The reporter claimed an anonymous second source. This isn't the same as confirmation.
It's not really a safe assumption, because if the medication was, in fact, for Ashley, then what it was is no one's business. Not denying something is a world away from confirming it.
PIs aren't always the most upstanding of citizens, so I would guess they probably do pass themselves off as law enforcement. I would also guess they usually do it by inference and implication rather than outright claiming to be the police to avoid felony charges of actually claiming to be a police officer. Is it really shady? Yes. I'm not arguing that. What I'm trying to get you all to see is they are private contractors hired by lawyers. It's not like Manning sent some thugs over. While you infer that the investigation is to cover his tracks as best as he can, it is at least equally likely that the investigation is to start building the defamation lawsuit that they are preparing.
I was referring to the general "you" not to "you" specifically when I was talking about snarky assumptions of guilt. The people with the cute nicknames, the people who have already decided he did it and just waiting for the facts to catch up, all the comments about what the NFL will do about Manning's guilt.
I disagree strongly with your statement. The charge here is that Manning used HGH. An admission that Ashley received medication isn't evidence that Manning used HGH. The second source hasn't been named or vetted by anyone but the reporter. Given the problems with the first source, I'm going to need a lot more than the reporter's word that the second source is reliable. A federal indictment for Guyer about HGH, while certainly shady, can hardly be called evidence against Peyton. These 3 pieces of "evidence" are WAY more peripheral than footballs that were in the NFL's hands and gauged lower than the allowable PSI. I know you're going to say the IGL explains the disparity, but the numbers on that certainly weren't available at the beginning of the Deflategate investigation, so at the beginning of the investigation, like where we are now with Peyton, there was tangible, measurable evidence suggesting the balls had been deflated.
As for the common sense observations, Ashley not receiving it from Guyer if it was legit is an unsupported leap. Manning didn't claim that every word Sly spoke was garbage. He was asked about the implication that he had used HGH and said that was garbage. He specifically said that the allegation he would do anything like that is garbage. I don't understand how someone being forthright about information that, in all honesty, doesn't help the public appearance of the case doesn't pass your "sniff test", and how failing that test is somehow a common sense observation.
At the end of the day, we have a claim that Manning used HGH. Despite the claim of Ashley receiving it being recanted immediately after the release of the documentary by a source who may not even have been at the clinic at the time in question, despite lawsuits being filed already by other people named in the report, despite the reporter claiming a second source that I can't name who is way more reliable than my primary source trust me, and despite the myriad scenarios in which all of this could be ultimately legitimized, many people here are choosing to just assume that he's guilty.
I've seen it mentioned here that jumping to conclusions is bad, but it appears that for many of the people posting, it's only bad if it compromises the appearance of the Patriots or their players. If it's anyone else, facts and evidence aren't necessary, just the narrative that you want. It's pretty hypocritical, especially coming from a fanbase who has had to deal with nearly a decade of people doing exactly the same thing to you.