Saturday, February 20, 2016

Academic Fraud May Have Been Alleged In Redacted Manning Court Documents

Much has been written in recent days about an old court case between a former University of Tennessee athletic trainer and Peyton Manning in which Jaimie Naughwright accused Manning of sexually assaulting her in 1994 while she was examining a potential stress fracture on his foot. Manning, although initially denying the incident took place, later admitted he had mooned a fellow teammate in Naughwright's presence. She insisted he dropped his pants and pressed his butt against her head and rested his scrotum and penis on her head.

A 74-page court document filed by Wainwright's attorney in a case later settled out-of-court stated facts in support of his client's case, but a number of pages were redacted from that document by the court at Manning's attorney's insistence. The New York Daily News' Shaun King, who has written extensively about the events from Manning's college years, has promised to publish information about the redacted pages but has so far failed to do so. NBC Sports, by connecting a few dots, suggests the redacted information may have alleged academic fraud against Manning:
Via Hobson, an October 2002 deposition of former Tennessee athletic director Doug Dickey contains an exchange in which Naughright’s lawyer asked whether Naughright had spoken to associate A.D. Carmen Tegano “about the possibility of Peyton Manning having committed academic fraud” in a 1994 course taught by Tegano, which featured Naughright as a guest lecturer.
That question appears at page 63 of Dickey’s deposition transcript. However, at no point during or after the question or before or during the answer does Manning’s lawyer request that the matter be treated as confidential. At page 77, after Naughright’s lawyer presents to Dickey two documents for inspection and questioning, Manning’s lawyer requests that the questions and answers regarding the documents be placed in the “confidential record” of the case.
While it’s possible that, only 14 pages before asserting confidentiality regarding documents relating to the secret 1994 incident, Manning’s lawyers failed to make the same request regarding questions on the same topic, most lawyers don’t allow such matters to slip through the legal equivalent of the five hole. The two documents that triggered the confidentiality request at page 77 of the Dickey deposition had been introduced only one week earlier during the deposition of Jamie Naughright. Thus, Manning’s lawyer was well aware of the sensitivity of the 1994 allegation — and the lawyers undoubtedly were ready to ensure that any sensitive information would be kept out of the public record of the case.
That said, it’s one thing for the lawyers to have asked general questions about possible academic fraud; it’s quite another for the lawyers to have produced a pair of documents that arguably (or actually) substantiated it.
Until someone discloses the details of the 1994 incident that was removed from the 74-page document published last week by the Daily News, it will remain exactly what it has been for the last six days: A mystery.


Anonymous said...

hey gary, Last night Marco Rubio dismissed the “conspiracy” nuts at Breitbart during an appearance on Fox News, telling host Neil Cavuto that his campaign doesn’t even credential Breitbart reporters for his events. Boom!

Anonymous said...

The local media's silence on Manning's foibles is deafening after their haranguing of Tom Brady over the amount of air in his footballs.

Gary R. Welsh said...

Anon. 12:48, That really has nothing to do with this post. I did, however, see Rubio's comments. I was taken aback that he was dismissive of what the head of the ICE union had to say about his conversations with him. He seemed to think he shouldn't be taken care of because he was a mere ICE agent who represented their official union as opposed to an ICE official, or an appointee of the Obama administration. The ICE union has been very critical of the Obama administration appointees, whom they have accused of ordering them not to enforce immigration laws. I don't see the conspiracy angle in listening to the concerns of the front-line workers as opposed to the high-level political appointees.

Anonymous said...

I think anon 12:48 is trying to suggest that there is some sort of conspiracy against Indy's hero, Peyton Manning. That's nonsense. The recent filing isn't even about Manning. He was merely mentioned in it, but because he has never come clean and because he holds himself out as holier than Thou and because he appears to have attempted to smear someone of character, it's not going away. It's really quite remarkable if you think about it. NOBODY who knows what happened has come out in support of Indy's hero. EVERYBODY has come out in support of Dr. Naughright. Everybody. It never plays out that way. Superstars always have their apologists, but nobody who knows what happened in that locker room has come out and said leave my boy Peyton alone. Nobody.

This is so reminiscent of Lance Armstrong's attempt to destroy Frankie Andreu's wife and it absolutely disgusts me. Manning disgusts me. The local fools who continue to defend him disgust me more. Gannett and our local fawning jock sniffers in the media and government disgust me most of all. The truth will eventually come out. It always does. You can only cover this nonsense up for so long. Ask Lance.

Anonymous said...

Anon 901, while I suspect Manning has been a boob in his younger years, I find it hard to compare him to Lance Armstrong.

Lance went out to systematically destroy good people and deserved to be taken down - and hard. I know the cancer community doesn't want to hear anything bad about Mr Live Strong, but as a survivor? I want nothing to do with anything he touched. I saw LIVE STRONG diaries at the cancer center radiotherapy waiting room and put it down.

I am happy the guy beat cancer, but karma's a bitch.