Peyton Manning 2003 testimony: I mooned a friend for one second

The almost 20-year-old case of Peyton Manning and University of Tennessee trainer Jamie Naughright continues to be replayed, now with Manning’s testimony coming to light.

In 2003, Manning gave an affidavit about an incident that happened on Feb. 29, 1996. That came from a defamation lawsuit after Manning wrote about the incident in a book, breaking a confidentiality agreement after the two settled out of court.

In 1996, in an affidavit, Naughright said Manning “pulled his pants down and exposed himself to me,” though later on she said he placed his “naked butt and rectum” and his genitals on her face. That incident has become part of a Title IX lawsuit against Tennessee.

Manning’s side of the story was that he was just mooning a teammate and Naughright happened to see it, which was in his 2003 testimony that was obtained and released by WATE-TV (via Larry Brown Sports).

Manning said in the 2003 affidavit he was in a T-shirt, shorts and a jock strap in the training room, getting treatment on a minor foot injury. A teammate, Malcolm Saxon, made a joke about Manning’s then-girlfriend (who by 2003 was his wife).

“After hearing his comment, I pulled down my shorts for about one second to expose my buttocks to him, or as is colloquially known, to ‘moon’ him,” Manning’s affidavit said.

A letter from Saxon to Manning from 2002 has been reprinted by many outlets, including CBS Boston, and Saxon doesn’t say what happened but asks Manning in the letter to “own up to what you did.”

Manning said his shorts weren’t pulled further down than to expose his buttocks. Manning’s affidavit said he didn’t think Naughright could see his buttocks, as she was crouched down and he was “mooning” Saxon. He said Naughright (then known as Jamie Whited) stayed in the training room for 15-20 minutes while he iced his foot and “did not seem uncomfortable or upset.”

Manning said at 11 p.m. that night the head trainer for Tennessee football, Mike Rollo, came to Manning’s apartment and asked if anything happened with Naughright. According to the affidavit Manning told Rollo nothing happened, because he didn’t believe she saw him mooning Saxon, then asked if it had anything to do with that and Rollo said it did.

“I was surprised to hear from Mr. Rollo that night that she was upset,” Manning said in the affidavit.

Manning said he tried to apologize, but Naughright’s husband hung up on him that night, Naughright wasn’t in her office the next day, and Manning’s calls after that weren’t answered. He left a message on her answering machine. He also sent a card apologizing, saying his actions weren’t directed toward her and he wasn’t aware she had even seen his backside.

Manning said in the affidavit he “had no desire to harm Ms. Whited in any way,” though quoted the book that brought about the defamation lawsuit that the incident was “Not exactly a criminal offense, but out of line.”

“I fully accept that ‘mooning’ someone in the presence of a woman was inappropriate,” Manning said in the affidavit.

So the affidavit very clearly lays out Manning’s side of what happened. The side presented by Naughright is much different. Without further proof on who’s telling the truth about what happened that day, the controversy will probably continue.

– – – – – – –

Frank Schwab is the editor of Shutdown Corner on Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter! Follow @YahooSchwab