Skip to content

Cornwell says Vitt never was accused of contributing to bounty pool

Joe Vitt AP

Every time the NFL releases its characterization of evidence regarding the bounty case against the Saints, questions about the credibility of the characterization instantly arise.

The biggest glitch has come in connection with Monday’s claim in a presentation to 12 reporters that Saints assistant head coach/linebackers coach Joe Vitt contributed $5,000 prior to the 2009 NFC title game.  Though it’s unclear whether the league contends Vitt pledged money to a bounty on Brett Favre or whether Vitt simply added his cash to the broader pool of money, his lawyer has provided to PFT a very clear and unequivocal response.

“The NFL has never, in multiple written communications and in three face-to-face meetings, accused coach Vitt of putting money into the program,” David Cornwell told PFT by phone.  Cornwell also said that, in one meeting with Vitt, NFL V.P. of Security Jeff Miller specifically said there was no suspicion or assertion that Vitt contributed to the pool.

It’s unclear why the NFL would now claim that Vitt contributed money, if he never was accused of doing so.  Regardless, the assertion that Vitt gave money generally tends to make more credible the contention that the pay-for-performance program crossed the line into a full-blown bounty system.

Even if it didn’t.

Permalink 24 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Cleveland Browns, Green Bay Packers, New Orleans Saints, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
24 Responses to “Cornwell says Vitt never was accused of contributing to bounty pool”
  1. drgreenstreak says: Jun 18, 2012 8:38 PM

    Everything about the Saints organization just reeks.

    Makes Al Davis’ theater 0f the absurd seem lame in comparison. I don’t believe anything anyone in Saints franchise says and am skeptical of what I see. Has nothing to do with fan affiliation or football at all. It’s a corrupt corporation and players like Brees are putting their reputation, integrity and popularity ($$$) on the line for what? Certainly not the truth.

  2. butch815 says: Jun 18, 2012 8:41 PM

    and people wonder why they didn’t get an invitation to be part of the 12.

  3. drboogerlips says: Jun 18, 2012 8:41 PM

    That’s because they are protecting him for testifying against the players. Pretty obvious.

  4. cakemixa says: Jun 18, 2012 8:42 PM

    Please, like any of those hand picked puppets for Goodell were going to question him on anything.

  5. evidenceprobe says: Jun 18, 2012 8:42 PM

    Wait vitt didn’t contribute money to the pool. Wait yes he did. Whatever makes the saints look worse and the nfl look less credible. Amazing. Here come the goodell fans

  6. thegreatgabbert says: Jun 18, 2012 8:54 PM

    No one has ever directly accused me of throwing a rock through the schoolhouse window back in 1993, therefore I must not have done it.

  7. evidenceprobe says: Jun 18, 2012 9:00 PM

    Difference being, they did directly accuse the players. On written evidence from a disgruntled employee. Btw, I just found a letter from a anonymous witness stating you did throw the rock. You are suspended a whole year without pay. Bazzinga!

  8. beerbudsnbevo says: Jun 18, 2012 9:06 PM

    God I’m sick of hearing about this crap.

  9. rabidmike says: Jun 18, 2012 9:17 PM

    The NFL is not putting on evidence in a court. Please stop holding them to that standard. I could be accused of stealing from my Co_workers and fired for cause, then beat the criminal case. Still not getting my job back.

  10. istateyourname says: Jun 18, 2012 9:21 PM

    AH-HA!! He said “the program”! Thank you Mr. Cornwall for testifying to the existance of the program. You may step down. (I don’t care you’re a lawyer not a witness, step down anyway.)

  11. acetw says: Jun 18, 2012 9:34 PM

    Interesting that this ‘should’ have been a HUGE part of the NFL’s case. Or maybe, WOULD have been had they manufactured this bit of paper before they made up the punishments…..

  12. petehemlock says: Jun 18, 2012 9:42 PM

    So who’s Woodward and who’s Bernstein?

  13. j0esixpack says: Jun 18, 2012 10:22 PM

    This is beginning to remind me of Watergate, but honestly, I’m not quite sure who Nixon is.

    I haven’t ruled out Goodell yet.

