Michael Irvin booted from SB coverage after complaint filed

[RiverDog]

It’s speculation . Gut instinct . I’ve made it plain to numerous courts that I’m not fit for sitting on a jury . I look at known facts , the demeanor of accuser and accused and my mind is made up . Im a pretty good judge of character .

in the case of Irvin quite a history of behavior with alcohol , drugs and women to factor in and im sure Marriott will seek to enter his previous actions into the record .
Marriott moving him means something to me . His comments he doesn’t remember the incident while partially describing it “ nobody was in the room , the encounter was “mostly “ non physical . Accuse me of a rush to judgement but I think he said or did something of a threatening or sexual nature to her . Time will tell and if I am wrong I’ll visit the op and eat the crow .

Well, at least you're honest about it. But in all seriousness, I wouldn't be so sure about my 'gut instincts'. I know that there's been a time or two that I've been led astray by mine.

Yes, Irvin does have quite a rap sheet, and the accusations fit him like a glove. I said earlier in the thread, that considering his past, I don't know why NFL Network gave him such a high-profile position as they did. There's lots of other very well qualified former players out there who would make great analysts that don't have the baggage that he does.

But at the same time, we have to recognize that people can and do change, and j/b the accused is Michael Irvin, that doesn't mean that the accuser is telling the truth or that she doesn't have some other agenda that may not be apparent. Her story needs to be checked out and verified with no less thoroughness than if the accused were someone with nothing in their past.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[Hawktawk]

Coming in the door of his hotel as a representative of his network so lit up he can’t remember an interaction that got him fired and relocated doesn’t sound too changed . I guess it’s an improvement on lining up rails of Bolivian marching powder but come on .

I don’t have to give anyone anything such as the benefit of the doubt . I’m dude on chat line .

A judge will decide this . I’ll not buy that a hotel employee decided to make something up over a brief contact like that . No chance .

I learned yesterday that Irvin was relocated the following morning meaning the hotel had hours to decide what to do . There is no indication the woman wanted money or anything other than Irvin removed from her presence . I see no logical reason for her to lie about it , it’s clear her management supports her and believes in her . Including I would imagine upper management in this situation with the celebrity of the accused .


He did it , whatever it is . My guess would be some sexual comments or unwanted advances . Just a guess . I can do that I’m
Internet guy .

I have no dog in the fight . I actually liked the goofball on the air . Just calling it like I see it .

[NorthHawk]

Apparently the hotel is not giving Irvin's Defense lawyers access to the video with the expected moral outrage occurring.
They have moved it to a Federal Court so they should get their hands on it soon.

I don't know what happened, but I also know you don't trust what people say to the media. Maybe he was told to say he didn't remember to protect his case?
It sounds like bad advice, but we really don't know the facts and if there is an out of Court settlement we might never find out.

[RiverDog]

Apparently the hotel is not giving Irvin's Defense lawyers access to the video with the expected moral outrage occurring.
They have moved it to a Federal Court so they should get their hands on it soon.

I don't know what happened, but I also know you don't trust what people say to the media. Maybe he was told to say he didn't remember to protect his case?
It sounds like bad advice, but we really don't know the facts and if there is an out of Court settlement we might never find out.

I would be extremely surprised that any attorney worth their weight would advise their client to announce to the public that they couldn't remember an event, especially when you toss in his statement that he'd been drinking. Almost without exception, they advise they clients not to say anything at all. Even under questioning in a court room, they'll tell them not to volunteer any information, to only answer the immediate questions put to them and not to ad lib.

IMO Irvin made those comments before he had sought out legal advice, that suing the hotel an afterthought or a suggestion that someone gave him. I'm sure his legal team cringed when they saw that Irvin had made that statement, especially the part about his having been drinking, which throws a whole new element into the equation.

[NorthHawk]

Again, he wasn't under oath when he said it and not being the smartest guy in the room might suggest he said something stupid when asked what happened.
It wouldn't be the first time in world history that someone told a lie just to get out of the immediate situation then regretted it later.

