The Al Jazeera documentary alleging connections between Peyton Manning and performance-enhancing drugs isn’t going away despite threatened lawsuits. Al Jazeera reporter Deborah Davies appeared on NBC’s Today last week and said the network was sticking by the story (but only alleging HGH was sent to Manning’s wife Ashley, not that he used it) despite a recantation from source Charlie Sly (who was taped secretly), and she went on CNN’s Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter Sunday and said Al Jazeera has a second source collaborating Sly’s claims that HGH was shipped to Ashley Manning:

Here’s the key part of Davies’ comments:

Al Jazeera reporter Deborah Davies is standing by the statements. In an interview on Sunday’s “Reliable Sources,” she said “we had a second source” that corroborated Sly’s information.

Davies said she could not identify the anonymous source, but called the person “absolutely impeccably placed, knowledgeable, and credible,” someone who gave Al Jazeera more confidence in what Sly said on tape.

She said the source confirmed that shipments of HGH, or human growth hormone, were “repeatedly sent to Ashley Manning in Florida and other places in the U.S.”

It is curious that Al Jazeera didn’t include a mention of this second source in the initial documentary, as that would have been useful ammunition against the critics who said Sly’s recantation invalidated it (it doesn’t). In fact, Al Jazeera’s case on this point seems strong; while Peyton Manning may be calling their report “garbage,” neither he nor spokesman Ari Fleischer (who doesn’t exactly have the strongest reputation for honesty) has denied what Al Jazeera says is their sole assertion, HGH shipments from the Guyer Institute to Ashley Manning. Instead, Fleischer tried to tell Stelter that assertion is irrelevant regardless of its sourcing:

Asked to comment on Davies’ assertion about a second source, Ari Fleischer, who is representing the Mannings, said in an email, “It doesn’t matter if Al Jazeera has one source or ten sources about Ashley. It’s meaningless.”

“Given the fact that Peyton publicly said he never took anything sent to Ashley, and Tom Condon, Peyton’s agent, said any medication shipped to Ashley was by prescription and taken solely by her, what difference does it make about Ashley?” Fleischer said. “The only thing left to Al Jazeera’s story is an attempt to violate Ashley Manning’s medical privacy.”

Fleischer added, “You notice Deborah Davies didn’t say Peyton is already on record saying he didn’t take his wife’s medicine. Once she acknowledges that, there is no legitimate journalistic purpose in pursuing his wife.”

Davies disagrees. Other players have been linked to HGH use in the past, she said. And in this case, “when Sly says an anti-aging clinic is shipping HGH to the wife of a player, that is part of a whole trail of evidence and it does raise questions.”

Between the second source and the non-denials from the Manning camp, it looks like Al Jazeera has made a reasonably strong case that HGH was in fact sent to Ashley Manning. Opinions on how notable that is may vary; Davies certainly thinks it’s very notable and Fleischer thinks it isn’t. It doesn’t prove that Manning used HGH, but Al Jazeera isn’t outright alleging that he did (according to their statements, at least); they’re alleging that HGH was shipped to Manning’s wife. Whether that’s a story deserves further discussion, but at the least, Fleisher’s wrong that there’s “no legitimate journalistic purpose” in this story after Manning’s denial. A player’s denial alone is not enough to stop an investigation, especially considering that many of those who later admitted to PED use denied it initially.

There is a debate to be had on just how notable what Al Jazeera is alleging here is, though. If Ashley Manning wasn’t married to Peyton, it would be hard to argue for the newsworthiness of a story discussing HGH shipments to her (unless those were proven to be illegal, which they haven’t been, and even then, that’s probably not much of a story). Some may feel that shipments of performance-enhancing drugs to a player’s family are absolutely newsworthy (drugs being provided by family members is something we’ve seen before in sports), some may feel it’s not enough to bring them into a conversation about PEDs. CBS announcer Jim Nantz is apparently in the latter camp:

There’s always a tough line for announcers to walk when it comes to discussing players’ or coaches’ off-the-field issues, and bringing these things up can go horribly wrong in some cases (see the 2010 Alamo Bowl), but utterly ignoring the story isn’t always the best way to go either. Nantz declaring that it’s a story “that on all levels is a non-story” also seems a bit presumptuous; Manning’s camp certainly wants it to be a non-story, but that isn’t necessarily (and shouldn’t be) the view of the wider media. It’s curious that Nantz would not only not discuss this during the game, but be so open about why he wasn’t discussing this. If CBS’ producers made the call that the Manning allegations were old news by this Sunday and not worth covering during the game, that’s one thing, but Nantz deciding on his own that this is “a non-story” is more questionable, and it doesn’t make him look particularly good or impartial.

About Andrew Bucholtz

Andrew Bucholtz has been covering sports media for Awful Announcing since 2012. He is also a staff writer for The Comeback. His previous work includes time at Yahoo! Sports Canada and Black Press.

Comments are closed.