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

[Diehardblues]

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

Sure, attempt to discredit me because you don’t like the message. And I can turn that on you saying you like Irvin which drives your narrative probably wouldn't matter what he did .

I don’t like the type of jock off the field Irvin represents. I’m very open about that. That goes for any player, any team, any sport. Im very consistent on my stance on sexual misconduct behavior with athletes.

All I’m saying is based on Irvin’s history I’d agree with how Marriott and NFLN handled it.

If you want to defend players with sexual misconduct history over these women who accuse them and how the league disciplines them ,Im certainly willing to take on that discussion as well .

 

[Merlin]

Sure, attempt to discredit me because you don’t like the message. I don’t like the type of jock off the field Irvin represents.

I’m very open about that. That goes for any player, any team, any sport. Im very consistent on my stance on sexual misconduct behavior with athletes.

All I’m saying is based on Irvin’s history I’d agree with how Marriott and NFLN handled it.

If you want to defend players with sexual misconduct history over these women who accuse them and how the league disciplines them ,Im certainly willing to take on that discussion as well .

You have discredited yourself because you don't care about what actually happened. It's futile to try to have a rational discussion with someone not interested in the facts.

 

[Diehardblues]

You have discredited yourself because you don't care about what actually happened. It's futile to try to have a rational discussion with someone not interested in the facts.

We don’t have all of the facts . All we have is what has been divulged .

The Marriott and NFLN believed based on the complaint they received it was enough to take action. And I support that decision.

You obviously don’t support the action they took. Is that right?

 

[Diehardblues]

@Merlin
I also asked if you generally defend players accused of sexual misconduct . Or just Cowboy players .

I’d like to hear your thoughts on the subject. Because it’s one I feel very strongly about.

 

[Merlin]

****....IM done with you. You are acting like a total idiot and not smart enough to actually understand what Ive said . What have I defended... nothing you freaking fool

I have started to ignore the ones that don't really care what happened. It don't matter what you tell them. They got some crazy excuse and they are not interested in the facts.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Come on guys, everybody calm down and stop insulting each other.

We dont know all the facts yet, maybe what Irvin said was just an innocent comment that was taken the wrong way and blown way out of proportion or maybe he was asking her for a BJ, we just dont know right now.

So everybody just calm down and lets wait for the facts to come out, ok.

 

[CouchCoach]

Well I wasn't specifically talking about you. Basically everyone who is speculating falls in that category.

There are some relevant issues here since someone asked what I thought. Most people have corporate credit cards in their name, so I don't think that both NFL Network and ESPN were footing the bill. But yet they took action at the same time. My opinion is that they were contacted by someone from the Marriott.

So if that's true, what was communicated to make them pull Irvin from the Superbowl coverage?

What Irvin remembers or not is not a huge issue at this point.

During discovery, she will be questioned about what she said and she will be under oath. They wiill probably subpoena her cell phone for texts or calls relating to the incident in question.

Why hasn't Marriott released the video yet if it backs up her claims? Two judges have ordered them to release the video and one just ordered expedited discovery.

They will wait until the last minute to release the video because they'll cooperate only to the letter of the law and will of the judge.

I think that video only shows that he did encounter her on that evening but without audio, and there do not seem to be any witnesses to what was said, I don't think it clears things up.

What if this was not their first encounter? What if she was walking up to him regarding another encounter with her or another? We do not know this woman's position at the hotel or her responsibilities.

Many are trying to read into it that they shook hands that it was an amicable encounter but if she is in the out front part of the hospitality, she is trained to display nothing and do nothing that might cause a distraction or escalate a possibly negative situation.

Again, not knowing her position I know nothing about her duties but I do know major hotels apply the Disney theme park concept of keep everything negative away from the other customers.

So she reports it to her supervisor and early the next morning security comes to move him to wherever. And the only time this banned issue popped up was in the lawyer's first statement. There is no evidence they banned him and might have even moved him to another property, more stuff we don't know.

 

[CouchCoach]

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

He is an employee of the NFLN, with a contract just like Eisen, Warner, Aikman and Romo.

Don't know if they paid for his room but I do know it is common for companies to set up direct billing to get discounts but that is for room, fees and taxes only, incidentals are still the responsibility of the individual.

The only reason the hotel would contact the NFLN is if they are paying for the room. How many people are ousted from hotels annually? Do we think they contact the employers of those people? They'd get the hell sued out of them and lose. What possible purpose could they have trying to get a guest in trouble with their employer?

Like giving information about past employees to prospective employers, big companies do not say much. I had a script I had to use drawn up by our corporate attorneys and about all I could say was they were employed from date to end date and not even get close to why they were gone. It is possible that the NFLN didn't have all of the information because the hotel does not have to provide it. That would explain what they were doing Monday and Tuesday after he was moved, trying to figure out what was going on.

