NFL conducting ?comprehensive? Peyton Manning investigation

chevss454

Data-driven decision-making is science and art.
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
63,885
Reaction score
14,899
Points
113
Location
Canton, MA
You're sure about that? It's now 100% that it was HGH?

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.
 

TheColtGuy

Active member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
864
Reaction score
61
Points
28
Location
Indianapolis
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.

A private person wanting to keep a medication private doesn't seem that outlandish to me.

I don't know; maybe you're right. But at this point, it's conjecture. A lot of people were 100% after the "deflator" text & Brady destroying his cell phone, too. In retrospect, those things don't seem that incriminating.

I think it's ridiculous what happened to Brady. But I also think it's a bit ironic that some who thought that was a witch hunt from the beginning are now ready to believe anything w/ the HGH case.

Make no mistake: the only real difference right now is that this time it's Manning.
 

Mayo1251

Active member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
249
Reaction score
33
Points
28
A private person wanting to keep a medication private doesn't seem that outlandish to me.

How would ruling out one thousands of drugs that could've been prescribed to her be an issue of privacy?

Make no mistake: the only real difference right now is that this time it's Manning.

That's not remotely accurate.
 

chevss454

Data-driven decision-making is science and art.
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
63,885
Reaction score
14,899
Points
113
Location
Canton, MA
A private person wanting to keep a medication private doesn't seem that outlandish to me.

I don't know; maybe you're right. But at this point, it's conjecture. A lot of people were 100% after the "deflator" text & Brady destroying his cell phone, too. In retrospect, those things don't seem that incriminating.

I think it's ridiculous what happened to Brady. But I also think it's a bit ironic that some who thought that was a witch hunt from the beginning are now ready to believe anything w/ the HGH case.

Make no mistake: the only real difference right now is that this time it's Manning.

Evidence with witnesses vs 0 evidence with 0 witnesses = a huge difference.

No one in Manning's crisis management team has to name the medication sent by Guyer to Ashley - only that it wasn't HGH. If the shipments weren't HGH Fleischer would certainly have said that. He didn't and neither has Peyton.
 

Mayo1251

Active member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
249
Reaction score
33
Points
28
No one in Manning's crisis management team has to name the medication sent by Guyer to Ashley - only that it wasn't HGH. If the shipments weren't HGH Fleischer would certainly have said that. He didn't and neither has Peyton.

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.
 
OP
HSanders

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
28,364
Reaction score
8,064
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
if you are like me and have a strong suspicion that ashley did not give birth to those kids, it puts them in a bad place. admit ashley did hgh while preggers or admit she did the hgh and wasn't ever pregnant.
 

chevss454

Data-driven decision-making is science and art.
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
63,885
Reaction score
14,899
Points
113
Location
Canton, MA
if you are like me and have a strong suspicion that ashley did not give birth to those kids, it puts them in a bad place. admit ashley did hgh while preggers or admit she did the hgh and wasn't ever pregnant.

So you're suggesting a DNA test would come up positive for Peyton but negative for Ashley?

Peyton better never ever cross Ashley. :coffee:

edit:
The oddest rumor of all dealing with Peyton and Ashley Manning is that Ashley is not the mother of their twins, Marshall and Mosely. There are many references on blogs and in chat boards to Ashley never having been pregnant. Speculation abounds that she adopted the twins from another woman, possibly one Peyton had impregnated.
This is a blurb from People Magazine’s “Celebrity Baby” blog: “Ashley Manning was most certainly NOT PREGNANT! She was seen in Chicago out celebrating her wedding anniversary with Peyton. She wasn’t pregnant with one baby, let alone two! She looked great, super skinny.” Ashley Manning also attended the St. Vincent Gala with Peyton that March. She was NOT PREGNANT!”

http://sportiquescooters.com/souths...ing-score-as-much-off-the-field-as-he-does-on
 

Beaglebay

Houndsight is 20/20
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
26,890
Reaction score
10,212
Points
113
Location
Eastham, MA
Website
www.tanjantstudios.com
A private person wanting to keep a medication private doesn't seem that outlandish to me.

I don't know; maybe you're right. But at this point, it's conjecture. A lot of people were 100% after the "deflator" text & Brady destroying his cell phone, too. In retrospect, those things don't seem that incriminating.

I think it's ridiculous what happened to Brady. But I also think it's a bit ironic that some who thought that was a witch hunt from the beginning are now ready to believe anything w/ the HGH case.

Make no mistake: the only real difference right now is that this time it's Manning.



