What was the DOJ doing in Iowa? -Tom Brands

[slushhead]

Every single person on this website would support the state of Iowa expanding the investigation to include female student athletes in the state of Iowa. You're arguing with yourself.

The sooner you realize your are beclowning yourself, the better for everybody involved here.

I’m afraid I have to disagree a tad. Lone Wolfie not realizing how much he is beclowning himself is an endless form of entertainment. His service to our country is unmatched.

 

[PAgeologist]

Are you referring to the Monarch of excuses?

Old Bob must have slid off that level playing field over on GIA.

 

[Yellow Snow]

He is confused a bit but his overall point is pretty simple. Why were Iowa and ISU targeted but not UNI, Drake, or anyone else? Why were only specific sports targeted? The whole thing seems a little odd and there may have been some activities that should have required warrants when no warrants were issued. Brands isn't alone in thinking there were some motives here that were not disclosed through proper channels. Multiple legal experts are questioning what exactly happened as well. Was the law applied equally? Was surveillance used that is only allowed when a warrant exists? Why were only men named in this investigation? I believe young men are far more likely to be doing this stuff than young women, but does this allow authorities to only check for male athletes?

Iowa State fan here... just putting in my 2 cents.

I feel the same way James does above... But first, a couple of clarifications...

1. Nothing absolves the gambling. It happened, they got caught, punishments were doled out. Players knew the rules. In fact, I believe (at ISU at least) the athlete has to sign a compliance understanding waiver. There are mandatory seminars on what is OK to do and what is a no-go. All athletes in all sports go through this.

2. Tom has the DOJ confused with the Iowa DCI (Division of Criminal Investigation). The DCI were the people that kicked this off. Nobody seems to know what started it. THAT'S WHY BRANDS WANTS THE MEDIA TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. I agree with him. Lots of rumors, but nothing that has come up in court yet. Rumor #1 was that it started with the Iowa baseball team. Mom of an under aged player thought somebody had hacked her Fan Duel account or whatever and reported it.... etc. lots of rumors.

3. We do know that as a result of a "tip" at one University, where the DCI found evidence of underage gambling, they expanded their scope to a second University to look for more underage gambling. Makes sense right? DCI is all about underage gambling enforcement. So they put up Geofences around various athletic facilities. Can't speak for Iowa, but at ISU it was our football complex and Leid rec where wrestling is. Nothing around anything else. UNI, Drake, Simpson, etc... didn't interest them. No more fences.

4. The DCI is a criminal investigation organization. Has NOTHING to do with NCAA rules. If the motive was to catch random underage gamblers, then i don't believe them. That may be where they run into trouble in court. What they found out vs. what they told/charged people with will be telling. No to mention the number of cell phones that were acquired without warrants. Granted, if a person willingly grants access to said phone a warrant isn't necessary. I'll bet that will also be contested.

 

[El-Jefe]

2. Tom has the DOJ confused with the Iowa DCI (Division of Criminal Investigation).

Also with the Ferraris on campus, has confused the FBI with the Full Blooded Italians.

 

[Yellow Snow]

Also with the Ferraris on campus, has confused the FBI with the Full Blooded Italians.

Tom is often confused.

 

[GogglesPaizano]

Also with the Ferraris on campus, has confused the FBI with the Full Blooded Italians.

I suspect with the Ferraris on campus, Tom will soon be seeing a lot of the DCI, DOJ, FBI, DEA, ATF, DMV, ... he had better get used to it.

 

[El-Jefe]

I suspect with the Ferraris on campus, Tom will soon be seeing a lot of the DCI, DOJ, FBI, DEA, ATF, DMV, ... he had better get used to it.

Don't forget the DOC.

 

[nittinsc]

I suspect with the Ferraris on campus, Tom will soon be seeing a lot of the DCI, DOJ, FBI, DEA, ATF, DMV, ... he had better get used to it.

Maybe someone should get him an acronym dictionary.

 

[PAgeologist]

Don't forget the DOC.

IRS. Gotta pay taxes on those winnings.

 

[Brian LB-U]

Iowa State fan here... just putting in my 2 cents.

I feel the same way James does above... But first, a couple of clarifications...

1. Nothing absolves the gambling. It happened, they got caught, punishments were doled out. Players knew the rules. In fact, I believe (at ISU at least) the athlete has to sign a compliance understanding waiver. There are mandatory seminars on what is OK to do and what is a no-go. All athletes in all sports go through this.

2. Tom has the DOJ confused with the Iowa DCI (Division of Criminal Investigation). The DCI were the people that kicked this off. Nobody seems to know what started it. THAT'S WHY BRANDS WANTS THE MEDIA TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. I agree with him. Lots of rumors, but nothing that has come up in court yet. Rumor #1 was that it started with the Iowa baseball team. Mom of an under aged player thought somebody had hacked her Fan Duel account or whatever and reported it.... etc. lots of rumors.

3. We do know that as a result of a "tip" at one University, where the DCI found evidence of underage gambling, they expanded their scope to a second University to look for more underage gambling. Makes sense right? DCI is all about underage gambling enforcement. So they put up Geofences around various athletic facilities. Can't speak for Iowa, but at ISU it was our football complex and Leid rec where wrestling is. Nothing around anything else. UNI, Drake, Simpson, etc... didn't interest them. No more fences.

4. The DCI is a criminal investigation organization. Has NOTHING to do with NCAA rules. If the motive was to catch random underage gamblers, then i don't believe them. That may be where they run into trouble in court. What they found out vs. what they told/charged people with will be telling. No to mention the number of cell phones that were acquired without warrants. Granted, if a person willingly grants access to said phone a warrant isn't necessary. I'll bet that will also be contested.

One would think the legal dept at Brand’s employer would have already asked these questions. Why put the onus on a tiny group wrestling reporters who don’t know squat about investigative journalism? Perhaps the powers that be at UofI did ask the right questions and they (or Brands) simply aren’t satisfied with the answers they received? “Yeah, but that’s not fair” seems to be his position.