The splash you mentioned is part of why I believe someone had an agenda here. If it was simple overreach it simply doesn’t make sense that UNI wouldnt have been included.
Iowa Department of Public Safety releases statement on sports wagering investigation
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
Those damn criminal defense lawyers … advocating for their clients’ Constitutionally protected rights.
I don't know, you may be correct. Unless someone talks, it's left to us to wonder. It was poor form by our state. That I feel confident about.
I can vouch for Van and Matt personally. They'll pull no punches and burn them down....
A political party? There's no major party like that in this country that I'm aware of.
Look at how they they were able to target Iowa and ISU athletes through geofencing, using the facilities the Hawkeyes and Cyclones have that are almost exclusively for athletes and athletic department personnel.
Then consider UNI's facility set-up. No football building. Wrestling was literally scattered to the wind last year with the condemnation of the West Gym. Basketball practices in the PEC, where all students, faculty and staff work out.
They didn't target UNI athletes because it wasn't easy to do so. This was perhaps the one time the Panther's vast money disadvantage to the Hawks/Clones paid off for them.
To some extent yes, but idk if that’s the major roadblock you’re saying. Remember, this started out by first targeting dorms.
It may have been a bit harder, but if they were truly concerned about sports gambling by athletes they could have done it.
Supposedly the whole investigation was started due to someone raising concerns…who was that? What concerns were those? Were there specific games or something that prompted concerns?
I continue to have many questions about WHY they started the investigation; far more than what it how they conducted it.
I agree there are many questions to be answered. But they didn't target ISU dorms, just Iowa.
It seems to me this agent decided to first try to geofence a UI dorm or dorms (for still unknown reason), found interesting results, and then thought... I wonder what other specific geofence targets might bring interesting results... With plenty of easy picking options in Iowa City and Ames.
If they were really looking to catch as many athletes as possible, sure... it would be theoretically possible to target athletes at UNI, Drake, and every other college in the state. But when you can shoot fish in a barrel, why spend the time?
The objective seemed to be to find the easy targets and make examples of them.
To me this is why I think someone had an agenda - this wasn’t a general investigation; this specifically targeted the two main public universities (no disrespect to UNI).
Which is why I really want to know who o raised those “concerns” that apparently kickstarted the whole thing.
The simplest answer is Iowa and ISU were the easy targets and the fastest route to make a case.
The most complicated answer is someone had a beef with BOTH Iowa and Iowa State athletics. What would be the motive?
The most complicated answer is someone had a beef with BOTH Iowa and Iowa State athletics. What would be the motive?
It was shady. Makes you understand how they got the warrant from Pottawattamie County listening to that idiot DCI agent in that rant. Im not sure he even knows the law listening to that idiot. Theyve done this before and have gotten away with it. They were finally called on it. Wonder how many other cases will be opened back up? These lawyers had to jump through a bunch of hoops just to get a deposition from Sanger. The state wouldnt allow it and finally they broke through and got the deposition.
Last edited:
I know you're joking, but some people won't think so. So devil's advocate, what has UNI gained over UI/ISU by this entire situation? They don't regularly play in most sports anymore. They don't recruit the same athletes for the most part.
I think there are still some Hawk and Clone fans who are pissed that UNI wasn't somehow also caught up in this disaster of an investigation.
I’m not upset by that, but I would like to know why they weren’t. It just seems odd.
There's not a particular political party that touts itself as being all about "protecting freedom" and "Constitutional protections?"
Interesting observation on your part.
It truly makes me wonder if the DCI agent/Iowa state representative played some sort of role in the decision-making / strategic evaluations process. Certainly acted as if he was taking the criticism of DCI personally.
You failed to finish the quote with "but doesn't believe that those freedoms and protections apply to others."
Which party are you making this accusation against?
You read my post wrong. Go back and re-read it. The comment about "but doesn't believe that those freedoms and protections apply to others" is directed at the individual representative making the statements in the public record. Pretty clear that the individual feels as though "convictions" outweigh whether the use of the geofencing software without warrants was Constitutional and an invasion of an individual's freedom.
Ah, the latter statement was in reference to the "someone" versus the "party." Thank you.
