Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Some confusing allegations and coincidences here. Sly has recanted his story and makes it out like it was an Al Jazeera sting operation/hit piece. The Manning camp and Guyer Institute were quick to point out that Sly was an unpaid intern who only worked there for 3 months in 2013 yet he knew about Mrs. Manning's HGH order in 2011.

If this were Tom Brady, he'd already be indicted. Remember how much conviction Lance Armstrong spoke with?

“I have no reason to believe these allegations are based in fact or have any truth,” Dr. Guyer said. “In fact, I can say with absolute certainty they are not. I find it extremely disturbing that the source of Al Jazeera’s story, a former unpaid student intern named Charles Sly, would violate the privacy of Mrs. Manning’s medical records and be so callous and destructive as to purposely fabricate and spread stories that are simply not true.”

That’s a clunky and confusing sentence. If the claim is fabricated, Sly isn’t violating Ashley Manning’s privacy. Sly is violating the privacy of Ashley Manning only if she did indeed receive HGH from the Guyer Institute.

Meanwhile, as the statements pile up regarding the Peyton Manning report, Ashley Manning’s silence becomes even more conspicuous.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ement-too/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

.

Russell Wilson tortures puppies.

kalm wrote:Some confusing allegations and coincidences here. Sly has recanted his story and makes it out like it was an Al Jazeera sting operation/hit piece. The Manning camp and Guyer Institute were quick to point out that Sly was an unpaid intern who only worked there for 3 months in 2013 yet he knew about Mrs. Manning's HGH order in 2011.

If this were Tom Brady, he'd already be indicted. Remember how much conviction Lance Armstrong spoke with?

“I have no reason to believe these allegations are based in fact or have any truth,” Dr. Guyer said. “In fact, I can say with absolute certainty they are not. I find it extremely disturbing that the source of Al Jazeera’s story, a former unpaid student intern named Charles Sly, would violate the privacy of Mrs. Manning’s medical records and be so callous and destructive as to purposely fabricate and spread stories that are simply not true.”

That’s a clunky and confusing sentence. If the claim is fabricated, Sly isn’t violating Ashley Manning’s privacy. Sly is violating the privacy of Ashley Manning only if she did indeed receive HGH from the Guyer Institute.

Meanwhile, as the statements pile up regarding the Peyton Manning report, Ashley Manning’s silence becomes even more conspicuous.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ement-too/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed,
If this were Brady the league would suspend him (or try) for a season...
But good 'ol boy awe shucks Peyton Manning will get a free pass
regardless of how many shipments of Human Growth Juice his wife received



0.5 pound of air in a football is an Equipment Infraction
Which the Bronco's punter was already fined in 2013 $25K for over inflating his kicking footballs 2 lbs

Does anyone really consider Aljezeera a legit news network?

Jjoey52 wrote:Does anyone really consider Aljezeera a legit news network?

or Fox..?

or MSNBC..?

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:Some confusing allegations and coincidences here. Sly has recanted his story and makes it out like it was an Al Jazeera sting operation/hit piece. The Manning camp and Guyer Institute were quick to point out that Sly was an unpaid intern who only worked there for 3 months in 2013 yet he knew about Mrs. Manning's HGH order in 2011.

If this were Tom Brady, he'd already be indicted. Remember how much conviction Lance Armstrong spoke with?





http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ement-too/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed,
If this were Brady the league would suspend him (or try) for a season...
But good 'ol boy awe shucks Peyton Manning will get a free pass
regardless of how many shipments of Human Growth Juice his wife received



0.5 pound of air in a football is an Equipment Infraction
Which the Bronco's punter was already fined in 2013 $25K for over inflating his kicking footballs 2 lbs

