Michael Irvin will hold a press conference on Wednesday

Posted by Mike Florio on March 7, 2023, 9:58 PM EST
UFC 285: Neal v Rakhmonov
Getty Images

Hall of Fame receiver Michael Irvin hasn’t had much to say publicly in the four weeks since he was removed from NFL Network and ESPN after an allegation of misconduct at a Phoenix hotel. On Wednesday, he’ll be saying something — possibly plenty.

His lawyer sent out a notice on Tuesday that a press conference will be held on Wednesday morning in Dallas. Also in attendance will be attorney Levi McCathern and agent Steve Mandell. Irvin, per the release, “has also asked eyewitnesses to the alleged incident to be available.”

The press conference is happening a day after Marriott was required to respond to expedited discovery requests. Irvin possibly has now received surveillance video and other information that potentially helps his defamation case against the hotel chain.

Think of it this way. Would Irvin be holding a press conference if he and his lawyer believed the stuff his lawyer got from Marriott made his case weaker?

Either way, more information on the case is coming tomorrow.

Permalink 32 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

32 responses to “Michael Irvin will hold a press conference on Wednesday”

  1. I get the guy guy has a checkered past. But I think this was a hit job.

    Good for Mr Irvin standing his ground.

  3. No matter how this case plays out, you have to admire how aggressive Irvin is being in a high-stakes effort to save his reputation and career. Instead of laying low and letting the accuser frame the narrative, Irvin and his team are playing “no huddle offense”. If this works, it may change the way high profile people act when accused of wrongdoing.

  4. Well if he really wants to make a smash he’ll show us the video and make his statement

  5. He does have a record, be it awhile back. One things for sure, he didn’t physically assault anyone. So he obviously said something inappropriate. He did mention he’d been drinking… but there’s gotta be some evidence. I guess if the accuser went straight away to her boss, and said boss reported it pronto… But, that’s all speculation.

  6. Still over 4 weeks and NO TMZ type video has yet to surface..I’m leaning towards Irvin innocence because if Marriott has the video showing Michael doing something inappropriately they would have shown snippets by now to quell any public outbursts by Irvin…

  7. Irvin has not been removed from the NFL Network. He was never fired, continues to be employed to this day, and continues to make regular appearances. Irvin has not lost one penny because of this incident.

  8. Think of it this way. The NFL Network and ESPN believe what Irvin said was enough that they don’t want him around anymore … and Irvin said he’d been drinking and doesn’t know what he said. This is not about video, it’s about audio. Irvin I string to dig himself out of a hole he dug himself into. Remember, he was the one who went public with this, not Marriott or the hotel employee.

  9. Take note that these alleged witnesses had just had a photograph taken with Irvin outside of the hotel. Then we are supposed to believe that they walked back in together and were close enough to see AND HEAR what transpired between Irvin and the victim.

    Or is it possible that these witnesses are Irvin fanboys who will say anything on his behalf. When was the last time that a witness in a case took time out of their lives to attend a press conference? Most of time witnesses have to be subpoenaed just to get them to show up at trial.

  13. im not a huge michael irvin fan, i think hes kind of a loudmouth, but the more i read about this situation it really sounds like hes being railroaded here. hope he wins and the girl gets some punishment for false accusations.

  14. there needs to be more said about the sheer disturbing nature of this case, where a man can have his entire world turned upside down and his reputation attacked by a nameless and faceless person making a vague accusation.

  15. As I understand it the complaint the employee made was comments Irvin made and didn’t involve touching. Seems like they jumped the gun by banning him and kicking him out of the hotel with an allegation that appears to be impossible to prove.

  16. I’m hoping he succeeds in burying the hotel, and the accuser, because it’s obvious the video, and his witnesses, are backing up his side of the story. This rush to judgement society we live in has ruined many innocent people, and destroyed their careers, and it’s time for that to change. You’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but it doesn’t work like that anymore

  17. He should conduct the press conference outside the nearest Marriott.

  18. Regardless of his legal outcome, I hope this keeps him off the air. He’s right up there with Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless when it comes to loudmouth blowhards with nothing really substantial to say.

  19. He planned the press conference before the discovery evidence was viewed. He was drunk when he showed up at the hotel so he probably has no idea what he said or did. TMZ will have the video soon enough so we will see just how innocent or guilty he was in the lobby of the Marriott.

    If he cancels the press conference, that is pretty clear evidence. Either way, I’d like to see what really happened. Is this a woman just trying to get paid or did he really do something stupid?

