Irvin Press Conference Live - 3/14/2023

[mldardy]

Irvin was also named in the 2018 lawsuit.

https://www.si.com/.amp/nfl/2018/07/25/sexual-harassment-lawsuit-nfl-network-michael-irvin

OK so

 

[zrinkill]

This is becoming more and more like Jerry Springer.

I am expecting them to tell Irvin he is not the father and he starts the Rerun dance.

 

[Miller]

You see what you want to see and that is a 'fact'?

I saw nothing that supports any action being taken.

You like CC and a few others want Irvin to go down and nothing else matters

How are people wanting him to go down by posting what is seen? Twice he either moves forward or puts his arm toward her and she backs up. She also waves her hands in a no motion. There are also moments where nothing seems off. But it is truth that his story has completely changed about what was not said/said from the radio show to today. I still don’t have enough to take a full position but Mike is digging some of his own holes.

 

[khiladi]

OK so

I’m just saying that Irvin has a history with the NFL Network as well, it’s not just those three other guys. Maybe the network and Irvin have an arrangement based on that last event.

 

[Haimerej]

So you think her "no-no" motion with her hands twice was nothing? We know nothing about the manager but we do know that this video account of the encounter more closely matched what Marriott put out there than what Irvin's team was saying. But you can run with the manager theory because that's what Irvin's team is now going to try to play up. I suspect there'll be a whole lot of others with you.

Not to mention the clear narrative the lawyer tried to build about her going around the pole instead of straight to the bar, being grabbed by the "angry" manager, or where she was when he tried to say Irvin wasn't leering. There were several statements made while showing that video which were nothing but theories, and arguably attempts at gaslighting. "He's further than he was when talking to men" as he's clearly stepping towards her.

 

[Haimerej]

You should also note that at that point security had arrived and Mike took notice which made him let up. So if she had been uncomfortable, yes she's more comfortable at that point because she has back-up.

People just ignoring security hovering around the conversation like that's normal.

 

[khiladi]

She didn't approach him. He called to her like that document I gave you said. Look at 35:25 of the video as she walks into the bar. Her head isn't even trained on Irvin but Irvin notices her and goes over to her where she then steps back from where she had been.

The other thread about Mike filing in Arizona from Fox has only the video of the interaction. It’s an easier reference point.

 

[Creeper]

Ok, so the video proves nothing. Surprise, surprise. Certainly nothing in the video can be construed as anything serious. Maybe Irvin touched her arm a couple of times. Some people do this when the shake hands to make it more personal, but it is not sexual. This technique use to be taught to executives as a means of forming stronger bonds with people they interact with. Of course today, things are different. But there is a guy in the White House who does exactly the same thing. In fact, there are lots of guys in Washington who shake hands and grab forearms, or shoulders to make the person feel like it is a more personal touch that the handshake of a guy who shakes a million hands per week. Could Irvin have said something offensive to the woman? He could have, but the burden is on her and Marriott to prove it or at least convince a judge and jury that is it more likely than not that Irvin did say something offensive. After all, they took action against him that cost him a job and may have damage his all important reputation.

Irvin lost an employment opportunity because of the complaint filed. The question is still, did he do something to warrant that reaction? Is it reasonable to get him suspended over his actions? We have to hear from the NFL and ESPN. What did Marriott tell the NFL? What conversations did ESPN have? If the hotel and woman exaggerated the incident to the NFL and ESPN and that's why they suspended Irvin then the woman and hotel could be liable for damages Irvin suffered. If the NFL suspended Irvin for the week based only on the actions in the video then Irvin will get nothing.

People arguing the video shows Marriott's version was closer to what's in the video are missing the point. The point is, the video does not prove Irvin did anything wrong. And why did the hotel keep the video from Irvin's lawyers?

One side note, Irvin's lawyer is raising an interesting question about the guy who grabbed the woman aside and walked away with her after this all happened. It is an interesting strategy. That guy is going to be a witness. And Irvin's lawyer is going to depose him. If I was Irvin's lawyer I would get a PI on that guy and see what he is up to.

As of right now, IMO, Marriott, the woman, the NFL and ESPN, have to explain why Irvin was punished. What did he do and what evidence do they have to prove it?

 

[khiladi]

People just ignoring security hovering around the conversation like that's normal.

