vilma lawsuit names def asst mike cerullo as whistleblower (1 Viewer)

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

News to me. Found this googling on he latest news. Surprised no media coverage to speak of on this.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/02/vilma-suit-outs-mike-cerullo-as-bounty-whistleblower/

Vilma suit outs Mike Cerullo as bounty whistleblower

Posted by Mike Florio on July 2, 2012, 8:17 AM EDT

The latest Jonathan Vilma lawsuit blows the whistle on many things regarding the bounty investigation. It also blows the whistle on the notorious whistleblower.

Though it’s been widely rumored that former Saints defensive assistant Mike Cerullo is the person who resurrected the bounty probe by reaching out to the league office in 2011, Vilma’s civil complaint makes it clear that Vilma believes Cerullo created the present mess.

Vilma also believes that Cerullo is acting out of spite. At paragraph 105 of the complaint, Vilma alleges that the Saints fired Cerullo after he “disappear[ed] from the Club during the 2009 Season and provid[ed] a pretextual excuse that was shown to be inaccurate” and he “disappear[ed] from the Club during the week leading up to the Super Bowl in 2010, again giving a pretextual excuse that was shown to be inaccurate.”

After the Super Bowl win, Cerullo received “a cubic zirconia Super Bowl ring facsimile rather than a genuine Super Bowl ring, for which Cerullo has strenuously and vehemently expressed his resentment.”

At paragraph 106, Vilma alleges that Cerullo “pledged revenge against the Saints,” and particularly against assistant head coach/linebackers coach Joe Vitt.

At paragraphs 107 and 108, Vilma alleges that the NFL “relied principally upon Cerullo’s statements” during the bounty investigation, and that the disciplinary decisions were based on the results of “multiple interviews” of Cerullo.

At paragraph 109, Vilma claims that Cerullo “retracted his previous claims” during an April 2012 communication with Goodell.

At paragraph 124, Vilma alleges that Cerullo created the notes regarding the persons who pledged money to the Brett Favre bounty “well after the 2009 NFC Championship Game and in an effort to gain revenge against the Saints for terminating his employment.”

If Vilma’s allegations are true, the bounty case against him and the other players has been seriously undermined.

It’s not the first time a disgruntled former employee has caused problems for the Saints. Former director of security Geoffrey Santini brought to light the Vicodin scandal that ensnared Vitt and coach Sean Payton. Also, it’s believed that a disgruntled former Saints employee provided information to ESPN regarding the fairly recent (but already largely forgotten) claim that G.M. Mickey Loomis had the ability to eavesdrop on opposing coaches.

And so the broader message to the Saints organization is either that they need to treat their employees better, so that they don’t become disgruntled and share secrets with others, or that they need to do a better job of screening applicants who could eventually tell lies about the organization. Or perhaps both.

For the league, the broader message is that there’s no longer any reason to protect Cerullo. He has been outed in a federal lawsuit. Release his notes and the summaries of all interviews to the players and their lawyers, and let’s see what Cerullo had to say.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Love to hear more on the odd yet vague allegations surrounding the guy going awol A few times? The CZ super bowl ring replica is such a Benson move!

 

[Hoss Style]

Nice find.

If some of those "Vilma alleges" and "Vilma claims" are true then I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of Curello's mouth. He has motive in heaps.

I could easily see someone in his position exaggerating the situation greatly.

Maybe this is why the NFL has held their "evidence" close to the vest? Maybe they know most of it isn't credible?

I anxiously await the League's next move.

 

[Sea Duck]

What's the story behind Cerullo allegedly disappearing from the team??

 

[Pots]

A CZ replica ring? Really New Orleans? What a classy organization

 

[Autumn Wind]

Wait, so it wasn't Jeremy Shockey after all?

 

[GregR]

When you have a single person's account and nothing more, you just have to decide whether to trust it or not. That isn't the case here.

Cerullo may be the one who restarted the investigation. But the NFL had additional, independent sources. Their accounts agreed.

The physical evidence that Cerullo would have no hand in, like the emails, the Gregg Williams tape, and even the players own admission that they were running such a pool agree with the accounts.

So we have this a very large amount of the story that has been verified, including by the players themselves. The only part of it the players themselves are saying is not true is that there were bounties (as opposed to performance bonuses).

We already know definitely there were bounties, we heard one being offered on the Gregg Williams tape, so that alone immediately casts the player's claims in a doubtful light.

Now if someone is going to trot out the "this guy is disgruntled and made it up"... obviously the bulk of it happened. Even without seeing the entirety of the NFL's evidence we know the bounties happened because we've heard the audio tape. So if everything else is true, why should I believe that Cerullo would make up the parts about Vilma and company? Were they the ones that fired Cerullo? Were they the ones that decided to give him cubic zirconium in his super bowl ring?

It strains credibility to think he was right about so much else but then decided to target the players with his only made up stuff. And that's not even taking into account that he wasn't the only person who testified what went on.

So no, this isn't a big deal to me. I saw this when it first came out and it wasn't a big deal then. Of course the players are going to claim it was all the delusions of a disgruntled employee. Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he can't tell the truth though. And we know so much of what he said was the truth, I don't see why I wouldn't believe him on the role of the players in it all.

 

[cobalt_27]

When you have a single person's account and nothing more, you just have to decide whether to trust it or not. That isn't the case here.Cerullo may be the one who restarted the investigation. But the NFL had additional, independent sources. Their accounts agreed.The physical evidence that Cerullo would have no hand in, like the emails, the Gregg Williams tape, and even the players own admission that they were running such a pool agree with the accounts.So we have this a very large amount of the story that has been verified, including by the players themselves. The only part of it the players themselves are saying is not true is that there were bounties (as opposed to performance bonuses).We already know definitely there were bounties, we heard one being offered on the Gregg Williams tape, so that alone immediately casts the player's claims in a doubtful light.Now if someone is going to trot out the "this guy is disgruntled and made it up"... obviously the bulk of it happened. Even without seeing the entirety of the NFL's evidence we know the bounties happened because we've heard the audio tape. So if everything else is true, why should I believe that Cerullo would make up the parts about Vilma and company? Were they the ones that fired Cerullo? Were they the ones that decided to give him cubic zirconium in his super bowl ring?It strains credibility to think he was right about so much else but then decided to target the players with his only made up stuff. And that's not even taking into account that he wasn't the only person who testified what went on.So no, this isn't a big deal to me. I saw this when it first came out and it wasn't a big deal then. Of course the players are going to claim it was all the delusions of a disgruntled employee. Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he can't tell the truth though. And we know so much of what he said was the truth, I don't see why I wouldn't believe him on the role of the players in it all.

Eloquently stated. Clear-thinking people on this matter obviously know a bounty system was in place. What interferes with a lot of folks' thinking here is they were, and are, so pro union/player and anti-establishment/league that they will believe anything, make up any story, suspend reality, all in the name of objecting to Goodell's aurhority and expression of it.

 

[Phenix]

A CZ replica ring? Really New Orleans? What a classy organization

Thats what you have to say, not the fact that a guy is lying to hurt a NFL team, but the fact that said liar got a CZ ring?So sad this is what people notice, but maybe his antics is what got him the CZ ring, did you think of that?

