things a reasonably prudent lawyer should do when defending a client in a case of this nature. With the 1996 incident directly relevant to the 2002 defamation lawsuit, the only other person who witnessed the 1996 incident (other than Jamie Naughright and Peyton Manning) becomes a critical witness. Moreover, based on the content of the affidavit and the letter — and the questions asked of Peyton Manning at his deposition based on the affidavit and the letter — it was clear that Naughright’s lawyers would be calling Saxon to testify at trial.

When I was a kid and first heard the saying, “A lawyer never asks a question he doesn’t already know the answer to,” I got very confused. How in the hell do you know the answer if you don’t ask the question?

At a civil trial, the lawyer knows the answer because the lawyer asked the question during a deposition.

The incident that Saxon witnessed happened in 1996. Saxon’s affidavit was signed on November 1, 2002, more than five months after the defamation lawsuit was filed. His letter to Peyton Manning came on December 10, 2002. The contents of the materials and the dates on which they were created make clear that Saxon had been talking to Naughright and her lawyers.

Thus, apart from trying to flesh out his story, probe it for weaknesses, and otherwise lock him in under oath to a full explanation of what he saw and heard, Peyton Manning’s lawyers should have wanted to find out what Naughright and her lawyers said to Saxon, and what Saxon said to them.

For starters, the format of the affidavit suggests it wasn’t typed by him, unless he also typed into the document the portion where the notary public confirms that the person was under oath. So if Saxon didn’t type the affidavit, who did? Did Saxon write the words or were they written for him, based on notes taken by a lawyer during an interview or notes Saxon created or what? Did Saxon review the affidavit before signing it? Were there multiple versions, with changes requested by Saxon? Where did all of this take place? Who was present?

These are all standard questions that most lawyers would ask when faced with circumstances like this. Manning’s lawyers asked none of them, because Saxon was never deposed.

Beyond that, specific aspects of Saxon’s testimony needed to explored. The affidavit says at paragraph 2 that Saxon saw Manning drop his pants “below his knees over [Naughright] for a period of 5-10 seconds,” which contradicts Manning’s version. The affidavit says at paragraph 3 that the behavior was directed not at Saxon but at Naughright, and that Saxon didn’t make an “off color” remark that would have caused Peyton Manning to moon him, both of which assertions contradict Manning’s version. The affidavit says at paragraph 4 that, when Peyton Manning pulled his pants down, “he was facing me with his back to Jamie,” which contradicts Manning’s version.

The affidavit says at paragraph 6 that Naughright “was clearly upset by Peyton’s actions and called him an ‘ass’,” which contradicts Manning’s version. At paragraph 7, the affidavit says that “[Naughright] looked at [Saxon] after Peyton had exposed himself to her and her face seemed to register surprise and outrage,” which contradicts Manning’s version. At paragraph 8, the affidavit says, “I too was shocked by Peyton Manning’s behavior,” which necessarily conflicts with Manning’s general description of his conduct. At paragraph 10, the affidavit says that Saxon has never described the incident as a “mooning” and that Saxon does not believe Manning’s actions were a “mooning,” which contradicts Manning’s version.

Those allegations from Saxon’s affidavit would have generated at least 30 minutes of deposition questions and answers, with the lawyer attempting to demonstrate through Saxon’s testimony the potential confusions and inconsistencies and curiosities in the affidavit. Most significantly, the affidavit never uses the phrase “sexual assault” and it never suggests that there was contact between any portion of Manning’s body and Naughright’s head or face. Instead, Saxon uses the same term that Naughright employed when complaining about the incident in the 27-item harassment complaint filed against the University of Tennessee in August 1996: That Manning “exposed himself” to her.

Then there’s the letter sent by Saxon to Peyton Manning, a letter about which Manning was grilled at length during his deposition. (Naughright’s lawyer seemed to be suspicious of Peyton Manning’s testimony that, because the letter arrived during football season, his wife sent the letter to Archie Manning without Peyton ever seeing it.) The Saxon letter cries out for a series of specific questions about why the letter was sent, and what the various statements mean.

“Peyton, you messed up,” Saxon wrote in the third paragraph of the letter. “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 (and for what was said in the book!) Jamie is a great trainer; help her restore her credibility. Only you can do that. I never understood why you didn’t admit to it; you would have endeared yourself to your fans that thought/think highly of you. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t believe that a lawsuit for millions of dollars is the right way to go about it (for Jamie). I told her that, and her lawyer as well. Coming clean is the right thing to do!! Bro, you have tons of class, but you have shown no mercy or grace to this lady who was on her knees seeing if you had a stress fracture. It’s not too late. She had had a tough go of it since leaving UT. You might say she asked for it, but she was minding her own business when your book came out.”

