Women's Group: Nationwide and Papa John's should suspend relationships with Peyton

Ross12 said:

NY style is definitely the best... All the locals near me like the local style which is like this big thick square crust, it's like 90% dough, it's awful. Give me that big thin foldable NY pizza any day.

Click to expand...

Not too picky when it comes to pizza, pretty much dig it all, but I think my favorite is Greek.. love the crust and the extra grease is heaven lol

Edit: well, now I know what's for dinner...

InRodWeRust said:

Papa Johns is my favorite pizza

Click to expand...

Boogs said:

Well then Peyton screwed himself. You've got a reliable witness telling Peyton in a letter that he lied and needs to come clean and apologize. But Peyton screwed himself and cannot publicly apologize now.

Click to expand...

The initial case settled a long time ago (1997).
After that, Manning wrote his book, and the victim sued him for defamation.
After that, Manning responded to a journalist, and the victim sued him for violating a NDA.

Here's an article about the defamation case, from all the way back in 2002:

USATODAY.com - Manning's image could take hit in suit

People and companies settle with NDAs all the time. What happened here is that a 'reporter' with an agenda got hold of a document and decided to run Manning through the mud, and then the women's group whack jobs went full ******.

Deus Irae said:

It took an idiotic "Women's group" to make me a defender of Peyton Manning, but wanting these companies to suspend their relationship with Peyton over an incident that happened in 1996, and has been known for over a decade, is stupidity taken to a whole new level.


Thanks, Ultraviolet. I'm going to need a shower after posting this.

Click to expand...

I don't know that I'd call it "idiotic". I don't think that something being "x" years ago ever warrants a sexual assault case to be invalid.

Actually, I just looked that up out of curiosity. I'm assuming the incident allegedly occurred in Tennessee? If so, the statute of limitations for sexual assault has long passed, assuming DNA evidence hasn't been released within the last year.

Legally, Peyton is protected by the law. This class action lawsuit only cites his name and doesn't really have any legal implications against him.

However, I don't feel that this gives Peyton a free moral pass. Activists groups have every right to advocate for these requests. It doesn't make them stupid. Honestly though, I am a bit bothered by the timing of this. Why now? It *is* pretty convenient that this is suddenly an issue after a super bowl win and potential retirement. As you said, you're correct that this issue had always been out there. Though I'm not sure it was "public knowledge" in the sense that it was widely known, either. Personally, this last month is the first time I've heard of it. You'd think it would have been a common smear on his legacy had it been more publicized in the past.

Basically, I think both sides of this story can make valid claims. Peyton's being, of course, that this was only alleged, and never proven. But that doesn't make either stance "idiotic".

Ross12 said:

We don't even have any Papa Johns out here. Years ago I would've been curious to try it if given the chance. Now I certainly am not. Good job convincing your kid that Manning sucks!

Click to expand...

Papa John's is actually pretty good as far as the affordable chains go. I mean, it sure beats a Dominos or Pizza Hut. But your far better off sticking with some local gem.

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

It was widely ignored by the mainstream media until the last week. When you look for stories about the lawsuits and settlements you see articles by the USA Today and by some local podunk papers and independent columnists, but you see almost nothing at all from major sports news or world news media, ESPN, Fox, CNN, Sport Illustrated, NY Times, etc.

It was an widely-ignored news story. Someone has to decide to ignore it. I refer to that as sweeping it under a rug. It's no longer being swept under a rug, and that's great!

Click to expand...

It was in the USA Today all the way back in 2002, as I've noted in an earlier post. And here's a story on it from ESPN in 2003:

Defamation lawsuit against Manning is settled

And, to repeat......

Manning put it, albeit his version of it, in his book, and the subsequent lawsuit ended with a NDA, limiting what news outlets could find out. Claiming that's somehow it gettingswept under the rug by the media is crazy talk.

Keep pitching your insane political dogma all you want. Just do it in the lunatic asylum, where that crap belongs.

If the reporter has an agenda, then I'm glad. Why? He's not making up a damn thing, and he's gotten lots of people to listen to details of the case that they either ignored or never knew about because it was rarely discussed in any mainstream media.

As for people being outraged now being evidence of them going "full ******", that's silly. Lots of people knew absolutely nothing about the allegations, or had some vague recollection that Manning was thought to have "mooned" somebody.

I have no qualms with PETA picketing Vick or women's groups boycotting Manning. More power to them, now that they have FINALLY been awakened.

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

If the reporter has an agenda, then I'm glad. Why? He's not making up a damn thing, and he's gotten lots of people to listen to details of the case that they either ignored or never knew about because it was rarely discussed in any mainstream media.

As for people being outraged now being evidence of them going "full ******", that's silly. Lots of people knew absolutely nothing about the allegations, or had some vague recollection that Manning was thought to have "mooned" somebody.

I have no qualms with PETA picketing Vick or women's groups boycotting Manning. More power to them, now that they have FINALLY been awakened.

Click to expand...

The insanity of your politics is noted. Now take them where they belong, which is not this forum. Other than the posts about pizza, this whole thread probably belongs in the political forum.

