Michael Irvin joining Skip

[Rayman70]

Again, this wasn’t a legal matter. There was enough evidence for HR to take action. Hopefully you understand the difference .

And to my knowledge the accuser hasn’t been publicly acknowledged or sought any fame or money.

And it’s difficult to see the words spoken . It becomes he said she said . Which is usually enough for HR to take disciplinary action.

The fact surveillance video confirms they had contact and conversation and Irvin surprisingly admitted he couldn’t recall what was said was also damaging.

Did you actually hear what she accused him of saying ?

Ive seen 0. 0 facts, 0 evidence. Like I said, what a racket. Yes I understand. You too can sue anyone u don't like. Its lawfare at its finest. Sad thing is, I bet he gave her $ at the behest of his lawyer. Like u said, nuthin good ever comes out of being at a bar at 2 am. Even at Mikes age, its a lesson he needed 2 learn firsthand. I feel badly fr the guy. Its his past that caused the false allegations. By which, we still aren't sure what those allegations were.

 

[MarcusRock]

No, Irvin dropped his 100 million lawsuit.

https://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/2023/03/14/michael-irvin-lawsuit-dropped/

Actually, this is where he dropped the case in federal court to pursue it locally in Arizona. That case is still going.

I've followed this closely myself when it went down and if you look at things so far, Irvin doesn't look good here. First, I've never considered his past in this. I believe everyone deserves the chance to show they've changed so I deal with this instance only. But when you look at what both sides have said plus the evidence, it seems more likely than not that it happened the way Marriott said. If not, then Irvin's lawyer wouldn't be lying in press conferences like he did twice where Mike also simultaneously corroborated Marriott's account and discredited his witness, proven to be liars by the tape that came out. In a civil case, preponderance of evidence is all that's needed and so far it looks like Irvin would lose any case he's bringing. I'm sure there's more evidence not known but I'm only calling what I see so far so it could change.

 

[MarcusRock]

Ive seen 0. 0 facts, 0 evidence. Like I said, what a racket. Yes I understand. You too can sue anyone u don't like. Its lawfare at its finest. Sad thing is, I bet he gave her $ at the behest of his lawyer. Like u said, nuthin good ever comes out of being at a bar at 2 am. Even at Mikes age, its a lesson he needed 2 learn firsthand. I feel badly fr the guy. Its his past that caused the false allegations. By which, we still aren't sure what those allegations were.

So far, to me, this is a case much like a guy harassing a barista at one of those little stands and the manager coming over to ask the guy to leave and not come back. Instead of just saying, "my bad, but she was hot though" and joking with the manager to de-escalate, he gets all huffy and puffy and threatens to sue instead of just taking responsibility and moving on. Except in Mike's case, he KNOWS he's a public figure and any "appearance" of something untoward can get him in trouble. That's what you sign up for when you sign those media contracts. I feel bad for Mike too but you have to know to walk a fine line to have your fun and keep your nose clean at the same time.

 

[Rayman70]

So far, to me, this is a case much like a guy harassing a barista at one of those little stands and the manager coming over to ask the guy to leave and not come back. Instead of just saying, "my bad, but she was hot though" and joking with the manager to de-escalate, he gets all huffy and puffy and threatens to sue instead of just taking responsibility and moving on. Except in Mike's case, he KNOWS he's a public figure and any "appearance" of something untoward can get him in trouble. That's what you sign up for when you sign those media contracts. I feel bad for Mike too but you have to know to walk a fine line to have your fun and keep your nose clean at the same time.

yes and we still dunno what was said. If anything at all.

 

[Rayman70]

So far, to me, this is a case much like a guy harassing a barista at one of those little stands and the manager coming over to ask the guy to leave and not come back. Instead of just saying, "my bad, but she was hot though" and joking with the manager to de-escalate, he gets all huffy and puffy and threatens to sue instead of just taking responsibility and moving on. Except in Mike's case, he KNOWS he's a public figure and any "appearance" of something untoward can get him in trouble. That's what you sign up for when you sign those media contracts. I feel bad for Mike too but you have to know to walk a fine line to have your fun and keep your nose clean at the same time.

in the vid he and the lady appear to be laughing and he even walks away by himself. If thats a crime, God help us all. Sticks and stones...gets u sued I guess.

