Barz, as I suggested earlier, this is also a difference between someone (assuming rumors are true, of course) who has done something that ESPN is legally required to deal with vs. someone who has done something which has legal consequences for that person but which has no legal consequence for ESPN. ESPN is legally responsible for its workplace environment and can be sued if it doesn't implement policies/action to end sexual harrassment which comes to its attention. If the rumors of repeated harrassment are true, I'm sure ESPN's lawyers would tell them that they have no choice but to deal with it decisively. OTOH, there is no legal reason for ESPN to fire someone who is under indictment, charged with a criminal offense outside of the work environment, etc. In that case, it is simply a matter of PR impact for ESPN. Does Irvin's criminal charge reduce the number of people who want to view ESPN shows? Will the public be satisfied with a suspension? Will the number of viewers offended by Irvin's conduct be outweighed by Irvin fans who think he is being treated unfairly by ESPN for what they view as a minor infraction?