 

[Phenix]

When you have a single person's account and nothing more, you just have to decide whether to trust it or not. That isn't the case here.Cerullo may be the one who restarted the investigation. But the NFL had additional, independent sources. Their accounts agreed.The physical evidence that Cerullo would have no hand in, like the emails, the Gregg Williams tape, and even the players own admission that they were running such a pool agree with the accounts.So we have this a very large amount of the story that has been verified, including by the players themselves. The only part of it the players themselves are saying is not true is that there were bounties (as opposed to performance bonuses).We already know definitely there were bounties, we heard one being offered on the Gregg Williams tape, so that alone immediately casts the player's claims in a doubtful light.Now if someone is going to trot out the "this guy is disgruntled and made it up"... obviously the bulk of it happened. Even without seeing the entirety of the NFL's evidence we know the bounties happened because we've heard the audio tape. So if everything else is true, why should I believe that Cerullo would make up the parts about Vilma and company? Were they the ones that fired Cerullo? Were they the ones that decided to give him cubic zirconium in his super bowl ring?It strains credibility to think he was right about so much else but then decided to target the players with his only made up stuff. And that's not even taking into account that he wasn't the only person who testified what went on.So no, this isn't a big deal to me. I saw this when it first came out and it wasn't a big deal then. Of course the players are going to claim it was all the delusions of a disgruntled employee. Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he can't tell the truth though. And we know so much of what he said was the truth, I don't see why I wouldn't believe him on the role of the players in it all.

Eloquently stated. Clear-thinking people on this matter obviously know a bounty system was in place. What interferes with a lot of folks' thinking here is they were, and are, so pro union/player and anti-establishment/league that they will believe anything, make up any story, suspend reality, all in the name of objecting to Goodell's aurhority and expression of it.

Easy to see you are not clear thinking people, because to bad the appeals court and a judge in a the court of law (from statements she shared and were revealed on PFT) do not think so.

 

[cobalt_27]

When you have a single person's account and nothing more, you just have to decide whether to trust it or not. That isn't the case here.Cerullo may be the one who restarted the investigation. But the NFL had additional, independent sources. Their accounts agreed.The physical evidence that Cerullo would have no hand in, like the emails, the Gregg Williams tape, and even the players own admission that they were running such a pool agree with the accounts.So we have this a very large amount of the story that has been verified, including by the players themselves. The only part of it the players themselves are saying is not true is that there were bounties (as opposed to performance bonuses).We already know definitely there were bounties, we heard one being offered on the Gregg Williams tape, so that alone immediately casts the player's claims in a doubtful light.Now if someone is going to trot out the "this guy is disgruntled and made it up"... obviously the bulk of it happened. Even without seeing the entirety of the NFL's evidence we know the bounties happened because we've heard the audio tape. So if everything else is true, why should I believe that Cerullo would make up the parts about Vilma and company? Were they the ones that fired Cerullo? Were they the ones that decided to give him cubic zirconium in his super bowl ring?It strains credibility to think he was right about so much else but then decided to target the players with his only made up stuff. And that's not even taking into account that he wasn't the only person who testified what went on.So no, this isn't a big deal to me. I saw this when it first came out and it wasn't a big deal then. Of course the players are going to claim it was all the delusions of a disgruntled employee. Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he can't tell the truth though. And we know so much of what he said was the truth, I don't see why I wouldn't believe him on the role of the players in it all.

Eloquently stated. Clear-thinking people on this matter obviously know a bounty system was in place. What interferes with a lot of folks' thinking here is they were, and are, so pro union/player and anti-establishment/league that they will believe anything, make up any story, suspend reality, all in the name of objecting to Goodell's aurhority and expression of it.

Easy to see you are not clear thinking people, because to bad the appeals court and a judge in a the court of law (from statements she shared and were revealed on PFT) do not think so.

I see your reading comprehension and/or understanding of what went down yesterday is severely impaired.

 

[Pots]

A CZ replica ring? Really New Orleans? What a classy organization

Thats what you have to say, not the fact that a guy is lying to hurt a NFL team, but the fact that said liar got a CZ ring?So sad this is what people notice, but maybe his antics is what got him the CZ ring, did you think of that?

It's so sad that you come to conclusions based on speculative biased sources and complain about someone pointing out something that wasn't being speculative.

 

[Hoss Style]

When you have a single person's account and nothing more, you just have to decide whether to trust it or not. That isn't the case here.Cerullo may be the one who restarted the investigation. But the NFL had additional, independent sources. Their accounts agreed.The physical evidence that Cerullo would have no hand in, like the emails, the Gregg Williams tape, and even the players own admission that they were running such a pool agree with the accounts.So we have this a very large amount of the story that has been verified, including by the players themselves. The only part of it the players themselves are saying is not true is that there were bounties (as opposed to performance bonuses).We already know definitely there were bounties, we heard one being offered on the Gregg Williams tape, so that alone immediately casts the player's claims in a doubtful light.Now if someone is going to trot out the "this guy is disgruntled and made it up"... obviously the bulk of it happened. Even without seeing the entirety of the NFL's evidence we know the bounties happened because we've heard the audio tape. So if everything else is true, why should I believe that Cerullo would make up the parts about Vilma and company? Were they the ones that fired Cerullo? Were they the ones that decided to give him cubic zirconium in his super bowl ring?It strains credibility to think he was right about so much else but then decided to target the players with his only made up stuff. And that's not even taking into account that he wasn't the only person who testified what went on.So no, this isn't a big deal to me. I saw this when it first came out and it wasn't a big deal then. Of course the players are going to claim it was all the delusions of a disgruntled employee. Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he can't tell the truth though. And we know so much of what he said was the truth, I don't see why I wouldn't believe him on the role of the players in it all.

I understand what you're saying, Greg. I wil readily concede that you may have facts I don't know about (or can't seem to find). So I respectfully disagree on a few points.It is indeed true that additional, independant sources would strengthen the charges. As far as I can find, though, the only other person that specifically states one of the suspended player's name is Gregg Williams. And he just says that Vilma put money into a pool. And that pool, from what I read on the NFL's site, has never been proven to be anything other than a pay-for-performance pool from the players viewpoint. Williams himself hasn't said that Vilma was looking contribute to injuries to players, from what the NFL has said.We've heard audio tape with Williams specifically stating to try for injuries. No where has any evidence been shown that players actually acted on that, that I can find. I'm looking at NFL articles as I type.I'm not saying whether I believe it or not. What I am saying is that the NFL has to prove it's case - and they're not (for some reason). Even the ledger in question - is in question. From what I've read the NFL provided copies of pages to prove their point. They didn't give up the ledger itself, correct? And the players are saying the entire ledger, as a whole, shows that the players never got paid specifcally to injure.If a player hits a QB hard enough, but it's legal, and the QB has to leave the game and the player gets a "prize" - that's not intent to injure by the player. That's encouragement by the coach for it. I've seen a few times where the NFL says that the players they suspended were "leaders" so that's why they got suspended. They "had" to know about it. What if they said to their teammates "Coach is crazy. Just play hard and clean and if you get a bonus, you get it. Don't actually try to injure, though".I just don't see all these other sources who agree that Vilma and others went out to injure people. You'd think that there'd be a smoking gun somewhere: The guy writing a book in the locker room much of the time. Audio tapes. Ledger books. Sources. Yet I've not seen one spot where someone can point and say that Vilma said, "Let's get Farve's leg" or "Let's get that injury and get our money" or anything even remotely close. All that evidence and not one spot where Vilma says anything? Sure, the NFL says they have it. But they just choose not to show it. Interesting.Again, you know more than I. I'm sure. I'm just going off of what I've read so far. Am I missing some clear evidence implicating Vilma or the others?