Why all this Brady-apologist stuff? I didn't realize there were actually Brady sympathizers on here who feel as if he's actually targeted by the NFL. This is the same Brady who can draw a roughing the passer penalty if anyone blows on him wrong during the game. He's hardly a tortured soul out there on the field. Brady doesn't get the rough treatment by the NFL over deflating footballs if the Patriots hadn't already been guilty (and they were guilty, no one denies it) of Spy-Gate years before. Anyone in the know has connected Spy-Gate, and the league's underwhelming response to it (and brushing it under the rug so it didn't see the light of day) to the league's admittedly over-reaching response to the Patriots clear tampering (and again, no one is really saying someone for the Patriots didn't tamper with the balls). Brady just happened to be the guy holding the ball (literally in this case) when the Patriots got caught cheating again. Poor Tom Brady.

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Agreed,
If this were Brady the league would suspend him (or try) for a season...
But good 'ol boy awe shucks Peyton Manning will get a free pass
regardless of how many shipments of Human Growth Juice his wife received



0.5 pound of air in a football is an Equipment Infraction
Which the Bronco's punter was already fined in 2013 $25K for over inflating his kicking footballs 2 lbs

Why all this Brady-apologist stuff? I didn't realize there were actually Brady sympathizers on here who feel as if he's actually targeted by the NFL. This is the same Brady who can draw a roughing the passer penalty if anyone blows on him wrong during the game. He's hardly a tortured soul out there on the field. Brady doesn't get the rough treatment by the NFL over deflating footballs if the Patriots hadn't already been guilty (and they were guilty, no one denies it) of Spy-Gate years before. Anyone in the know has connected Spy-Gate, and the league's underwhelming response to it (and brushing it under the rug so it didn't see the light of day) to the league's admittedly over-reaching response to the Patriots clear tampering (and again, no one is really saying someone for the Patriots didn't tamper with the balls). Brady just happened to be the guy holding the ball (literally in this case) when the Patriots got caught cheating again. Poor Tom Brady.

No one's apologizing for Brady, Ganny, but if these allegations were about him, the pitchforks would be out...

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Why all this Brady-apologist stuff? I didn't realize there were actually Brady sympathizers on here who feel as if he's actually targeted by the NFL. This is the same Brady who can draw a roughing the passer penalty if anyone blows on him wrong during the game. He's hardly a tortured soul out there on the field. Brady doesn't get the rough treatment by the NFL over deflating footballs if the Patriots hadn't already been guilty (and they were guilty, no one denies it) of Spy-Gate years before. Anyone in the know has connected Spy-Gate, and the league's underwhelming response to it (and brushing it under the rug so it didn't see the light of day) to the league's admittedly over-reaching response to the Patriots clear tampering (and again, no one is really saying someone for the Patriots didn't tamper with the balls). Brady just happened to be the guy holding the ball (literally in this case) when the Patriots got caught cheating again. Poor Tom Brady.

No one's apologizing for Brady, Ganny, but if these allegations were about him, the pitchforks would be out...

Well, considering if that was the case, it would be the 3rd time the Pats and Brady cheated, then yes, the pitchforks would be out. Justified, though, no? Manning's got a clean record, hence the lack of pitchforks at the ready.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
No one's apologizing for Brady, Ganny, but if these allegations were about him, the pitchforks would be out...

Well, considering if that was the case, it would be the 3rd time the Pats and Brady cheated, then yes, the pitchforks would be out. Justified, though, no? Manning's got a clean record, hence the lack of pitchforks at the ready.

Yeah, I should have gone with convicted instead of pitchforks. I just happen to get as much of a kick out of the Manning love as I do the Brady hate.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Well, considering if that was the case, it would be the 3rd time the Pats and Brady cheated, then yes, the pitchforks would be out. Justified, though, no? Manning's got a clean record, hence the lack of pitchforks at the ready.

Yeah, I should have gone with convicted instead of pitchforks. I just happen to get as much of a kick out of the Manning love as I do the Brady hate.