It’s clear based on the letter that Saxon spoke to Naughright and her lawyer, not only about the 1996 incident but about the lawsuit arising from a book published five years later. It’s clear that their communications were sufficiently extensive to entail Saxon expressing his views about a lawsuit regarding the contents of Manning’s book and Saxon actually drawing conclusions about how the book damaged Naughright’s credibility. Saxon’s letter crosses the line that divides neutral factual witness from advocate, and it thus was critical for Manning’s lawyer to get Saxon under oath in the hopes of better understanding his point of view, locking in his story, and (ideally) creating a transcript of testimony that would have allowed Manning’s lawyers to discredit all or part of Saxon’s testimony at trial.

It’s unclear why that didn’t happen. It should have, making the failure of Manning’s lawyers to question under oath the third biggest mistake in this matter. It’s still a distant No. 3 to Peyton Manning’s decision to say anything in print about Jamie Naughright, which is just a half-step below Peyton Manning doing whatever he did in that training room 20 years ago next week.

If you’ve made it this far, you may be interested in hearing a full explanation of the litigation. Click here for a special PFT Live podcast for a start-to-finish summary and analysis of the case.

Permalink 90 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Denver Broncos, Home, Indianapolis Colts, Rumor Mill
90 Responses to “Critical Manning witness was never questioned under oath”
  1. jrterrier5 says: Feb 21, 2016 1:11 PM

    It’s not a mistake. Peytom’s lawyers did not want to have Saxon state under oath what he said in his affidavit.

    So, to the extent that Peyton’s lawyers left Saxon’s sworn affidavit untested, you must draw the inference that Saxon’s testimony would not have helped Peyton.

    And in any event, the sworn affidavit carries weight in and of itself.

  2. bamabrad1970 says: Feb 21, 2016 1:13 PM

    OMG yet another #longform

  3. rushbacker says: Feb 21, 2016 1:19 PM

    Must be the off-season, huh?

  4. randomguy9999 says: Feb 21, 2016 1:20 PM

    podcasts would be better offered in mp3 or mp4 rather than forcing the PFT fans to install iTunes, which many regard as junk, and is only installed on maybe 20% of PCs

  5. THX 138 says: Feb 21, 2016 1:21 PM

    This is nothing but a Witch hunt. Let it go.

  6. magnumpimustache says: Feb 21, 2016 1:29 PM

    The cover up is way worse than the crime.

    Especially when you try and ruin an innocent person.

  7. Nofoolnodrool says: Feb 21, 2016 1:30 PM

    This is Florio’s way to make up with the Tammy Brady fans… You know the legion of Pats cry babies.

  8. BroncosCheatedTheSalaryCap says: Feb 21, 2016 1:31 PM

    Manning, Armstrong and Bonds. PED users with shady off field behavior. Sad stuff.

  9. raiderinva says: Feb 21, 2016 1:33 PM

    Peyton Manning is the PFT’s Bill Cosby…..

  10. youknowiknowitall says: Feb 21, 2016 1:42 PM

    jrterrier5 says:
    Feb 21, 2016 1:11 PM
    It’s not a mistake. Peytom’s lawyers did not want to have Saxon state under oath what he said in his affidavit.

    So, to the extent that Peyton’s lawyers left Saxon’s sworn affidavit untested, you must draw the inference that Saxon’s testimony would not have helped Peyton.
    ———-
    Exactly. And, as a result, to this day Manning and his lawyers and ballwashers can still say “yeah, but when Saxon said what he said, he wasn’t under oath so …”.

    Just like when NFL HQ didn’t care to have NE’s ball prep guys under oath. HQ didn’t want the truth to be documented in under-oath testimony.

  11. dac458 says: Feb 21, 2016 1:44 PM

    Where has been Manning’s statement under oath for both the HGH and this sexual assault allegations?

    Brady said I did nothing wrong and manned up and had nothing to hide. Only one in DeflateGate fiasco to take an oath.

  12. nhpats says: Feb 21, 2016 1:50 PM

    Corkey has been a very bad boy….

  13. thegronk87 says: Feb 21, 2016 1:55 PM

    manning supposedly committed academic fraud in a class taught by naughwright. when naughtwright confronted him about it peyton got his “peyback”.

  14. tajuara says: Feb 21, 2016 1:55 PM

    So Manning said that he exposed himself to Saxton, Saxton said that Manning exposed himself to Naughtright, and Naughtright claim that Manning sat with het buttocks naked on her face. Three people in the room, two say that Manning just exposed himself (mooning) while one, the plaintiff, claimed contact (7 years later. Still the key witness claim that only a mooning by a 19-year-old took place, yet for some that’s equivalent to a guy drugging and raping 30 females, nice logic.

  15. waterprooftacos says: Feb 21, 2016 2:08 PM

    Wow! Florio’s not even insulting Shaun King in his posts anymore. Stuff must be getting real.

  16. trolling the trolls says: Feb 21, 2016 2:12 PM

    youknowiknowitall says:
    Feb 21, 2016 1:42 PM

    Just like when NFL HQ didn’t care to have NE’s ball prep guys under oath. HQ didn’t want the truth to be documented in under-oath testimony.
    ****

    Cry me a river, Nancy.

