News: PFT: Marriott tries to dismiss Michael Irvin's lawsuit, claims he made "harassing and inappropriate comments"

[Diehardblues]

Wait, above you are saying we can only "speculate," as to why the hotel contacted the NFLN.
But here is what you said above, "Regardless they still have the authority to bench him from their SB coverage. And we can see why the Marriott would have contacted them."

I thought you said it was pretty clear as to why they contacted the NFLN. So which is it? We can clearly see why, or we can only speculate?

It’s one and the same for me . I can clearly see and speculate why they contacted him .

 

[Diehardblues]

so make it clear for someone slow like myself.... why exactly would Marriott contact the NFLN?

To inform them their employee was being moved because of the complaint.

 

[Diehardblues]

make no mistake, her reaction to this interaction will matter, no matter what you think. If it is just her word vs his...the video will matter. Now add in the 3 witnesses that supported Mike's view of what happened....... we shall see.

Yes, we shall see . But to me her statement is the smoking gun. The video surveillance will only validate they had contact .

 

[Staubacher]

Do you have Marriott policy regarding hotel guests being removed? Id liek to see it. Ill take your word that it is hotel policy to INFORM that employer that an employee was removed from their hotel. BUt I bet that it is not hotel policy to state some accusation as fact. So as Merlin stated, you have no clue what the hotel told the NFL network. My guess is they did not just state the fact, that Mike was asked to leave the hotel. My guess is they went a little further and became the judge and jury, and this is why their is a lawsuit.

Yes I posted it in detail. You can find it on one of these threads.
Again, I am addressing the WHY Marriott would have spoken with the NFL about this.

 

[Staubacher]

Was Irvin there as an NFL employee? Did they pay for his room? Only way I can see it being relevant.

Irvin's lawyer himself said Irvin was staying there because the NFL instructed him to do so and they were the official hotel of the Super Bowl. So the NFL wanted him there and no doubt would need to know he was moved and why.

 

[Diehardblues]

make no mistake, her reaction to this interaction will matter, no matter what you think. If it is just her word vs his...the video will matter. Now add in the 3 witnesses that supported Mike's view of what happened....... we shall see.

We’ll see but I suspect the video will just give the defenders more to chant for without hearing the complaint.

I hope for Irvin’s sake this is all a big understanding. But he’s been a jock off the field most of his life that gives most athletes a bad name. There’s many great athletes who set a tremendous example for young athletes coming up and there are jocks like him I despise .

If he hadn’t been a popular rich athlete he’d already be in prison. There’s a double standard in society for these which we’ve discussed before and I’ll always assume the worst in them. I’ll never understand why some fans idolize them off the field. I can only assume they’d conduct themselves as such.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds058]

I don't know but the question is why haven't they released it yet. And they will have to release it soon.

By 3/7 by 5pm, the rooster Will finally come home to roost.

 

[Diehardblues]

There's a 100% chance that you have no idea what they told the NFL.

True but we know what they told them was enough to bench Irvin. That’s all we have to go on much like the Marriott moving him.

Two sound establishments felt the complaint was valid enough to take precaution. I find that much more compelling than a jock with known sexual abuse history who couldn’t recall what was said or done besides a handshake because he’d been drinking all night . But yet we are initially to be siding with him. Right..lol

 

[Diehardblues]

By 3/7 by 5pm, the rooster Will finally come home to roost.

Not until we hear the complaint. Video surveillance without audio isn’t likely going to provide the type of evidence most are looking for. It’s mainly only going to validate there was contact .

 

[Reid1boys]

True but we know what they told them was enough to bench Irvin. That’s all we have to go on much like the Marriott moving him.

Two sound establishments felt the complaint was valid enough to take precaution. I find that much more compelling than a jock with known sexual abuse history who couldn’t recall what was said or done besides a handshake because he’d been drinking all night . But yet we are initially to be siding with him. Right..lol

Here, Ill speak in a way you should get...... Here you go again.

 

[Diehardblues]

Here, I’ll speak in a way you should get...... Here you go again.

I’m just repeating what Irvin said.

 

[Merlin]

True but we know what they told them was enough to bench Irvin. That’s all we have to go on much like the Marriott moving him.

Two sound establishments felt the complaint was valid enough to take precaution. I find that much more compelling than a jock with known sexual abuse history who couldn’t recall what was said or done besides a handshake because he’d been drinking all night . But yet we are initially to be siding with him. Right..lol

Two "sound establishments" listened to what a manager at a NFL sponsor hotel told them without doing any kind of investigation. That's sound alright.

If we are bringing up his past, then why did they hire him and select him for the Superbowl coverage since they are so sound. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Diehardblues]

Hey, if you want to defend someone like Irvin, go right ahead. I’m not surprised some Cowboys fans would .

Honestly , I was disappointed he was hired by NFLN after ESPN let him go for his last sexual misconduct but I figured Jethro Jone$ had some influence.

It was a matter of how long would it take to occur again. This is probably just the first time someone had formally complained.

Next we’ll probably see him on the Silver Star network peddling Jethro’s BS. If he’s lucky.

 

[Diehardblues]

Two "sound establishments" listened to what a manager at a NFL sponsor hotel told them without doing any kind of investigation. That's sound alright.

If we are bringing up his past, then why did they hire him and select him for the Superbowl coverage since they are so sound. You can't have it both ways.

I have little doubt Jethro Jone$ influenced Irvin going to NFLN. And he’s been clean a few years, well no others instances we know of.

And the NFLN found the Marriotts employee accusations which prompted his removal to be sound enough to bench him.

That’s really all we know besides Irvin’s ridiculous account to 105.3 which was IMO damaging .

It baffles me that with an athlete personality with his sexual misconduct that everyone struggles with understanding the alarm from the network and hotel.

 

[Merlin]

I have little doubt Jethro Jone$ influenced Irvin going to NFLN. And he’s been clean a few years, well no others instances we know of.

And the NFLN found the Marriotts employee accusations which prompted his removal to be sound enough to bench him.

That’s really all we know besides Irvin’s ridiculous account to 105.3 which was IMO damaging .

It baffles me that with an athlete personality with his sexual misconduct that everyone struggles with understanding the alarm from the network and hotel.

So in other words you don't know what was said or whether it was true or not. You just think everything is sound. Okay

 

[Reid1boys]

I’m just repeating what Irvin said.



No you arent. That isnt what he said.... its what you took from it.

 

[Diehardblues]

So in other words you don't know what was said or whether it was true or not. You just think everything is sound. Okay

Yes, based on Marriotts and NFLN action . And then Irvin’s response to 105.3.

Business have to respond to these formal complaints. Until we can determine the truth.

The only argument thus far is : do we agree with their response to the complaint.

 

[Merlin]

Yes, based on Marriotts and NFLN action . And then Irvin’s response to 105.3.

Business have to respond to these formal complaints. Until we can determine the truth.

The only argument thus far is : do we agree with their response to the complaint.

How can you agree with something when you don't know what was said?. Smh. First you need to know the facts. And you don't at this point.

 

[Diehardblues]

How can you agree with something when you don't know what was said?. Smh. First you need to know the facts. And you don't at this point.

Because I’m more likely to believe and trust their judgement over someone like Irvin.

I’m curious why you wouldn’t lean to trust their judgment over his with the info we have?

That’s all we are doing here going back to the speculative thought process.

 

[Merlin]

Because I’m more likely to believe and trust their judgement over someone like Irvin.

I’m curious why you wouldn’t lean to trust their judgment over his?

Because I am not naive. You don't like Irvin so you don't really care about what happened.