On Saturday, New York Daily News writer Shaun King wrote about a 13-year-old court filing about a 20-year-old incident involving Peyton Manning while he was at the University of Tennessee.

King’s piece was called “melodramatic” by Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio, but the story did not look good for Peyton Manning. King’s piece noted, among other details, that a former University of Tennessee trainer testified in 2003 that Manning had placed his “naked butt and rectum” on her face while he was in college.

On Sunday, Sports Illustrated legal analyst and writer Michael McCann learned new details that may paint a better picture of Manning. McCann wrote of Manning’s counter lawsuit against the trainer and concluded that “the documents [of the collective lawsuits] raise questions about the alleged facts” of the story.

[Her] complaint against Manning filed on June 10, 2002 does not refer—at least not explicitly—to Manning placing his rectum on [the trainer’s] face. In fact, there is no explicit reference to any physical contact by Manning on [her]. Instead, [she] refers more generally to Manning “not merely mooning” and that he undertook an additional act “of such an egregious nature as to be beyond the pale.”

As McCann pointed out, not making physical contact changes the story from “sexual assault” to simply an offensive act.

Obviously, mooning someone and making other unwanted sexual gestures at that person are offensive acts. Yet they are not as offensive or as unlawful as making unwanted sexual contact on that person.

McCann went on to note that the trainer did not mention any physical contact in a signed affidavit in 1996:

Manning’s legal team also included an affidavit signed by [the trainer] in 1996 concerning the 1996 incident. Although she describes Manning as behaving in a gross and offensive manner, she does not describe Manning as making any physical contact with her: “He pulled his pants down and exposed himself to me, as I was bent over examining his foot after asking me personal questions. I reported this to my supervisor, who referred to it as ‘merely a prank,’ and no action was taken in regard to this until after I formally complained.”

As McCann said, the changing accusations raise questions about the alleged facts of the story.

Make of these details what you will.

[New details revealed in Manning litigation with ex-UT trainer]