  17. idhitdat says: Feb 21, 2016 2:13 PM

    If this affidavit conforms to the rules of other jurisdictions, it was made under oath and in theory has the same weight as deposition testimony. The only thing that a deposition accomplishes is allow an attorney to ask follow-up questions or seek clarification. Mike should do a better job clarifying this.

  18. waterprooftacos says: Feb 21, 2016 2:19 PM

    Trolling the trolls knows deflated footballs are more important than HGH or years long grudge matches against trainers

  19. boyso3 says: Feb 21, 2016 2:20 PM

    tajuara
    Feb 21, 2016, 1:55 PM EST
    So Manning said that he exposed himself to Saxton, Saxton said that Manning exposed himself to Naughtright, and Naughtright claim that Manning sat with het buttocks naked on her face. Three people in the room, two say that Manning just exposed himself (mooning) while one, the plaintiff, claimed contact (7 years later. Still the key witness claim that only a mooning by a 19-year-old took place, yet for some that’s equivalent to a guy drugging and raping 30 females, nice logic.

    Saxon never said that Manning mooned him. He said that exposed himself to Naughtright and you just said that in your post. I get that you don’t read the actual story but I thought you would at least read your own post. There’s a huge difference between mooning someone and exposing themselves. Saxon has said from day one that Manning never mooned him. Usually these types of incidents are “he said she said” but this time we actually have a witness and he has never agreed with Peyton’s side of the story. In fact he actually uses the term “own up to what you did to that girl”. To me that is more than just mooning someone. It implies that the act was directed towards her. To me, Naughtright and Peyton kind of cancel each other out and so I go by what the only witness had to say. And he’s been very specific since the start of all this that Peyton did something to her that was not appropriate.

  20. kwjsb says: Feb 21, 2016 2:20 PM

    Someone got mooned in college….

    If that’s a crime I know about 3000 men and women that should be jailed…

  21. captainwhodat says: Feb 21, 2016 2:28 PM

    okay, just when I was enjoying the lack of daily RG3 stories, now I get to dread the daily jm and pm stories…what a country…

  22. orange and blue owns the NFL says: Feb 21, 2016 2:46 PM

    “There’s a huge difference between mooning someone and exposing themselves.”
    ==========
    No, no there really isn’t

  23. keylimelight says: Feb 21, 2016 2:52 PM

    THX 138 says:
    Feb 21, 2016 1:21 PM

    This is nothing but a Witch hunt. Let it go.
    _____________________________

    It’s a little more than that because where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

    I have a different view of Archie and Peyton than I did before this old incident resurfaced.

    It does feel like a mean-spirited attack, though.

  24. bencoates57 says: Feb 21, 2016 2:52 PM

    Kwjsb,

    Peyton, is that you buddy?

  25. truthfactory says: Feb 21, 2016 2:57 PM

    Ahhh yes… The crucification of a man who has been nothing but a model citizen both on and off the field with personal phone calls, visits, and hand written letters to various people who have experienced tragedy in their lives when there is no press around.

    The guy has donated Millions of dollars donated to hospitals and charities, and still runs (and attends) a youth football camp every year.

    I’m not saying he’s perfect or he doesn’t have some skeletons in his closet, but this is almost a joke going back 20 years to when he was 19 to find some lawsuit from a woman who has made and won multiple similar lawsuits in her life. Lets just all have some perspective here…

  26. tajuara says: Feb 21, 2016 2:58 PM

    Saxon never said that Manning mooned him. He said that exposed himself to Naughtright and you just said that in your post. I get that you don’t read the actual story but I thought you would at least read your own post. There’s a huge difference between mooning someone and exposing themselves. Saxon has said from day one that Manning never mooned him. Usually these types of incidents are “he said she said” but this time we actually have a witness and he has never agreed with Peyton’s side of the story. In fact he actually uses the term “own up to what you did to that girl”. To me that is more than just mooning someone. It implies that the act was directed towards her. To me, Naughtright and Peyton kind of cancel each other out and so I go by what the only witness had to say. And he’s been very specific since the start of all this that Peyton did something to her that was not appropriate
    —————————————————————————-

    He (Manning) dropped his pants for 5-10 seconds while the trainer was checking his feet. That was completely inappropriate to anyone’s standards, and I am not arguing that. But there is clearly a big difference between someone exposed to me (claimed by Saxton) and someone put his bareback on my face (claimed by Naughtright 7 years later).

  27. statlaw says: Feb 21, 2016 3:11 PM

    Uhh. Saxon was facing the front of PM so it is unlikely he would’ve seen if butt-to-face contact was made. I’m sure PM meant this as a joke – have you ever been in a football locker room? He was a kid then folks. Still, if it happened as Saxon said, he should have owned up and apologized.

  28. ebdug says: Feb 21, 2016 3:33 PM

    People who moon others think it’s an innocent act, but people don’t like to be mooned. Their reaction is only to get back at you.

    I can say this because I saw a kid – call him Bernie – moon somebody who was taking a smoke on the playground.