 

[CouchCoach]

Come on guys, everybody calm down and stop insulting each other.

We dont know all the facts yet, maybe what Irvin said was just an innocent comment that was taken the wrong way and blown way out of proportion or maybe he was asking her for a BJ, we just dont know right now.

So everybody just calm down and lets wait for the facts to come out, ok.

Thanks, it's becoming a Dak thread.

 

[CouchCoach]

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

Has he been out drinking like Irvin?

 

[Rayman70]

show the tape and the audio. We can clear this up in 45 seconds.

 

[CouchCoach]

Lemme say this. I do not like Irvin and never really have, going back to his UM days when he was a ringleader of those embarrassing sideline antics. I do think he was a great player, greater when they let him push off, but a great player.

That said, I do care more about true justice being done. If they overreacted to this, then he should be vindicated and compensated because when I listen to the beginning of that call into 105.3, he is obviously under stress and almost seemed scared.

I know one thing about women, you can say the same thing to 5 different women and get 5 different responses so what he said might not have set off a lot of women but not knowing her position in the hotel, it's hard to know how she was reacting as a woman or as a protector of female guests that could be offended.

I do not think the hotel was trying to get Irvin in trouble with his employer, I think they were following their protocols for these situations. I also do not think they wanted him outed, once he was out of that hotel, their interest was over. And what they may have told him was not to return to that hotel, not all Marriott hotels and he missed that.

 

[CouchCoach]

I have started to ignore the ones that don't really care what happened. It don't matter what you tell them. They got some crazy excuse and they are not interested in the facts.

I am interested in the facts when they are made available. But missing the facts will not stop us speculating because that is the nature of the forum and thread.

Some are stating facts that we do not know are facts, like what the hotel told the NFLN or he has been banned from all Marriott properties. Know what someone would have to do to get banned fROm a major hotel chain?

 

[CouchCoach]

THIS THREAD IS GOING TO INVITE SPECULATION BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW MORE THAN WE KNOW.

I'VE HAD TO DELETE SOME POSTS BECAUSE THEY'VE GONE WAY TOO FAR.

DO NOT ATTACK THE CHARACTER OF THE POSTER BECAUSE THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR VIEW OF THIS.

 

[CouchCoach]

show the tape and the audio. We can clear this up in 45 seconds.

Don't know if they have any audio and this is all about what was said.

 

[Rayman70]

there is more to the story than he said she said.....someone told the NFL and the NFL thought it was bad enough to park Irving during the NFL's...biggest game of the year, the Superbowl.......Marriot better have proof...or it's gonna be messy.....the question is...why did the Michael Irvins employer get notified....

they have nada. otherwise I promise it would have been leaked already.He will win this barring evidence that we have yet seen.

 

[Diehardblues]

They will wait until the last minute to release the video because they'll cooperate only to the letter of the law and will of the judge.

I think that video only shows that he did encounter her on that evening but without audio, and there do not seem to be any witnesses to what was said, I don't think it clears things up.

What if this was not their first encounter? What if she was walking up to him regarding another encounter with her or another? We do not know this woman's position at the hotel or her responsibilities.

Many are trying to read into it that they shook hands that it was an amicable encounter but if she is in the out front part of the hospitality, she is trained to display nothing and do nothing that might cause a distraction or escalate a possibly negative situation.

Again, not knowing her position I know nothing about her duties but I do know major hotels apply the Disney theme park concept of keep everything negative away from the other customers.

So she reports it to her supervisor and early the next morning security comes to move him to wherever. And the only time this banned issue popped up was in the lawyer's first statement. There is no evidence they banned him and might have even moved him to another property, more stuff we don't know.

This is an excellent observation and insight I hadn’t considered.

This employee could have been a security personnel or management staff which was reporting Irvin’s conduct and behavior regarding someone else other than herself .

It could explain the handshake afterwards as she should have been informing him before reporting to corporate as merely standing protocol. Well done CC!!

 

[Rayman70]

Don't know if they have any audio and this is all about what was said.

1 way to find out. Show the tape.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds058]

Has he been out drinking like Irvin?

Who knows, I am not getting in this. Will let some go at it like they have been. Will see what happens.

 

[CouchCoach]

This is an excellent observation and insight I hadn’t considered.

This employee could have been a security personnel or management staff which was reporting Irvin’s conduct and behavior regarding someone else other than herself .

It could explain the handshake afterwards as she should have been informing him before reporting to corporate as merely standing protocol. Well done CC!!

Naaaah, just more speculation because I am bored and am running out of gas on ideas.