"
At the end of the day, we have a claim that Manning used HGH."
I see plenty of evidence that he probably had cause to take it.
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
Ari Fleischer admitted Ashley was shipped medication from Guyer. Ari Fleischer has been careful not to deny it was HGH. Sly's recant is trumped by Fleischer's admisson.
the reporter claiming a second source that I can't name who is way more reliable than my primary source trust me
A 2nd “impeccably placed, knowledgable, and credible” source who corroborated the veracity of all of Sly's statements in the documentary before it was aired, including those statements Sly made about the Mannings. Al J is on record as standing behind the documentary 100%. That's a long limb to climb out on if Al J thought there was any chance they could lose in court.
http://deadspin.com/al-jazeera-reporter-second-knowledgable-and-credible-1750778458
many people here are choosing to just assume that he's guilty.
I see a preponderance of real evidence that indicates he probably did do it. Personally, I think he did it, yes, even though there's no video of him injecting himself. I also think Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez did it as do 98% of all fans. I'm not ashamed of that.
You do see that having cause to take HGH is not even close to actually taking HGH right?
Ari Fleischer "not denying" it was HGH cannot be called an admission. Refusing to deny something is nowhere near confirming it, and it is sloppy logic to try to use them synonymously.
"Impeccably placed", "Knowledgeable", and any other adjectives the reporter adds to the confidential source doesn't make the source credible without being vetted by unbiased sources who aren't potentially scrambling to protect themselves from the backlash at having this type of story debunked.
How can you possibly see a "preponderance of real evidence" when there isn't any real evidence yet? There is accusation, implication, and inference. Plenty to warrant an investigation to search for real evidence, but absolutely nothing from which to draw conclusions at this point.
Yes, reading is "fundamentally". Would you like me to link all of the posts where people here have assumed his guilt?
i really stopped reading the unconditional love of Pey Pey. So based on what I have read
I am saying this cat is just being difficult. Every time the sex assault was brought up BS acts like it is the first time he/she heard of it.
I acted like it was the first time I heard of it when it was the first time I heard of it, which was the only time I talked about it here. I don't know what you mean by "every time it was brought up". It was brought up once in a conversation of which I was involved, I looked it up and was shocked and disgusted by the behavior and came back to say so. I stand by my reaction.
The most telling thing in all this is that Manning or how wife have not stated what it is if anything, that was shipped to her. It's naive in the extreme that if this was all kosher that Ashley Manning would not have been trotted out in front of the media to give a tearful interview about getting treatment for Crohn's disease or something. Peyton and Ashley tearfully telling the truth to Barbara Walters.
The silence is damning. I don't buy for a second that it's simply that Manning wants to protect his wife's privacy. It does not add up in any way because the questions just get louder the more silent he stays. If there was a genuine reason why Ashley needed medication or it wasn't HGH but something else, we would have heard from her/Peyton's spokesman weeks ago. No way would they let this fester just to protect his wife's privacy.
For what feels like the hundredth time, you can't use "damning silence" as evidence. People have the right to not comment on their personal lives, for whatever reasons, regardless of what you may think of them. Refusing to deny something is not the same as admitting it, no matter how much you want it to be.
The three reasons that you can legally get HGH are:
- Short bowel syndrome
- HGH deficiency
- HIV/AIDs wasting.
Would you disagree with the statement:
It is unreasonable that Ashley Manning would be receiving treatment for one of these very serious ailments from the Guyer Institute, a self-proclaimed anti-aging institute which was linked to illegally obtained HGH in 2007?
I would say unlikely is a better adjective than unreasonable. Perhaps she was getting treatment for one of those conditions from the Guyer institute because Peyton was already working with them for his neck rehab. Perhaps she was illegally obtaining HGH for her own vanity. In either case, it doesn't mean Peyton was using it.
Let's just recap:
Sly: We shipped Ashley Manning HGH & drugs
Sly: I haven't seen the documentary, but everything I said it in was false
Peyton: I'm disgusted. Sly made everything up.
Fleischer: Oh, well, yeah Ashley Manning did actually receive drugs from Guyer.
What do you think when you read these conflicting statements?
I think we should have an investigation to try to find the truth.
A lot of willingness to jump to conclusions about a pro athlete based on unproven allegations here.
It seems so familiar.
I know, right?
Except for 1 simple fact: there was never any evidence linking Brady to wanting the footballs below 12.5 PSI. The NFL admitted that to Judge Berman. There IS evidence that HGH was delivered to Manning's house.
The evidence that Brady wanted the balls below 12.5 PSI was circumstantial, but present. If Jastremski and McNally were altering the balls, it is reasonable to conclude that they would be doing it with Brady's knowledge and consent. Two minor functionaries tampering with footballs makes no sense without the QB receiving benefit. It's not enough to conclude that Brady cheated, but it is more than the zero you're claiming.
You're stating that there is evidence of HGH being delivered, but all we actually know is that some medication of some kind was delivered. This is the difference between a fact and a supposition.
Statements like this are meaningless, and your repeated name-calling undermines your desire to be perceived as the rational one. You are asking people not to think critically, when you yourself have jumped to conclusions:
Saying that jumping to conclusions is ignorant and childish isn't name-calling, and even if it were it's the first time I've said anything like it, so charging me with repeated name-calling is grossly unwarranted. I haven't made any personal attacks to anyone in any thread I've posted in. I also haven't jumped to any conclusions without expressly stating that I was guessing, speculating, or couldn't know for sure.
What evidence do we have that caused you to come to the conclusion that Sly was completely unreliable, and that yet, his recantation should be taken at face value?
I don't think anyone here has asked for Manning to get 4 games. I just think everyone here has a healthy dose of skepticism over Manning's denial and ensuing actions, for good reason.
When someone makes very controversial statements in private, then recants when the statements become public, and when that person can't even be verified to have been present at the time of the claims, they are unreliable. I'm not accepting the recanting any more or less than the initial claims. The fact that both exist nullify his veracity as a source. He is a liar no matter which statement is true.
1. The 2nd source said it was HGH
2. Ari Fleischer, Peyton's lawyers, Ashley Manning, the Guyer Institute et al could have come out and said it WASN'T HGH. None have done so.
Yes, I'm as sure as I can be that it was HGH based on the above.
You could be more sure if there was actual proof that Ashley received HGH and Peyton used it. The fact that nobody has denied it is not the same as confirming it.
I'm sure you'll be accused of jumping to conclusions here, but I think this is a very valid point.
I think its reasonable to conclude that either Fleischer is doing a terrible job or Ashley received HGH. It would be odd for his PR team to pass up on a layup like that. If she wasn't getting HGH from Guyer, they could say it, and it would do more to bolster their claims that Sly is full of crap than anything else they've said to date.
Ashley could have received legit, non-HGH medication, and Fleischer could be doing a fine job at the same time, so the conclusion is faulty and unsupported. If Ashley insisted that she wants her privacy maintained in the fullest, and no statements should be made about her that aren't absolutely necessary, Fleischer would be unable to reveal the legit, non-HGH medication without violating her trust. If he is doing the best he can within the confines of what he's allowed to say, he's not doing a terrible job.
I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm just demonstrating a reasonable alternative to the narrative you proposed and showing that there isn't enough information to draw your conclusion.