News: Judge Orders Hotel to Give Michael Irvin Video Footage and Accuser Name in Alleged Misconduct Case

[RustyBourneHorse]

Hope the truth come out

Yes, and hopefully the path with follow where the evidence leads.

 

[CouchCoach]

Yeah. Him calling a radio or broadcast and going ahead before anyone knew about it and letting the cat out of the bag was his way of getting his side out early. Was smart except the part you mentioned about saying he had a few drinks and don’t remember. Sorry but a few drinks don’t give you memory loss. Unless they are huge drinks. Was a mistake to mention it.

I don't know how smart it was because he's the only one that talked about this and did not help his case. Of course, at the time he didn't know he had a case until the lawyer chimes in. The amount of the suit is a joke and they're playing "I am so innocent, I am going for 100M".

Irvin's attorney is going to struggle with motivation on the part of this woman, she's not asking for jack and we know nothing about her at this point.

 

[MarcusRock]

I don't think they just send him home without getting his side of it. I think they were making what they thought was the safest decision for them.

As far as the drinks comment, he said that's what he told security when they approached him after they told him he did encounter someone after he said he didn't. I don't know whether they just told him there was a video or showed him but the early report said it was a video of the hotel's, not some guy in a bar. I am sure there isn't a public part of that hotel not under video surveillance. As far as audio, that's unknown.

I think this is coming down to what she said vs what he can't remember and her employer is definitely going with her. And to my knowledge, neither the hotel or woman is the one that let the media know about this. In fact, that may have been Irvin and the NFLN didn't say anything.

Agree with your first paragraph. The audio I heard of Irvin was him recounting the story to the interviewer and appearing to add that anecdotal comment as a joke, not stating that this is exactly what he told the security person at the hotel. I'll have to find that again for confirmation unless you have a link to something showing different.

 

[Haimerej]

This a shakedown 101 class and she gets failing grades.

I haven't been following closely, but as I understand it he's suing her, right? How is she attempting to shakedown anyone?

 

[DallasEast]

I haven't been following closely, but as I understand it he's suing her, right? How is she attempting to shakedown anyone?

Your crystal ball must be on the fritz too. Mine keeps flashing, "Please standby."

 

[Staubacher]

And this is the big misconception about those witness accounts: that she needed to act offended right there in the moment when she could have just been trying to find the quickest way to exit the situation, including by being polite and cordial to not escalate any threat. I previously used the example below to illustrate how this can be the case. Not surprisingly, no response from the one I posted it to. What do you think?

You're at a big company gathering and one of the big bosses cracks a joke at your expense that annoys you to the point where if a friend had done it, you'd let him have it. Are you going to go at that big boss with the whole company watching, including his buddy the CEO? If the big boss approaches you to say in front of everyone, "I was just kidding" and goes to shake your hand then and there, are you going to refuse to embarrass him right back in front of everyone? Heck, maybe later though you'll file an HR harassment claim against him. But why not tell him then and there you plan on doing that? That's called a power dynamic that forces you to stay cool in the moment and plot what to do later. Was that a possibility for the woman in this case? Not absolutely true, but possible?

Plus she also works at the hotel where she is trained to put on a good face for all the guests so she wasn't going to be inclined to make a scene at her job in front of a bunch of customers. She handled it later behind the scenes which is professional. Of course around here that makes her a hooker and a liar because we have a bunch of people on the site that are jock sniffers and don't care about anybody else

 

[Staubacher]

I haven't been following closely, but as I understand it he's suing her, right? How is she attempting to shakedown anyone?

She's not. Don't listen to the jock sniffers who hate women

 

[MarcusRock]

I don't think they just send him home without getting his side of it. I think they were making what they thought was the safest decision for them.

As far as the drinks comment, he said that's what he told security when they approached him after they told him he did encounter someone after he said he didn't. I don't know whether they just told him there was a video or showed him but the early report said it was a video of the hotel's, not some guy in a bar. I am sure there isn't a public part of that hotel not under video surveillance. As far as audio, that's unknown.

I think this is coming down to what she said vs what he can't remember and her employer is definitely going with her. And to my knowledge, neither the hotel or woman is the one that let the media know about this. In fact, that may have been Irvin and the NFLN didn't say anything.

