News: PFT: Michael Irvin's lawyer is "mad" that Marriott refuses to produce surveillance video

[Hardline]

If there was a surveillance tape TMZ would already have it.

 

[Jarv]

Your post tells me you don’t know how corporate attorneys conduct their business in something like this.

They are not obligated to be cooperative and will only do what they are forced to do.

Wait who made the allegation against Michael? Was she a Marriott employee? Was the woman just a guest?

We know Michael was yanked from Superbowl coverage which hurt his brand.

While Marriott doesn't have to be cooperative, the question is why wouldn't they. The fact that they aren't being cooperative could hurt their brand too.

If I stayed there and was charged by someone that I did something in-appropriate (expecially if it was a Marriott employee)...and I felt I was false, I would be furious if they wanted to cover it up and would tell people (and echo this in the news) that Marriott is covering up a false accusation and charge them with obstruction of justice.

 

[CouchCoach]

It was the same Monday that it was moved. They violated the court order of a judge.

Not if the case was moved, they start over with the new judge.

 

[khiladi]

The gap is closing fast. Especially from/in our gubmint. Different sets of rules.

Believe bro, I know it’s deteriorating, but it’s not even close to as bad as it is over there. It’s still worthy of appreciation on many levels.

 

[TwoDeep3]

There is a reason Marriott won't produce the video. Eventually we will all see why. Until then it's wait and then wait some more. Irvin will get his day in court. It just won't be as soon as he likes. Which sucks for him.

What possible profit does the Marriott gain by stringing this out if there is zero evidence Irvin did anything wrong?

Frankly, unless Irvin asked her to step up to his room and toot his whistle, and there is audio evidence, this he said, she said thing has no merit. I don't believe Marriott will garner any extra guests over this story.

I could be wrong.

 

[Diehardblues]

Wait who made the allegation against Michael? Was she a Marriott employee? Was the woman just a guest?

We know Michael was yanked from Superbowl coverage which hurt his brand.

While Marriott doesn't have to be cooperative, the question is why wouldn't they. The fact that they aren't being cooperative could hurt their brand too.

If I stayed there and was charged by someone that I did something in-appropriate (expecially if it was a Marriott employee)...and I felt I was false, I would be furious if they wanted to cover it up and would tell people (and echo this in the news) that Marriott is covering up a false accusation and charge them with obstruction of justice.

Yea, Coach was right. You don’t understand how this works. You don’t divulge your evidence until you’re forced to.

We all need to pump the brakes until more evidence comes out including the video surveillance.

And remember who has seen the video. The Marriott and the NFL who both took swift action.

And the only defense or evidence the accused has presented is he was intoxicated and unable to recall exactly what transpired.

 

[Diehardblues]

What possible profit does the Marriott gain by stringing this out if there is zero evidence Irvin did anything wrong?

Frankly, unless Irvin asked her to step up to his room and toot his whistle, and there is audio evidence, this he said, she said thing has no merit. I don't believe Marriott will garner any extra guests over this story.

I could be wrong.

To the contrary this is the type of swift action that most outside of some overly Homerish Cowboy and Irvin fans totally appreciate. That a major hotel isn’t afraid to take action against a popular celebrity after viewing the video and listening to complaint , especially with the accused history .

And the NFL action after viewing the video and complaint also took action. Even if it comes out there wasn’t a criminal act the league wouldn’t want it to come out later they didn’t take action . Like the Rice video.

Most likely this was a cautionary decision made. And it protects them from the plaintiff accusing the hotel and league for not taking action.

 

[Captain-Crash]

I knew some guys at ESPN Radio when he was there and the rumors began to get back to them and one of them was about Irvin involved in a rape but the girl and her family were paid off but ESPN got word of it and told him to hit the bricks.

I asked one of the guys if they thought there was validity to the rumor and was Irvin really capable of that and he just looked at me like I asked a dumb question and said "we're pretty sure we know who paid them off too". They were not sad to see him go.

You can defend him all you want because you are a fan but don't try selling that to me.

What difference does it make to you what I believe? I state my opinions like everyone else and you will never influence me into thinking any different about what kind of person Irvin is. And if he loses this entire case, I do not expect the Irvinoids to change their opinions either.

he's a piece of garbage. Maybe they can counter-sue and take all the douchebag's money.

 

[Beast_from_East]

It's not so much the tape that would help Irvin but having the time to strategize and mount a PR offensive. With no tape out there, the only thing public is Mike outing himself as not remembering due to drinking. So yeah, you desperately want the tape so you can figure out what your next move will be. If it's damning, then how do you slink away looking as clean as you can? If not, then how do you spin this to rile people up to rally behind Mike to lift his PR rating (the whole point of this lawsuit) while making those of Marriott/NFLN/ESPN look worse? The latter is what Irvin's lawyer is trying to channel with this "We're incredulous!" spiel when, as the article also points out, the video WILL be provided once a court order is given.