  20. The NFL channel is way better with him off the air. Whatever happens let him go somewhere else like radio

  21. Not a fan of Irvin as a person, just not my cup of tea, but a great player.
    However what has been done to him, by Marriott & The NFL is an absolute disgrace, regardless of whether he is guilty of anything or not, until any proof of wrong doing, he should not have been suspended 😡

  25. The Hotel obviously was holding back the video evidence because it didn’t provide any evidence that something happened. This whole thing was likely verbal if it happened at all.
    Based on the eyewitness accounts there was no physical contact other than a handshake. The video probably shows nothing. So far I haven’t heard one account of anyone actually hearing the exchange between Irvin and the accuser. If there is no evidence he did anything inappropriate other than the accusations then this case will probably fall apart.

  26. kenmasters34 says:
    March 8, 2023 at 10:19 am
    can we go back to the days of “Innocent until proven guilty”?
    _______________

    Innocent until proven guilty applies only in a court of law. A hotel is free to protect it’s employees from harassment without a court verdict. An employer is free to determine if an employee has crossed the line of acceptable conduct according to the employer’s code of conduct. The court of public opinion is free to determine whether someone’s conduct is abhorrent as it sees fit.

  27. mrbigass says:
    March 8, 2023 at 8:53 am
    As I understand it the complaint the employee made was comments Irvin made and didn’t involve touching. Seems like they jumped the gun by banning him and kicking him out of the hotel with an allegation that appears to be impossible to prove.

    ——–

    Definitely seems possible. While It’s important that the hotel took the accusations seriously and trusted their employee, I think they didn’t need to speak to the NFL until the claim was investigated at a reasonable level. For example, did the hotel attempts to speak with Irvin first at least? They also could have sided with the employee and banned him from the hotel without calling the NFL. They have that right. Why call the NFL though? That’s the part that seems like overstepping.

  28. “If this works, it may change the way high profile people act when accused of wrong doing.”

    Sure. If you’re innocent, which Irvin seems to be. If you aren’t, then it may be best to keep your trap shut as to not incriminate yourself and anything you say can and will be used against you. Innocent people have nothing to hide and can scream from the mountain tops

  29. gibson45 says:
    March 8, 2023 at 11:00 am
    kenmasters34 says:
    March 8, 2023 at 10:19 am
    can we go back to the days of “Innocent until proven guilty”?
    _______________

    Innocent until proven guilty applies only in a court of law. A hotel is free to protect it’s employees from harassment without a court verdict. An employer is free to determine if an employee has crossed the line of acceptable conduct according to the employer’s code of conduct. The court of public opinion is free to determine whether someone’s conduct is abhorrent as it sees fit.

    ——-

    I think you mean if a customer has crossed the line. Of course, you are right, but if the same establishment that decided they don’t want your business calls your employer in an attempt to get you fired when they have no proof of your conduct then that’s overstepping.

  30. kenmasters34 says:
    March 8, 2023 at 10:19 am
    can we go back to the days of “Innocent until proven guilty”?

    93Rate This

    ——–

    Yes, Marriot and the woman are innocent despite the frivolous lawsuit until they are proven guilty. Irvin was not arrested and was not fired from his job. His rights are intact. His right to be drunk and belligerent at a hotel has never existed.

  32. bullcharger says:
    March 8, 2023 at 11:09 am
    gibson45 says:
    March 8, 2023 at 11:00 am
    kenmasters34 says:
    March 8, 2023 at 10:19 am
    can we go back to the days of “Innocent until proven guilty”?
    _______________

    Innocent until proven guilty applies only in a court of law. A hotel is free to protect it’s employees from harassment without a court verdict. An employer is free to determine if an employee has crossed the line of acceptable conduct according to the employer’s code of conduct. The court of public opinion is free to determine whether someone’s conduct is abhorrent as it sees fit.

    ——-

    I think you mean if a customer has crossed the line. Of course, you are right, but if the same establishment that decided they don’t want your business calls your employer in an attempt to get you fired when they have no proof of your conduct then that’s overstepping.
    ____________

    The hotel’s decision had nothing to do with not wanting Irvin’s business. Of course, it was not his business anyway, it was the NFL Network’s business, as Irvin was on an expense account. And the hotel was not attempting to get Irvin fired. Rather, it was protecting it’s employee. Additionally, don’t you think that the Network wants to know if it’s on air talent is out sullying the it’s reputation?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.