[RiverDog]

Again, he wasn't under oath when he said it and not being the smartest guy in the room might suggest he said something stupid when asked what happened. It wouldn't be the first time in world history that someone told a lie just to get out of the immediate situation then regretted it later.

The fact that Irvin wasn't under oath when he said he couldn't remember the conversation is irrelevant. Do you remember the OJ Simpson trial where the defense introduced racists statements a cop (Mark Something) made when he wasn't under oath in an effort to discredit his testimony? It's what arguably got OJ off his murder charge.

A defense attorney can still introduce Irvin's very public statements as evidence and force him to admit that he wasn't telling the truth when he said them and damage his credibility in front of a jury, expose him as a liar. "So are you telling the truth now, Mr. Irvin?" If it boils down to a he said-she said type of thing, Irvin's statements could come back to haunt him.

[NorthHawk]

Irvin has named 3 witnesses that say he did nothing wrong.
All the while the hotel refuses to release the recordings.

I think you put too much value on why OJ was released. It was far more political and the defining moment was the non fitting glove. Besides, Cops are supposed to be upstanding citizens even off duty so painting him as a racist fit the direction the defense wanted to take in that he ( and in effect the police) were out to get OJ. All Irvin has to do is say he was caught off guard and panicked in his response. Most people can relate to that.

[RiverDog]

Irvin has named 3 witnesses that say he did nothing wrong. All the while the hotel refuses to release the recordings.

My point was that Irvin's statement that he doesn't remember even meeting the woman, as he first told hotel security, and his subsequent confession that he'd been drinking isn't going to help his case. He's going to be put in the position of either being unable to personally deny whatever it is the woman claims he said or did in that 45 second conversation or having to admit that he wasn't telling the truth when he said he didn't remember.

I don't think we can read anything into the decision by the hotel's legal team not to release the recording(s). Obviously, if it gets to trial, they'll have to release it to the court. All we can do is make assumptions, that the contents must be pretty convincing for them to have acted in the manner that they did.

I think you put too much value on why OJ was released. It was far more political and the defining moment was the non fitting glove. Besides, Cops are supposed to be upstanding citizens even off duty so painting him as a racist fit the direction the defense wanted to take in that he ( and in effect the police) were out to get OJ. All Irvin has to do is say he was caught off guard and panicked in his response. Most people can relate to that.

I did say 'arguably.' Yes, having OJ try on the glove was one of those defining moments, but so, too, was Furman's testimony. The defense claimed that was planted by a racist cop, Furman, who was investigating the crime scene. The defense destroyed his credibility by showing that he wasn't completely truthful when he denied that he frequently used racial slurs, a powerful revelation made by a black defense attorney in front of a mostly black jury. I used it as an example of a trial where the defense introduced statements made while not under oath that compromised the credibility of the witnesses' under oath testimony.

I'm not sure how far the 'caught off guard' excuse will go. It's not like Irvin was in front of a press conference where they were firing off questions in rapid fashion. It was a one-on-one interview with a newspaper, ie the Dallas Morning News, and he likely knew what kind of questions he was going to be asked. He had time to think about his response. And remember, at first, he told security there wasn't a conversation at all, so he's been pretty inconsistent.

The other thing to keep in mind here is that Irvin is the plaintiff, not the defendant. He's suing the hotel, so the burden of proof is going to be on him.

[NorthHawk]

But Fuhrman was being a Policeman at the time and people consider them to be beyond reproach in the course of their duties and upstanding citizens.
The same respect doesn't apply to ordinary citizens. It was an attempt by OJ's lawyers to discredit all of the Police via one individual by implying he could have been set up.
This is a case of equals - or maybe even of the less advantaged accusing the privileged if you will. It's a different set of dynamics.

Be that as it may, like I said before, it might be likely that this is settled out of court and we will never find out nor see what the real evidence is.