    The moral of the story is: If you moon somebody you’re gonna get burned.

  29. infectorman says: Feb 21, 2016 3:47 PM

    Here’ com all of the legions of Manning rumpswabs, who hold the fivehead of his highness in such high regard that it’s un-fathomable that their fake hero could have ever been behind such a despicable series of deeds.

    To think, Archie was behind the wheel when they decided to write about this woman in a book of all places?!?!! The 1996 equivalent of twitter or facebook as far as posterity goes.
    This guy ain’t no Rhodes Scholar, that’s for damn sure.

    Keep hiding your heads in the sand, apologists, this just proves what a fraud Manning was and still is with the HGH scandal.

    How’s that investigation going? How much of Manning’s millions have gone to pay-off DA’s judges, and police authorities to quash his cheating by using HGH?
    How much does it cost to whitewash an open and shut case where HGH was shipped to his wife over and over again?
    We all now regardless of how much it cost, Manning has the dough and we all know he’s paid it

    Manning*

  30. streetyson says: Feb 21, 2016 3:48 PM

    kwjsb says:
    Feb 21, 2016 2:20 PM
    Someone got mooned in college…. If that’s a crime I know about 3000 men and women that should be jailed…
    ———————–
    You Manningistas are completely missing the point – it wasn’t the original misdemeanor that’s the main problem (though it was an improper action), it’s that Manning’s 2002 book trashed the woman’s reputation. That’s far worse and, given that the original misdemeanor was settled (and that she never took him to court or publicized it), his 2002 effort was stupid, nasty and inexcusable.

  31. rootpain says: Feb 21, 2016 3:49 PM

    Why would Peyton and his father put this in a book unless they were bragging about the spoils that come with fame. And if that’s what they are doing, then let them pay the associated penalty with those same spoils. What would also be appropriate is an apology from his mother and wife before it’s too late. Or are they confirming as Archie has done, that such behavior is acceptable and appropriate.
    Legitimately apologize, provide appropriate restitution and then shut up, Peyton.

  32. trolling the trolls says: Feb 21, 2016 3:50 PM

    waterprooftacos says:
    Feb 21, 2016 2:19 PM
    Trolling the trolls knows deflated footballs are more important than HGH or years long grudge matches against trainers
    ****
    trolling the trolls knows 20 year old moonings are irrelevant.
    he knows it has nothing to do with deflated footballs.
    he also knows disingenuous faux outrage when he sees it.

  33. uglydingo says: Feb 21, 2016 3:57 PM

    The lesson from this is to always spend the money and get a good attorney to represent your interests. Naughright got a dud. Peyton Manning’s net worth is now estimated at over $250M but she settled the second time for just $300K with the university.
    Peyton was very lucky that she was so poorly represented. He had the best attorneys and they got away with it.

  34. patsfan4lifesbchamps says: Feb 21, 2016 3:58 PM

    This is all much ado about nothing.

  35. j0esixpack says: Feb 21, 2016 3:58 PM

    Speaking of testifying under oath, why isn’t Peyton Manning standing up and HIMSELF demanding to state his innocence under oath

    Brady went out of his way to insist that his statement of innocence was made under 0ath, with penalty of perjury

    Manning has been COMPLETELY silent. While he’s at it he can state, under oath, that the HGH delivered to his house (which not even Archie Manning denies was delivered to his house) was simply used by his then pregnant wife

    Of course, his wife will likely be brought up on child abuse charges for taking HGH while pregnant – but at least Peyton has his fall guy – er… girl… er wife – to take the blame

  36. waterprooftacos says: Feb 21, 2016 3:59 PM

    Disingenuous fake outrage? Like crying yourself to sleep about deflated footballs but defending an HGH using, reputation smearer is cool?

  37. tigerlilac says: Feb 21, 2016 4:19 PM

    Mike, when was the last time you saw an affidavit drafted by the individual attesting to it? Heck, expert witnesses do not write their own affidavits.

    Peyton’s lawyers knew from day one that they would never let the case go to trial and thus did not need to depose Saxon, not did they want his affidavit to be supported by testimony subjected to cross examination. They likely knew his affidavit was truthful.

    This whole story falls under the “cover up is worse than the crime”. The plaintiff was damaged far greater by the cover up smears than the event itself. I understand that parents protect their children but what Archie Manning did to this woman was unconscionable and premeditated. It appears that none of the Mannings have shown any remorse for their actions.

  38. jackbenimble999 says: Feb 21, 2016 4:20 PM

    Edit: As far as the contact, maybe he couldn’t see it he was in front of Manning and Naughwright was behind Manning and below the table.

  39. bobsnygiants says: Feb 21, 2016 4:22 PM

    why would they, they are trying to hide this.

  40. infectorman says: Feb 21, 2016 4:23 PM

    Defalted Footballs without a shred of proof aof anything…

    vs.