Deus Irae said:

There's an NDA.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean he is forbidden from issuing a statement with the plaintiff's consent. In other words, if he (and his lawyers) craft an apology that she (and her lawyers) allow him to make, he can make it.

Deus Irae said:

I'm saying that if you want to think that Manning's an *******, that's fine. I'm saying that if you want to call for Manning to lose his Nationwide and Papa John's gigs over this, you're insane and need to be locked up for everyone's safety.

And doing it because you're a whack job who can't separate life from politics doesn't excuse the actions. It just shows how batshit crazy you are.

Click to expand...

Just because it took 20 years for the general public to learn what I've been talking about on forums like this one for just as long doesn't mean he should be exempt from consequences of his actions.

It may have taken a long time, but Manning's chickens have finally come home to roost. I have zero sympathy. There is no Statute of Limitations in the court of public opinion.

Sicilian said:

Whenever I see Papa John in one of his commercials, I get the eerie feeling like he's not exactly against sexual assault. Nothing to back it up, I just won't be surprised in five years when they find someone tied up in his basement.

Also his pizza sucks.

Click to expand...

He is notorious for being a colossal douchebag in person. Which... doesn't surprise me at all. I think the only thing that would've surprised me is learning that he's actually an okay guy. Can't even say why, just a gut feeling that he's probably got a lot of bodies buried under his basement or something.

Did Peyton ever say he was sorry to the woman in his book? I mean if your junk ends up accidentally on a woman's face, don't you say you are sorry? Common sense will tell you that. Instead he talks about how vulgar she was.

Deus Irae said:

The initial case settled a long time ago (1997).
After that, Manning wrote his book, and the victim sued him for defamation.
After that, Manning responded to a journalist, and the victim sued him for violating a NDA.

Here's an article about the defamation case, from all the way back in 2002:

USATODAY.com - Manning's image could take hit in suit

People and companies settle with NDAs all the time. What happened here is that a 'reporter' with an agenda got hold of a document and decided to run Manning through the mud, and then the women's group whack jobs went full ******.

Click to expand...

I realize this Shaun King has an agenda. But Peyton literally screwed himself twice. First for doing what he did to her. Second, for lying about it in his book (according to Malcolm Saxon). And now he cannot apologize for any of it or else he could get sued again.

Deus Irae said:

The initial case settled a long time ago (1997).
After that, Manning wrote his book, and the victim sued him for defamation.
After that, Manning responded to a journalist, and the victim sued him for violating a NDA.

Here's an article about the defamation case, from all the way back in 2002:

USATODAY.com - Manning's image could take hit in suit

People and companies settle with NDAs all the time. What happened here is that a 'reporter' with an agenda got hold of a document and decided to run Manning through the mud, and then the women's group whack jobs went full ******.

Click to expand...

But much of the stuff that was released from the court documents was not in the public domain.

Not everyone knew of the indiscretions of Peyton Manning. I myself have followed the NFL for 25years here in the UK and only knew about it because of it being brought up during last years deflategate debacle.

You seem to also think that people should investigate someone that is perceived as an outstanding human being in every sense for the past 20yrs. Why would you then investigate, surely that should fall on the many top journalists and media outlets to inform the general public and to remind them of them.

Here in the UK a few famous people are going through historic sex crime trials, many of them there have been whispers and knowledge of there indiscretions but its been swept under the carpet, one was a TV personality loved by the Queen, was a knight of the realm and turns out was a paedophile unfortunately he died before all this came to light. As far as I am concerned Manning should also be charged with sex crimes, it shouldn't matter now that he has paid the women off either. Its what is right no matter when it happened. If he cannot stand trial now then people should be allowed to drag the scumbag through the mud, people should be able to finally put a label on that person.

Deus Irae said:

Nonsense

The woman's received 3 settlements in the case, because Manning was stupid enough to make disparaging comments about the woman in his book. It's been dealt with.

Every women's advocacy group should shut the hell up about it.

Click to expand...

And the fact that he did that is kinda telling re: his character. What you just made is a good argument for why Naughright has certainly received all the money she deserves from this (and then some), but it doesn't change the fact that all signs point toward Peyton being a giant douche.

As far as this whole thing being a known incident for the past 20 years, that's technically true. We've been referencing it here on Patsfans for as long as I've been a member. But for whatever reason, even though the information was available it never really made it out into the public. My guess is that it's because nobody in NFL circles was willing to bring it up and risk getting on Peyton's bad side, but even that doesn't totally explain it.

Either way, I'm fine this stuff getting the attention now that it should have got back in 2003 at the latest. Unfortunately for Peyton, we live in a far more hysterical, extreme culture now than we did then, so he probably would have been better off taking his lumps then.

TommyBrady12 said:

Did Peyton ever say he was sorry to the woman in his book? I mean if your junk ends up accidentally on a woman's face, don't you say you are sorry? Common sense will tell you that. Instead he talks about how vulgar she was.

Click to expand...

I just went to my public library and literally checked out the book just now. I'll try to read what he says in there.