[Hawktawk]

The only comparison between OJ and irvin is both are HOF guys with millions of fans . Oj was the first clown show celebrity trial . They were lucky DNA was in its infancy or they would he laughed out of court today . Terrible prosecution team . Still if it was Joe blow black dude he’d have gotten life . The 1 hour verdict was the worst slap in the face ever to the families . It’s why I don’t always base my feelings about guilt or innocence on a jury verdict , either way it turns out .

The more I look at the facts , Irvin’s admission he was drunk , the actions of the motel to intervene , allow him to basically sleep it off , not call police , still relocate him the following morning tells me they are rock solid in their convictions .

Had the police been called to deal with an obviously drunk irvin they may well have arrested him depending on the allegation .

Imo the Marriott did everything in their power to protect Irvin while protecting their employees.

This lawsuit looks like a pr stunt coupled with a desperate attempt to get income going forward . And his comments about alcohol screwed him .
. I go back to the swift harsh network actions . A couple days before the super bowl ? It’s almost like they were looking for a reason to dump him . Or else they have seen and learned more then we know . It’s Not sure I recall an anchor being yanked so fast since an ESPN baseball guy relieved himself out the window of a Bristol nightclub onto a cop 20 or so years ago .

The network paid for Irvin’s room and are liable for his conduct . Maybe they had enough . Maybe not the first time ? Only speculation based on the lightning strike response of his employer. I reserve the right to be dead wrong .

[RiverDog]

The only comparison between OJ and irvin is both are HOF guys with millions of fans . Oj was the first clown show celebrity trial . They were lucky DNA was in its infancy or they would he laughed out of court today . Terrible prosecution team . Still if it was Joe blow black dude he’d have gotten life . The 1 hour verdict was the worst slap in the face ever to the families . It’s why I don’t always base my feelings about guilt or innocence on a jury verdict , either way it turns out .

I wasn't comparing OJ to Irvin. I was noting how a statement not made under oath was used in a trial, similar to what might occur if Irvin's defamation of character case ever makes it to trial. Other than that, I agree completely with your statement.

The more I look at the facts , Irvin’s admission he was drunk , the actions of the motel to intervene , allow him to basically sleep it off , not call police , still relocate him the following morning tells me they are rock solid in their convictions .

Had the police been called to deal with an obviously drunk irvin they may well have arrested him depending on the allegation .

Imo the Marriott did everything in their power to protect Irvin while protecting their employees.

This lawsuit looks like a pr stunt coupled with a desperate attempt to get income going forward . And his comments about alcohol screwed him .
. I go back to the swift harsh network actions . A couple days before the super bowl ? It’s almost like they were looking for a reason to dump him . Or else they have seen and learned more then we know . It’s Not sure I recall an anchor being yanked so fast since an ESPN baseball guy relieved himself out the window of a Bristol nightclub onto a cop 20 or so years ago .

The network paid for Irvin’s room and are liable for his conduct . Maybe they had enough . Maybe not the first time ? Only speculation based on the lightning strike response of his employer. I reserve the right to be dead wrong .

Yeah, that's the confusing part. The hotel never called the police, so obviously Irvin was not being disorderly or physically abusive, so whatever he did to get himself ejected couldn't have been outrageously bad. But there's a good reason he was yanked so fast by the network, and that's because the Super Bowl was just a few days away. There's also the possibility that due to his past, that his contract may have stated that the slightest problem and he's out. It will be interesting to see if he stays with NFL Network or if they terminate him. All they've done to my knowledge is to have taken him off the broadcast team that was covering the Super Bowl.

I do agree that there's a good chance that his lawsuit is just a PR stunt designed to save whatever face he can. Maybe he's hoping that the hotel will settle out of court.

It's a nice little drama for an otherwise boring offseason, at least to this point.

[RiverDog]

Be that as it may, like I said before, it might be likely that this is settled out of court and we will never find out nor see what the real evidence is.

I think that's what Irvin is hoping for, an out of court settlement that he can use to claim victory and save some face. I'm not sure how liable a hotel is for refusing service. So long as they're not basing it on a protected status like race, a business has the right to refuse service to anyone.

