Paniro named in ISU gambling probe
- Thread starter wrestlingfan22
- Start date
Same but I was assured that Assad will be a champion one day. Right JS? Ha
Last edited:
I’m not sure if this has been discussed or not, but, athletes are highly knowledgable of the injury status of their teammates. They also have a fairly good knowledge of injury information for other University sports. I have a very close friend who is an orthopedic nurse with a power five University. She receives repetitive training and frequent audits to insure that injury information is not shared …. not even with her husband. Using inside injury information is akin to insider trading. It deserves just punishment by both the University and the so called justice system.
It's as simple as they didn't think they'd get caught. Used other peoples name/accounts to make bets. It was stupid and definitely not as simple as a failure in leadership.
because like you said, this is NOT unique to Iowa and Iowa St. So the NCAA HAS to make a statement, to ensure those that are doing it now, think twice and to ward off most of future attempts.
I wonder how they caught them if the athletes were going through others? Perhaps someone is spilling the beans to avoid serious charges?
Either way, it's just a sad, stupid and completely preventable situation. The rules couldn't be clearer and they get regular reminders of not betting on sports.
Is it going to ruin lives? No. But it's pretty obvious it's going to ruin eligibility and being allowed to participate in sports. Guess it's up to the school regarding loss of scholarships and expulsion from school.
No inside info, just what I have heard on radio in iowa. Is that it started with a baseball player at Iowa who used his mothers information. When he tried to load money on the account it triggered her bank to contact her. She thought someone was trying to hack her bank account and reported it to the police who started to look into it.
They then began using the geolocation that the apps use to see locations of bets being made. There apparently were bets being made near or inside university facilities. The investigation went on from there. As far as the NCAA goes the universities self reported the athletes to them, or at least thats what I read.
I'm just happy AB will finally get a good night's rest with Abe out of the picture
Willie also reported that it was basically one guy who decided to push the investigation forward to the extent it was. Most states probably don't consider this is a valuable use of public resources. Certainly doesn't excuse the behavior, but I think we all know that this isn't an "Iowa problem." There are athletes betting at every university in the country. It sucks that a couple schools are getting singled out, but hopefully this at least sends a message to athletes in other states.
I'd put $10 on this guy making a run for state DA or even governor.
Paniro is still facing a lot of hot water too--more legal trouble then the Iowa wrestlers, anyway, from what we've heard.
Weird strategy.
"Vote for me, the guy who caused half the wrestling team to get suspended!"
People are out there PAYING to have Iowa investigated!!!
We have paid haters and paid investigators.
What does Vodka think of the investigation?
No Comment? From You? Blink twice if you are being held at gunpoint...
Or he is a UNI grad with a chance to slap his big brothers around falling into his lap.
Vodka is on the phone…..
Drake not getting charged was God’s plan.
Might need to clarify for some of the older forum participants...
Vodka be like
It would be hilariously ironic if somehow Vodka was the cause of all this happening to Iowa.Vodka be like
Joking aside, it would be helpful if the thread title were updated to not focus just on Paniro. Maybe something like "gambling suspensions ... so far"? Or "betcha can't guess who got suspended"? Or "wrestling with Draftkings"? @wrestlingfan22?
Last edited:
All about thread necromancy tonight… Seems @James P. Whitters III might have known what he was talking about….
Interesting. Facts are usually not as clear and simple as suggested by a lawyer's court filings. By nature, legal advocacy skews factual presentations in the light most favorable to the advocate. But props to Special Agent Ludwick for apparently being led by integrity and a sense of fairness here.
Based on the cited excerpts alone, I doubt the "coerced confession" stuff will move the legal needle. It is well settled law that investigators can outright lie during an interview to encourage a target to talk. On the other hand, failure to get a proper search warrant could prove to be a big deal if true.
Thank you Nerf! It was a rough patch for me when I was told I was a complete idiot for thinking the state of Iowa would end up writing a massive check for this mess the idiot at the DCI created. This isn't going to end well for that agent. To make it worse you guys were hating on me for stating that Mitch would come in and take whatever weight he wanted. Tough times.
Good for you for posting this. The truth is starting to come out.
@tikk10 do you have any continued thoughts on this matter?
Not me, James. I’ve mostly been right there with ya about MM.
