Prior to this past holiday season, international news outlet Al Jazeera released a documentary entitled "The Dark Side," reporting on the ever-prominent illegal drug ring that still exists inside the realm of competitive sports. Included in this report were many big-name athletes that, if found guilty, could be stripped of their illustrious careers. The biggest name dropped in these allegations is the Denver Bronco's notorious "Mr. 18," Peyton Manning, infuriating nearly the entire NFL community for a couple very different reasons.

Dedicated Bronco, Colt and general Peyton Manning fans jumped straight to the quarterback's defense, many calling it "outrageous" and "unfounded" to accuse someone of something so serious based on one person's account. Manning earned major endorsements from countless ESPN analysts including Mike Ditka, Stephen A. Smith and Keyshawn Johnson - vouching for his honesty and integrity. Smith was quoted as saying, "We know that he has not been blemished by anything in his illustrious career from an integrity standpoint, particularly as is pertains to the integrity of the game," while Martin just blatantly stated, "If he didn't do it, it didn't happen."

This wasn't the case, however, when Tom Brady claimed he didn't know about the deflation of footballs being used in the 2015 AFC Championship Game against Patriots' rivals the Indianapolis Colts. In fact, ESPN lead many of the arguments made against Brady when he claimed innocence in the DeflateGate Scandal. The HGH story also failed to be mentioned by broadcasters during the Denver Bronco's season finale against the San Diego Chargers on CBS.

It's that lack of coverage on the HGH scandal that other fans are up in arms over. Many wonder, what's the difference between the scandals that warrants constant coverage for Brady but not for Manning? Both stories broke during pivotal points in the season, were forms of cheating, included game-altering punishable offenses and both of the accused denied their claims. No outstanding evidence was presented in either case other than the accusations made by opposing parties, which begs the question why Brady's story received so much more attention. Based on what's been released so far, there's no real reason for any form of the media to treat the two stories any different from each other. The imbalance of press coverage creates cumbersome images between the two. ESPN has been known to ignore major stories in the NFL in protection of favored players, such as the Ben Rothlisberger sexual assault case dating back to July 2009.

So If you haven't already seen "The Dark Side," do so before forming an opinion on the issue. Reports of Charlie Sly, the major source in Al Jazeera's accusations, recanting his story has led many people to call the documentary a fluke. Sly is simply attempting to avoid bad press over comments not intended for public consumption. Anyone accused of selling banned substances to professional athletes and then proceeding to brag about it to a team of journalists would deny everything in a heartbeat out of fear of the repercussions he would face for what he's claimed to have done. It's truly up to the consumer to then develop their own personal opinion on the evidence presented to them, and this age of technology allows almost anyone in the United States to vet their own sources within seconds. It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the accounts made throughout the film, as well as the arguments made in this article, as long as you draw your own conclusions.

You can watch Al Jazeera's "The Dark Side" here.