Monday, February 15, 2016

Peyton Manning and the absurd law suit

Fresh off a Super Bowl victory, Peyton Manning (and a few others) are being sued. This action comes from several ladies that were associated with the Univ. of Tenn football program (one way or the other) way back in 1996.

First of all, such a suit likely has no legal standing. After 20 years, any relevant statutes of limitations have long since run and expired.

Second, the lead plaintiff that is re-filing the suit, settled out of court with Manning and company in 1997 for whatever allegedly happened the year before. Case closed. Now they want another bite at the financial apple -- 19 years later. It's preposterous.

Third, somehow this has been twisted into bringing up Title IX. You remember that. It's a federal statute that mandates any university receiving federal funds must treat their male and female athletic programs equally. This in itself has always been a scam perpetuated by the government. Consider --

The feds levy taxes on all public schools and it goes into the same national bureaucratic "pot". So if the colleges want to get some of their money back -- it's considered "federal funding". Put another way -- the Big Brother fix has long been in. A heads I win -- tails you lose proposition. Technically, a few bucks from North Dakota schools are supporting those in Florida, Colorado is paying Maine, Vermont's helping out California, and -- well -- you get the picture. It's a giant cluster**** with paper pushers in DC deciding who gets the money and how much. And woe be it to any that might run afoul of the never-ending regulations they keep piling on.

Title IX itself was never gender-neutral in the first place. And wasn't that supposed to be the whole point? It allowed female reporters to go into the locker rooms of male athletes, oftentimes in various states of undress, even nude (the jocks - not the reporters), to interview them and get their stories.

That's great, but it never worked the other way. We never saw male reporters being allowed into female locker rooms after they had disrobed. That remains taboo to this day. It is, and has long been a double standard. If true equality is the goal -- then make it equal -- dammit.

Further, the current allegation against Manning is he placed his genitals on the face of a female trainer way back in 1996.

That would seem to beg a few pertinent questions. Just exactly what position had said female trainer already assumed for this scenario to be even possible? What was a lady doing examining Peyton's nether region in the first place? Ever hear of a male trainer getting up close and personal to check out a similar situation with the likes of Chris Evert or Annika Sorenstam? Of course not.

Truth is, yours truly has never been a Peyton Manning fan, and think he's absolutely shameless when it comes to his vast array of infantile commercial endorsements for products he may or may not partake of, for even more money he obviously doesn't need. Either he's really obtuse down deep -- or thinks the viewing public is.

Nevertheless, trying to sue him now for something that may or may not have happened 20 years ago, and was settled a year later regardless, smacks of nothing short of a desperate money grab.

It would appear some members of the fairer sex have no shame either. Imagine that.

No comments:

Post a Comment