Joe Vitt's Testimony Goes Public

[pherein]

The tone of the of New Orleans Saints linebackers coach Joe Vitt's testimony from Dec. 3's portion of the bounty hearings conducted by former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue took a sharp turn once Mary Jo White, the head of the NFL's legal team, questioned Vitt.

NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune recently acquired a copy of the transcript of Vitt's testimony in front of Tagliabue. Peter Ginsberg, lawyer for Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, first questioned Vitt in the proceedings and White followed for cross-examination.

This isn't a complete transcription, but it's an in-depth look at Vitt's cross-examination.

The tone of the of New Orleans Saints linebackers coach Joe Vitt's testimony from Dec. 3's portion of the bounty hearings conducted by former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue took a sharp turn once Mary Jo White, the head of the NFL's legal team, questioned Vitt.

NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune recently acquired a copy of the transcript of Vitt's testimony in front of Tagliabue. Peter Ginsberg, lawyer for Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, first questioned Vitt in the proceedings and White followed for cross-examination.

This isn't a complete transcription, but it's an in-depth look at Vitt's cross-examination.
View attachment 4994

Joe Vitt's anger, frustration and wit displayed in New Orleans Saints bounty appeals testimony | NOLA.com

Joe Vitt questioned Mike Cerullo's credibility during Paul Tagliabue's bounty hearing | NOLA.com

http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2013/01/joe_vitt-mary_jo_white_testimo.html

http://tracking.si.com/2013/01/30/joe-vitt-testimony-gregg-williams-coaches-bounty/?sct=uk_t2_a7

Benson threw out NFL investigators

During the Bounty Gate drama things were predictably tense at the New Orleans Saints compound.

When linebackers coach Joe Vitt testified before former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue on Dec.3, 2012, his verbiage was raw as he explained his version of various events.

Vitt’s testimony was secured by the Times-Picayune that laid out a scene in which a New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson kicked NFL representative Jeff Miller out of the facility.

Vitt starts by describing when Miller visited the team on November 5th when the Saints defeated the Eagles 28-13.

“He was down at the game two weeks ago against the Philadelphia Eagles, and he was on our sideline,” Vitt said. “And he was over with our director of security, Danny Lawless, and he started laughing at Danny a little bit and said, ‘Hey, maybe I should just go up to the sideline and say hello to Joe Vitt, he’d be glad to see me.’ And Danny looked at him and couldn’t believe it. He thought it was so funny, I guess, because I was just coming off my second game after my seven-week suspension.

“I guess it’s a joke. I guess it’s just a big joke,” Vitt said. “I can tell you, there’s no one in New Orleans laughing, and no one in our organization is laughing. I’ll tell you who is not laughing, is our owner Mr. Benson. Because Jeff Miller took a plane ride from New York down to New Orleans, and the way he talked to our owner, what he said to our owner made me want to throw up, to the point where Mr. Benson kicked him off the property and didn’t let him back on the property; the third time when I talked to Jeff Miller at the Hilton.

“And by the way, the second time I talked to investigators – I’m sorry, I forgot about this. The investigators, Jeff Miller in particular, acknowledged that I did not give any money to a bounty because he said to me, you know, we heard that your wife is so cheap that you have a hard time getting lunch money every day. That was his comment to me. And I said, well, your wife must have a pretty good sense of humor, too, with the clothes you’re wearing right now. So they acknowledged that.”

http://www.yardbarker.com/author/article_external/12792448?mailing_id=2149&linksrc=mb_right_col

So sorry to bring these things up. I think it means little to most, but important to us that teams we care about get accurate information.

 

[Joker]

what is Jeff Miller's relationship to Roger Goodell?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

So sorry to bring these things up. I think it means little to most, but important to us that teams we care about get accurate information.

Got the first part right. Even Tagliabue agrees NO did what it was accused of. Just a no win situation attempting to hold any players accountable due to Vilma's determination to litigate.

 

[Gumby]

Not sure I can believe this part.

Vitt also shared a text he received from Williams that read, "For your information, I've had 20-plus teams reach out to me saying that I must stand firm to take the heat because all teams do this. (Expletive) me."

I just dont think 20+ teams were paying for 'cart offs' and 'knockouts'.

And this is a bit of data out of context:

He also referenced the Los Angeles Times op-ed piece that said according to a study, the Saints ranked 31st in the NFL in injuries caused from 2009-2011.

That is a study/conclusion about aggregate injuries. The biggest problem with the pay-for-pain program was that it TARGETED SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS. Also includes ST and D players when the NO program was specifically run only on D side of the ball (only opposing O players would be targeted).

Considering you got Warner, Favre and Moore were all hurt (taken out or game affected) it seems like that is a high # of QBs in the one year. I would think if you analyzed those injuries by # of QBs and other star Offensive players; you might find a higher statistical # than 31. And that even if only 15 would be a pretty statistically significant indicator of something rotten.

At the end of the day; it does seem pretty conclusive/damning that the team did wrong. And it doesnt seem like Vitt learned much of anything from it. Sounds like without the threat of future punishment; he would have no problem with re-instituting the same thing. (I do think he is a good coach/good guy; but a slow learner in this area for sure)

And unlike the Pats camera-gate; it isn't like you are dealing with a 14-month old letter telling you to stop with the league not dealing with at least 3 other teams who violated the rule in the intervening timeframe. Williams can claim 20 other teams are doing it; but like I said - I dont think so; at least not like that (targeted and paying directly for pain instead of paying for 'good plays')

 

[crew1954]

Not sure I can believe this part.


And unlike the Pats camera-gate; it isn't like you are dealing with a 14-month old letter telling you to stop with the league not dealing with at least 3 other teams who violated the rule in the intervening timeframe. Williams can claim 20 other teams are doing it; but like I said - I dont think so; at least not like that (targeted and paying directly for pain instead of paying for 'good plays')

Lots of latitude within the parameters of that term.