    Names, records, orders, shipping labels, invoices, dates, addresses all to bring Peyton* back from the dead to break records and perpetuate the fraud and enable yet another NFL crafted story-book ending.
    Going to puke now

    There’s the NFL Double standard and Manning* fans are too blind to connect the dots. Morons.

    Manning’s entire career with the Donkeys is covered in asterisks**********

    Sorry folks, everyone outside of Indy and Denver know it.
    Manning*

  41. jayhawk6 says: Feb 21, 2016 4:27 PM

    But how does he feel about the $2,700 he donated to Jeb!?

  42. gibbskins9 says: Feb 21, 2016 4:27 PM

    Move oooooooooon

  43. waterprooftacos says: Feb 21, 2016 4:30 PM

    Gibbskins9 – bro we talked about deflated footballs for a year – this stuff isn’t going anywhere

  44. Nofoolnodrool says: Feb 21, 2016 4:39 PM

    There’s the NFL Double standard and Manning* fans are too blind to connect the dots. Morons.

    Manning’s entire career with the Donkeys is covered in asterisks**********

    Sorry folks, everyone outside of Indy and Denver know it.
    Manning*

    Time to put a lid on it Turd bucket. Wake up child and put your Brady crusade to bed. No one cares outside of New England. You are known as cheaters…. Deal with it.

  45. youknowiknowitall says: Feb 21, 2016 5:03 PM

    NE is known as cheaters. DEN is known as cheaters. PIT is known as cheaters. IND is known as cheaters. DAL is known as cheaters. WAS is known as cheaters. NO is known as cheaters. SEA is known as cheaters. ATL is known as cheaters. CLE is known as cheaters … and so on.
    (yawn).

  46. arktikman says: Feb 21, 2016 5:15 PM

    Florio, I take it you were a fan of the movie The Verdict with Paul Newman. For a 34 year old movie it still holds its own.

  47. dualprime says: Feb 21, 2016 5:22 PM

    It’s like many of you posters traveled back in time and witnessed exactly what happened.

    All I know is Broncos are SB Champs! Nuff said.

  48. mvshark says: Feb 21, 2016 5:42 PM

    Ever hear the saying:

    Ask me no questions and I will tell you no lies…..

  49. mvshark says: Feb 21, 2016 5:44 PM

    Dual prime, remember after your Bronco’s last 2 SB wins, it came out they cheated. For 2 years paid a player off the books to cheat the salary cap. Got caught, got penalized. Now this victory, if all follows suit, we will soon find out how you cheated this time.

  50. scw1993 says: Feb 21, 2016 5:52 PM

    Florio, I’m a brand new lawyer…you’re doing a great job explaining the process. The one thing that is glaring, at least to me, is when you pointed out Saxon sent a letter to Manning, and Manning’s lawyers didn’t question him in a depo. It begs “why not.” The letter is damning, and seems to me that manning and his lawyers were falling over themselves trying to cover everything up. Something is not right here, and there’s lots of smoke. Also seems to me this is a dog and pony show meant to take the heat off of possible HGH usage.

  51. nhpats says: Feb 21, 2016 5:55 PM

    statlaw says:
    Feb 21, 2016 3:11 PM
    Uhh. Saxon was facing the front of PM so it is unlikely he would’ve seen if butt-to-face contact was made. I’m sure PM meant this as a joke – have you ever been in a football locker room? He was a kid then folks. Still, if it happened as Saxon said, he should have owned up and apologized.
    ———
    He was a kid then and his forehead was a whole heck of a lot smaller too. Just how long has Peyton been injecting HGH anyway?

  52. paulrevereshorse1775 says: Feb 21, 2016 5:55 PM

    Unless Saxon referred to himself as the deflator in his deposition or the letter to Manning, then those documents are clearly irrelevant.

  53. paulrevereshorse1775 says: Feb 21, 2016 6:01 PM

    dualprime says:
    Feb 21, 2016 5:22 PM
    It’s like many of you posters traveled back in time and witnessed exactly what happened.

    All I know is Broncos are SB Champs! Nuff said.
    ========

    Awesome ‘bury your head in the sand’ approach.

  54. cinzano08 says: Feb 21, 2016 6:03 PM

    Florio you answered the question yourself, you don’t bring a witness in that will not help your case. Saxon had nothing to lose or gain at the time of his affidavit as the mannings made sure Tennessee took his scholarship away for not backing Peyton. Mannings are scumbags and anyone looking at this objectively knows this.

  55. YouCryin?PatsMustBeDoingTheirJob says: Feb 21, 2016 6:21 PM

    The fraud is getting exposed. Good bye endorsements, good bye legacy. Forever tainted. Done.

  56. boyso3 says: Feb 21, 2016 6:22 PM

    orange and blue owns the NFL
    Feb 21, 2016, 2:46 PM EST
    “There’s a huge difference between mooning someone and exposing themselves.”
    ==========
    No, no there really isn’t

    I really hope you’re just kidding. Do you seriously not know the difference between mooning someone and exposing oneself? Just in case you were being serious, mooning someone is showing another person your butt while exposing yourself is to “publicly or indecently display one’s genitals”. If you’re still confused you can go look it up in the dictionary and argue with it yourself. Good luck

  57. sariff420 says: Feb 21, 2016 6:42 PM

    Man. Internet white knights out in full force. The estrogen is strong with you.