Manning went to Europe to receive stem cell treatments. Did you know that the USFDA classifies stem cells as a drug? Interesting.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/01/why-dont-patients-stay-in-the-u-s-for-stem-cell-treatments/

When Peyton was meeting with various doctors for help with his recovery, Archie Manning advised him, "No voodoo". Kind of an odd thing for him to say, isn't it?

Manning is a proven liar, and has resorted to scapegoating and speaking out fraudulently against others in the past.
 

Mayo1251

Active member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
249
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Manning went to Europe to receive stem cell treatments.

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up during the HGH stuff. He did the stem cell treatment in 2011 and HGH is often used in conjunction with that treatment, the exception being athletes.

If you recall the case of Bartolo Colon, who I think put stem cell treatment for athletes on the map, his doctor said he would've used HGH in conjunction with the stem cell treatment had he been allowed to.
 

TheBSPolice

Active member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
188
Reaction score
28
Points
28
Location
Jersey
"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.

Reading is fundamentally
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.
 

BostonTim

IIWII
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
36,195
Reaction score
7,276
Points
113
Age
74
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 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.


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.



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.


I think we should have an investigation to try to find the truth.


I know, right?


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.

Jeez how do you keep up with all your lame attempts to make sense while arguing with everyone on the Planet? It's like the internet. You'll never come to the end of it. :coffee:

PS you're in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, illustrating the "Don't feed the trolls" entry and I'm ashamed of myself for responding here. I'm going to get out my Monty Python Monk's self-bashing board and wack myself in the head forty times.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YgYEuJ5u1K0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Joe

Registered Loser
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
1,824
Reaction score
142
Points
63
Location
Boston, MA
A lot of willingness to jump to conclusions about a pro athlete based on unproven allegations here.

It seems so familiar.

Doesn't it just sound so unfair? Yeah, I know. Oh well!
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,803
Reaction score
2,603
Points
113
Age
62
Location
Windsor, CT
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.

Well from a crisis management standpoint, there is one possible reason for them not saying that.

If whatever was shipped there was illegal, if they say it wasn't HGH, then there will most certainly be follow-up asking what it actually was.

A fundamental element of crisis management is not to draw attention to the things you are trying to obfuscate.

Making any comment on what was or was not delivered would violate that principle.

The better option is to avoid the subject all together.
 

Mayo1251

Active member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
249
Reaction score
33
Points
28
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.

Why would he admit she was getting drugs from Guyer but refuse to deny they were HGH? I don't understand why this is good PR. What could his reason possibly be? If it were not HGH, there is no downside to saying "she received treatment from Guyer, but it did not include HGH. Her treatments are her private matter."

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.

How is that at all reasonable? There's plenty of evidence of Jastremski & McNally taking matters into their own hands just looking at the text conversation which Brady was not at all a part of. Plus there are examples of ball boys doing things without consent of higher ups in the past (see Feely's ball boys violation with Jets; Panthers warming up balls). Again, what evidence is there that Brady told Jas or McNally to do anything illegal?

The only interaction the NFL can verify Brady having with Jastremski in the aftermath of the October Jets game was him finding the rule to bring to the refs that allows them to keep it inflated to the low end.

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.

Ad hominem:
and your snarky assumptions of his guilt with so little actual knowledge are demeaning not just to him, but to you.

Ad hominem:
just a bunch of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists trying to spin their narrative.

Straw man:
But how could they have known before the documentary was released unless Manning was guilty you may ask. Al-Jazeera called Manning's agent several days in advance to let him know about the documentary's upcoming release and the information inside relating to Manning.

Straw man:
I know most of you are going to laugh this off as me "defending" Manning or "burying my head in the sand" despite the fact that I am not claiming him to be innocent.

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.

Please give examples of why you feel this way. He recanted the comments for obvious legal reasons. His recanting the statements should in no way remove scrutiny over his original candid comments. His recantation should be treated with equal, or more, skepticism than to comments he made privately, particularly when his comments pertaining to Peyton Manning have yet to be rebutted in any serious way, and have since been at least partially confirmed by PM's rep.


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.

I don't understand how, in any way, admitting she was not receiving HGH from Guyer is a violation of her privacy.

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.

Again, please don't confuse scrutiny with jumping to conclusions. There is a difference. Honestly, the biggest leap in logic in this thread to date has probably been committed by you when you suggest its reasonable to assume Jas & McNally wouldn't do anything with the footballs without Brady's knowledge. Between that statement, and your repeated use of logical fallacies, I am having trouble believing you are really trying to live up to the self-proclaimed "BSPolice" you have named yourself. You are playing devil's advocate, and giving the appearance of superior objectivity and civility than your counterparts, but are resorting to the same BS debate tactics that all of us of lay folks on football fan forums use.
 

deec77

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
18,632
Reaction score
10,691
Points
113
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 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.