 

[Tenkamenin]

Both Skip and Irvin are Cowboy homers, but Irvin obviously more. Skip is going to be the critic, or he might be the ultimate Dak hater as he was playing that angle with Shannon.

 

[MarcusRock]

in the vid he and the lady appear to be laughing and he even walks away by himself. If thats a crime, God help us all. Sticks and stones...gets u sued I guess.

If he was innocent though, why have your lawyer lie in press conferences only to have you corroborate what the hotel stated happened and discredit your witness at the same time? Just take the L and have discussions with your employer to figure out a way to save your job. Maybe this would have gone undetected without all the commotion created. Doesn't seem the woman made a stink about it publicly.

 

[Rayman70]

If he was innocent though, why have your lawyer lie in press conferences only to have you corroborate what the hotel stated happened and discredit your witness at the same time? Just take the L and have discussions with your employer to figure out a way to save your job. Maybe this would have gone undetected without all the commotion created. Doesn't seem the woman made a stink about it publicly.

how do we know hes lying? The waters are murky. Thats been the issue.

 

[Rayman70]

Both Skip and Irvin are Cowboy homers, but Irvin obviously more. Skip is going to be the critic, or he might be the ultimate Dak hater as he was playing that angle with Shannon.

I wont be watching. Skip is a fraud.

 

[Toro9]

Sounds about right. He's energetic, knows football and can be downright obnoxious.

 

[America's Cowboy]

Defending a womanizer like Irvin isn’t very noble.

I’d guess if he wasn’t a very popular Cowboy player most here wouid be bashing him. I’d imagine we are the only fan site with any support for his history of conflict with women , drugs and the law.

As fans we can separate our appreciation and admiration of his days wearing the Star on his helmet versus his very poor off field conduct.

There you go, excusing all women at the cost of men.

 

[shabazz]

I wont be watching. Skip is a fraud.

I will watch them the same way as one watches a train wreck…..it’s not a good thing but it peaks the interest to see the carnage.

 

[shabazz]

There you go, excusing all women at the cost of men.

Yup, I’m still carrying a torch for the “ladies” involved in the Duke Lacrosse saga.

 

[MarcusRock]

how do we know hes lying? The waters are murky. Thats been the issue.

The lawyer blatantly lied. The one I remember was him opening the first press conference by saying that this was the first time Mike had come out publicly about the incident when Mike broke the freakin' story by giving his "I had a few drinks so I don't remember what I said" radio interview. The other liar in this was one of the witnesses who stated the woman knew Mike and actually called his name and came up to him but when you watch the video, that dude was on his phone and behind a pillar in the distance when Mike and the woman met so he definitely couldn't see anything, plus Irvin said in the 2nd press conference that the woman didn't know much about football so he was telling her to watch his ESPN show inferring she didn't know who he was like the hotel said in their statement. So then how could she have recognized him and called his name like the witness stated? Because the witness was lying. Who does this kind of stuff with the truth on their side? Therefore, in a civil case, which is most likely to be true from this?

There's nothing murky here. A business has the right to refuse service. You either comply or make a big public stink as a PR move to try to sway public opinion with the "guilty until proven innocent" schtick when you know you were at fault. Dodging responsibility is America's fastest growing sport.

 

[mldardy]

The lawyer blatantly lied. The one I remember was him opening the first press conference by saying that this was the first time Mike had come out publicly about the incident when Mike broke the freakin' story by giving his "I had a few drinks so I don't remember what I said" radio interview. The other liar in this was one of the witnesses who stated the woman knew Mike and actually called his name and came up to him but when you watch the video, that dude was on his phone and behind a pillar in the distance when Mike and the woman met so he definitely couldn't see anything, plus Irvin said in the 2nd press conference that the woman didn't know much about football so he was telling her to watch his ESPN show inferring she didn't know who he was like the hotel said in their statement. So then how could she have recognized him and called his name like the witness stated? Because the witness was lying. Who does this kind of stuff with the truth on their side? Therefore, in a civil case, which is most likely to be true from this?