  58. maestro1899 says: Feb 21, 2016 7:38 PM

    With all due respect to the author of this column, a very plausible reason why Manning’s lawyer never questioned Sexon under oath:

    Because they knew from the beginning this was a MONEY GRAB! They knew the facts of the case and knew they were going to have to settle. They knew this wasn’t a “sexual assault” as some are trying to paint it. It was a money grab. Naughright has, in fact, filed several lawsuits in her young life. She was mooned, a victim of a college prank. She got her $300K (and then another $65K from a Florida college).

    This incident is only being brought up because of the Title IX lawsuit U of Tenn is facing. Some people (Shaun King and a lot of holier-than-thou Internet warriors) have personal vendettas against Peyton. He’s clearly not perfect; he is a human. But he’s far from the person a lot of people on this message board are trying to make him out to be.

    A school prank from 20+ years ago. SMH

  59. orange and blue owns the NFL says: Feb 21, 2016 7:56 PM

    boyso3 says:
    Feb 21, 2016 6:22 PM
    orange and blue owns the NFL
    Feb 21, 2016, 2:46 PM EST
    “There’s a huge difference between mooning someone and exposing themselves.”
    ==========
    No, no there really isn’t

    I really hope you’re just kidding. Do you seriously not know the difference between mooning someone and exposing oneself?
    ==========
    Wikipedia; Mooning: “Mooning is the act of displaying one’s bare buttocks by removing clothing, e.g., by lowering the backside of one’s trousers and underpants, usually bending over, whether also exposing the genitals or not.”

    Mooning falls under “exposing yourself.” If you mean “indecent exposure” that is generally understood to be any part of the body normally covered by clothing. You cannot moon without exposing yourself.

    Fun fact I learned while looking this up. “Since 1979, The Annual Mooning of Amtrak has been an annual tradition in Laguna Niguel, California on the second Saturday of July, where many people spend the day mooning passing Amtrak trains;[16] some passengers ride the trains that day to witness the event. This has inspired a chain of “train moonings” throughout the country.[17]”

    So, people are SO offended by mooning, they ride a train just to see people do it, yet it supposedly scarred for life a doctor who worked with athletes in a locker room setting.

    But really, you don’t care about that, because the truth is, if this story were about Gronk or Edelman or Brady, you would be taking the exact OPPOSITE position you are currently taking. Your motives are transparent. In fact, the problem continues at UT long after Manning left, but I’m sure you’re equally outraged about all that, and not just Manning, right?

  60. YouCryin?PatsMustBeDoingTheirJob says: Feb 21, 2016 8:07 PM

    He’s a fraud…..it’s done. DONE.

  61. aljack88 says: Feb 21, 2016 8:08 PM

    Nofoolnodrool says:
    Feb 21, 2016 1:30 PM
    This is Florio’s way to make up with the Tammy Brady fans… You know the legion of Pats cry babies.
    ===============================
    you’re drooling

  62. mctyboy35 says: Feb 21, 2016 8:16 PM

    This whole Manning thing is stupid. It must be the offseason barrel scraping. Get a life PFT

  63. kevpft says: Feb 21, 2016 8:21 PM

    This has already been through the legal system – more than once – and media, ages ago.

    This is like finding a letter someone wrote you 20 years ago and getting offended and calling them up to ask them why they said that.

    Conversation’s done. Everyone’s said what they had to say and the system passed its judgment. What’s happening now is just for the benefit of people with a distorted sense of time and an outsized sense of judgment.

  64. dreadnok89 says: Feb 21, 2016 8:22 PM

    Hgh isnt a PED, the roids von miller, the superbowl mvp was. However i could care less what a 19 yr old kid did. It doesnt even sound bad. Not to mention the lady had multiple lawsuits on many people. So cam newton ahould be in trouble as well then for his college shenanigans? Disnt marvin harrison murder someone and just get into the hall of fame? Lolol

  65. boyso3 says: Feb 21, 2016 8:24 PM

    orange and blue owns the NFL
    Feb 21, 2016, 7:56 PM EST
    boyso3 says:
    Feb 21, 2016 6:22 PM
    orange and blue owns the NFL
    Feb 21, 2016, 2:46 PM EST
    “There’s a huge difference between mooning someone and exposing themselves.”
    ==========
    No, no there really isn’t

    I really hope you’re just kidding. Do you seriously not know the difference between mooning someone and exposing oneself?
    ==========
    Wikipedia; Mooning: “Mooning is the act of displaying one’s bare buttocks by removing clothing, e.g., by lowering the backside of one’s trousers and underpants, usually bending over, whether also exposing the genitals or not.”

