Michael Irvin returns to NFL Network

[Smith22]

Maybe you'll answer then. What was "proven" here that there are people who are right and wrong?

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

Why did the Marriott settle?

Did the NFL network bring Irvin back to work thinking he could possibly be guilty?

Maybe if you go back and watch the video you can provide us more answers since you figured it all out months ago.

 

[Reid1boys]

Maybe you'll answer then. What was "proven" here that there are people who are right and wrong?

well I said from day 1 that video didnt show Mike doing anything wrong and all this was is her saying he said something bad. I said no way should ANYTHING on that video cost ANY person their career.

 

[MarcusRock]

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

Why did the Marriott settle?

Did the NFL network bring Irvin back to work thinking he could possibly be guilty?

Maybe if you go back and watch the video you can provide us more answers since you figured it all out months ago.

Your obfuscation notwithstanding, let me ask YOU this same question a second time: What was "proven" here that there are people who are right and wrong?

 

[Cowboysheelsreds058]

Will say nothing but glad to see you back Playmaker!

 

[MarcusRock]

well I said from day 1 that video didnt show Mike doing anything wrong and all this was is her saying he said something bad. I said no way should ANYTHING on that video cost ANY person their career.

You're saying what Irvin said on his radio interview: that he said something to her. No video without sound was ever going to show what was said. It's lawyers tapping into triggered dudes that tried to make it into a physical thing that was never part of the equation, per Irvin.

 

[Reid1boys]

Fox hired him because of Bayless. Not everyone would hire him. NFL Network put thim back on because there was no proof he did anything wrong and the situation was settled.

who cares... you think Bayless has so much pull he could hire someone that assaulted a woman?

 

[Reid1boys]

Your obfuscation notwithstanding, let me ask YOU this same question a second time: What was "proven" here that there are people who are right and wrong?

I already answered this question for you... you just dont like the answer... and you sure dont like the fact Mike is back on air.

 

[Reid1boys]

You're saying what Irvin said on his radio interview: that he said something to her. No video without sound was ever going to show what was said. It's lawyers tapping into triggered dudes that tried to make it into a physical thing that was never part of the equation, per Irvin.

and her reaction made it VERY CLEAR, she was certainly not upset about whatever he said. Move on, you were dead wrong, and Mike is back to work.

 

[KJJ]

who cares... you think Bayless has so much pull he could hire someone that assaulted a woman?

Not sure where you’ve been, but Irvin wasn’t accused of assaulting a woman. He was accused of saying something inappropriate to her.

 

[MarcusRock]

I already answered this question for you... you just dont like the answer... and you sure dont like the fact Mike is back on air.

Lol. You have a strange definition of what proven means. And attempting to strawman frame what my position was so you can manufacture some kind of "win" isn't fooling anyone. Show me where I said Irvin should lose his job that I'd even be mad he didn't.

 

[MarcusRock]

and her reaction made it VERY CLEAR, she was certainly not upset about whatever he said. Move on, you were dead wrong, and Mike is back to work.

What was I dead wrong about? Again, what did a settlement most expected at the outset "prove?"

 

[MarcusRock]

Not sure where you’ve been, but Irvin wasn’t accused of assaulting a woman. He was accused of saying something inappropriate to her.

You see? This is what Irvin's lawyers were tapping into: emotional people that would forget that Irvin himself said it was only about what was said. This is why I stick with logic because it's harder to see things that aren't there that way.

 

[triplets_93]

Although he is an unapologetic Cowboy homer, I love the energy, the fire and enthusiasm he brings.

I love me some Playmaker!!!

 

[Walker]

Marriott wouldn't have settled if he was guilty. They knew that they messed up, not only did they have to settle to keep themselves from more embarrassment but the guy got his job back. Talk about a royal flush.

 

[Smith22]

Lol. You have a strange definition of what proven means. And attempting to strawman frame what my position was so you can manufacture some kind of "win" isn't fooling anyone. Show me where I said Irvin should lose his job that I'd even be mad he didn't.