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.



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.


I think we should have an investigation to try to find the truth.


I know, right?


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.

You quoted me I speak for myself in my responces as I had pointed out.:shrug_n:

~Dee~
 

deec77

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
18,632
Reaction score
10,691
Points
113
if you are like me and have a strong suspicion that ashley did not give birth to those kids, it puts them in a bad place. admit ashley did hgh while preggers or admit she did the hgh and wasn't ever pregnant.

The babies were born in March St Paddys day I remember reading in 2011. So she wasn't pregnant when the drugs were delivered. I'm not sure if she nursed :shrug_n:
 

TheBSPolice

Active member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
188
Reaction score
28
Points
28
Location
Jersey
How is that at all reasonable? There's plenty of evidence of Jastremski & McNally taking matters into their own hands just looking at the text conversation which Brady was not at all a part of. Plus there are examples of ball boys doing things without consent of higher ups in the past (see Feely's ball boys violation with Jets; Panthers warming up balls). Again, what evidence is there that Brady told Jas or McNally to do anything illegal?
Jas and McNally were responsible for prepping Brady's footballs to his specifications, meaning they knew what he liked and how to give it to him. They have no personal interest in the condition of the footballs outside of satisfying their quarterback. If they were to engage in any tampering with the footballs after the official's inspection it would require them to either be deliberately changing the footballs FROM what Brady was expecting or deliberately changing the footballs TO what Brady was expecting. If you want to argue that they were trolling him by making the footballs different than what he wanted you would have to try to explain why. If you want to argue that they were, in fact, doing their job for him but outside league rules, you have a conclusion that at least makes sense. All of this is based, of course, on if the tampering occurred, which is not necessarily true.

Ad hominem: and your snarky assumptions of his guilt with so little actual knowledge are demeaning not just to him, but to you

Ad hominem:just a bunch of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists trying to spin their narrative.
Neither of these is actually an ad hominem. Attempting to refute an argument's premise based on the faults of the person making the premise is an ad hominem.

Casting judgment on a person for the faults of his or her arguments isn't.

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.

Please give examples of why you feel this way. He recanted the comments for obvious legal reasons. His recanting the statements should in no way remove scrutiny over his original candid comments. His recantation should be treated with equal, or more, skepticism than to comments he made privately, particularly when his comments pertaining to Peyton Manning have yet to be rebutted in any serious way, and have since been at least partially confirmed by PM's rep.

I feel this way because if you can't stand behind the things you say you're unreliable. I'm not saying that any scrutiny should be removed. I've been saying on your forums that there should absolutely be a thorough investigation before any investigation was announced. I'm just saying as a source, Sly is useless. He said one thing to potential customers under what he assumed were private conditions, and when it became public immediately claimed that nothing he said was true. One of those statements is abjectly false, which means both are meaningless. The investigation will need to find the facts that reveal the truth.

Honestly, the biggest leap in logic in this thread to date has probably been committed by you when you suggest its reasonable to assume Jas & McNally wouldn't do anything with the footballs without Brady's knowledge. Between that statement, and your repeated use of logical fallacies, I am having trouble believing you are really trying to live up to the self-proclaimed "BSPolice" you have named yourself. You are playing devil's advocate, and giving the appearance of superior objectivity and civility than your counterparts, but are resorting to the same BS debate tactics that all of us of lay folks on football fan forums use.
The biggest leap of logic is absolutely the idea that the NFL is treating the two investigations differently because one is Peyton Manning and one is Tom Brady. Looking past 4 SB trophies in the past 15 years, looking past the friendship between Goodell and Kraft, looking past the ridiculous notion that the NFL has anything to gain by tearing down one of their best and most popular players, we can just look at the characteristics of the two situations.

The Manning investigation would have looked much different if the Patriots had reason to believe he was using HGH at the AFCCG and NFL officials thought they found corroborating evidence at halftime.

Likewise, the Deflategate investigation would have looked completely different if some guy claimed that Giselle was deflating footballs four years ago and therefore maybe Tom was too, and then claimed he made it all up.

Take yourself out of the fan mindset and reread the thread and then try to tell me with a straight face that I'm the one who made the largest leap of logic.

And believe whatever you want about me, I don't really care about anyone's approval or I wouldn't stand behind unpopular opinions in the face of a hostile crowd. But objectively speaking, you know I haven't come in here with name calling, trolling, deliberately inflammatory content to incite people; I haven't started any threads or even any discussions. I've responded to the things I've read with my opinions, no more, no less.
 