 

[Sea Duck]

A CZ replica ring? Really New Orleans? What a classy organization

Thats what you have to say, not the fact that a guy is lying to hurt a NFL team, but the fact that said liar got a CZ ring?So sad this is what people notice, but maybe his antics is what got him the CZ ring, did you think of that?

What did he lie about?

 

[Sweet Love]

Wait, so it wasn't Jeremy Shockey after all?

That's the first thought I had...did he even get a sniff in FA? Don't get me wrong, he isn't going to do much and carries baggage, but no more than guys like TO or Ocho did. I wonder how much the perceive involvement had anything to do with that?

 

[cobalt_27]

When you have a single person's account and nothing more, you just have to decide whether to trust it or not. That isn't the case here.Cerullo may be the one who restarted the investigation. But the NFL had additional, independent sources. Their accounts agreed.The physical evidence that Cerullo would have no hand in, like the emails, the Gregg Williams tape, and even the players own admission that they were running such a pool agree with the accounts.So we have this a very large amount of the story that has been verified, including by the players themselves. The only part of it the players themselves are saying is not true is that there were bounties (as opposed to performance bonuses).We already know definitely there were bounties, we heard one being offered on the Gregg Williams tape, so that alone immediately casts the player's claims in a doubtful light.Now if someone is going to trot out the "this guy is disgruntled and made it up"... obviously the bulk of it happened. Even without seeing the entirety of the NFL's evidence we know the bounties happened because we've heard the audio tape. So if everything else is true, why should I believe that Cerullo would make up the parts about Vilma and company? Were they the ones that fired Cerullo? Were they the ones that decided to give him cubic zirconium in his super bowl ring?It strains credibility to think he was right about so much else but then decided to target the players with his only made up stuff. And that's not even taking into account that he wasn't the only person who testified what went on.So no, this isn't a big deal to me. I saw this when it first came out and it wasn't a big deal then. Of course the players are going to claim it was all the delusions of a disgruntled employee. Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he can't tell the truth though. And we know so much of what he said was the truth, I don't see why I wouldn't believe him on the role of the players in it all.

I'm not saying whether I believe it or not. What I am saying is that the NFL has to prove it's case - and they're not (for some reason).

Actually, at least at this point, he doesn't. Goodell has been given authority by the mutually-agreed upon CBA to dole out punishments for behavior he feels represents conduct detrimental to the league. He doesn't really have to prove anything, which i'm sure is why only a smidge of evidence is out there, at present. Now, anything is arguable in the courts if you have enough sympathetic ears who will listen. And, that's in part what I believe is going on with the NFLPA who is going bat#### crazy over the amount of control they gave him. So, they brought the case before the arbitrator and argued successfully that the verbs and subjects contained in the commissioners' suspension papers didn't have all the Ts crossed and Is dotted. But, make no mistake...Goodell believes the evidence is damning enough to mete out severe punishments throughout the organization. You think he would do this, knowing the NFLPA is going to use every legal bit of leverage it can to strip him of the power it gave him, with just an email, a few sources, and a rallying cry per-game speech from the indefinitely-suspended DC? Not a chance. Goodell may be some things, but dumb he isn't. There's more here, and I think it in the players' best interest to leave it alone when he re-suspends them later this week. That said, I think he believes--and he might be right--that he does not have to prove his case, given the powers granted him by the NFLPA through the CBA.We shall see, right?

 

[Hoss Style]

When you have a single person's account and nothing more, you just have to decide whether to trust it or not. That isn't the case here.Cerullo may be the one who restarted the investigation. But the NFL had additional, independent sources. Their accounts agreed.The physical evidence that Cerullo would have no hand in, like the emails, the Gregg Williams tape, and even the players own admission that they were running such a pool agree with the accounts.So we have this a very large amount of the story that has been verified, including by the players themselves. The only part of it the players themselves are saying is not true is that there were bounties (as opposed to performance bonuses).We already know definitely there were bounties, we heard one being offered on the Gregg Williams tape, so that alone immediately casts the player's claims in a doubtful light.Now if someone is going to trot out the "this guy is disgruntled and made it up"... obviously the bulk of it happened. Even without seeing the entirety of the NFL's evidence we know the bounties happened because we've heard the audio tape. So if everything else is true, why should I believe that Cerullo would make up the parts about Vilma and company? Were they the ones that fired Cerullo? Were they the ones that decided to give him cubic zirconium in his super bowl ring?It strains credibility to think he was right about so much else but then decided to target the players with his only made up stuff. And that's not even taking into account that he wasn't the only person who testified what went on.So no, this isn't a big deal to me. I saw this when it first came out and it wasn't a big deal then. Of course the players are going to claim it was all the delusions of a disgruntled employee. Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he can't tell the truth though. And we know so much of what he said was the truth, I don't see why I wouldn't believe him on the role of the players in it all.

I'm not saying whether I believe it or not. What I am saying is that the NFL has to prove it's case - and they're not (for some reason).

Actually, at least at this point, he doesn't. Goodell has been given authority by the mutually-agreed upon CBA to dole out punishments for behavior he feels represents conduct detrimental to the league. He doesn't really have to prove anything, which i'm sure is why only a smidge of evidence is out there, at present. Now, anything is arguable in the courts if you have enough sympathetic ears who will listen. And, that's in part what I believe is going on with the NFLPA who is going bat#### crazy over the amount of control they gave him. So, they brought the case before the arbitrator and argued successfully that the verbs and subjects contained in the commissioners' suspension papers didn't have all the Ts crossed and Is dotted. But, make no mistake...Goodell believes the evidence is damning enough to mete out severe punishments throughout the organization. You think he would do this, knowing the NFLPA is going to use every legal bit of leverage it can to strip him of the power it gave him, with just an email, a few sources, and a rallying cry per-game speech from the indefinitely-suspended DC? Not a chance. Goodell may be some things, but dumb he isn't. There's more here, and I think it in the players' best interest to leave it alone when he re-suspends them later this week. That said, I think he believes--and he might be right--that he does not have to prove his case, given the powers granted him by the NFLPA through the CBA.We shall see, right?

That's the thing; I don't think he expected the fight he's gotten. I think he's scrambling to get his ducks in a row in regards to evidence. Just a gut feeling.Indeed, cobalt, we can agree on this - It will be interesting to watch this unfold.

 

[GregR]

When you have a single person's account and nothing more, you just have to decide whether to trust it or not. That isn't the case here.

Cerullo may be the one who restarted the investigation. But the NFL had additional, independent sources. Their accounts agreed.

The physical evidence that Cerullo would have no hand in, like the emails, the Gregg Williams tape, and even the players own admission that they were running such a pool agree with the accounts.

So we have this a very large amount of the story that has been verified, including by the players themselves. The only part of it the players themselves are saying is not true is that there were bounties (as opposed to performance bonuses).

We already know definitely there were bounties, we heard one being offered on the Gregg Williams tape, so that alone immediately casts the player's claims in a doubtful light.