[Hawktawk]

My point regarding contacting police is that it would seem that not doing so was the decision of Marriott which imo was a favor to Irvin .

When cops get called on a guy who allegedly did or said something serious enough to require moving him to another hotel it’s entirely likely he would have been in the crowbar hotel . Especially since the alleged incident would indicate he was further gone than he thought and likely wouldn’t have handled it well being questioned by police in that condition .

Ive had to be reminded of things in the morning after a big party and it’s usually not good .
They did him a favor , tried to take care of him . His best pr would have been apologies all around .

[RiverDog]

My point regarding contacting police is that it would seem that not doing so was the decision of Marriott which imo was a favor to Irvin .

When cops get called on a guy who allegedly did or said something serious enough to require moving him to another hotel it’s entirely likely he would have been in the crowbar hotel . Especially since the alleged incident would indicate he was further gone than he thought and likely wouldn’t have handled it well being questioned by police in that condition.

The hotel is not going to call the cops unless he was acting aggressively, made threats, or was in the process of committing a crime. Restaurants and bars kick people out all the time without calling the cops. It's why they have security in the first place. Ask C-bob to weigh in, as he was once a bouncer. I was once in a bar when they refused service to a group of guys and asked them to leave because they were dropping too many F-bombs. If they refuse to leave, then they call the cops to have them arrested for trespassing, which wasn't the case with Irvin as he was cooperative with hotel security and did as they asked.

Ive had to be reminded of things in the morning after a big party and it’s usually not good. They did him a favor, tried to take care of him. His best pr would have been apologies all around .

I think that's a fair assumption, especially when you consider Irvin's past. But again, we don't know what it was that he allegedly said or anything at all about his accuser and will have to let it play out.

[RiverDog]

It's beginning to look like the hotel might be in trouble, that Irvin might win his case:

Hall of Fame receiver Michael Irvin and his lawyer are on the offensive.

A day after attorney Levi McCathern had the ability to watch Marriott surveillance video of the alleged interaction between Irvin and the hotel employee who accused him of wrongdoing, McCathern called the allegations “nonsense” during a press conference, via Michael Gehlken of the Dallas Morning News.

McCathern said he was not given a copy of the video. He also wasn’t allowed to record what he saw, or to show it to Irvin. He has filed an emergency motion to force Marriott to surrender the video.

Apparently, Marriott restricted McCathern’s access without authorization from the court to do so.

Irvin later reiterated that he knows he didn’t do anything wrong. If he didn’t, and if Marriott can’t show that he did, Marriott will have a big problem.

Then again, it already feels like Marriott has a big problem, based on the way Marriott has been dealing with the situation.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ba ... 126d&ei=10

[Hawktawk]

It's beginning to look like the hotel might be in trouble, that Irvin might win his case:

Hall of Fame receiver Michael Irvin and his lawyer are on the offensive.

A day after attorney Levi McCathern had the ability to watch Marriott surveillance video of the alleged interaction between Irvin and the hotel employee who accused him of wrongdoing, McCathern called the allegations “nonsense” during a press conference, via Michael Gehlken of the Dallas Morning News.

McCathern said he was not given a copy of the video. He also wasn’t allowed to record what he saw, or to show it to Irvin. He has filed an emergency motion to force Marriott to surrender the video.

Apparently, Marriott restricted McCathern’s access without authorization from the court to do so.

Irvin later reiterated that he knows he didn’t do anything wrong. If he didn’t, and if Marriott can’t show that he did, Marriott will have a big problem.

Then again, it already feels like Marriott has a big problem, based on the way Marriott has been dealing with the situation.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ba ... 126d&ei=10

Marriot has fired back at irvin and his attorney , releasing the details of the objectionable language and unwanted touching alleged by the employee . They made clear they had done this due to the lawyer for irvin making public statements based on viewing footage that proves nothing about what was said and that shows irvin touching the woman’s arm at least twice . They say they want to make sure the privacy and safety of the employees.