I'm just going off of what Saxon said. I think he told Peyton to come clean and that was after the book was written.

It's not really an apology if he said Peyton lied about it, because Saxon said she was at his foot checking out his injury. Peyton I think said she just happened to walk into the room. That's not really an apology if you lie like that.

aluminum seats said:

I have a feeling that the majority of this board wouldn't be too interested in what "UltraViolet" had to say about anything if they weren't talking about Manning.

Click to expand...

I have a feeling somewhere between 99% and 100% of didn't know a group called UltraViolet existed before this post, so you're probably right.

As for caring about what they have to say... yeah, I still don't. I do care that this story is starting to get traction, and from the types of 'sources' that for better or worse (mostly for worse) are basically untouchable in current discourse. This is how witch hunts get started, and yeah, maybe it makes me a bit of a hypocrite but I don't hate the idea of someone else getting taken down for once, and based on things that actually happened and actually indicate a lack of character.

The NFL has been exploiting outrage culture to cover its own ass and smear the Patriots for the past year. The fact that that very same outrage culture is threatening to tear apart their golden goose--the guy who was held up as the good alternative to everything horrible about Brady--is just the best kind of irony that's hurting all the right people.

BradyFTW! said:

And the fact that he did that is kinda telling re: his character. What you just made is a good argument for why Naughright has certainly received all the money she deserves from this (and then some), but it doesn't change the fact that all signs point toward Peyton being a giant douche.

Click to expand...

You've been around here long enough to know I've called Manning out for the teabag incident numerous times, and I've been doing it since long before the reporter decided to do as he's done.

BradyFTW! said:

As far as this whole thing being a known incident for the past 20 years, that's technically true. We've been referencing it here on Patsfans for as long as I've been a member. But for whatever reason, even though the information was available it never really made it out into the public. My guess is that it's because nobody in NFL circles was willing to bring it up and risk getting on Peyton's bad side, but even that doesn't totally explain it.

Either way, I'm fine this stuff getting the attention now that it should have got back in 2003 at the latest. Unfortunately for Peyton, we live in a far more hysterical, extreme culture now than we did then, so he probably would have been better off taking his lumps then.

Click to expand...

Peyton getting negative attention for the incident is fine, particularly in light of both the HGH and UT tie-ins. Of course, here on Patsfans, we have people cry about Spygate being brought up when it was 'so long in the past', but hypocrisy is rampant in today's world, so we needn't let that stop us.

Where people demonstrate their insanity is in backing the lunatics of Ultraviolet in their political craziness.

Deus Irae said:

You've been around here long enough to know I've called Manning out for the teabag incident numerous times, and I've been doing it since long before the reporter decided to do as he's done.



Peyton getting negative attention for the incident is fine, particularly in light of both the HGH and UT tie-ins. Of course, here on Patsfans, we have people cry about Spygate being brought up when it was 'so long in the past', but hypocrisy is rampant in today's world, so we needn't let that stop us.

Where people demonstrate their insanity is in backing the lunatics of Ultraviolet in their political craziness.

Click to expand...

Spygate didn't just happen a decade ago. More importantly, the dead horse was thoroughly beaten into the ground a decade ago. It was dissected and overblown and picked bare from every possible angle, including a bunch of angles that never even happened. There's nothing left to cover, because it's all been done. Meanwhile, this Manning thing did happen a long time ago, but it never really received any coverage. Most people who are hearing about it now are learning about it for the very first time.

Anecdote alert: a month ago, I was talking football with a woman who was cutting my hair. She knew I was a Pats fan, I knew she was a Broncos fan. She started pointedly saying that she likes Peyton because he seems like a deeply moral man and a good husband and father who represents everything we should want our role models to be. And I responded with "yeah, except the time he sexually assaulted a trainer". She was a diehard Broncos fan and self-professed Manning megafan, and she'd never heard of any of it. I'm morbidly curious to know how the conversation is going to go next time I go in to get my haircut, because I'm pretty damn sure she knows about it now, and not because of some random bitter Pats fan that she can write off.

BradyFTW! said:

Spygate didn't just happen a decade ago. More importantly, the dead horse was thoroughly beaten into the ground a decade ago. It was dissected and overblown and picked bare from every possible angle, including a bunch of angles that never even happened. There's nothing left to cover, because it's all been done. Meanwhile, this Manning thing did happen a long time ago, but it never really received any coverage.

Click to expand...

This is not true. It's simply not true. If the Manning incident hadn't received any coverage, we wouldn't have been able to be talking about it on Patsfans.com for all these years.

BradyFTW! said:

maybe it makes me a bit of a hypocrite but I don't hate the idea of someone else getting taken down for once

Click to expand...

Sure, I totally get that. To be honest, this one just doesn't do much for me--it's some old thing about a soon to be retired player.

You show me a huge overreaction by the league to, say, the Jets' tampering, then you'd definitely see me being joyfully hypocritical. But I just don't care much about Manning either way. And a group like "UltraViolet" is just about the worst thing in the world, to me.