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

[Diehardblues]

IM a teacher. If a fellow teacher or student went to admin and claimed I made sexual advances at them, I would be immediately placed on 30 day paid administrative leave. It would have ZERO to do with my innocence or guilt. You keep falling back on what NFLN did as some sort of proof that they have evidence of Irvin's guilt. Wake up to how these entities act in today's world.

Had Irvin been immediately fired, then Id agree with you, but you must not understand how these things work since you keep leaning on NFLN actions to justify your position.

I have maintained I haven’t said he is guilty of anything at this point. And I totally understand and agree of the process , etc.

I also can speculate and provide my suspicions based on his history and how the events unfolded.

I just go off on my rants at times when spurred on by this defense mechanism for such a person with Irvin’s history and then attacks on a plaintiff we don’t even know her history.

 

[CouchCoach]

IM a teacher. If a fellow teacher or student went to admin and claimed I made sexual advances at them, I would be immediately placed on 30 day paid administrative leave. It would have ZERO to do with my innocence or guilt. You keep falling back on what NFLN did as some sort of proof that they have evidence of Irvin's guilt. Wake up to how these entities act in today's world.

Had Irvin been immediately fired, then Id agree with you, but you must not understand how these things work since you keep leaning on NFLN actions to justify your position.

The problem with the NFLN is how it looks to people. They sent him home, there must be something to it. When they could have reacted to his call into 105.3 and decided let's just clear the area.

They did not fire him or even dock his pay that I know of and for all I know they may not have thought what he said warranted the response from the hotel or they may not know what he said, they may have been on his side but once he went public, they had no choice.

Can you imagine how they were losing their minds? Biggest game of the year, every owner and their entourages in town and all of the sudden this pops up. It's not like they don't have things to do.

 

[CouchCoach]

I do want to thank Irvin for the break from all the Stephen sez and Booger sez threads.

Jeez, do y'all have to dissect everything and build different threads for every stupid thing that escapes their pieholes?

 

[Merlin]

I just hope some of these guys with active imaginations keep this same energy when the facts come out. Thinking that the NFL and ESPN removed Irvin because of the phone call... You know what I will not say it.

 

[Bigrandrn]

No, my opinion and speculation is solely based on Irvin’s sexual misconduct history and the actions the Marriott and NFL Network deemed necessary.

And I apologize for my previous comment . That was uncalled for . Thanks !

What previous comment lol? Something bad I’m guessing….no worries all good!!!

 

[Rayman70]

oh spare me. Im just a person. I couldnt care less what they do. I have plenty of friends that have done drugs and I dont care what they do either. You just expect them all to go to bible study on Sundays.... I do not.

THIS statement is reality.

 

[Rayman70]

 

[Captain-Crash]

 

[Merlin]

My speculated timeline of events:

It happened Sunday night. Irvin was on his way to the elevator when a female Marriott employee approached him. They talked for 45 seconds to a minute. Then shook hands after talking.

Michael Irvin went to his room. He was approached by security sometime the next morning and they told him he had to leave this hotel. At some point, a male Marriott manager contacted the NFL and told them something. That allegation is in Irvin's petition for the lawsuit he filed. If that is not true, no case basically. It's most likely true.

The NFL and ESPN later informed Michael Irvin that he would not be a part of the Superbowl coverage either Monday or Tuesday.

Michael Irvin had a scheduled interview with 105.3. Sounds like it was supposed to be in person on Wednesday. Michael Irvin briefly discussed the allegations on that interview by phone. He even says you may have already heard about it. He says they have him on video but they didn't show him the video. He's getting his version out before the NFL made an official statement and they did later that day. Wasn't long after the interview.

The NFL made an official statement that same morning. I doubt they were listening to Michael Irvin's interview and said we need to do something now. They had already planned to announce it.

Michael Irvin then hires an attorney and files suit.

 

[Merlin]

Michael Gehlken tweeted that the NFL removed Michael Irvin from Superbowl coverage Feb 8 at 9:46 am. Michael Irvin went on the show about a half hour earlier. Logic would dictate he already knew about it before Irvin went on the show. Timing is close.

It took time to prepare the article he wrote which is another factor.

 

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

The incident happened they didn't move Michael till the next day. I can understand that because I'm sure they needed to consult their HR/Lawyers.
I still ask because I haven't read it anywhere
Was Michael Fired from NFLN?
Was Michael Banned from All Marriots?
I haven't heard one response from Michael's employer on Why they decided to pull him from SB
Does anyone clarify that?

The witness for Michael clearly know what the accuser looks like so a good reporter would have got some type of idea of what she looked like and should have been able to identify
had Michael been staying there several days where there could be time for him to have had more than that one contact?