Okay, found the link. He starts into the story at 3:15. He adds the drinks comment as he's telling the story to them and never says that he told security that's what happened. But to correct myself, it appears that when he gave this interview here he actually hadn't heard from the networks yet and said he was "hiding out" waiting for how things will unfold the rest of the week for his schedule of hanging out, etc. because the interviewers had just asked about who he was seeing and what he was doing in AZ. So you're right that the networks probably heard this and then pulled the plug on him which they had to.

This changes a lot for me. If he didn't say anything, it's possible this could have flown under the radar because maybe the woman didn't want any drama, just to have the alleged situation dealt with. But Mike and his big mouth might have actually fanned these flames trying to anticipate fire that might not have actually been on the way. This could have been in the process of being worked out between Marriott (the official hotel sponsor of the NFL) and the NFL to keep it hushed because they're friendly parties with each other and Mike ruined it trying to protect his own personal rep. I'm posing some "ifs" here but if this is similar to how it went down, then Mike's lawsuits are bogus and simply a PR tactic to try to cover his own boneheaded error. Sucks that the interviewers didn't realize how big a story this could be and break away from their itinerary to question Mike some more on it.

https://www.audacy.com/1053thefan/s...n-speaks-on-incident-involving-woman-at-hotel

 

[mldardy]

Okay, found the link. He starts into the story at 3:15. He adds the drinks comment as he's telling the story to them and never says that he told security that's what happened. But to correct myself, it appears that when he gave this interview here he actually hadn't heard from the networks yet and said he was "hiding out" waiting for how things will unfold the rest of the week for his schedule of hanging out, etc. because the interviewers had just asked about who he was seeing and what he was doing in AZ. So you're right that the networks probably heard this and then pulled the plug on him which they had to.

This changes a lot for me. If he didn't say anything, it's possible this could have flown under the radar because maybe the woman didn't want any drama, just to have the alleged situation dealt with. But Mike and his big mouth might have actually fanned these flames trying to anticipate fire that might not have actually been on the way. This could have been in the process of being worked out between Marriott (the official hotel sponsor of the NFL) and the NFL to keep it hushed because they're friendly parties with each other and Mike ruined it trying to protect his own personal rep. I'm posing some "ifs" here but if this is similar to how it went down, then Mike's lawsuits are bogus and simply a PR tactic to try to cover his own boneheaded error. Sucks that the interviewers didn't realize how big a story this could be and break away from their itinerary to question Mike some more on it.

https://www.audacy.com/1053thefan/s...n-speaks-on-incident-involving-woman-at-hotel

 

[CouchCoach]

Okay, found the link. He starts into the story at 3:15. He adds the drinks comment as he's telling the story to them and never says that he told security that's what happened. But to correct myself, it appears that when he gave this interview here he actually hadn't heard from the networks yet and said he was "hiding out" waiting for how things will unfold the rest of the week for his schedule of hanging out, etc. because the interviewers had just asked about who he was seeing and what he was doing in AZ. So you're right that the networks probably heard this and then pulled the plug on him which they had to.

This changes a lot for me. If he didn't say anything, it's possible this could have flown under the radar because maybe the woman didn't want any drama, just to have the alleged situation dealt with. But Mike and his big mouth might have actually fanned these flames trying to anticipate fire that might not have actually been on the way. This could have been in the process of being worked out between Marriott (the official hotel sponsor of the NFL) and the NFL to keep it hushed because they're friendly parties with each other and Mike ruined it trying to protect his own personal rep. I'm posing some "ifs" here but if this is similar to how it went down, then Mike's lawsuits are bogus and simply a PR tactic to try to cover his own boneheaded error. Sucks that the interviewers didn't realize how big a story this could be and break away from their itinerary to question Mike some more on it.

https://www.audacy.com/1053thefan/s...n-speaks-on-incident-involving-woman-at-hotel

Other than the embarrassment of this, how has he been harmed? Has this cost him any money? His job? It's not like he has a string of endorsements like Manning and he will lose that.

Did the woman or Marriott try to out him on this or have they stayed quiet this entire time? Even the network has been quiet.

I still say Irvin's talking has done enough damage that his attorney will win nothing. The one thing Irvin has going for him is filing in Collin County where I am sure Booger knows some judges that can be helpful.

What has yet to be seen is the fallout from a NFLN employee suing a NFL sponsor. That, will not make the NFL Execs happy.

 

[CouchCoach]

Okay, found the link. He starts into the story at 3:15. He adds the drinks comment as he's telling the story to them and never says that he told security that's what happened. But to correct myself, it appears that when he gave this interview here he actually hadn't heard from the networks yet and said he was "hiding out" waiting for how things will unfold the rest of the week for his schedule of hanging out, etc. because the interviewers had just asked about who he was seeing and what he was doing in AZ. So you're right that the networks probably heard this and then pulled the plug on him which they had to.

