mikiemo83
The Future
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 76,175
- Reaction score
- 8,172
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Gillette Stadium Basement
Where was Jeff Saturday?
Where was Jeff Saturday?
Whoa, so Peyton's goons showed up at Slys parents house and claimed to be law enforcement!
1) that means for sure they weren't simply there for a chat or to get his side of the story. Intimidation was the goal.
2) isn't that a felony!?
Sent by the voices inside my head
Whoa, so Peyton's goons showed up at Slys parents house and claimed to be law enforcement!
1) that means for sure they weren't simply there for a chat or to get his side of the story. Intimidation was the goal.
2) isn't that a felony!?
Sent by the voices inside my head
Jim Nantz said:...on all levels, this is a non-story.
There isn't any substantial evidence yet, just a bunch of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists trying to spin their narrative.There's already more evidence against Peyton than there ever was against TB12.
There isn't any substantial evidence yet, just a bunch of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists trying to spin their narrative.
Ashley received medication that hasn't yet been confirmed to be HGH. You assume the medicine is HGH with no hard evidence to back that up. You assume Peyton took it from her without even acknowledging the possibility she has a medical condition. You assume Peyton sent "goons" to intimidate Sly without noticing that in every article about this situation it says that the PIs were hired by Manning's lawyers, which by the way, is something that lawyers do all the time when they need to gather information about an upcoming case.
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.
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. I'm just trying to help you understand there aren't nearly enough facts available to come to a conclusion, and your snarky assumptions of his guilt with so little actual knowledge are demeaning not just to him, but to you.
There isn't any substantial evidence yet, just a bunch of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists trying to spin their narrative.
Ashley received medication that hasn't yet been confirmed to be HGH.
You assume Peyton sent "goons" to intimidate Sly without noticing that in every article about this situation it says that the PIs were hired by Manning's lawyers, which by the way, is something that lawyers do all the time when they need to gather information about an upcoming case.
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. I'm just trying to help you understand there aren't nearly enough facts available to come to a conclusion, and your snarky assumptions of his guilt with so little actual knowledge are demeaning not just to him, but to you.
If this plays out as I think (and hope) it does, Manning's punishment will be that his reputation will take a huge hit for being exposed as a lying coward twice.
There isn't any substantial evidence yet, just a bunch of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists trying to spin their narrative.
Ashley received medication that hasn't yet been confirmed to be HGH. You assume the medicine is HGH with no hard evidence to back that up. You assume Peyton took it from her without even acknowledging the possibility she has a medical condition. You assume Peyton sent "goons" to intimidate Sly without noticing that in every article about this situation it says that the PIs were hired by Manning's lawyers, which by the way, is something that lawyers do all the time when they need to gather information about an upcoming case.
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.
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. I'm just trying to help you understand there aren't nearly enough facts available to come to a conclusion, and your snarky assumptions of his guilt with so little actual knowledge are demeaning not just to him, but to you.
The reporter claimed an anonymous second source. This isn't the same as confirmation.That's false. Al-Jazeera confirmed it with a second source several weeks ago.
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.If it was not HGH, I think it's a safe assumption - albeit an assumption - Fleischer would've said as much when he conceded she was getting drugs from a known HGH pusher. He has not denied it was HGH.
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.Do they routinely identify themselves as law enforcement? Sorry, this does not pass the BS test. If Manning had nothing to hide, why does he need to go through Guyer's records with his lawyers first? What is he looking for?
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.Perhaps you misunderstood me. I'm not saying Manning is obviously guilty, I am saying there is more evidence against him than Brady.
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.I am saying there is more evidence against him than Brady. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Since there was zero evidence that Tom Brady ever instructed Jastremski or McNally to do anything with those footballs, any evidence against Peyton would make my statement true.
And with Peyton we have the following pieces of evidence:
- An admission that Ashley received drugs from Guyer
- A second source that confirmed it was, in fact, HGH
- A federal indictment that claimed Guyer was peddling Chinese HGH
Combine that with the following common sense observations:
- If Ashley had a legitimate medical reason for HGH (of which there are only three or four), she would not be receiving it from Guyer.
- Peyton's adamant of denial of everything Sly said has turned out what is truly garbage. Sly's only accusation in the film was that they shipped Ashley Manning drugs. That has turned out to be 100% true. He never suggested they were for Peyton.
- Ari Fleischer pulling a limited hangout today by admitting she received drugs does not pass the sniff-test for me.
That's false. Al-Jazeera confirmed it with a second source several weeks ago.
And BTW, don't buy the racist bullshit on Al-Jazeera being some second rate operation. If you've seen their programming, you know its better quality than the CNN, Foxnews shit most of America watches.
If it was not HGH, I think it's a safe assumption - albeit an assumption - Fleischer would've said as much when he conceded she was getting drugs from a known HGH pusher. He has not denied it was HGH.
Do they routinely identify themselves as law enforcement? Sorry, this does not pass the BS test. If Manning had nothing to hide, why does he need to go through Guyer's records with his lawyers first? What is he looking for?