Now if someone is going to trot out the "this guy is disgruntled and made it up"... obviously the bulk of it happened. Even without seeing the entirety of the NFL's evidence we know the bounties happened because we've heard the audio tape. So if everything else is true, why should I believe that Cerullo would make up the parts about Vilma and company? Were they the ones that fired Cerullo? Were they the ones that decided to give him cubic zirconium in his super bowl ring?

It strains credibility to think he was right about so much else but then decided to target the players with his only made up stuff. And that's not even taking into account that he wasn't the only person who testified what went on.

So no, this isn't a big deal to me. I saw this when it first came out and it wasn't a big deal then. Of course the players are going to claim it was all the delusions of a disgruntled employee. Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he can't tell the truth though. And we know so much of what he said was the truth, I don't see why I wouldn't believe him on the role of the players in it all.

I understand what you're saying, Greg. I wil readily concede that you may have facts I don't know about (or can't seem to find). So I respectfully disagree on a few points.It is indeed true that additional, independant sources would strengthen the charges. As far as I can find, though, the only other person that specifically states one of the suspended player's name is Gregg Williams. And he just says that Vilma put money into a pool. And that pool, from what I read on the NFL's site, has never been proven to be anything other than a pay-for-performance pool from the players viewpoint. Williams himself hasn't said that Vilma was looking contribute to injuries to players, from what the NFL has said.

We've heard audio tape with Williams specifically stating to try for injuries. No where has any evidence been shown that players actually acted on that, that I can find. I'm looking at NFL articles as I type.

I'm not saying whether I believe it or not. What I am saying is that the NFL has to prove it's case - and they're not (for some reason). Even the ledger in question - is in question. From what I've read the NFL provided copies of pages to prove their point. They didn't give up the ledger itself, correct? And the players are saying the entire ledger, as a whole, shows that the players never got paid specifcally to injure.

If a player hits a QB hard enough, but it's legal, and the QB has to leave the game and the player gets a "prize" - that's not intent to injure by the player. That's encouragement by the coach for it. I've seen a few times where the NFL says that the players they suspended were "leaders" so that's why they got suspended. They "had" to know about it. What if they said to their teammates "Coach is crazy. Just play hard and clean and if you get a bonus, you get it. Don't actually try to injure, though".

I just don't see all these other sources who agree that Vilma and others went out to injure people. You'd think that there'd be a smoking gun somewhere: The guy writing a book in the locker room much of the time. Audio tapes. Ledger books. Sources. Yet I've not seen one spot where someone can point and say that Vilma said, "Let's get Farve's leg" or "Let's get that injury and get our money" or anything even remotely close. All that evidence and not one spot where Vilma says anything?

Sure, the NFL says they have it. But they just choose not to show it. Interesting.

Again, you know more than I. I'm sure. I'm just going off of what I've read so far. Am I missing some clear evidence implicating Vilma or the others?

Appreciate the post Hoss. I wish more people were showing this much objectivity.

None of us know exactly what the evidence is, we can only go by what's been said and what's been released. Is it possible Cerullo made up aspects? Sure it is. But there's nothing about the situation to date that makes me think we should assume that is what happened given how much has proven to be true.

On some of the points you raised... IIRC the NFL provided typed copies of the ledger, yes. I think it's probably safe to say this was to help protect the identity of the whistleblower.

On the comments about the players saying the ledger shows they weren't paid to injure, and on the comment about being paid for a QB carted off... the ledger showed payments for cart offs. Now if you make a big clean hit and the guy gets carried off, right, that doesn't mean you necessarily had any intent to injure.

But if you have a "performance pool" that is paying for "cartoffs" specifically, then your performance pool is paying to encourage injuring the opponent. If they paid for "every big hit" and whether the player was injured was no factor at all, that wouldn't be the case. Apparently the Saints were paying for injuries though. Whether or not any players tried extra to create an injury doesn't change that those running the pool should be punished for encouraging players to create injuries.

As for not having any evidence that a player went out to create an injury... well first, I believe the NFL only punished for running the pool and for lying during the investigation. So as far as the suspensions, they really don't need to prove anyone tried to injure someone on the field, they just need to show that they were paying for injuries, and I believe they've done that.

But to share what I personally believe... for me, the Saints-Vikings game was clear evidence. I started out that game cheering for the Saints, as I had most of the season after having seen first hand the impact Katrina had on people's lives, and having been a part of helping the people who were evacuated to Houston.

But by the end of the game I was so disgusted with the obvious attempts to injure Favre that I started cheering for the Vikings. That was at the time the game was played, 2 years before any information about a possible bounty came out, I felt pretty certain they were trying to injure him, not just play physical.

Seeing things like a guy take nearly two steps to level a quarterback after a handoff were just ridiculous. By the end of the game Favre was running away from the line of scrimmage after handing the ball off because he knew they would cheap shot him. As I watched it live I thought Saints should have been ejected.

So when there is then an audio tape of someone saying to pay him his money after a potential knock out hit on Favre in that game, and a bunch of allegations come up - many proven true - that includes Vilma putting a bounty on Favre that game? Yeah, I see every reason to believe that's entirely likely it happened.

 

[cobalt_27]

When you have a single person's account and nothing more, you just have to decide whether to trust it or not. That isn't the case here.Cerullo may be the one who restarted the investigation. But the NFL had additional, independent sources. Their accounts agreed.The physical evidence that Cerullo would have no hand in, like the emails, the Gregg Williams tape, and even the players own admission that they were running such a pool agree with the accounts.So we have this a very large amount of the story that has been verified, including by the players themselves. The only part of it the players themselves are saying is not true is that there were bounties (as opposed to performance bonuses).We already know definitely there were bounties, we heard one being offered on the Gregg Williams tape, so that alone immediately casts the player's claims in a doubtful light.Now if someone is going to trot out the "this guy is disgruntled and made it up"... obviously the bulk of it happened. Even without seeing the entirety of the NFL's evidence we know the bounties happened because we've heard the audio tape. So if everything else is true, why should I believe that Cerullo would make up the parts about Vilma and company? Were they the ones that fired Cerullo? Were they the ones that decided to give him cubic zirconium in his super bowl ring?It strains credibility to think he was right about so much else but then decided to target the players with his only made up stuff. And that's not even taking into account that he wasn't the only person who testified what went on.So no, this isn't a big deal to me. I saw this when it first came out and it wasn't a big deal then. Of course the players are going to claim it was all the delusions of a disgruntled employee. Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he can't tell the truth though. And we know so much of what he said was the truth, I don't see why I wouldn't believe him on the role of the players in it all.

I'm not saying whether I believe it or not. What I am saying is that the NFL has to prove it's case - and they're not (for some reason).

Actually, at least at this point, he doesn't. Goodell has been given authority by the mutually-agreed upon CBA to dole out punishments for behavior he feels represents conduct detrimental to the league. He doesn't really have to prove anything, which i'm sure is why only a smidge of evidence is out there, at present. Now, anything is arguable in the courts if you have enough sympathetic ears who will listen. And, that's in part what I believe is going on with the NFLPA who is going bat#### crazy over the amount of control they gave him. So, they brought the case before the arbitrator and argued successfully that the verbs and subjects contained in the commissioners' suspension papers didn't have all the Ts crossed and Is dotted. But, make no mistake...Goodell believes the evidence is damning enough to mete out severe punishments throughout the organization. You think he would do this, knowing the NFLPA is going to use every legal bit of leverage it can to strip him of the power it gave him, with just an email, a few sources, and a rallying cry per-game speech from the indefinitely-suspended DC? Not a chance. Goodell may be some things, but dumb he isn't. There's more here, and I think it in the players' best interest to leave it alone when he re-suspends them later this week. That said, I think he believes--and he might be right--that he does not have to prove his case, given the powers granted him by the NFLPA through the CBA.We shall see, right?

