Without audio I don't believe you can really base a judgment on what happened one way or the other. She did not run from him and I wonder why... Was it because he did not do what she accused and there was nothing to run from? She did shake his hand when parting. Was that just to get away from him because she was so scared of him? I think it may come down to what the witnesses saw that night. My personal feeling about Irvin aside... I fail to see (at least on the tape) where he did anything inappropriate and he should be cleared.
Michael Irvin taken off the NFL network for a 45 sec conversation?
- Thread starter s1uggo72
- Start date
Exactly- anyone who reaches a conclusion based on this video had already made up their mind. The video does nothing to prove or disprove what either side has said.
I don't think it's a matter of being cleared as he isn't charged with anything, but whether it supports his lawsuit. As far as public opinion and getting back on the air it probably helps. Lawsuit?
You present a very good point... IMHO I believe his lawsuit is only in place to mock her lawsuit... (Eg- Irvin's attorney is saying- OK you want frivility? Here's frivility- This countersuit.) It always should come down to reasonable doubt. In this case if I were on a jury I would have to say the worker's claim lacks reasonable doubt. In the future (if I am Michael Irvin) I would not drink in public because I am a celebrity with a less than spotless past.I don't think it's a matter of being cleared as he isn't charged with anything, but whether it supports his lawsuit. As far as public opinion and getting back on the air it probably helps. Lawsuit?
I disagree with you saying its a "frivilous" countersuit. Irving's reputation (and yea I know thats already a slippery slope) has been damaged pretty bad and The NFL network removed him immediately (which I wonder what happens if he wins this suit).
But I agree with everything else you said. I don't think the video (at least that one, maybe there's another) show much of what she claims.
And absolutely agree with your last sentence.
I did find the Bar Manager (I guess thats who he was) actions odd in that he looked pretty annoyed with her.
I don't think Marriott did themselves any favors by not releasing the video like they were supposed too.
I also don't think there is much to the claim that he "leered" at her, at least from that video.
IDK, I consider myself pretty neutral on this and am not an Irving fan or especially Cowboy fan, I also don't hate him. But I don't think that particular video does much to support her claim. If I'm on the jury I'm going to need a lot more than that to convict.
Maybe there is another video or one with sound but if thats the one Marriott is relying on, I can see why the didn't release it.
Well, that was half of my point- the video without audio doesn't do anything to prove or disprove either of their claims.
In a civil trial, it’s preponderance of evidence, not reasonable doubt. In other words, the bar - in terms of having to prove something by a Plaintiff - is lower in a civil trial than a criminal trial.
I would have to look it up again but I believe a number of eyewitnesses that we see in the video came forward and said every time they were walking by them it was all small talk. Basically "I am a big fan... I liked watching you play.... yadda yadda" there was no talk of things he would like to do to her sexually or come up to my room etc. Based on the video without any audio she and Marriott really have no grounds that I can see. Also NFL Network might be a little nervous as well.
Odd, since by all accounts that I've seen she didn't even know who he was. We love to draw conclusions, but in this case I don't know what conclusions to draw.
Not a big fan of Irvin but this is bs. Wait hold on tiger woods girlfriend on the line. The answer will and is always” a pattern of” that will be hard to defend. So she had arms closed in front of her and then has hands behind her after she steps back. Then the handshake.
Last edited:
Yes as I said I can't remember the exact dialogue but eyewitnesses said everything they heard was small talk. Not anything sexually etc. If this is correct between the video and eyewitnesses willing to testify, it's going to be difficult for the girl/Marriott/NFL Network in all the lawsuits.
EDIT: Went back and read a few articles about this. As far as I can tell, this lady has not sued Irvin. The only lawsuit is by Irvin, against the Marriott and the employee. Regardless of the merits of the lady's complaints, Irvin probably has no case IMHO for a few reasons. First, in essence his beef is with the NFL Network; they are the ones who made the decision to take him off of the broadcast, not the Marriott. So if the NFL overreacted, it's on them. Second, we don't know what the Marriott reported to the NFL. For all we know they may have simply said, "there was an encounter between our employee and Irvin, she was very uncomfortable with his conduct, we are letting you know since he is here on business and you are his employer". If that is even close to what happened, he has no case. Did the NFL overreact in sending him home? Possibly.... unless Mike has a history of such behavior, resulting in complaints to the network, hence influencing their decision to send him home. My initial instinct is there must be some sort of history here which influenced the network.
Last edited:
Also not sure if this is a civil court case as well. To me Irvin wants to win the Marriott case first and if so then his lawyers will pivot to the NFL. I believe he is still employed by the NFL Network so that will become a sticky situation if he files suit against them. $100 million dollars is a big chunk of change obviously I am sure he is willing to settle out of court for much less.
Get unlimited access today.