Your position was fairly obvious on the old thread.

You made numerous comments claiming the witnesses for Irvin were liars, that you could tell by the video he was guilty, etc.

Now the Marriott settles a defamation suit with Irvin and the NFL network brings him back and you still have diarrhea of the mouth.

Simply put: You were wrong about the video but you will never admit it.

Irvin wouldn't be back if the NFL thought he was guilty.

 

[DogFace]

Right.. my stance hasn’t wavered or changed throughout.

They made a decision that the accusations were enough to suspend his services taking him off the air.

The fact he was reinstated doesn’t prove his conduct wasn’t inappropriate. Just not enough to end his employment.

Maybe. The lawsuit will tell us more. In case you forgot. The me too movement, that I think was overall good, brought a new awareness to these types of accusations and NFLN and other’s may feel a pressure to error on the side of the victim until the investigator does his/her job.

There’s a possibility he did nothing wrong. Overreactions, like yours, are real.

I’m done with this and I’ll leave it with this. Your rush to judgement and conviction is sadly typical and hopefully those in power seek out the facts before they judge a case.

 

[Diehardblues]

Maybe. The lawsuit will tell us more. In case you forgot. The me too movement, that I think was overall good, brought a new awareness to these types of accusations and NFLN and other’s may feel a pressure to error on the side of the victim until the investigator does his/her job.

There’s a possibility he did nothing wrong. Overreactions, like yours, are real.

I’m done with this and I’ll leave it with this. Your rush to judgement and conviction is sadly typical and hopefully those in power seek out the facts before they judge a case.

I think our reactions and that of NFLN were justified with his history. And I maintain if he did make the alleged sexual innuendos revealed in her testimony it was worthy of reporting to Marriott HR .

Anyone with or without his reputation asking a female employee at a hotel at 2 am in the morning after drinking if she has ever felt a man of his ethnicity inside her would draw an investigation at your workplace.

 

[Pantone282C]

Marriott really had no choice but to settle with him, because the accusation got him suspended from NFL Network and could have cost him his job and career. Marriott didn’t handle the situation properly from the get-go. Nothing in the video showed that Irvin did anything wrong. The woman even shook his hand after their conversation. There was no visible reaction from her that he said anything inappropriate. Plus there were eye witnesses that backed Irvin’s account.

Fairly shaky grounds. Marriott took a big chance with a big financial partner. Situation could have handled with more discretion.

 

[MarcusRock]

Your position was fairly obvious on the old thread.

You made numerous comments claiming the witnesses for Irvin were liars, that you could tell by the video he was guilty, etc.

Now the Marriott settles a defamation suit with Irvin and the NFL network brings him back and you still have diarrhea of the mouth.

Simply put: You were wrong about the video but you will never admit it.

Irvin wouldn't be back if the NFL thought he was guilty.

Are you going to answer my question? 3rd time asking after you inserted yourself into the discussion: What was "proven" by the settlement that there are people who are right and wrong?

And the witnesses for Irvin were liars. That is proven via the video and by Irvin's own words. If I was wrong about that, why didn't you chime in when I outlined how? Because you were hiding like the rest. That was huge, and yet no one here wanted to have that discussion. Why? Because the "objective" people who "wanted the truth to come out" were really just pro-Irvin (as I stated, understandable on these boards) but then wanted to ignore a big case development when it wasn't the truth they wanted to hear. That's not wanting truth, that's prizing slant. Even the dude claiming to be a lawyer didn't want to have that discussion yet resurfaces after the settlement also trying to claim some kind of victory, mad at me because he was getting his handed to him by a little ol' civilian. Lol.

 

[Blackrain]

Got to love it to playmaker back on the air I was behind him all the way.

Great to see all of you who spouted your mouth off early on have to eat your words classic.

I can't name names because I'm a DieHard and don't want to Rock the boat.