This changes a lot for me. If he didn't say anything, it's possible this could have flown under the radar because maybe the woman didn't want any drama, just to have the alleged situation dealt with. But Mike and his big mouth might have actually fanned these flames trying to anticipate fire that might not have actually been on the way. This could have been in the process of being worked out between Marriott (the official hotel sponsor of the NFL) and the NFL to keep it hushed because they're friendly parties with each other and Mike ruined it trying to protect his own personal rep. I'm posing some "ifs" here but if this is similar to how it went down, then Mike's lawsuits are bogus and simply a PR tactic to try to cover his own boneheaded error. Sucks that the interviewers didn't realize how big a story this could be and break away from their itinerary to question Mike some more on it.

https://www.audacy.com/1053thefan/s...n-speaks-on-incident-involving-woman-at-hotel

"Moved him" is not kicking him out. Sounds like they were putting him in another one of their hotels. And since he shot his mouth off on the radio, this could have stayed quiet.

Sounds like moving him was the hotel's solution and as far as they were concerned, it was over.

Imagine being the network and hearing that from some interview with a local radio station. Did he even talk to anyone at the network or is this how they found out? He might be in more hot water from not reporting the incident than the incident itself.

And where was he hiding out until they sent him home? The hotel they moved him to?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lawyers are the last people on earth who still know that saying as little as possible as long as possible is the right way to go. The stupid public and most loud mouth stars think otherwise, but lawyers just know better.

And to be honest, I don't understand why so many people (including non celebrities) just can't comprehend that simple concept.

Depends on what evidence, witnesses and the like you have and the circumstance. Lawyers hold strategic press conferences to disseminate information all the time.

 

[Streifenkarl]

Depends on what evidence, witnesses and the like you have and the circumstance. Lawyers hold strategic press conferences to disseminate information all the time.

Indeed. But THEY do it, they wouldn't let their clients get anywhere near a microphone if they could control them. Some people (especially the rich and famous) think they know better though...

 

[sacase]

I don't know how smart it was because he's the only one that talked about this and did not help his case. Of course, at the time he didn't know he had a case until the lawyer chimes in. The amount of the suit is a joke and they're playing "I am so innocent, I am going for 100M".

Irvin's attorney is going to struggle with motivation on the part of this woman, she's not asking for jack and we know nothing about her at this point.

Why do you keep saying this when it is absolutely not true. The attourney has to prove actual malice meaning that she knew what she said was untrue. That's it. Her motivation does not matter nor does it have to be proven.

 

[Rayman70]

I haven't been following closely, but as I understand it he's suing her, right? How is she attempting to shakedown anyone?

Shes a female that made a accusation. How are these things normally handled? Hush money in secret. problem is, he did nothing wrong and she never expected him 2 fight her back via lawfare.

 

[Rayman70]

this lady has underestimated 88. Unless she has info we haven't seen, she is screwed badly.

 

[DogFace]

Can anyone sum this up and or elaborate on the “she is screwed badly” comment above?

Is it looking like he did nothing wrong or no?

 

[Rayman70]

Can anyone sum this up and or elaborate on the “she is screwed badly” comment above?

Is it looking like he did nothing wrong or no?

I will, since its my comment. Unless their is great new evidence he did something inappropriate, she is getting her rear end sued for every penny she has and will be ruined. I favor real victims getting justice. Not frauds. Lets see what happens here. I think later this week we might know more. If their is new evidence, I am sure it will get leaked.

 

[Runwildboys]

So, with all the sexual harassment movements from the last several years, and all the sensitivities in regards. The definition of guilt or innocence of "misconduct" is measured on a different scale. Whereby depending on Judge/Jury's as of late will decide misconduct in a different light then when we knew it 5 to 10 years ago. I recently took mandatory sexual harassment/misconduct training class at work and now a simple wink or complement can be construed as misconduct. All that said, this will probably settle out with the attorney's cleaning up as accuser gets a move on $$ fee and Irvin gets back to work.

Michael and the woman weren't coworkers, so the wink or compliment is perfectly acceptable.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Can anyone sum this up and or elaborate on the “she is screwed badly” comment above?

Is it looking like he did nothing wrong or no?

We still don't know what he supposedly said or did. lol