The allegation is that he was extremely vulgar , made comments about the dimensions of … asked if she wanted to be with a black man with said black dimensions . The actual language is far worse . He touched her while saying this . She had another employee as a witness .
Not sure what will happen to the case but I can hear Irvin saying that if wasted to the point he doesn’t remember .
Another revelation was that NFL security were the people who investigated the allegation and interviewed this woman before the decision to remove him from network coverage was made . She must have convinced them .

[RiverDog]

Marriot has fired back at irvin and his attorney , releasing the details of the objectionable language and unwanted touching alleged by the employee . They made clear they had done this due to the lawyer for irvin making public statements based on viewing footage that proves nothing about what was said and that shows irvin touching the woman’s arm at least twice . They say they want to make sure the privacy and safety of the employees.

The allegation is that he was extremely vulgar , made comments about the dimensions of … asked if she wanted to be with a black man with said black dimensions . The actual language is far worse . He touched her while saying this . She had another employee as a witness .
Not sure what will happen to the case but I can hear Irvin saying that if wasted to the point he doesn’t remember .
Another revelation was that NFL security were the people who investigated the allegation and interviewed this woman before the decision to remove him from network coverage was made . She must have convinced them .

Irvin has two witnesses that supposedly saw the incident, said that it was brief and appeared friendly, so who knows.

And there's more twists to the story. The hotel is claiming that they weren't the ones that made the decision to remove Irvin from the property, that it was the league's call:

“The NFL investigator then asked to review the video and the Hotel allowed her to do so,” Marriott’s lawyers wrote. “Following her review of the video, the NFL investigator escalated the matter and additional NFL personnel quickly arrived at the Hotel.”

Marriott’s lawyers contend that, from this point forward, the NFL took over the situation, culminating in Irvin being removed from the hotel.

And then there's this:

There’s one more wrinkle to watch. ESPN at some point decided to take Irvin off the air. Where and how and when did ESPN get its information? Did it come from Marriott, or did it come from the NFL directly?

And so, while the core questions in this matter flow from what was said and done by Irvin during his interaction with the unnamed Marriott employee, important collateral questions exist regarding the things the NFL did to explore the situation, the things said by and between NFL and Marriott employees, and the things possibly said by and between NFL and/or Marriott employees and ESPN.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ma ... r-AA18wrXJ

It's a pretty confused mess. Unless the video as a decent audio to go along with it, which seems unlikely, it's going to boil down to one of those he said, she said, take your pick as to who to believe things.

[c_hawkbob]

I am much more inclined to believe the Hotel and NFL security version of events than a too drunk to remember Irvin and a couple of his sycophant posse members saying "aw it was nothing".

[RiverDog]

I am much more inclined to believe the Hotel and NFL security version of events than a too drunk to remember Irvin and a couple of his sycophant posse members saying "aw it was nothing".

We don't know who Irvin's witnesses are, if they were close associates of Irvin's or not, nor do we know anything about the employee that complained. And as far as I know, no one's been put under oath or given a deposition.

Having said that, if I had to guess, I would say that Irvin probably did say something very inappropriate for both the hotel staff and league officials to have reacted in the manner that they did. And apparently, they do have video of him making an unwanted physical contact with the employee that would tend to support the employee's version as does Irvin's admission that he'd been drinking and didn't remember the incident.

One thing that I thought was completely uncalled for was Irvin's rant comparing his ordeal with that of blacks being lynched over a white woman's accusation over a half century ago. Utterly classless to play the race card like that. If I had any respect for the man before, it's gone now.

[c_hawkbob]

Never had any to lose myself.

[RiverDog]

Never had any to lose myself.

Hehe. I did say "if" I had any respect for him.

[Hawktawk]

Never had any to lose myself.

“RD.
Hehe. I did say "if" I had any respect for him.[/quote]

Lol. Yeah he defamed himself long before this . One thing I failed to mention is that the woman alleges and has witnesses he told her “ I’ll come find you when you’re working “

that would prompt the hotel change . Not sure how it works out but I believe the woman and her co workers . I can hear him saying this vulgar stuff with his goofy voice and I can’t unhear it you know ? He’s a fool .