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I'm not saying Manning is obviously guilty, I am saying there is more evidence against him than Brady. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Since there was zero evidence that Tom Brady ever instructed Jastremski or McNally to do anything with those footballs, any evidence against Peyton would make my statement true.
And with Peyton we have the following pieces of evidence:
- An admission that Ashley received drugs from Guyer
- A second source that confirmed it was, in fact, HGH
- A federal indictment that claimed Guyer was peddling Chinese HGH
Combine that with the following common sense observations:
- If Ashley had a legitimate medical reason for HGH (of which there are only three or four), she would not be receiving it from Guyer.
- Peyton's adamant of denial of everything Sly said has turned out what is truly garbage. Sly's only accusation in the film was that they shipped Ashley Manning drugs. That has turned out to be 100% true. He never suggested they were for Peyton.
- Ari Fleischer pulling a limited hangout today by admitting she received drugs does not pass the sniff-test for me.
I understand the need to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, and I appreciate that you would do that after what Brady went through last year, and I am all for that. But it's OK to think critically.
So, we know Ashley Manning was receiving HGH from Guyer. There are two conclusions to be made:
1 - Ashley Manning was taking HGH for a non-medical reason. Likely generic anti-aging BS that the Hollywood elites love it for, even though there's no scientific evidence to suggest it is at all useful in this manner.
2 - Peyton Manning was using Ashley Manning's name to receive HGH to help him recover from his injury and get on the field faster.
I'm not willing to admit #2 yet. I will concede to you that would be premature.
here's the 911 call from sly's sister
http://deadspin.com/here-is-the-911...source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
There isn't any substantial evidence yet, just a bunch of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists trying to spin their narrative.
Ashley received medication that hasn't yet been confirmed to be HGH. You assume the medicine is HGH with no hard evidence to back that up. You assume Peyton took it from her without even acknowledging the possibility she has a medical condition. You assume Peyton sent "goons" to intimidate Sly without noticing that in every article about this situation it says that the PIs were hired by Manning's lawyers, which by the way, is something that lawyers do all the time when they need to gather information about an upcoming case.
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.
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. I'm just trying to help you understand there aren't nearly enough facts available to come to a conclusion, and your snarky assumptions of his guilt with so little actual knowledge are demeaning not just to him, but to you.
Mounting suspicious evidence. Here's the 2nd source video that it was HGH sent to Manning's houses.
http://deadspin.com/al-jazeera-reporter-second-knowledgable-and-credible-1750778458
If Manning continues to deny this stuff, he will go down in flames the same way Roger Clemens did. I think it's too late for him to come clean now since statements made already would be evidence of a cover up. His reputation already has an * in my mind even though Manning apologists will continue to wait for Manning's verbal confession. That will never come.
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.
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.
The comparisons were from Mayo and Patriot71. I was simply addressing their issues. The questions that need to be answered are the reason there is an investigation. At no point have I said this is over and done, Peyton is innocent. I agree, there needs to be more information gathered.And BS Police, you are just way off. Comparing the Brady story with Manning's is comparing Apples to Oranges. There is a load of issues the AJA report threw up that still haven't been answered.
After how badly the first source worked out, I will need more than "but my second source is really great, honest. I can't tell you who it is, but, truly, awesome."Mounting suspicious evidence. Here's the 2nd source video that it was HGH sent to Manning's houses.
http://deadspin.com/al-jazeera-reporter-second-knowledgable-and-credible-1750778458
If Manning continues to deny this stuff, he will go down in flames the same way Roger Clemens did. I think it's too late for him to come clean now since statements made already would be evidence of a cover up. His reputation already has an * in my mind even though Manning apologists will continue to wait for Manning's verbal confession. That will never come.
Even if Ashley was taking HGH illegally, do you really believe that confirms Peyton was? It is an invasion of privacy to be expected to answer definitively one way or the other, regardless of whether the allegation is true or false. The lack of denial isn't odd at all in that context, and again, lack of denial is a world away from confirmation.Ashley Manning, I've acknowledged, may have had one of the 3 medical condition that justify HGH, but, I also gave very valid reasons it was highly unlikely. Any illness or trial use, wouldn't involve her going to an anti aging clinic. I did say the most likely reason for her HGH use was her trying to lose the baby weight but again that would be illegal :shrug_n:
It wouldn't be an invasion of her medical privacy if she if wasn't taking HGH.:shrug_n:
And the lack of denial is also odd to say the least. Again all she or Manning would have to say is she didn't nor has she ever taken HGH which would end this whole thing. And, if once again, she never took it it wouldn't be a invasion of her medical privacy
I have no idea if Peyton took the HGH but lets not pretend there isn't enough circumstantial evidence starting to add up.
~Dee~
It hasn't actually. It's been claimed but not confirmed. In fact, with his graduation in 2013, and confirmation from his school that internships are almost exclusively done in the final year, it looks like "Heather" may not have provided the correct information.It has been confirmed Sly worked at Guyer in 2011.
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.