Well, again, Manning, to my knowledge, hasn't cheated or, prior to this HGH thing, ever been accused of cheating. And he does really funny commercials on TV. Brady has been connected to and intimately involved in two separate cheating scandals. That's the difference.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yeah, I should have gone with convicted instead of pitchforks. I just happen to get as much of a kick out of the Manning love as I do the Brady hate.

Well, again, Manning, to my knowledge, hasn't cheated or, prior to this HGH thing, ever been accused of cheating. And he does really funny commercials on TV. Brady has been connected to and intimately involved in two separate cheating scandals. That's the difference.

I get that and view it the same as NCAA football violations. Damn those cheatin' sums a bitches at USC!

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Agreed,
If this were Brady the league would suspend him (or try) for a season...
But good 'ol boy awe shucks Peyton Manning will get a free pass
regardless of how many shipments of Human Growth Juice his wife received



0.5 pound of air in a football is an Equipment Infraction
Which the Bronco's punter was already fined in 2013 $25K for over inflating his kicking footballs 2 lbs

Why all this Brady-apologist stuff? I didn't realize there were actually Brady sympathizers on here who feel as if he's actually targeted by the NFL. This is the same Brady who can draw a roughing the passer penalty if anyone blows on him wrong during the game. He's hardly a tortured soul out there on the field. Brady doesn't get the rough treatment by the NFL over deflating footballs if the Patriots hadn't already been guilty (and they were guilty, no one denies it) of Spy-Gate years before. Anyone in the know has connected Spy-Gate, and the league's underwhelming response to it (and brushing it under the rug so it didn't see the light of day) to the league's admittedly over-reaching response to the Patriots clear tampering (and again, no one is really saying someone for the Patriots didn't tamper with the balls). Brady just happened to be the guy holding the ball (literally in this case) when the Patriots got caught cheating again. Poor Tom Brady.

This.

I'll give Manning the benefit of the doubt. The situation around this Sly fella (wasn't there a CS/AGS poster named Sly?) is suspect. What does he have to gain by going public like this, true or not? Money? I'll wait for more information to come out. Speeches and articles about support are nice, but i'll wait for some document trail regarding shipments, purchases,etc... to either vindicate or sink Manning.

AZGrizFan wrote:"She" isn't a she.

Are you thinking of Chelsea Manning?

Ibanez wrote:I'll give Manning the benefit of the doubt. The situation around this Sly fella (wasn't there a CS/AGS poster named Sly?) is suspect. What does he have to gain by going public like this, true or not? Money? I'll wait for more information to come out. Speeches and articles about support are nice, but i'll wait for some document trail regarding shipments, purchases,etc... to either vindicate or sink Manning.

I might agree, but read the quote in OP from Dr. Guyer. If Sly violated Mrs. Manning's medical privacy than the HGH was obviously delivered. If not, wouldn't you simply say "neither Peyton nor Mrs. Manning have ever had anything to do with HGH"?

kalm wrote:

Ibanez wrote:I'll give Manning the benefit of the doubt. The situation around this Sly fella (wasn't there a CS/AGS poster named Sly?) is suspect. What does he have to gain by going public like this, true or not? Money? I'll wait for more information to come out. Speeches and articles about support are nice, but i'll wait for some document trail regarding shipments, purchases,etc... to either vindicate or sink Manning.

I might agree, but read the quote in OP from Dr. Guyer. If Sly violated Mrs. Manning's medical privacy than the HGH was obviously delivered. If not, wouldn't you simply say "neither Peyton nor Mrs. Manning have ever had anything to do with HGH"?

Not necessarily. If Sly looked at Mrs. Manning's documents for no medical reason, it's a violation of her privacy. It is a confusing sentence but I read it a bit differently.

kalm wrote:

Ibanez wrote:I'll give Manning the benefit of the doubt. The situation around this Sly fella (wasn't there a CS/AGS poster named Sly?) is suspect. What does he have to gain by going public like this, true or not? Money? I'll wait for more information to come out. Speeches and articles about support are nice, but i'll wait for some document trail regarding shipments, purchases,etc... to either vindicate or sink Manning.