[RiverDog]

Never had any to lose myself.

Hehe. I did say "if" I had any respect for him.

Lol. Yeah he defamed himself long before this . One thing I failed to mention is that the woman alleges and has witnesses he told her “ I’ll come find you when you’re working “

that would prompt the hotel change . Not sure how it works out but I believe the woman and her co workers . I can hear him saying this vulgar stuff with his goofy voice and I can’t unhear it you know ? He’s a fool .

Don't get me wrong about Irvin. I never have and never will like him, and I am not defending him in this instance. The man has zero credibility in my eyes, and yeah, I get tired of listening to his jive talk, too. His rant comparing his predicament to those awful, despicable incidents from decades ago was an insult to those of us that know anything about black history. A HOF'er worth millions trying to claim that he's the victim of this awful white man's world?

But I'm not going to believe the accusations of some random woman, either, at least not until I know something about her and have seen the evidence myself.

[RiverDog]

Irvin was able to obtain the security video and released it to the public:

https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/cowbo ... nce-video/

While it does show Irvin making at least one unwanted physical contact, I didn't see anything in that video that was particularly egregious on his part. Granted, there was at least one occasion when Irvin made an unwanted physical contact with the woman, but even that was very mild and not at all forceful, and there is the definite possibility that he could have said something very explicit and inappropriate, but I don't understand why she just couldn't have walked away at any point in the encounter as he was not blocking her intended path as she had no problem going past him once she decided to leave.

Am I missing something here? Believe me, I am no Michael Irvin apologist as I never have liked the man, but I'm having a hard time seeing that he did anything worth kicking him out of the hotel and subjecting him to such humiliation. I think he has a good case.

[Hawktawk]

In the video she’s seen stepping back forcefully away from him at one point as he’s touchingd her . She’s a well put together woman . He approaches her too . Beyond that the video proves NOTHING. I can’t even read irvins lips . It was a crude vulgar sexual come on , verbal , that is alleged along with brief unwanted touching . Finished up with “ I’ll come find you when you are working . Is NFL security a bunch of rubes ? On the take ? Anti Micheal irvin? I trust them to have looked as these allegations closely and taken the measure of this woman and her co workers . It’s enough of a filter for me. He’s charged with no criminal act. Hus hotel was moved and his employer made a decision to pull him ioff the air and he wants 100
Million . Talk about gold diggingj.

I believe her , period . She has witnesses ( fellow employees) who verify her version of events . He has a couple of likely drunk yee haws who saw him in the lobby and want to be part of The story . I don’t see them in this video . Who knows how it turns out but he’s done what she said and deserves nothing .

[NorthHawk]

That's the problem with proving his intentions and actions from that video.
Your perception is different from others so the onus is on the accuser(s) to provide convincing evidence. Short of that they can be in trouble regarding winning the case.
I still think it ends up with an out of court settlement.

[RiverDog]

That's the problem with proving his intentions and actions from that video.
Your perception is different from others so the onus is on the accuser(s) to provide convincing evidence. Short of that they can be in trouble regarding winning the case.
I still think it ends up with an out of court settlement.

That's just it. Irvin is the accused, and outside of the one brief, unwanted contact, I see nothing in that video that would indicate that that Irvin did what he's being accused of doing. They need something else, a witness statement, an audio or ability to see facial expressions, etc. The encounter could have been just as Irvin described it or it could have been something very lewd and inappropriate.

The big weakness in Irvin's story is that his initial claim was that he had been drinking and didn't even remember the encounter. It's pretty hard to go from that to remembering specific details about what did and didn't happen.