That's the thing; I don't think he expected the fight he's gotten. I think he's scrambling to get his ducks in a row in regards to evidence. Just a gut feeling.Indeed, cobalt. We can agree on this - It will be interesting to watch this unfold.

I agree with this, and as Greg noted, your insights and concerns are appreciated.While I don't think Goodell expected the particular legal angles or aggressive spirit that Vilma in particular has put forth, it would shock me if he wasn't holding a bunch of evidence back at his discretion to be used if the fire gets hotter. I think even with what's out there, there's enough that clearly shows there was a pay to injure component to the performance/incentive based program. I don't think the saints were in the lab every week trying to think of new ways to maim or mutilate their opponents. Nor am I naive to believe they were the only team to have ever done this. Nonetheless, it seems pretty obvious they were actively engaged in this program and, thus, I really don't have any problem with--and in fact adamantly support--the severe punishments handed down. Personally, I felt they were too light in some cases. But, what's interesting to see moving forward is if there are limits to RG's ability to handle such punishments. That's what we might find out in the courts, sooner rather than later.

 

[Hoss Style]

When you have a single person's account and nothing more, you just have to decide whether to trust it or not. That isn't the case here.

Cerullo may be the one who restarted the investigation. But the NFL had additional, independent sources. Their accounts agreed.

The physical evidence that Cerullo would have no hand in, like the emails, the Gregg Williams tape, and even the players own admission that they were running such a pool agree with the accounts.

So we have this a very large amount of the story that has been verified, including by the players themselves. The only part of it the players themselves are saying is not true is that there were bounties (as opposed to performance bonuses).

We already know definitely there were bounties, we heard one being offered on the Gregg Williams tape, so that alone immediately casts the player's claims in a doubtful light.

Now if someone is going to trot out the "this guy is disgruntled and made it up"... obviously the bulk of it happened. Even without seeing the entirety of the NFL's evidence we know the bounties happened because we've heard the audio tape. So if everything else is true, why should I believe that Cerullo would make up the parts about Vilma and company? Were they the ones that fired Cerullo? Were they the ones that decided to give him cubic zirconium in his super bowl ring?

It strains credibility to think he was right about so much else but then decided to target the players with his only made up stuff. And that's not even taking into account that he wasn't the only person who testified what went on.

So no, this isn't a big deal to me. I saw this when it first came out and it wasn't a big deal then. Of course the players are going to claim it was all the delusions of a disgruntled employee. Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he can't tell the truth though. And we know so much of what he said was the truth, I don't see why I wouldn't believe him on the role of the players in it all.

I understand what you're saying, Greg. I wil readily concede that you may have facts I don't know about (or can't seem to find). So I respectfully disagree on a few points.It is indeed true that additional, independant sources would strengthen the charges. As far as I can find, though, the only other person that specifically states one of the suspended player's name is Gregg Williams. And he just says that Vilma put money into a pool. And that pool, from what I read on the NFL's site, has never been proven to be anything other than a pay-for-performance pool from the players viewpoint. Williams himself hasn't said that Vilma was looking contribute to injuries to players, from what the NFL has said.

We've heard audio tape with Williams specifically stating to try for injuries. No where has any evidence been shown that players actually acted on that, that I can find. I'm looking at NFL articles as I type.

I'm not saying whether I believe it or not. What I am saying is that the NFL has to prove it's case - and they're not (for some reason). Even the ledger in question - is in question. From what I've read the NFL provided copies of pages to prove their point. They didn't give up the ledger itself, correct? And the players are saying the entire ledger, as a whole, shows that the players never got paid specifcally to injure.

If a player hits a QB hard enough, but it's legal, and the QB has to leave the game and the player gets a "prize" - that's not intent to injure by the player. That's encouragement by the coach for it. I've seen a few times where the NFL says that the players they suspended were "leaders" so that's why they got suspended. They "had" to know about it. What if they said to their teammates "Coach is crazy. Just play hard and clean and if you get a bonus, you get it. Don't actually try to injure, though".

I just don't see all these other sources who agree that Vilma and others went out to injure people. You'd think that there'd be a smoking gun somewhere: The guy writing a book in the locker room much of the time. Audio tapes. Ledger books. Sources. Yet I've not seen one spot where someone can point and say that Vilma said, "Let's get Farve's leg" or "Let's get that injury and get our money" or anything even remotely close. All that evidence and not one spot where Vilma says anything?

Sure, the NFL says they have it. But they just choose not to show it. Interesting.

Again, you know more than I. I'm sure. I'm just going off of what I've read so far. Am I missing some clear evidence implicating Vilma or the others?

Appreciate the post Hoss. I wish more people were showing this much objectivity.

None of us know exactly what the evidence is, we can only go by what's been said and what's been released. Is it possible Cerullo made up aspects? Sure it is. But there's nothing about the situation to date that makes me think we should assume that is what happened given how much has proven to be true.

On some of the points you raised... IIRC the NFL provided typed copies of the ledger, yes. I think it's probably safe to say this was to help protect the identity of the whistleblower.

On the comments about the players saying the ledger shows they weren't paid to injure, and on the comment about being paid for a QB carted off... the ledger showed payments for cart offs. Now if you make a big clean hit and the guy gets carried off, right, that doesn't mean you necessarily had any intent to injure.

But if you have a "performance pool" that is paying for "cartoffs" specifically, then your performance pool is paying to encourage injuring the opponent. If they paid for "every big hit" and whether the player was injured was no factor at all, that wouldn't be the case. Apparently the Saints were paying for injuries though. Whether or not any players tried extra to create an injury doesn't change that those running the pool should be punished for encouraging players to create injuries.

As for not having any evidence that a player went out to create an injury... well first, I believe the NFL only punished for running the pool and for lying during the investigation. So as far as the suspensions, they really don't need to prove anyone tried to injure someone on the field, they just need to show that they were paying for injuries, and I believe they've done that.

But to share what I personally believe... for me, the Saints-Vikings game was clear evidence. I started out that game cheering for the Saints, as I had most of the season after having seen first hand the impact Katrina had on people's lives, and having been a part of helping the people who were evacuated to Houston.

But by the end of the game I was so disgusted with the obvious attempts to injure Favre that I started cheering for the Vikings. That was at the time the game was played, 2 years before any information about a possible bounty came out, I felt pretty certain they were trying to injure him, not just play physical.

Seeing things like a guy take nearly two steps to level a quarterback after a handoff were just ridiculous. By the end of the game Favre was running away from the line of scrimmage after handing the ball off because he knew they would cheap shot him. As I watched it live I thought Saints should have been ejected.

So when there is then an audio tape of someone saying to pay him his money after a potential knock out hit on Favre in that game, and a bunch of allegations come up - many proven true - that includes Vilma putting a bounty on Favre that game? Yeah, I see every reason to believe that's entirely likely it happened.

I appreciate your posts, Greg. It's enjoyable discussing it instead of cramming viewpoints down each other's throats.