The thing lost here is that what Irvin said in his radio interview was that Marriott claimed he "said" something to an employee. Not sure how video is going to prove what he said unless there's audio, which I think is unlikely unless Marriott's got some audio thingy in their lobbies. So if there's just audio with no sound and Mike's claim is that he was accused of saying something, what does that prove? There's nothing for Marriott to pay in that case. So then it just leaves Irvin's team to to make their PR pitch that Irvin didn't do anything even with no audio to prove he didn't actually do anything. Marriott is a corporation that can refuse service if they want to, and even then they didn't refuse, they just moved him.

And regarding the witnesses, this is the point I continue to make: the witnesses only back up that there was no physical altercation. According to Mike himself, this isn't about physical, only audio. The witnesses didn't hear the audio of their interaction. So all the witnesses do is confirm for those who again think that a person offended/threatened by a comment has to react right then and there in the moment and that's not the case a good number of times, especially when you throw in the power dynamic at play.

Good points...............I honestly dont know how Irvin is going to deny saying something offensive to that girl if there is just video, but no audio.

If Irvin told her "I will give you $200 for a lap dance in my room" and she just looks at him and says "get lost creep" and walks away.

What good does survillence footage do, am I missing something here?

 

[Jarv]

Yea, Coach was right. You don’t understand how this works. You don’t divulge your evidence until you’re forced to.

We all need to pump the brakes until more evidence comes out including the video surveillance.

And remember who has seen the video. The Marriott and the NFL who both took swift action.

And the only defense or evidence the accused has presented is he was intoxicated and unable to recall exactly what transpired.

Wow a lot of stuff I did not know, thanks for the update!

 

[DZSierra]

Yeah, the reason is he's suing them for $100M. The lawsuit itself is for rehabbing Mike's image at the expense of the hotel and the employee. You sue us, we stall the hell out of things to delay your rehabbing of image.

My line of reasoning is that when the hotel went through what they did and kicked Irvin out, there is no way they didn't realize that this would be BIG news with the person who they were going to kick out.

Believe me, you have all different types of people with various personalities who you work with. End of the day, unless it something really wrong that Irvin did (and at this point from what has been out there from the only thing I've seen or heard for like a 45 second interaction), I really think the management of the hotel could have handled this better.

 

[Diehardblues]

My line of reasoning is that when the hotel went through what they did and kicked Irvin out, there is no way they didn't realize that this would be BIG news with the person who they were going to kick out.

Believe me, you have all different types of people with various personalities who you work with. End of the day, unless it something really wrong that Irvin did (and at this point from what has been out there from the only thing I've seen or heard for like a 45 second interaction), I really think the management of the hotel could have handled this better.

Perhaps but as management you have to respond to a complaint until further evidence is revealed . Especially involving an employee with previous history.

These swift actions Marriott and NFL took were precaution based . They weren’t meant to represent an offense was committed .

 

[CouchCoach]

My line of reasoning is that when the hotel went through what they did and kicked Irvin out, there is no way they didn't realize that this would be BIG news with the person who they were going to kick out.

Believe me, you have all different types of people with various personalities who you work with. End of the day, unless it something really wrong that Irvin did (and at this point from what has been out there from the only thing I've seen or heard for like a 45 second interaction), I really think the management of the hotel could have handled this better.

Are we aware of all of the famous people hotels have had to deal with? And "kicked out" was never mentioned, "moved" was and we do not know where they moved him.

The BIG news was broken by Irvin himself, not the hotel, woman or NFLN. When the brass at NFLN heard that "hiding out" comment and knew the spread of things like this, they had little choice but to act. It looks like they heard about this from that radio show because they were who he was hiding out from.

Unless the cops are involved, it is standard procedure to keep a lid on it regarding celebrities. Because they will sue but in this case, Irvin gave his own news release and obviously from his " you will" comment to the radio guys about hearing about this, he thought this was going public and he was trying to get out in front of it.

What he should have done is gone to his producer at NFLN the minute this happened. Maybe they help keep this quiet because they are aware that Marriott is a sponsor. Now, an employee of the NFL is suing a sponsor, not a good look.

Which brings up the question of just how many times have his past employers had to keep things quiet?

 

[speedkilz88]

Not if the case was moved, they start over with the new judge.

It was already due that day.

 

[CouchCoach]

It was already due that day.

But it was moved that day. Do you have a time when it was due?

 

[Diehardblues]

Are we aware of all of the famous people hotels have had to deal with? And "kicked out" was never mentioned, "moved" was and we do not know where they moved him.

The BIG news was broken by Irvin himself, not the hotel, woman or NFLN. When the brass at NFLN heard that "hiding out" comment and knew the spread of things like this, they had little choice but to act. It looks like they heard about this from that radio show because they were who he was hiding out from.

Unless the cops are involved, it is standard procedure to keep a lid on it regarding celebrities. Because they will sue but in this case, Irvin gave his own news release and obviously from his " you will" comment to the radio guys about hearing about this, he thought this was going public and he was trying to get out in front of it.

What he should have done is gone to his producer at NFLN the minute this happened. Maybe they help keep this quiet because they are aware that Marriott is a sponsor. Now, an employee of the NFL is suing a sponsor, not a good look.