Here’s another write up:
Iowa DCI agent accused of ‘warrantless search’ in gambling investigation of student-athletes in court motion
IOWA — The attorney for former Iowa State Cyclones Eyioma Uwazurike and Isaiah Lee is accusing a DCI agent of using improper investigation techniques and being dishonest in depositions relate…
who13.com
Last edited:
Yeah maybe he can work with Louis Freeh here. Oh wait.🤔
It sounds like all criminal charges against all of the athletes should be dropped immediately due to the warrantless searches. Whether the NCAA sanctions should be lifted as well is a trickier question. The gambling that violated NCAA rules still did happen and the reasons it is forbidden still apply. The bill of rights protects people's rights against the government with regard to criminal charges, not from consequences of other sanctions.
I would pump the brakes a bit.
If it's true that the DCI had no reasonable suspicion and conducted a warrantless search anyway, that's an illegal search/seizure and a strong basis to vacate prior guilty pleas and dismiss further prosecution because the most relevant evidence would be barred by the exclusionary rule.
So then why isn't that what's being argued in this motion, which isn't a motion to dismiss or vacate but merely seeks further discovery? Perhaps they're looking for discovery to bolster a future vacate/dismiss motion, I don't know.
But I'll warn to not accept everything here at face value.
For one thing this argument hinges entirely on testimony from Ludwick, who was brought in to the investigation after it had commenced. So how would he know that there was no reasonable suspicion? The timeline isn't clear from the snippet I'm looking at, so maybe Ludwick's interview was the basis for a warrant?
But the thing that really jumps out is Ludwick's naivete. Police can and do lie to suspects to gain confessions, so whether Ludwick was lied to by his fellow agents is wholly irrelevant. Accordingly, Isaiah Lee has no basis to argue that he was lied to, whether it was Ludwick or Sanger.
A fitting analogy would be if police interviewed, let's say an Iowa State athlete, for soliciting prostitutes or buying drugs (and realize the latter scenario is what most fourth amendment case law is built on), told the athlete that they were only going after the drug dealers and pimps, then turned around and arrested him after he confessed. It's a legal nonstarter, but the discovery motion makes a lot of hay over it, so I imagine its purpose is to generate outrage and headlines.
Ludwick's naivete may well be irrelevant if there really was no reasonable suspicion to obtain a warrant (and I'm still not clear from any of this whether one was ultimately obtained, but I assume so because that would be the only argument you would need). And reasonable suspicion doesn't require a lot and can even be based on otherwise inadmissible evidence.
If this case is dismissed my guess is that it won't be because reasonable suspicion wasn't present at the time a warrant was issued but because prosecutors read the political winds.
It definitely feels like sleazy police conduct, but it's of a piece familiar enough that goes largely ignored, defended even, when it impacts twenty year olds who can't run a 4.4 40-yard.
If it's true that the DCI had no reasonable suspicion and conducted a warrantless search anyway, that's an illegal search/seizure and a strong basis to vacate prior guilty pleas and dismiss further prosecution because the most relevant evidence would be barred by the exclusionary rule.
So then why isn't that what's being argued in this motion, which isn't a motion to dismiss or vacate but merely seeks further discovery? Perhaps they're looking for discovery to bolster a future vacate/dismiss motion, I don't know.
But I'll warn to not accept everything here at face value.
For one thing this argument hinges entirely on testimony from Ludwick, who was brought in to the investigation after it had commenced. So how would he know that there was no reasonable suspicion? The timeline isn't clear from the snippet I'm looking at, so maybe Ludwick's interview was the basis for a warrant?
But the thing that really jumps out is Ludwick's naivete. Police can and do lie to suspects to gain confessions, so whether Ludwick was lied to by his fellow agents is wholly irrelevant. Accordingly, Isaiah Lee has no basis to argue that he was lied to, whether it was Ludwick or Sanger.
A fitting analogy would be if police interviewed, let's say an Iowa State athlete, for soliciting prostitutes or buying drugs (and realize the latter scenario is what most fourth amendment case law is built on), told the athlete that they were only going after the drug dealers and pimps, then turned around and arrested him after he confessed. It's a legal nonstarter, but the discovery motion makes a lot of hay over it, so I imagine its purpose is to generate outrage and headlines.
Ludwick's naivete may well be irrelevant if there really was no reasonable suspicion to obtain a warrant (and I'm still not clear from any of this whether one was ultimately obtained, but I assume so because that would be the only argument you would need). And reasonable suspicion doesn't require a lot and can even be based on otherwise inadmissible evidence.
If this case is dismissed my guess is that it won't be because reasonable suspicion wasn't present at the time a warrant was issued but because prosecutors read the political winds.
It definitely feels like sleazy police conduct, but it's of a piece familiar enough that goes largely ignored, defended even, when it impacts twenty year olds who can't run a 4.4 40-yard.