    Wow that’s awesome you gave me the definition of mooning. What we’re talking about is the difference between mooning someone and exposing yourself. Next time try also getting the definition of exposing oneself. That way you can compare and contrast. The problem is that all you’re doing is taking Peyton’s side of the story at face value. I’m taking the side of the witness that was there. To me that’s the most reliable person out of the 3. And according to him Peyton “exposed” himself to her. He didn’t say that Peyton mooned her he said that he exposed himself. Again, because obviously you’re illiterate, that would mean that he took “it” out. I’m not sure exactly what part of that you don’t understand. This is what the only witness said that happened. And if this were a Patriot I would be disgusted. Just like I was with Aaron Hernandez. That guy is a total waste of human life and I hope he takes his own life soon. See unlike you I can actually be rational. Not once have you even considered the fact that Peyton could be guilty of all this cause you’re just a homer who only cares about the guys that you like and will obviously defend them no matter what the evidence tells you. My question is why don’t you believe the story from the witness. I get that you don’t want to believe Naughtright’s side of the story but what about the only other person that witnessed the entire thing?

  66. boyso3 says: Feb 21, 2016 8:29 PM

    And by the way, your name is “orange and blue own the NFL” and you’re questioning my motives. That is absolutely hilarious.

  67. keylimelight says: Feb 21, 2016 8:30 PM

    Mooning is usually a quick pants down and then back up.

    Saxon wrote that he observed Manning drop his shorts–below his knees–for a duration of 5-10 seconds.

    That’s a lot of time to work with (drop your drawers and start the clock, you’ll see.)

    This wasn’t a casual prank.

  68. ee00ee says: Feb 21, 2016 8:30 PM

    Too bad the pft live podcasts are on itunes only. I used to enjoy watching them. Is the exclusive itunes thing worth all the listeners you lose?

  69. bigbamboom1 says: Feb 21, 2016 8:31 PM

    The question posed is actually the easiest one to answer. Neither side questioned Saxon, because obviously both sides were seeking a settlement instead of litigation. At this late date, who knows where the pressure came from for both parties to embark on an unimpeachable path with Saxon. It’s just obvious they both did out of mutual interests. Probably Money IMO.

  70. sbdt says: Feb 21, 2016 8:43 PM

    she’s the Asia McClain of this dog and pony show

  71. jjzzx says: Feb 21, 2016 8:43 PM

    Much ado about NOTHING…
    I guess because the Pats QB is such a scumbag those in NE think everyone is…and should be targeted…
    Get over it…

  72. plum54 says: Feb 21, 2016 8:45 PM

    Dreadnok89: PED stands for performance enhancing drug. HGH is most definitely a PED , though not a steroid or amphetamine , it’s still a PED!!!

  73. vikinghooper says: Feb 21, 2016 8:49 PM

    When you find out Peyton is also in an open marriage, you realized power and money trumps values.
    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  74. riekki says: Feb 21, 2016 8:53 PM

    (Because they knew from the beginning this was a MONEY GRAB! They knew the facts of the case and knew they were going to have to settle. They knew this wasn’t a “sexual assault” as some are trying to paint it. It was a money grab.)
    —————————————————————
    So when the great white QB is involved…”it’s a money grab and we go over the evidence with a fine tooth comb.”
    When it’s Greg Hardy, never mind the evidence and the 99 % probablity of a money grab…”he’s black…Let’s hang him, Sheriff.”

  75. mikeytoth says: Feb 21, 2016 8:57 PM

    Peyton Manning** Born cheater and teabagger.

  76. boyso3 says: Feb 21, 2016 9:03 PM

    jjzzx
    Feb 21, 2016, 8:43 PM EST
    Much ado about NOTHING…
    I guess because the Pats QB is such a scumbag those in NE think everyone is…and should be targeted…
    Get over it…

    What makes Brady a scumbag? I’m just curious. I get it if you root for another team and you don’t like him or the Patriots but what has he ever done that would make him a scumbag?

  77. j0esixpack says: Feb 21, 2016 9:09 PM

    Look – we all know that by the time this is over Peyton will have scored another $10 million endorsing Lipton Tea Bags

    This isn’t so much about what happened 20 years ago (and by the way – I was a teen once too and never sexually assaulted a woman)

    It’s about the double standard of the NFL – where a Commissioner goes livid comparing a football following the laws of physics to a PED

    And then that same commissioner looks the other way on an ACTUAL PED allegation presenting TONS of proof that could and should be investigated…

    The fact that Goodell and the NFL write off Peyton’ Tea Bagging as “youthful indiscretion” is the cherry on top of a Sundae that illustrates for all that the NFL is plain and simply, “not fair” – starting right in the Commissioner’s office

  78. animalkindness says: Feb 21, 2016 9:16 PM

    Go ahead and make this about race because that is how this began with a know race baiter and a grudge that he had over the way his qb was treated.

    If you are gonna call it call it correctly because that is exactly what this is.

  79. bebopa says: Feb 21, 2016 9:38 PM

    He’s a Manning he should get a free pass, right?