I agree with you about that game, actually. I've only seen clips after the fact (I was working that Sunday) but I remember hearing about it from my buddy who's a hardcore Vike's fan. He was livid. Do you remember if any of the players up for suspension made any of those late hits? Vilma, in particular?

The reason I ask is because if not - I can't take that into evidence of their involvment in "intent to injure" schemes. I know you talk about the pool that was there with injuries as one of the tickets to a reward - but from everything I've seen it was all coaches organizing it. All I'd really need to see was any sort of language where Gregg Williams said to Vilma "You wanna put money in the injury pool?" and he says "Hells yeah!" I just don't see it. Maybe the NFL's still holding it. As far as I know Vilma thought he was contributing to the pool as a leader of the team and he let the coach decide what to portion it out for.

I see your viewpoint. I think the crux of the discussion is what the NFL knows and what they are holding. And that remains to be seen. I'll be watching as I'm sure you will be.

Good convo.

 

[GregR]

Agree about the convo being good.

With so many articles out there it's getting hard to find things with google anymore. I was trying to find any player quotes about the pool, and in doing so came across this article which had something I hadn't heard before:

A Saints source who testified during the league's investigation told ESPN's Ed Werder on Wednesday that he believed the league's findings are exaggerated. The source said that while the report said the program existed for three seasons, it was limited to playoff games in the Superdome against Arizona and Minnesota in 2009.

The source told Werder that the program began when Williams was concerned about creating a higher level of motivation for his defensive players as they prepared for the postseason. Before a team meeting, Williams told Vilma that he had a plan, and that the coach provided Vilma with the 10,000 dollars he offered to any teammate who knocked out Warner. The source said Vilma returned the money to Williams following the meeting.

According to the source, Williams believed the financial reward created the proper defensive mindset. So Williams and Vilma repeated the scenario the next week before playing the Vikings and Favre, who was the victim of several illegal hits, had to be helped from the field, but finished the game.

So I don't know, even when you have someone saying the extent of the pool was overstated, they say the $10k was offered and Vilma was involved. Beyond that, there are various quotes admitting that money changed hands between players in a performance pool, and they say they are only for interceptions, etc. But then the evidence and other testimony contradicts that and says knockouts and cartoffs are part of it. Sharper had a few interviews where he admits it was player money changing hands. I don't know if any of those specifically mentioned these 4 in particular in their role in funding or running it, but it seems even the media has found sources saying Vilma did the big $10k bounties.

 

[whatadai]

When you have a single person's account and nothing more, you just have to decide whether to trust it or not. That isn't the case here.Cerullo may be the one who restarted the investigation. But the NFL had additional, independent sources. Their accounts agreed.The physical evidence that Cerullo would have no hand in, like the emails, the Gregg Williams tape, and even the players own admission that they were running such a pool agree with the accounts.So we have this a very large amount of the story that has been verified, including by the players themselves. The only part of it the players themselves are saying is not true is that there were bounties (as opposed to performance bonuses).We already know definitely there were bounties, we heard one being offered on the Gregg Williams tape, so that alone immediately casts the player's claims in a doubtful light.Now if someone is going to trot out the "this guy is disgruntled and made it up"... obviously the bulk of it happened. Even without seeing the entirety of the NFL's evidence we know the bounties happened because we've heard the audio tape. So if everything else is true, why should I believe that Cerullo would make up the parts about Vilma and company? Were they the ones that fired Cerullo? Were they the ones that decided to give him cubic zirconium in his super bowl ring?It strains credibility to think he was right about so much else but then decided to target the players with his only made up stuff. And that's not even taking into account that he wasn't the only person who testified what went on.So no, this isn't a big deal to me. I saw this when it first came out and it wasn't a big deal then. Of course the players are going to claim it was all the delusions of a disgruntled employee. Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he can't tell the truth though. And we know so much of what he said was the truth, I don't see why I wouldn't believe him on the role of the players in it all.

Eloquently stated. Clear-thinking people on this matter obviously know a bounty system was in place. What interferes with a lot of folks' thinking here is they were, and are, so pro union/player and anti-establishment/league that they will believe anything, make up any story, suspend reality, all in the name of objecting to Goodell's aurhority and expression of it.

Easy to see you are not clear thinking people, because to bad the appeals court and a judge in a the court of law (from statements she shared and were revealed on PFT) do not think so.

Wait...you really think that this case went to an appellate court or any federal court? LOL.

 

[Team ROFLCOPTERS]

It strains credibility to think he was right about so much else but then decided to target the players with his only made up stuff. And that's not even taking into account that he wasn't the only person who testified what went on.So no, this isn't a big deal to me. I saw this when it first came out and it wasn't a big deal then. Of course the players are going to claim it was all the delusions of a disgruntled employee. Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he can't tell the truth though. And we know so much of what he said was the truth, I don't see why I wouldn't believe him on the role of the players in it all.

Nice post, although I'd counter that nobody "testified" and that a man went out of his way to blow the whistle, thus proving he has some axe to grind. If he has to name players or exceed the truth of something that nobody can substatiate in order to paint a culture and fill an agenda many men will do so. Everyone loves a good story and a villian. Also, everyone likes to feel vindicated.Also, the proof that is recorded has been rebuttaled by every ex player or NFL personality. They all unanimously claimed that that is a typical defensive meeting. These questions will all be raised by the Vilam defense in court.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

What's the story behind Cerullo allegedly disappearing from the team??

I'd love to know the back story on this. As it appears he did it on multiple weeks? Why not axe him on the first AWOL weekend during the NFL season. That just makes no sense to me...

 

[fatness]

When you have a single person's account and nothing more, you just have to decide whether to trust it or not. That isn't the case here.Cerullo may be the one who restarted the investigation. But the NFL had additional, independent sources. Their accounts agreed.The physical evidence that Cerullo would have no hand in, like the emails, the Gregg Williams tape, and even the players own admission that they were running such a pool agree with the accounts.So we have this a very large amount of the story that has been verified, including by the players themselves.

I've seen these things asserted over and over again. I have yet to see what has been verified about Vilma, Hargrove, Smith, and Fujita? I just see people assserting, and re-asserting, that the NFL has evidence on them.What has been verified about Vilma, Hargrove, Smith, and Fujita? I'll wait.

 

[fatness]

While I don't think Goodell expected the particular legal angles or aggressive spirit that Vilma in particular has put forth, it would shock me if he wasn't holding a bunch of evidence back at his discretion to be used if the fire gets hotter.

That's really a pretty good statement of where things are at this time. It's purely a matter of belief. You believe the NFL has clear evidence to back up their suspensions of 4 specific players. I don't believe they have it. Other people believe one or the other, or are just waiting to see. What I think almost all of us have in common is that we do not want Goodell suspending players for bogus reasons. That would truly undermine the game. I don't think anyone wants that, not even the most die-hard "the NFL can do whatever they want" advocates.With the number of appeals, arbitration hearings, and court cases coming up, we're going to get to see what evidence the NFL has on those 4 players. As of this moment, we haven't seen it.

 

[cobalt_27]

While I don't think Goodell expected the particular legal angles or aggressive spirit that Vilma in particular has put forth, it would shock me if he wasn't holding a bunch of evidence back at his discretion to be used if the fire gets hotter.

