ADVERTISEMENT

Update: Noah Shannon CLEARED TO PRACTICE. 26 UI student-athletes investigated for online gambling, incl in FB, Men’s BB, Baseball, T&F & Wrestling

Who's "they?"

The NCAA didn't investigate Iowa's or ISU's athletes. Iowa's Department of Criminal Investigation - in some fashion or another - determined that Iowa and ISU athletes were gambling. Those names were turned over to Iowa's AD and ISU's AD. The athletes were, by rule, immediately suspended. Both Iowa and ISU - with the help of legal counsel - sought reinstatement. Given what was presented to them, the NCAA determined when the athlete could return - if at all. Shannon appealed his decision and it was denied.

It's a tough deal but the "loss of permanent eligibility" penalty for betting on teams at the player's institution has been in place since at least 2016. When the NCAA re-examined and made modifications to the rules regarding reinstatement, it chose NOT to change the punishment for betting on teams at a player's institution. Given that KF acknowledged that Shannon bet on another Iowa team, it seemed pretty clear to me at the time that Shannon's appeal was the epitome of a long shot.

I certainly feel for the guy but there can be zero doubt that it was a self-inflicted penalty. If you're told not to gamble and, if you do, you risk your eligibility but chose to disregard the information supplied . . . c'est la vie.
Thank you, good post.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: PoleSmokinHerkyFan
Since the punishment for "the crime" is clearly spelled out in black and white, I would say NO chance at all, but we'll see....

The NCAA should now clear up the wording of their new gambling policy. It currently say the student-athlete would potentially face permanent loss of collegiate eligibility in all sports.

It seems a lot more than "potentially."
 
Thank you, good post.

Iowa's Department of Criminal Investigation - in some fashion or another - determined that Iowa and ISU athletes were gambling. Those names were turned over to Iowa's AD and ISU's AD.
Why did the DCI turn over Noah Shanon's name to anyone? On what legal precedent did they do this? Why would a criminal investigation organization turn in the name of a person who did not break the law?
 
Why did the DCI turn over Noah Shanon's name to anyone? On what legal precedent did they do this? Why would a criminal investigation organization turn in the name of a person who did not break the law?

Short answer: I have no personal knowledge upon which to answer this question.

My question back to you: If, during an investigation, DCI learned the name(s) of college athletes who were betting on sports during an investigation, what legal precedent prevents them from turning over the names of the athletes to the UI or ISU given that the DCI undoubtedly understands that gambling by college athletes is strictly forbidden? What legal precedent exists which "cloaks" the investigation in secrecy so that those who were discovered must not be revealed?

My guess: Given that a broad interpretation of DCI's Special Enforcement Division's charter is to protect the integrity of Iowa's various gaming related activities, someone(s) in the Division felt it necessary to notify the two universities after learning that athletes were engaging in activity that the NCAA considers to be a risk to the integrity of their various competitions.

For me, the key legal question has been raised by counsel for the former ISU lineman. Did the monitoring performed by DCI constitute a legal search? Given what we (or at least, I) don't know about what led up to the search, how the search was performed, under what circumstances such a search can be performed, etc., I can't comment either way. Certainly, the former ISU lineman's attorney is suggesting that there are problems with the process leading up to the discovery of the names. Time will hopefully fill in those gaps.

If the DCI overstepped its bounds in learning the identities of those who were "caught," - what might be the potential recoverable damage be in a civil rights case for those athletes who were knowingly flouting NCAA rules but would have "gotten away" with the forbidden behavior but for the DCI overstepping its bounds?
 
Short answer: I have no personal knowledge upon which to answer this question.

My question back to you: If, during an investigation, DCI learned the name(s) of college athletes who were betting on sports during an investigation, what legal precedent prevents them from turning over the names of the athletes to the UI or ISU given that the DCI undoubtedly understands that gambling by college athletes is strictly forbidden? What legal precedent exists which "cloaks" the investigation in secrecy so that those who were discovered must not be revealed?

My guess: Given that a broad interpretation of DCI's Special Enforcement Division's charter is to protect the integrity of Iowa's various gaming related activities, someone(s) in the Division felt it necessary to notify the two universities after learning that athletes were engaging in activity that the NCAA considers to be a risk to the integrity of their various competitions.

For me, the key legal question has been raised by counsel for the former ISU lineman. Did the monitoring performed by DCI constitute a legal search? Given what we (or at least, I) don't know about what led up to the search, how the search was performed, under what circumstances such a search can be performed, etc., I can't comment either way. Certainly, the former ISU lineman's attorney is suggesting that there are problems with the process leading up to the discovery of the names. Time will hopefully fill in those gaps.