  80. streetyson says: Feb 21, 2016 9:38 PM

    dreadnok89 says:
    Feb 21, 2016 8:22 PM
    Hgh isnt a PED… However i could care less what a 19 yr old kid did. It doesnt even sound bad. Not to mention the lady had multiple lawsuits on many people.
    ——-+——–
    Firstly, HGH can be used as a PED. Secondly, she didn’t have multiple lawsuits, she had one deposition against the university which listed 20 or so greviences, which they settled before it ever got to court. She never publicized the Peyton thing and only made another deposition (the first against Peyton) after Peyton published his book 6yrs later. Thirdly, even if it was just a “moon” as Peyton claims (despite the 2 other people in the room saying otherwise), that isn’t the point – the point is that Peyton used his 2002 book to trash her professional and personal reputation, which is far worse than any mooning or teabagging, and doubly bad seeing as she never publicized anything.

  81. woocane says: Feb 21, 2016 9:53 PM

    Pretty dumb article. It’s not some subtle concept that you normally depose a witness like that. So obviously, the lawyers had a reason not to. For example, maybe their plan was to do it late in the case, but the case settled before that time. Maybe they had communications with him after the affidavit. Florio has no idea the plan of the lawyers, so for him to declare it some big error, when it probably made no difference since the case settled, is foolish.

  82. corporatemediaprostitute says: Feb 21, 2016 10:08 PM

    Nobody made it that far.

  83. 46namredyps11 says: Feb 21, 2016 10:35 PM

    If trolling thinks what he sees here is disingenuous outrage over basically nothing he must really think deflategate pitchforkers are morons.

  84. orange and blue owns the NFL says: Feb 21, 2016 11:17 PM

    boys03,

    Let’s keep it simple. At what point in any of this did you read where ANYONE claimed he took “it” out. Copy and paste please. Insults can be funny, but literacy takes work, prove yours. Go ahead. Dare you.

  85. orange and blue owns the NFL says: Feb 21, 2016 11:21 PM

    “The fact that Goodell and the NFL write off Peyton’ Tea Bagging as “youthful indiscretion” is the cherry on top of a Sundae that illustrates for all that the NFL is plain and simply, “not fair” – starting right in the Commissioner’s office”
    ===========
    When did Goodell ever comment on any of this?

    Sources?

  86. douglasjbender says: Feb 22, 2016 2:28 AM

    Maybe it’s just me, but Peyton comes across as just the sort of personality who would do such a thing, and then lie about it and attack the woman in a book without actually naming her.

  87. streetyson says: Feb 22, 2016 8:23 AM

    orange and blue owns the NFL says:
    Feb 21, 2016 11:21 PM
    j0esixpack says:
    Feb 21, 2016 9:09 PM
    “The fact that Goodell and the NFL write off Peyton’ Tea Bagging as “youthful indiscretion” is the cherry on top of a Sundae that illustrates for all that the NFL is plain and simply, “not fair” – starting right in the Commissioner’s office”
    ===========
    When did Goodell ever comment on any of this? Sources?
    —————————
    Dude, that’s kind of j0e’s whole point!! The fact that the league office (Goodell, nor Tagliabue before him) hasn’t ever commented on this, nor the 2002 trashing of the trainer’s reputation, nor said much on the recent HGH (nor, for example, anything Peyton might have known about noise piping and other possible cheating back in his Colts days) effectively means they’ve unquestioningly accepted Peyton’s version of history. More than that, they changed rules on ball prepping and passing rules all just to suit Peyton & Polian’s demands. Meanwhile, Brady gets railroaded (for a year and counting) with fraudulent, invented data, leaked emails, lies by Goodell about what Brady said under oath and other aspects all to falsely trash Brady’s repution – and all for 0.5psi that could be explained by natural deflation. Surely, even you can see the difference, the lack of balance in Goodell’s approach to integrity as applied to these two top QBs?

  88. PokeSalad says: Feb 22, 2016 9:41 AM

    Is there precedent to take DEN’s Super Bowl victory away because of this? Could it be given to the Panthers?

  89. jackfan2 says: Feb 22, 2016 11:03 AM

    This entire episode is so sickening. Anyone who has ever attended college knows freshman orientation class is a waste of valuable time. Nobody with half a brain shows up for long! Now we are seeing headlines that PM was accused of “academic fraud” and “cheatibg,” 20 years ago! By someone who insists (years after the incident) that he actually sat on her with his junk, yet she never called police? And she left that damping detail OUT of her complaint? While seeking money damages? C’mon. This is a public lynching and journalism school will be studying this travesty for years. I hope Manning’so nerve finally regenerates and he comes back to wreak the league!

  90. sports6353 says: Feb 23, 2016 8:19 AM

    Why don’t you guys let this go this man has had a great career, so why are you trying to ruin it this happened 20 yrs. ago he is probably going to retire this year or next let him go out a winner. Don’t tell me you have never made a stupid mistake when you were younger let the man go out in piece.

Leave a Reply

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