That's really a pretty good statement of where things are at this time. It's purely a matter of belief. You believe the NFL has clear evidence to back up their suspensions of 4 specific players. I don't believe they have it. Other people believe one or the other, or are just waiting to see. What I think almost all of us have in common is that we do not want Goodell suspending players for bogus reasons. That would truly undermine the game. I don't think anyone wants that, not even the most die-hard "the NFL can do whatever they want" advocates.With the number of appeals, arbitration hearings, and court cases coming up, we're going to get to see what evidence the NFL has on those 4 players. As of this moment, we haven't seen it.

You know we disagree most of the time, but here. If Goodell's evidence is as flimsy as George Bush's WMD evidence was, then, yeah....eff him.Still seems like what's out there is clearly suggestive of a bounty program, but it would be interesting to know what more they've got.

 

[Joe Summer]

Vilma's latest appeal includes a copy of Cerullo's "whistleblower" email

"So I have info on Saints Joe Vitt Lying to your NFL Investigators on Bounties from 2010, along with proof!!! I was there, in the cover up meetings, with players and Joe, I love the NFL and want to work there again, but I am afraid if I tell thge [sic] truth I will never coach again in NFL, But I was fired for a situation that the Saints encourage," the email reads, according to the website. "All I want is a Job back in the NFL as a QC Coach anywhere, so If talking to you jepodizes [sic] that I will have to get back to you, but The Saints are a Dirty Organization. Contact me."

Wow, what a d-bag. He's not a whistleblower, he's just a bitter and immature crybaby. He'll never work in the NFL again.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Vilma's latest appeal includes a copy of Cerullo's "whistleblower" email

"So I have info on Saints Joe Vitt Lying to your NFL Investigators on Bounties from 2010, along with proof!!! I was there, in the cover up meetings, with players and Joe, I love the NFL and want to work there again, but I am afraid if I tell thge [sic] truth I will never coach again in NFL, But I was fired for a situation that the Saints encourage," the email reads, according to the website. "All I want is a Job back in the NFL as a QC Coach anywhere, so If talking to you jepodizes [sic] that I will have to get back to you, but The Saints are a Dirty Organization. Contact me."

Wow, what a d-bag. He's not a whistleblower, he's just a bitter and immature crybaby. He'll never work in the NFL again.

All I want is a Job back in the NFL

jepodizes

The Jimmy Kennedy statement is extremely interesting too. I would very much like to see the Goodell affidavit saying that what Kennedy is saying is false, I doubt that will ever happen.

And so is appointing an ex-commish who works for the law firm representing the League to review the appeal.

This is a kangaroo court. If (if) this keeps going this way every American should be appalled at this injustice.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Vilma's latest appeal includes a copy of Cerullo's "whistleblower" email

"So I have info on Saints Joe Vitt Lying to your NFL Investigators on Bounties from 2010, along with proof!!! I was there, in the cover up meetings, with players and Joe, I love the NFL and want to work there again, but I am afraid if I tell thge [sic] truth I will never coach again in NFL, But I was fired for a situation that the Saints encourage," the email reads, according to the website. "All I want is a Job back in the NFL as a QC Coach anywhere, so If talking to you jepodizes [sic] that I will have to get back to you, but The Saints are a Dirty Organization. Contact me."

Wow, what a d-bag. He's not a whistleblower, he's just a bitter and immature crybaby. He'll never work in the NFL again.

Wait THE BEST PART:

the league allegedly deleted Aiello's response to Cerullo.

Are you ___'g kidding me.

 

[Vicktimized]

Vilma's latest appeal includes a copy of Cerullo's "whistleblower" email

"So I have info on Saints Joe Vitt Lying to your NFL Investigators on Bounties from 2010, along with proof!!! I was there, in the cover up meetings, with players and Joe, I love the NFL and want to work there again, but I am afraid if I tell thge [sic] truth I will never coach again in NFL, But I was fired for a situation that the Saints encourage," the email reads, according to the website. "All I want is a Job back in the NFL as a QC Coach anywhere, so If talking to you jepodizes [sic] that I will have to get back to you, but The Saints are a Dirty Organization. Contact me."

Wow, what a d-bag. He's not a whistleblower, he's just a bitter and immature crybaby. He'll never work in the NFL again.

All I want is a Job back in the NFL

jepodizes

The Jimmy Kennedy statement is extremely interesting too. I would very much like to see the Goodell affidavit saying that what Kennedy is saying is false, I doubt that will ever happen.

And so is appointing an ex-commish who works for the law firm representing the League to review the appeal.

This is a kangaroo court. If (if) this keeps going this way every American should be appalled at this injustice.

Well, all I keep hearing in this thread is how the NFL has multiple sources that verify the players and coaches are guilty. Of which, we're heard only two: Gregg Williams, whose career (and who knows, maybe even that of his son) rides on his cooperation ... and this maroon.Goodell's punishing based on what he THINKS happened and based on what's in the best interests of his league, as he's always done. Not at all unlike, "Hey, Mike Vick, screw Buffalo and Cincinnati. You're going to Philly behind two guys, because I want you out of the public eye. Or, maybe I'll just let you continue to serve your suspension?"

 

[Buffaloes]

A CZ replica ring? Really New Orleans? What a classy organization

there's nothing wrong w/ the guy getting a CZ ring.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Vilma's latest appeal includes a copy of Cerullo's "whistleblower" email

"So I have info on Saints Joe Vitt Lying to your NFL Investigators on Bounties from 2010, along with proof!!! I was there, in the cover up meetings, with players and Joe, I love the NFL and want to work there again, but I am afraid if I tell thge [sic] truth I will never coach again in NFL, But I was fired for a situation that the Saints encourage," the email reads, according to the website. "All I want is a Job back in the NFL as a QC Coach anywhere, so If talking to you jepodizes [sic] that I will have to get back to you, but The Saints are a Dirty Organization. Contact me."

Wow, what a d-bag. He's not a whistleblower, he's just a bitter and immature crybaby. He'll never work in the NFL again.

Wait THE BEST PART:

the league allegedly deleted Aiello's response to Cerullo.

Are you ___'g kidding me.

Agreed. That is destruction of evidence. I'm guessing they didn't fully wipe it, depends on how much discovery They allow.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

A CZ replica ring? Really New Orleans? What a classy organization

there's nothing wrong w/ the guy getting a CZ ring.

Depends if you've set a date or not.

 

[cstu]

A CZ replica ring? Really New Orleans? What a classy organization

Thats what you have to say, not the fact that a guy is lying to hurt a NFL team, but the fact that said liar got a CZ ring?So sad this is what people notice, but maybe his antics is what got him the CZ ring, did you think of that?

It's so sad that you come to conclusions based on speculative biased sources and complain about someone pointing out something that wasn't being speculative.

Seems perfect for the FFA!

 

[cstu]

"So I have info on Saints Joe Vitt Lying to your NFL Investigators on Bounties from 2010, along with proof!!! I was there, in the cover up meetings, with players and Joe, I love the NFL and want to work there again, but I am afraid if I tell thge [sic] truth I will never coach again in NFL, But I was fired for a situation that the Saints encourage," the email reads, according to the website. "All I want is a Job back in the NFL as a QC Coach anywhere, so If talking to you jepodizes [sic] that I will have to get back to you, but The Saints are a Dirty Organization. Contact me."

Wow.

