Blowing the whistle on the bounty whistleblower is a waste of time

Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on April 11, 2012 at 8:07 PM, updated April 12, 2012 at 4:50 AM

The New Orleans Saints bounty probe is now more than a month old and it remains a hot-button issue, especially among Saints fans. The story continues to have legs. Just this week a report surfaced, identifying the alleged whistleblower in the probe. Since so many folks are consumed by the story and seem to have forgotten some key details, here's a quick refresher course:

sean_payton12182011.jpgWho turned in New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton and the others in bounty scandal? It doesn't matter at this point.

ORIGIN/BACKGROUND: The initial probe began in 2010 after the Minnesota Vikings alleged the Saints had a bounty program for their NFC playoff games against the Arizona Cardinals and Minnesota Vikings, according to Peter King's March 12 Sports Illustrated story. Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, linebackers coach Joe Vitt and defensive tackle Anthony Hargrove were interviewed by NFL investigators, according to the SI story. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said the league interviewed "numerous players and other individuals" and at the time everyone "interviewed denied that any such program existed." Goodell also seemed to indicate that the initial whistleblower was a single player, saying "the player that made the allegation retracted his earlier assertions."

The case was reopened late in the 2011 season after the received what it called "significant and credible new information" that suggested there was indeed a "bounty" program in place. League officials notified Saints owner Tom Benson of their findings just before the Saints' NFC playoff game against the Detroit Lions on Jan. 7. The investigation continued through the rest of the playoffs and into the 2012 offseason. League announced its findings on March 2.

EVIDENCE: The NFL report said the investigation was based on "multiple sources." Citing league sources, Mike Freeman of reported the league had more than one whistleblower.

After re-opening the investigation in late 2011, NFL investigators were given permission by Saints owner Tom Benson to access the club's emails. These emails formed the bulk of the 18,000 documents cited in the NFL report. The 50,000 pages of documents were simply the printouts of the emails.

This verified but I'm assuming the vast majority of the emails were irrelevant to the bounty program. It's unclear whose emails were confiscated and for how long but the NFL said some of them corroborated evidence gleaned from other sources and interviews.

NFL investigators can readily access any email that's been processed on the league's server. Even emails that were deleted can be retrieved.

And these NFL investigators are top-notch sleuths. Most are former FBI or law enforcement agents.

From what I've been able to gather, the information in the emails confirmed the evidence gleaned from outside sources and solidified the NFL's case. The emails were the proverbial nail in the coffin for the Saints.


MIKE CERULLO: The former coaching assistant was identified as the snitch by Alan Donnes, a New Orleans author and filmmaker who has connections to the Saints' inner circle, on a radio show on Tuesday. Other than hearsay and speculation, there's no proof Cerullo was involved in the investigation.

Cerullo was one of four coaching assistants on the 2009 Saints staff. The position is an entry-level gig which consists of administrative grunt work than actual coaching. Cerullo worked with the offensive and special teams staffs in 2007 and 2008 and became the assistant to the defensive coordinator in 2009, according to his bio. He was not retained for the 2010 season.

Team sources have portrayed Cerullo as a disgruntled ex-employee, who felt some members of the staff blackballed him from other coaching jobs. Cerullo now is a program aide for the University of Connecticut football team.

Is it possible that Cerullo was the one who supplied the "new and credible information" to the NFL late in 2011? Perhaps. But the timing would seem odd.

My take: In his three seasons with the Saints, I never spoke to Cerullo once so I can't vouch for his credentials or character. I can speak to this. In his role, he would definitely have access to the information needed to blow the whistle. Still, the timing seems odd. Why would Cerullo wait two years to rat out the Saints unless something happened last year to trigger it. Not ruling it out but it seems like a stretch.

SEAN PAMPHILON: The documentary filmmaker recorded the infamous audio tape which rocked the sports world last week. Some Saints fans believe Pamphilon, who gained access to Saints meetings because of his relationship with former Saints special teams standout Steve Gleason, leaked the audio tape to the NFL but NFL columnist Mike Silver, who wrote the original story, said the NFL "was unaware of the tape's existence until Yahoo! Sports posted its story early Thursday morning."

Freeman, however, tweeted that the NFL was aware of the audio tape but had not heard it. 

My take: I spent some time with Pamphilon during the past year and I do not believe he had any ill intentions toward the Saints. In fact, he was an unabashed Saints fan. Saints fans have blasted him for his role in the scandal but they're barking up the wrong tree here. Pamphilon is a good guy. I didn't agree with his decision to leak the audio tape but only because I think he should have been beholden to Gleason in that situation. But I respect Pamphilon and do not believe he was the one who turned in the team. The timeline doesn't add up.

JEREMY SHOCKEY: Former NFL player Warren Sapp accused the former Saints tight end of being "the snitch," a claim that Shockey vigorously denied. Shockey reportedly sought a formal apology from Sapp and his employer the NFL Network.

My take: Could be wrong but I never thought for an instant Shockey was involved. It's not his style and he really wouldn't have had much access to the information needed to make the case. Moreover, Sapp isn't exactly the soundest of sources.

CONCLUSION: Identifying the whistleblower is a time-honored American pastime. The aggrieved always want to know who did them in. However, in this case it's not so simple since multiple sources reportedly conspired to take down the Saints. Who those sources are remains a mystery and the NFL isn't about to reveal them. Besides, identifying the whistleblower is really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, a needless distraction from the real issue. Blowing the whistle on the whistleblower is a waste of time and energy and most likely a futile task.