There is No evidence that he was drunk he stated on 105.3 " I don't remember I had a few drinks. Whomever Michael had drinks with can confirm how much he had. Were they questioned? The witness didn't say that Michael was drunk surely they would know.

I am NOT saying Michael didn't say anything inappropriate to her I don't know I wasn't there but Michael has the right to confront his accuser.

Some here think he is a POS and so therefore that makes him guilty your attacking his character because you don't like him.
He who is without sin let them cast the first stone.

Ding Ding We have a winner !!!!!!

Tell me I can't throw rocks, Stone him .

 

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

We have a growing base of fans who support a former player with countless history of sexual misconduct who’s been accused again of suspect behavior . Amazing ..

What does his past have to do with this? I'll tell you NOTHING. You want to hang a man because he was Alleged to have done this before ? I think the problem with society is people like you , not Mike.

Look at your last post, it's full of self righteousness, blaming , who ever supports Michael is a bad person? And let's keep it real, He doesn't have COUNTLESS accusations of sexual misconduct. Over exaggeration is a sure fire give away for

those who stance is weak.

 

[Diehardblues]

What does his past have to do with this? I'll tell you NOTHING. You want to hang a man because he was Alleged to have done this before ? I think the problem with society is people like you , not Mike.

Look at your last post, it's full of self righteousness, blaming , who ever supports Michael is a bad person? And let's keep it real, He doesn't have COUNTLESS accusations of sexual misconduct. Over exaggeration is a sure fire give away for

those who stance is weak.

LMAO

 

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

LMAO

Come on dude I count two. So are you saying Three scurrilous charges, make a man guilty ? That he should be railroaded, destroyed, cancelled ? As I stated WEAK !!!!

 

[Diehardblues]

Come on dude I count two. So are you saying Three scurrilous charges, make a man guilty ? That he should be railroaded, destroyed, cancelled ? As I stated WEAK !!!!

This is actually Irvin’s 4th sexual misconduct accusation/ altercation. I think he also had some issues at Miami as well. How many do you need before you begin to question him?

And I’d argue that the Networks should decide for themselves. ESPN made their decision years ago and I’d expect if this is similar incident then NFLN will as well.

Personally there’s far too many sports personalities and former athletes to employ without risking the negative publicity someone like Irvin presents.

 

[CouchCoach]

My speculated timeline of events:

It happened Sunday night. Irvin was on his way to the elevator when a female Marriott employee approached him. They talked for 45 seconds to a minute. Then shook hands after talking.

Michael Irvin went to his room. He was approached by security sometime the next morning and they told him he had to leave this hotel. At some point, a male Marriott manager contacted the NFL and told them something. That allegation is in Irvin's petition for the lawsuit he filed. If that is not true, no case basically. It's most likely true.

The NFL and ESPN later informed Michael Irvin that he would not be a part of the Superbowl coverage either Monday or Tuesday.

Michael Irvin had a scheduled interview with 105.3. Sounds like it was supposed to be in person on Wednesday. Michael Irvin briefly discussed the allegations on that interview by phone. He even says you may have already heard about it. He says they have him on video but they didn't show him the video. He's getting his version out before the NFL made an official statement and they did later that day. Wasn't long after the interview.

The NFL made an official statement that same morning. I doubt they were listening to Michael Irvin's interview and said we need to do something now. They had already planned to announce it.

Michael Irvin then hires an attorney and files suit.

Why wouldn’t the NFLN have been listening to his call in? They had his entire schedule.

The most confusing part of this is the NFLN’s actions during all of this. What were they doing for those 48 hours after they were informed that he had been moved?
Having to leave the hotel has not been mentioned, the word “moved” was used but to where hasn’t been divulged yet.

 

[Merlin]

Why wouldn’t the NFLN have been listening to his call in? They had his entire schedule.

The most confusing part of this is the NFLN’s actions during all of this. What were they doing for those 48 hours after they were informed that he had been moved?
Having to leave the hotel has not been mentioned, the word “moved” was used but to where hasn’t been divulged yet.

Why would they is a better question? Most likely they had already made a decision by then. I don't see their decision being based on the phone call interview to 105.3.

 

[CouchCoach]

Why would they is a better question? Most likely they had already made a decision by then. I don't see their decision being based on the phone call interview to 105.3.

I know you don’t but I do. He broke his own story.

 

[Merlin]

I know you don’t but I do. He broke his own story.

That doesn't matter if the NFL and ESPN already knew about it. And they had already planned to make a press release that day announcing it. And he knew that. But keep insisting that the NFL and ESPN listened to that interview and made a decision based on that. Not likely.

 

[CouchCoach]

I am not insisting on anything, that is my opinion based on the lack of information available.