I might agree, but read the quote in OP from Dr. Guyer. If Sly violated Mrs. Manning's medical privacy than the HGH was obviously delivered. If not, wouldn't you simply say "neither Peyton nor Mrs. Manning have ever had anything to do with HGH"?

Kind of like implying guilt from a person taking the 5th in court. It's a leap you could try to take but it's not always the case.

Ibanez wrote:

kalm wrote:
I might agree, but read the quote in OP from Dr. Guyer. If Sly violated Mrs. Manning's medical privacy than the HGH was obviously delivered. If not, wouldn't you simply say "neither Peyton nor Mrs. Manning have ever had anything to do with HGH"?

Not necessarily. If Sly looked at Mrs. Manning's documents for no medical reason, it's a violation of her privacy. It is a confusing sentence but I read it a bit differently.

That's a good point, but wouldn't you still also say unequivocally that neither of the Mannings have used HGH?

kalm wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Not necessarily. If Sly looked at Mrs. Manning's documents for no medical reason, it's a violation of her privacy. It is a confusing sentence but I read it a bit differently.

That's a good point, but wouldn't you still also say unequivocally that neither of the Mannings have used HGH?

“I have no reason to believe these allegations are based in fact or have any truth,” Dr. Guyer said. “In fact, I can say with absolute certainty they are not.

Actually he cannot. He can say he has never provided HGH but as far as Peyton or his wife procuring it elsewhere, he can't say that. His rambling doesn't help the situation. People are looking for a reason to hate Peyton.

*Peyton

Grizalltheway wrote:*Peyton

tanks

aeroplanes

kalm wrote:Some confusing allegations and coincidences here. Sly has recanted his story and makes it out like it was an Al Jazeera sting operation/hit piece. The Manning camp and Guyer Institute were quick to point out that Sly was an unpaid intern who only worked there for 3 months in 2013 yet he knew about Mrs. Manning's HGH order in 2011.

If this were Tom Brady, he'd already be indicted. Remember how much conviction Lance Armstrong spoke with?

opcorn:

“I have no reason to believe these allegations are based in fact or have any truth,” Dr. Guyer said. “In fact, I can say with absolute certainty they are not. I find it extremely disturbing that the source of Al Jazeera’s story, a former unpaid student intern named Charles Sly, would violate the privacy of Mrs. Manning’s medical records and be so callous and destructive as to purposely fabricate and spread stories that are simply not true.”

That’s a clunky and confusing sentence. If the claim is fabricated, Sly isn’t violating Ashley Manning’s privacy. Sly is violating the privacy of Ashley Manning only if she did indeed receive HGH from the Guyer Institute.

Meanwhile, as the statements pile up regarding the Peyton Manning report, Ashley Manning’s silence becomes even more conspicuous.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ement-too/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hit the nail on the head with Armstrong. This could finally be the start of exposing the use of performance enhancers in the NFL.

SeattleGriz wrote:

kalm wrote:Some confusing allegations and coincidences here. Sly has recanted his story and makes it out like it was an Al Jazeera sting operation/hit piece. The Manning camp and Guyer Institute were quick to point out that Sly was an unpaid intern who only worked there for 3 months in 2013 yet he knew about Mrs. Manning's HGH order in 2011.

If this were Tom Brady, he'd already be indicted. Remember how much conviction Lance Armstrong spoke with?

opcorn:



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ement-too/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hit the nail on the head with Armstrong. This could finally be the start of exposing the use of performance enhancers in the NFL.

People don't care if NFL players use PEDs. Look at some of who has been suspended already - Antonio Gates, Wes Welker (later overturned technicality), Von Miller, Aqib Talib, Tony Gonzalez, Rodney Harrison, Shawne Merriman and Julius Peppers. Few if any could care about them being suspended for violating the substance abuse policy. Baseball or cycling they would be crucified