Two sides to the Manning reports
Wow, you go to sleep one night thinking Peyton Manning’s an OK guy. You wake up the next day and see this:
“Peyton Manning Allegedly Covered Up Sexual Assault.”
“Peyton Manning Named in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit.”
Mr. Papa John’s, a sexual predator?
It can’t be, right? There must be more to the story.
There is, and the details are not nearly as clear or damning as the headlines lead you to believe. The biggest one is the incident in which Manning mooned a female trainer was reported, investigated and adjudicated 20 years ago.
That’s the evidence Manning is a complete fraud, if not an outand-out pervert?
The old news was made new again last week when six unidentified women filed suit against the University of Tennessee. They claim the school violated Title IX regulations and created a “hostile sexual environment.”
The story blew up over the weekend when the New York Daily News detailed court documents in the Manning case. Columnist Shaun King wrote, “Peyton Manning’s squeaky-clean image was built on lies.”
Itwas if you take everything written in the “explosive court documents” as the gospel truth. And if your goal is to prove there’s a campus rape epidemic or that the media have given Manning a free ride compared to Cam Newton.
On the first goal, it should be noted that the headlines are technically correct. Manning was indeed named in the lawsuit. He wasn’t named as a defendant, but the mooning incident was cited as an example of Tennessee’s lax attitude.
Based on allegations and arrests, Tennessee’s athletic department should be thoroughly investigated. If the plaintiff’s complaints are proven, heads should roll.
But if the situation is as bad as alleged, lawyers could have cited plenty of incidents that actually happened this century. None of them, however, would have contained the headline-grabbing words “Peyton Manning.”
That said, lawyers are just doing what lawyers do. Their job is to stir attention and stand out fromthe other 110 or so Title IX suits currently in the court system.
In doing so, they re-stoked the decades-old argument over Manning’s moon.
Was it a stupid college prank or sexual battery?
According to the Daily News, there is no question. King based his conclusion on a 74-page document filed by the trainer’s lawyers in a 2003 defamation suit.
She says shewas treating Manning’s leg injury when he dropped his shorts and rubbed his genitals on her face. I’ll spare you those particular details, but the overall document is quite incriminating.
King skips over the fact that the documents are strictly the plaintiff’s account. Theywere prepared by her lawyers to incriminate Manning.
In court, defendants are allowed to tell their side of the story. In King’s court, Manning doesn’t even have a side. Conflicting evidence is never mentioned.
The trainer now claims Manning essentially draped everything below his belt on her face. In1996 she signed an affidavit saying he merely exposed himself. She told investigators that she saw Manning’s rear end, pushed him and said, “You’re an ass.”
The school verified four of the 33 claims she made against athletes, coaches and administrators. In the rest, investigators concluded “both parties share responsibility for the current environment.”
Manning undoubtedly acted like an ass in 1996. If you believe thatmakes him an ass forever, that’s fine.
The proof he is a lifetime fraud is far less conclusive. So I wouldn’t blame Manning for wanting to show his rear end to a bunch of lawyers and King.
There are two sides to the moon.
And if Manning’s image was built on lies, we should at least acknowledge it might be getting torn down by the same.