Mayo1251

Active member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
249
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Jas and McNally were responsible for prepping Brady's footballs to his specifications, meaning they knew what he liked and how to give it to him. They have no personal interest in the condition of the footballs outside of satisfying their quarterback. If they were to engage in any tampering with the footballs after the official's inspection it would require them to either be deliberately changing the footballs FROM what Brady was expecting or deliberately changing the footballs TO what Brady was expecting. If you want to argue that they were trolling him by making the footballs different than what he wanted you would have to try to explain why. If you want to argue that they were, in fact, doing their job for him but outside league rules, you have a conclusion that at least makes sense. All of this is based, of course, on if the tampering occurred, which is not necessarily true.

I think the most plausible explanation for all of deflategate - and I don't know why this isn't discussed more openly - is that Jastremski and McNally wanted to make sure the balls were to Brady's liking and were trying to offset the officials negligently pumping them up past where Brady liked them. They have no reason to tell Brady they were doing this. I think this is very reasonable. People grossly exaggerated Brady's involvement with both Jastremski and especially McNally.

I think this is a very realistic explanation. I do think its very reasonable Jastremski acted on his own accord to avoid further outbursts from the GOAT. I find it far more compelling an explanation than Tom Brady being OK with an unskilled part-time employee rushing into the bathroom every game to stick needles into his footballs, taking out an indeterminate amount of air, without any way of Brady to approve of what he's doing to them.

FWIW, in either case, I think rather emphatically that the Patriots did not deflate balls for the AFCCG, and that the evidence clearly supports that.

Neither of these is actually an ad hominem. Attempting to refute an argument's premise based on the faults of the person making the premise is an ad hominem.

Dismissing someone's comments because you are suggesting they are a tinfoil hat, or suggesting their comments are so ridiculous that they are demeaning to the person making them are both insulting, and attempts to belittle the argument by belittling the person. In neither case did you make a rebuttal of either argument, and instead dismissed the argument based purely on the person making the argument. That is the definition of ad hominem.

I'm just saying as a source, Sly is useless. He said one thing to potential customers under what he assumed were private conditions, and when it became public immediately claimed that nothing he said was true. One of those statements is abjectly false, which means both are meaningless. The investigation will need to find the facts that reveal the truth.

He's useless as far as the investigation is concerned. But we're private citizens on a message board, free to speculate as to which of the statements contain truth. As I'm sure the investigators themselves are. I'm actually pretty certain this investigation will go nowhere. Peyton and his team got to look at all the records and then came out guns blazing. They must feel pretty confident. I also think the NFL has very little recourse to conduct a serious investigation, nor do they care to.

But it's routine for someone to recant statements about their own illegal activity, which is why I am not willing to take the recantation as seriously as you.

The biggest leap of logic is absolutely the idea that the NFL is treating the two investigations differently because one is Peyton Manning and one is Tom Brady. Looking past 4 SB trophies in the past 15 years, looking past the friendship between Goodell and Kraft, looking past the ridiculous notion that the NFL has anything to gain by tearing down one of their best and most popular players, we can just look at the characteristics of the two situations.

The NFL absolutely railroaded Brady because he was on the Patriots. The NFL absolutely went into the investigation hoping to find evidence against the Patriots. And the NFL absolutely treated the issue of ball deflation with far more seriousness because it involved the Patriots. If you really want to dig up deflategate, spygate, and all the cast of characters involved in starting the deflation investigation, just say the word. I think you've made a lot of statements with merit here, but this is not one.

Likewise, the Deflategate investigation would have looked completely different if some guy claimed that Giselle was deflating footballs four years ago and therefore maybe Tom was too, and then claimed he made it all up.

Deflategate began when a Colts equipment manager insinuated that it was well-known around the league that Brady likes a soft ball. That claim was never substantiated and even the Wells Report concedes they could not find evidence that this rumor was held around the league.

By the time the Wells investigation had begun, the NFL should've been aware of PV=nRT and should've known an investigation was unnecessary. They knew the real measurements. Had they made the measurements public, there would've been pressure to cease the investigation.

I wouldn't stand behind unpopular opinions in the face of a hostile crowd. But objectively speaking, you know I haven't come in here with name calling, trolling, deliberately inflammatory content to incite people; I haven't started any threads or even any discussions. I've responded to the things I've read with my opinions, no more, no less.

I think you're probably a contrarian finds pride in being more objective and holding unpopular opinions in the face of a screaming mob on such vaulted intellectual battlefields as a football fan forum. It's pretty common on the internet and I don't really have a problem in it. I like stirring crap on the web, too, because it passes the time. I find the self-importance of pretending we are doing anything other than that a little annoying.
 
Top