Which brings up the question of just how many times have his past employers had to keep things quiet?

Right, if Irvin hadn’t been trying to get out in front of this not sure anyone would have known. At least until he wasn’t present on the SB coverage .

I’m always suspect when someone conveniently can’t recall an incident or what was said , then claiming he’d been drinking. Not a good look for him especially with his history .

I actually think the hotel and NFL have handled this admirably and not leaked out anymore info. And the fact we don’t know anything else about the plaintiff would suggest she wasn’t looking for any notoriety or payday.

Hopefully Michaels conduct was just inappropriate and the hotel and NFL was simply taking precaution to protect themselves from any liability from the employee if they hadn’t taken some action.

 

[CouchCoach]

Right, if Irvin hadn’t been trying to get out in front of this not sure anyone would have known. At least until he wasn’t present on the SB coverage .

I’m always suspect when someone conveniently can’t recall an incident or what was said , then claiming he’d been drinking. Not a good look for him especially with his history .

I actually think the hotel and NFL have handled this admirably and not leaked out anymore info. And the fact we don’t know anything else about the plaintiff would suggest she wasn’t looking for any notoriety or payday.

Hopefully Michaels conduct was just inappropriate and the hotel and NFL was simply taking precaution to protect themselves from any liability from the employee if they hadn’t taken some action.

Major company like Marriott with thousands of female employees, with a heavy lean to the male clientele, has to have protocols in place that leave little to the discretion of even management of the hotel.

It is going to be interesting to see if Irvin's lawyer can show either the hotel or woman was out to hurt Irvin in any way. Think the jury wouldn't hear his call in to the radio show and subsequent interviews when he got back to Dallas? All the time, nothing but silence from the defendants.

 

[DZSierra]

Are we aware of all of the famous people hotels have had to deal with? And "kicked out" was never mentioned, "moved" was and we do not know where they moved him.

The BIG news was broken by Irvin himself, not the hotel, woman or NFLN. When the brass at NFLN heard that "hiding out" comment and knew the spread of things like this, they had little choice but to act. It looks like they heard about this from that radio show because they were who he was hiding out from.

Unless the cops are involved, it is standard procedure to keep a lid on it regarding celebrities. Because they will sue but in this case, Irvin gave his own news release and obviously from his " you will" comment to the radio guys about hearing about this, he thought this was going public and he was trying to get out in front of it.

What he should have done is gone to his producer at NFLN the minute this happened. Maybe they help keep this quiet because they are aware that Marriott is a sponsor. Now, an employee of the NFL is suing a sponsor, not a good look.

Which brings up the question of just how many times have his past employers had to keep things quiet?

Good point that I did not think about.

Do we know for a fact that Irvin is the one who brought it to the media's attention?

That said, if Irvin feels like he did absolutely nothing wrong, I can honestly see him being pissed about it.

 

[Staubacher]

Good point that I did not think about.

Do we know for a fact that Irvin is the one who brought it to the media's attention?

That said, if Irvin feels like he did absolutely nothing wrong, I can honestly see him being pissed about it.

I think it's pretty clear that Irvin was the first one to bring it up. And honestly he didn't sound angry as much as sheepish. And his story changed - he tweaked it from not remembering at all to having a few drinks and saying it was a brief interaction.

There doesn't seem to be an indication that the hotel was trying to "cancel" him as his lawyer so dramatically suggests. They took care of business on their end with their employee and their protocols, which they have every right to do. Then they notified the company that was paying the bill for the room as to what they were doing. As others have mentioned, hotels stock and trade is being discreet. But they also can't look the other way and do nothing because an offensive guest is a famous celebrity, that wouldn't be fair to their employees or to the other guests.

I want to make a larger point about the woman and women in general and this doesn't relate to anything you have said. Women are so often damned if they do and damned if they don't as to how to handle uncomfortable comments and actions. If they keep their head about them and remain professional and report it later they are presumed to be making it up and lying about the situation. But if they react in the moment they can be seen as overreacting and making a scene which could jeopardize their career and their reputation.

Even I as a man have delayed reactions to things sometimes especially when I work with customers or interact with other men. I tend to be agreeable so sometimes I reflect later on something that was said and realize the guy was being a total d bag. It's not a perfect correlation to what women have to go through but I do understand having things sink in later and wanting to do something about it.

 

[CouchCoach]

Good point that I did not think about.

Do we know for a fact that Irvin is the one who brought it to the media's attention?

That said, if Irvin feels like he did absolutely nothing wrong, I can honestly see him being pissed about it.

If you watch that video of 105.3, they had no clue what he was talking about until he told them. They even moved past it. If you do watch it, look at their facial reactions when he uses the words "hiding out".

The other thing revealing about that video as none of the 3 guys looked the least bit surprised that this was Irvin or they wouldn't have moved past it. I can only imagine what was going through their heads when he is breaking his own news story, using hiding out and that he had a few drinks and doesn't remember what he supposedly said. They might have been trying to protect himself from himself.