If he was drunk, it also explains why they were hovering, which he also confirms he was intoxicated. Not a good look for Irvin, as just based on this, the benefit of the doubt should go to the hotel.

It’s Irvin who is not letting this die, because it seems that the Network handled this in a way to prevent Irvin from getting fired.

 

[khiladi]

Ok, so the video proves nothing. Surprise, surprise. Certainly nothing in the video can be construed as anything serious. Maybe Irvin touched her arm a couple of times. Some people do this when the shake hands to make it more personal, but it is not sexual. This technique use to be taught to executives as a means of forming stronger bonds with people they interact with. Of course today, things are different. But there is a guy in the White House who does exactly the same thing. In fact, there are lots of guys in Washington who shake hands and grab forearms, or shoulders to make the person feel like it is a more personal touch that the handshake of a guy who shakes a million hands per week. Could Irvin have said something offensive to the woman? He could have, but the burden is on her and Marriott to prove it or at least convince a judge and jury that is it more likely than not that Irvin did say something offensive. After all, they took action against him that cost him a job and may have damage his all important reputation.

Irvin lost an employment opportunity because of the complaint filed. The question is still, did he do something to warrant that reaction? Is it reasonable to get him suspended over his actions? We have to hear from the NFL and ESPN. What did Marriott tell the NFL? What conversations did ESPN have? If the hotel and woman exaggerated the incident to the NFL and ESPN and that's why they suspended Irvin then the woman and hotel could be liable for damages Irvin suffered. If the NFL suspended Irvin for the week based only on the actions in the video then Irvin will get nothing.

People arguing the video shows Marriott's version was closer to what's in the video are missing the point. The point is, the video does not prove Irvin did anything wrong. And why did the hotel keep the video from Irvin's lawyers?

One side note, Irvin's lawyer is raising an interesting question about the guy who grabbed the woman aside and walked away with her after this all happened. It is an interesting strategy. That guy is going to be a witness. And Irvin's lawyer is going to depose him. If I was Irvin's lawyer I would get a PI on that guy and see what he is up to.

As of right now, IMO, Marriott, the woman, the NFL and ESPN, have to explain why Irvin was punished. What did he do and what evidence do they have to prove it?

Wait what?

The hotel followed its own protocol as they should. Irvin admitted he was drunk. The video clearly shows it was Irvin who ran up and initiated the conversation, while the lady was minding her business heading into the bar.

The NFL took Irvin off the Super Bowl broadcast, but kept him as an employee.

It’s Irvin who is dragging this out.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

If he was drunk, it also explains why they were hovering, which he also confirms he was intoxicated. Not a good look for Irvin, as just based on this, the benefit of the doubt should go to the hotel.

It’s Irvin who is not letting this die, because it seems that the Network handled this in a way to prevent Irvin from getting fired.

He’s been accused of something he thinks he didn’t do. Why would he let that die?

 

[MarcusRock]

You see what you want to see and that is a 'fact'?

I saw nothing that supports any action being taken.

You like CC and a few others want Irvin to go down and nothing else matters

Again, more about me and others and not about the actual case at hand. Wonder why that is. I mean, surely you're not all-in for a particular side that looks less reliable after today causing you to be activated and go after people when they cared nothing for your existence. Just why would that be the case? Lol.

 

[mldardy]

I’m just saying that Irvin has a history with the NFL Network as well, it’s not just those three other guys. Maybe the network and Irvin have an arrangement based on that last event.

He has a history that has been cleared unlike those 3 other guys.

 

[Reid1boys]

And I’ve been saying all along Irvin’s witnesses were nowhere near the actual incident, so when they said “everything was fine…looked normal” it was completely hollow and just more posturing for optics by his legal team.

are you watching?? Their table is about 6-8 ft away from where Mike and her are. There was NO Marriott employee anywhere near them.

 

[khiladi]

He’s been accused of something he thinks he didn’t do. Why would he let that die?

He was drunk and basically admitted he has no clue what he said and is suing for like 100 million. Why would he not let it die? I mean do we need to spell it out here.

The hotel didn’t do anything other than follow their own protocol to protect their employee.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

You see what you want to see and that is a 'fact'?

I saw nothing that supports any action being taken.