It's interesting that he's charging the hotel rather than his employer. I can't hardly blame the hotel for defaulting towards their employee. They always say to error on the side of safety, and if an employee comes to you in distress, you have to believe them and back them up. Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone so long as they aren't doing so by means of a protected status, ie race, nationality, sex, age, sexual orientation, etc. Where it gets touchy is what they told his employer and how they responded. But at this point, if I were a juror, I wouldn't hold the hotel as being liable.

[c_hawkbob]

Irvin is the accuser isn't he? He's the one filing suit. The onus of 'proof' is on him.

[RiverDog]

Irvin is the accuser isn't he? He's the one filing suit. The onus of 'proof' is on him.

I'm not sure how that works. If he's suing the hotel, which is how it stands now, then IMO it's the hotel that's being accused, which is why I say that I don't think he can argue that he shouldn't have been given the boot as I firmly believe that you stand by your employee, and there's nothing in the law that I'm aware of that establishes any kind of standard for refusing service other than protected status.

But what was it that the hotel told Irvin's employer that caused them to react by taking him off the air? Did they tell them that they were ejecting him because he said something lewd and inappropriate, which I would think that they'd have to prove, or did they simply say that they received a complaint from an employee and left it at that?

IMO if the hotel told the league that Irvin behaved in some sort of manner which caused the league to react, then I'd think that Irvin would have a good case as there is very little evidence that he did. But I'm no lawyer, either.

[RiverDog]

I believe her , period . She has witnesses ( fellow employees) who verify her version of events . He has a couple of likely drunk yee haws who saw him in the lobby and want to be part of The story . I don’t see them in this video . Who knows how it turns out but he’s done what she said and deserves nothing .

She has no witnesses that can verify her version of the event. If you have information to the contrary, please enlighten us.

What she has is witnesses that saw her upset and distraught when she returned from the encounter. That doesn't validate her claims.

As far as who I believe, judging by Irvin's past and by his admission that he'd been drinking enough to where he couldn't recall the event, I would tend to lean towards the female, too, but not enough to meet the threshold of a criminal or civil conviction.

[c_hawkbob]

Irvin is the accuser isn't he? He's the one filing suit. The onus of 'proof' is on him.

I'm not sure how that works. If he's suing the hotel, which is how it stands now, then IMO it's the hotel that's being accused, which is why I say that I don't think he can argue that he shouldn't have been given the boot as I firmly believe that you stand by your employee, and there's nothing in the law that I'm aware of that establishes any kind of standard for refusing service other than protected status.

But what was it that the hotel told Irvin's employer that caused them to react by taking him off the air? Did they tell them that they were ejecting him because he said something lewd and inappropriate, which I would think that they'd have to prove, or did they simply say that they received a complaint from an employee and left it at that?

IMO if the hotel told the league that Irvin behaved in some sort of manner which caused the league to react, then I'd think that Irvin would have a good case as there is very little evidence that he did. But I'm no lawyer, either.

Yeahbuts aside the onus of proof is always on the accuser.

[NorthHawk]

And she accused him of behavior that warranted removal from the hotel.
Therefore the hotel has to prove his actions were that egregious.

[RiverDog]

And she accused him of behavior that warranted removal from the hotel.
Therefore the hotel has to prove his actions were that egregious.

The hotel doesn't have to prove squat. So long as they are not discriminating on the basis of a protected status, ie race, national origin, etc, they have the right to refuse service to anyone, period. It's plastered all of the walls of many establishments. That's how they can get away with things like dress codes and removing from their premises customers for what they deem as obscene language or other bad behavior that's not necessarily illegal. That's why they call them "guests". They are on the private property at the pleasure of the owner.

But if they told Irvin's employer of his alleged behavior, ie sexual harassment or some other behavior that could damage his career, without having any concrete evidence, they could be liable for damages. That's why it's important to know exactly what it is that they told the league, NFL Network, et al.

Or at least that's my take. I have to keep qualifying my opinion by noting that I'm not a lawyer.

[Hawktawk]

And she accused him of behavior that warranted removal from the hotel.
Therefore the hotel has to prove his actions were that egregious.