 

[Hoss Style]

"So I have info on Saints Joe Vitt Lying to your NFL Investigators on Bounties from 2010, along with proof!!! I was there, in the cover up meetings, with players and Joe, I love the NFL and want to work there again, but I am afraid if I tell thge [sic] truth I will never coach again in NFL, But I was fired for a situation that the Saints encourage," the email reads, according to the website. "All I want is a Job back in the NFL as a QC Coach anywhere, so If talking to you jepodizes [sic] that I will have to get back to you, but The Saints are a Dirty Organization. Contact me."

Wow.

I wrote that email. (Or I might as well have).

 

[cstu]

"So I have info on Saints Joe Vitt Lying to your NFL Investigators on Bounties from 2010, along with proof!!! I was there, in the cover up meetings, with players and Joe, I love the NFL and want to work there again, but I am afraid if I tell thge [sic] truth I will never coach again in NFL, But I was fired for a situation that the Saints encourage," the email reads, according to the website. "All I want is a Job back in the NFL as a QC Coach anywhere, so If talking to you jepodizes [sic] that I will have to get back to you, but The Saints are a Dirty Organization. Contact me."

Wow.

I wrote that email. (Or I might as well have).

If you write that to a buddy it's one thing, but to the CEO of the company you work for? Not that someone has to be a Rhoades scholar to coach in the NFL but that's a complete lack of professionalism - especially when he's making such a serious claim.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A CZ replica ring? Really New Orleans? What a classy organization

there's nothing wrong w/ the guy getting a CZ ring.

Correct.Zirc rings are given out by all NFL organizations as part of rewarding staff for participating in a Super Bowl win.

Now I don't know what QC coaches typically do (assist the position coaches and coordinators, prepare or analyze film or the like I guess), or where they fit into the coaching hierarchy normally, but there is more to this. It's been a while since I heard about it all (so don't kill me if I don't have this 100% correct in the end) but then the Cerullo story has been on the wind here for quite a while. Supposedly in the midst of the championship run he disappeared from work, something like two or three times, without telling anyone where he was. One of the times might have been just before the Super Bowl or conference championship, again with no word he was going or where he was or why. It's possible that QC coaches ordinarily get the full on big time diamond encrusted ring, I don't know, but at any event considering they canned the guy it would not surprise me if they bumped him down a notch to reflect how they felt about his "contribution" and on the other hand you could also view it as very classy to give him a ring in the first place if his performance or behavior was so rotten to get rid of him altogether. Also the Saints were not exactly shirking people after the win, it was a huge deal, a city wide celebration that lasted weeks and people were being praised and rewarded everywhere, from the guy who changed the water to the temp who answered the phones.

Think about it like this: if a guy at your work got canned for not showing up with no word to anyone in the midst of a crucial project, he came back later and said, "Hey, where's my bonus?!?"

He's at UConn now, though I thought he ended up at Central Conn for a while, not sure about that. But he has been out of the NFL and that's what happens with a bad recommendation, and I think the NFL can be a pretty fraternal bunch and when you're out you're out.

Now, I would think most guys after something like that would be pretty damned happy to be able to showcase and show off a Super Bowl ring of any kind for the rest of their lives. Not to mention that you could put "Super Bowl" on your resume. But as we all know there are some people who just cannot be happy and cannot get over things. Now I ask you, what has all this done for his career?

I'd also be curious when the email was sent. If the guy is not totally illiterate, then the spelling errors and weird language might reflect his sending it late at night while loaded or under the influence and if not even so while in a rage. Oh yeah, along those lines, also there's a rumor afoot that somewhere along the line Cerullo took back or contradicted his story. We'll see about that, but the way things are going for the NFL and its "evidence" I would not be surprised.

 

[saintfool]

"So I have info on Saints Joe Vitt Lying to your NFL Investigators on Bounties from 2010, along with proof!!! I was there, in the cover up meetings, with players and Joe, I love the NFL and want to work there again, but I am afraid if I tell thge [sic] truth I will never coach again in NFL, But I was fired for a situation that the Saints encourage," the email reads, according to the website. "All I want is a Job back in the NFL as a QC Coach anywhere, so If talking to you jepodizes [sic] that I will have to get back to you, but The Saints are a Dirty Organization. Contact me."

Wow.

He could have sent the email from his phone.

 

[Hoss Style]

"So I have info on Saints Joe Vitt Lying to your NFL Investigators on Bounties from 2010, along with proof!!! I was there, in the cover up meetings, with players and Joe, I love the NFL and want to work there again, but I am afraid if I tell thge [sic] truth I will never coach again in NFL, But I was fired for a situation that the Saints encourage," the email reads, according to the website. "All I want is a Job back in the NFL as a QC Coach anywhere, so If talking to you jepodizes [sic] that I will have to get back to you, but The Saints are a Dirty Organization. Contact me."

Wow.

I wrote that email. (Or I might as well have).

If you write that to a buddy it's one thing, but to the CEO of the company you work for? Not that someone has to be a Rhoades scholar to coach in the NFL but that's a complete lack of professionalism - especially when he's making such a serious claim.

I agree with you. I guess as a little background for those that don't know:The email ctsu posted is from the "whistle blower" that contacted the NFL. It was recently revealed by Vilma's legal team in a court filing. The person that wrote it is Mike Cerullo. From what I've read there are a lot of shady actions from this guy during his time with the Saints. But to be fair, I always considered the fact that it might just be a PR angle from the Saint's side of things. But if this email is correct (and it seems it is) - coupled with his actions during and after being employed by the Saints...

I think I have as much credibility about the situation as Mike Cerullo does. I'm exaggerating, of course. But I don't know by how much.

 

[T J]

Vilma's latest appeal includes a copy of Cerullo's "whistleblower" email

"So I have info on Saints Joe Vitt Lying to your NFL Investigators on Bounties from 2010, along with proof!!! I was there, in the cover up meetings, with players and Joe, I love the NFL and want to work there again, but I am afraid if I tell thge [sic] truth I will never coach again in NFL, But I was fired for a situation that the Saints encourage," the email reads, according to the website. "All I want is a Job back in the NFL as a QC Coach anywhere, so If talking to you jepodizes [sic] that I will have to get back to you, but The Saints are a Dirty Organization. Contact me."

Wow, what a d-bag. He's not a whistleblower, he's just a bitter and immature crybaby. He'll never work in the NFL again.

All I want is a Job back in the NFL

jepodizes

The Jimmy Kennedy statement is extremely interesting too. I would very much like to see the Goodell affidavit saying that what Kennedy is saying is false, I doubt that will ever happen.

And so is appointing an ex-commish who works for the law firm representing the League to review the appeal.

This is a kangaroo court. If (if) this keeps going this way every American should be appalled at this injustice.

Well, all I keep hearing in this thread is how the NFL has multiple sources that verify the players and coaches are guilty. Of which, we're heard only two: Gregg Williams, whose career (and who knows, maybe even that of his son) rides on his cooperation ... and this maroon.Goodell's punishing based on what he THINKS happened and based on what's in the best interests of his league, as he's always done. Not at all unlike, "Hey, Mike Vick, screw Buffalo and Cincinnati. You're going to Philly behind two guys, because I want you out of the public eye. Or, maybe I'll just let you continue to serve your suspension?"

I think the NFL has a lot more evidence than you think. Sean Payton and Mickey Loomis getting suspended for a year and taking it without making a peep tells me all I need to know.