You like CC and a few others want Irvin to go down and nothing else matters

Ok, so the video proves nothing. Surprise, surprise. Certainly nothing in the video can be construed as anything serious. Maybe Irvin touched her arm a couple of times. Some people do this when the shake hands to make it more personal, but it is not sexual. This technique use to be taught to executives as a means of forming stronger bonds with people they interact with. Of course today, things are different. But there is a guy in the White House who does exactly the same thing. In fact, there are lots of guys in Washington who shake hands and grab forearms, or shoulders to make the person feel like it is a more personal touch that the handshake of a guy who shakes a million hands per week. Could Irvin have said something offensive to the woman? He could have, but the burden is on her and Marriott to prove it or at least convince a judge and jury that is it more likely than not that Irvin did say something offensive. After all, they took action against him that cost him a job and may have damage his all important reputation.

Irvin lost an employment opportunity because of the complaint filed. The question is still, did he do something to warrant that reaction? Is it reasonable to get him suspended over his actions? We have to hear from the NFL and ESPN. What did Marriott tell the NFL? What conversations did ESPN have? If the hotel and woman exaggerated the incident to the NFL and ESPN and that's why they suspended Irvin then the woman and hotel could be liable for damages Irvin suffered. If the NFL suspended Irvin for the week based only on the actions in the video then Irvin will get nothing.

People arguing the video shows Marriott's version was closer to what's in the video are missing the point. The point is, the video does not prove Irvin did anything wrong. And why did the hotel keep the video from Irvin's lawyers?

One side note, Irvin's lawyer is raising an interesting question about the guy who grabbed the woman aside and walked away with her after this all happened. It is an interesting strategy. That guy is going to be a witness. And Irvin's lawyer is going to depose him. If I was Irvin's lawyer I would get a PI on that guy and see what he is up to.

As of right now, IMO, Marriott, the woman, the NFL and ESPN, have to explain why Irvin was punished. What did he do and what evidence do they have to prove it?

This guy thinks the issue is about something Irvin physically did…

 

[khiladi]

He has a history that has been cleared unlike those 3 other guys.

All I said is he has been accused of harassment before with the NFL Network and that’s a FACT.

He also said he was intoxicated, so he has no idea what was said. The video also shows him approaching her, while she was walking into the bar facing the other direction and minding her own business.

Why would Irvin, the world-reknowned, athlete approach a woman who he doesn’t know to chat it up with her, when she’s on the job?

And how do you know he’s been cleared? He was named in part of the suit, but maybe his actions weren’t deemed as bad.

 

[MarcusRock]

Michael Irvin comes over to INITIATE a conversation with her out of nowhere.

I’m not sure what the lawyer is trying to imply by pointing out her manager claps, AS THIS HAPPENS BEFORE MIKE EVEN GETS THERE. At about the same time, the video or Mike speeds up to initiate conversation, as the lady was walking into the bar, facing the opposite direction of Irvin.

Then she turns towards Mike and starts talking and this is basically when the manager takes a couple steps towards her and waits.

Maybe he was just calling her about some work that needed to be done and he just waited for her to finish the conversation with Mike. All this shows is the manager didn’t interrupt a customer talking to an employee, because it’s the service industry.

He remained at a far enough distance to respect their conversation.

The issue people are not missing is, IT WAS MIKE WHO SPEEDS UP TO HER TO INITIATE CONVERSATION..

Yep. At 35:25, he clearly makes a bee-line towards her when she had been moving inside the bar not even looking at him.

 

[Reid1boys]

The case is not about sexual assault. Never was. It was about a lewd comment. Mike said that himself on the radio interview. The tape is truer to what Marriott said happened physically and there's no audio.

really? Where are the employees that Marriott said approached Mike when they realized she was uncomfortable? They said Mike LEERED at her... laughable. The only one leering at her was the manager who was obviously not happy with her and waiting there specifically for that conversation to end. As soon as it ended , he basically said come with me.... because she followed him not because she was so disturbed and was wanting to talk to him, she was following him because he said lets go.

 

[mldardy]

How do you know he’s been cleared? He was named in part of the suit, but maybe his actions weren’t deemed as bad. All I said is he has been accused of harassment before with the NFL Network and that’s a FACT.

He still worked for the network after that and there was no follow up. That's how I know. No move on to the relevant topic which is not this.