There has to be more . More to the irvin story imo . He is as recognizable as anyone on the air . This woman says this happened and BOOM he’s off the air and hotel moved . Why he’s not suing the NFL is beyond me . They took him off the air . With the track record of Irvin over the years it’s likely not good he’s arriving at a hotel liquored up to the point he can’t remember a conversation he thinks was about football in the first place . The woman was personally interviewed by league investigators , they obviously had no doubt about her credibility

Is there other stuff he’s done that isn’t public that caused what I would call a very swift abrupt action by his EMPLOYER ? .

Why do that to an employee in excellent standing based on one allegation of verbal misconduct of a sexual nature . He’s not accused of rape or assault . He was accused of being a drunk filthy dirty old man by an employee . Beyond that it was the leagues call .
And one more time what’s the woman’s game ? Make a decision after an encounter with irvin to just make up a bunch of stuff ? Come up with vulgar lies to tarnish Irvin for no reason whatever? She’s remained private , wants no publicity , doesn’t seem inclined to pursue any money ? What’s her gig ? Why do this ? Eagles fan ? You guys are smart . You can figure this out . Drunk old pervert got called out and it appears his network had seen enough . He may get money for being a drunken pervert but it’s not right if he does .

[c_hawkbob]

And she accused him of behavior that warranted removal from the hotel.
Therefore the hotel has to prove his actions were that egregious.

Nonsense. As far as the court is concerned this case was brought by Irvin claiming he's been treated unfairly. Irvin is the one that has to prove his case. She didn't accuse him of anything in court, if she had she'd be having to prove her case.

[jshawaii22]

This is civil, not criminal, so if the case actually made it to court, neither side has to 100% prove their case. They can and do win with a 51% - 49% advantage with a jury.
The point is, right now it's a "he said, she said" complaint because the security video doesn't have any audio.

As long as she doesn't cave in and admit she overblew the entire situation during discovery, I doubt it gets to court. Either way, I doubt the hotel can be held liable for just tossing him out. They have that right. Possibly, It's what she (as an employee) or the hotel did after the fact that really matters in the case.

[obiken]

This is civil, not criminal, so if the case actually made it to court, neither side has to 100% prove their case. They can and do win with a 51% - 49% advantage with a jury.
The point is, right now it's a "he said, she said" complaint because the security video doesn't have any audio.

As long as she doesn't cave in and admit she overblew the entire situation during discovery, I doubt it gets to court. Either way, I doubt the hotel can be held liable for just tossing him out. They have that right. Possibly, It's what she (as an employee) or the hotel did after the fact that really matters in the case.

Thats all it in a nutshell.

[HawkSis]

I met this douchebag at a Lakers game and he was one of the most rude and arrogant individuals with whom I’ve interacted. I would hate to be famous, for sure, but when you are hanging out on the ground floor after a Laker game, people are gonna see you and interact. I’m not sure of the details with this specific incident, and will add that I think he’s a super low quality human being. Doesn’t mean he’s guilty, but he is, in fact, a douchebag.

[RiverDog]

I met this douchebag at a Lakers game and he was one of the most rude and arrogant individuals with whom I’ve interacted. I would hate to be famous, for sure, but when you are hanging out on the ground floor after a Laker game, people are gonna see you and interact. I’m not sure of the details with this specific incident, and will add that I think he’s a super low quality human being. Doesn’t mean he’s guilty, but he is, in fact, a douchebag.

Your experience with him doesn't surprise me a bit. There's no doubt in my mind that Irvin is a douchebag, and there hasn't been anyone in here that has commented on the subject that has said otherwise. For my part, my argument has been more of a legal one rather than a moral or ethical one. As you said, j/b he's an A-hole doesn't mean that he did what he's being accused of.

[HawkSis]

Agreed, RD. I was surprised at my initial reaction…. Believing the worst because he’s an ass and has had other scrapes… but w/o knowing what is actually what. I came to my senses and am letting it play out. I’m glad you read my post the way you did. Not saying he’s guilty of this, and he’s a douchebag.