There's nothing murky here. A business has the right to refuse service. You either comply or make a big public stink as a PR move to try to sway public opinion with the "guilty until proven innocent" schtick when you know you were at fault. Dodging responsibility is America's fastest growing sport.

 

[Diehardblues]

There you go, excusing all women at the cost of men.

No, just this several time loser Irvin. Would you your daughter , sister, etc with him. Lol

He’s the kind of jock which give a bad name . And been that since he was in school.

 

[Rayman70]

The lawyer blatantly lied. The one I remember was him opening the first press conference by saying that this was the first time Mike had come out publicly about the incident when Mike broke the freakin' story by giving his "I had a few drinks so I don't remember what I said" radio interview. The other liar in this was one of the witnesses who stated the woman knew Mike and actually called his name and came up to him but when you watch the video, that dude was on his phone and behind a pillar in the distance when Mike and the woman met so he definitely couldn't see anything, plus Irvin said in the 2nd press conference that the woman didn't know much about football so he was telling her to watch his ESPN show inferring she didn't know who he was like the hotel said in their statement. So then how could she have recognized him and called his name like the witness stated? Because the witness was lying. Who does this kind of stuff with the truth on their side? Therefore, in a civil case, which is most likely to be true from this?

There's nothing murky here. A business has the right to refuse service. You either comply or make a big public stink as a PR move to try to sway public opinion with the "guilty until proven innocent" schtick when you know you were at fault. Dodging responsibility is America's fastest growing sport.

It's very clouded as is your assessment. Your assuming guilt when none of us really know. He was a sacrificial lamb. Not that he is a saint, but to say his lawyer was lying is a huge reach. We don't have the facts. I don't see anyone that has posted the facts in detail. Facts matter, right? Memo to 88, stay away from bars,period. Your an easy target. Lounge lizards are creatures of habit. Mike lacked common sense just by being out that late. That's on him. Maybe someday we will know what really happened.

 

[Diehardblues]

Actually, this is where he dropped the case in federal court to pursue it locally in Arizona. That case is still going.

I've followed this closely myself when it went down and if you look at things so far, Irvin doesn't look good here. First, I've never considered his past in this. I believe everyone deserves the chance to show they've changed so I deal with this instance only. But when you look at what both sides have said plus the evidence, it seems more likely than not that it happened the way Marriott said. If not, then Irvin's lawyer wouldn't be lying in press conferences like he did twice where Mike also simultaneously corroborated Marriott's account and discredited his witness, proven to be liars by the tape that came out. In a civil case, preponderance of evidence is all that's needed and so far it looks like Irvin would lose any case he's bringing. I'm sure there's more evidence not known but I'm only calling what I see so far so it could change.

Yea, wish I could share what she provided in her statement . But it was deleted when I tried to post last time . Pretty damaging words on his part .

 

[Rayman70]

Yea, wish I could share what she provided in her statement . But it was deleted when I tried to post last time . Pretty damaging words on his part .

Ok, like a snip it. What did he say or do? If he did the deed, I'm fine with it.

 

[Diehardblues]

Ive seen 0. 0 facts, 0 evidence. Like I said, what a racket. Yes I understand. You too can sue anyone u don't like. Its lawfare at its finest. Sad thing is, I bet he gave her $ at the behest of his lawyer. Like u said, nuthin good ever comes out of being at a bar at 2 am. Even at Mikes age, its a lesson he needed 2 learn firsthand. I feel badly fr the guy. Its his past that caused the false allegations. By which, we still aren't sure what those allegations were.

Well, if you choose to look for it those words she provided he said are pretty damaging. Not illegal but very inappropriate especially from a known celebrity with his history.

I tried to provide them when it came out but was deleted and warned not to present again.