  14. grumblenflgrumble says: Jun 18, 2012 10:27 PM

    I feel like I’ve read the exact same article 3 times in a row, at least, in the last 30 minutes. It’s like when a kid double spaces his paper in school to make it appear like it’s 4 articles, er, pages long.

  15. nflfan555 says: Jun 18, 2012 10:50 PM

    I disliked the Saints for the bountygate scandal and I am really beginning to hate them even more for not just admitting what 99 % of the country believes they did. Admit, apologize and move on and it will be forgotten in a few years…

  16. jkaflagg says: Jun 18, 2012 10:50 PM

    Clearly a conspiracy exists against the Saints……

    ….There seems to be no reason in the world why the NFL should suddenly decide to gut one of it’s most popular franchises for no reason, but I’m sure the lawyers will manufacture something compelling…..

    Funniest thing about this whole sickening scenario is these big tough football players hiding behind their tiny mouthpiece lawyers……but after Ryan Braun skated on a technicality, it’s clear to all professional athletes that if you toss some bucks to a high priced lawyer, it will all go away…..it’s the new American way…

  17. gumerk says: Jun 18, 2012 10:53 PM

    – Exhibit 10: Transcription of notes from the Vikings game with these ominous line items: “$$ — QB out. QB out pool. $10,000 Vilma. $10,000 Grant. $10,000. Ornstein. Vitt $5,000.”

    Someone please explain to me why Charles Grant’s name was on a QB out pool when he was on injured reserve. That sounds like an oversight by a fabricator to me

    Cart-off. $1,000 due Roman Harper. This is directly from a power-point slide presentation from a defensive team meeting.

    When did Roman Harper cause an opposing player to be carted off? Why is there no on the field evidence of it? Why was he not even mentioned in the suspensions up to no? I sure don’t remember it. Information from NFLPA regarding NFL’s “evidence”_

    “Cart-off’ A “cart-off’ is simply a hard hit. It does not literally mean that a player was carted off the field. Coaches and players may use the terms “Knockout,” “Tapout,” “Blowups,” or “Hit Parade” to describe the same type of play.
    Gumerk is online now Add to Gumerk’s Reputation Report Post Edit/Delete Message

  18. billsfan1 says: Jun 18, 2012 10:57 PM

    If all of this didnt happen (not saying i know who to believe anymore) but why isnt WIlliams fighting this…

  19. sfsaintsfan says: Jun 18, 2012 11:17 PM

    joesixpack:

    Goodell is Nixon.

    Florio is Woodward AND Bernstein….

  20. houndog50 says: Jun 19, 2012 12:01 AM

    drgreenstreak says: Jun 18, 2012 8:38 PM

    Everything about the Saints organization just reeks.
    It’s a corrupt corporation and players like Brees are putting their reputation, integrity and popularity ($$$) on the line for what?
    ———————————————-
    Brees reputation and integrity went out the door with his continuous denials of knowledge of the program! Does he have his own private locker room? I think not! Brees is the biggest scumbag of them all!

  21. packhawk04 says: Jun 19, 2012 12:04 AM

    Dont worry folks. When training camps start to open, we wont hear a word of this anymore, even if its going on. Everyone knows what the saints did, even the saints fans who wont admit it. Once mike has something else to write about, this will go away.

  22. saintmac9 says: Jun 19, 2012 3:50 AM

    No evidence vilma should get his suspension put down to 6 games a season is too long when there is no hard evidence of him exchanging money

  23. ericof70 says: Jun 19, 2012 9:14 AM

    “No one has ever directly accused me of throwing a rock through the schoolhouse window back in 1993, therefore I must not have done it.”

    Your statement contains an admission of guilt. Vitt has offered no such thing. Furthermore, if among the ‘no one’s” of which you speak exist those who have accused other of throwing rocks and have stated the importance of doing so when discovered and it turns out that they release evidence of you throwing rocks but never accused you of doing so then the evidence must be questioned further by anyone who does not have independent evidence of their own.

  24. ericof70 says: Jun 19, 2012 9:16 AM

    “….There seems to be no reason in the world why the NFL should suddenly decide to gut one of it’s most popular franchises for no reason, but I’m sure the lawyers will manufacture something compelling…..”

    To strengthen their position for future lawsuits. This is blatantly obvious to the most casual observer.

Leave a Reply

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