If the DCI overstepped its bounds in learning the identities of those who were "caught," - what might be the potential recoverable damage be in a civil rights case for those athletes who were knowingly flouting NCAA rules but would have "gotten away" with the forbidden behavior but for the DCI overstepping its bounds?
I disagree with the first part. What business does DCI have in meddling in non-criminal activities? Unless they suspected Shannon of conspiring to throw a game, or commiting a fraud related to his betting, it’s not their place to “out” him—any more than they would notify a man that they know his wife is cheating on him, or that his kid isn’t really his, or something like that

He committed no crime. He was not suspected to have taken place in any illegal activities. I think that’s where their involvement should have ended
 
I disagree with the first part. What business does DCI have in meddling in non-criminal activities? Unless they suspected Shannon of conspiring to throw a game, or commiting a fraud related to his betting, it’s not their place to “out” him—any more than they would notify a man that they know his wife is cheating on him, or that his kid isn’t really his, or something like that

He committed no crime. He was not suspected to have taken place in any illegal activities. I think that’s where their involvement should have ended
Yes this feels like one state entity(DCI) not believing in innocent until proven guilty when reporting info to another state entity(UI).
 

From the story:

“That led DCI to pursue warrants to search the phones of the athletes suspected to have made wagers on the accounts. But authorities didn’t seek the warrants in Story or Johnson counties, where the universities are located. Instead, they obtained the warrants in Pottawattamie County, which is 150 miles away from Iowa State and more than 200 miles away from Iowa. DCI declined to explain why it obtained the warrants in Pottawattamie County.”
 
Seems DCI has some serious explaining to do. The use of geolocation in this manner is almost certainly unconstitutional and they probably violated these athletes constitutional rights against unreasonable search. Their actions in turning names and evidence over to the schools and ncaa even in cases where zero actual laws were broken is also highly suspect and likely illegal. Every athlete at these schools whether caught up in the aftermath or not had their constitutional rights violated and should sue the state. This type of geolocation fishing expedition is not constitutional and their actions to turn over materials to the schools also needs to be reviewed by a court.

Take it in a different context. A law enforcement agency conducts an illegal search of a group of people and finds no illegal activity but decides to turn the results of the search over to employers ti get people fired. That is what occurred here.
 
Seems DCI has some serious explaining to do. The use of geolocation in this manner is almost certainly unconstitutional and they probably violated these athletes constitutional rights against unreasonable search. Their actions in turning names and evidence over to the schools and ncaa even in cases where zero actual laws were broken is also highly suspect and likely illegal. Every athlete at these schools whether caught up in the aftermath or not had their constitutional rights violated and should sue the state. This type of geolocation fishing expedition is not constitutional and their actions to turn over materials to the schools also needs to be reviewed by a court.

Take it in a different context. A law enforcement agency conducts an illegal search of a group of people and finds no illegal activity but decides to turn the results of the search over to employers ti get people fired. That is what occurred here.

Sounds like an investigation is needed for the people doing the investigation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkedoff

Since the info in the tweet gets cut off:


DeShawn Hanika's new attorney, Van Plumb (also reps Eyioma Uwazurike), says the Cyclone tight end is not interested in a plea deal. Plumb filed a 10-page motion Monday. Not a light read, but among interesting excerpts:

"Counsel has verified… On February 8, 2023, a Dubuque County Prosecutor made application for and was granted authority to issue a subpoena to FanDuel Group requesting account information in regard to 71 GeoComply Usernames, without listing how the usernames were obtained…This date and statement create two problems for the State.

"The first problem is that IAC 13.2(7)(d) requires the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission be notified promptly of any suspicious activity and Section 13.2(7)(e) requires that they be notified within 72 hours of criminal activity. The Commission responded to an open records request by stating “The Commission does not have any written notifications or reports of this nature prior to May of 2023. The records we do have would have been received after that date and would be considered confidential pursuant to Iowa Code 99F.12(4)”. The fact that the Commission’s license was used to obtain data prior to February 8, 2023, yet no reports were filed until approximately 3 months later is a violation of the code sections sited above.

"The second problem is that on February 8, 2023, an Agent had already obtained 71 GeoComply Usernames yet the first subpoena issued to GeoComply was on May 18, 2023. The Agent had, obviously, already used GeoComply software which meant he/she also had access to location data, customer verification data including facial recognition, data verification, and phone identification verification. The Agent also would have been able to use the GeoComply software to build a GeoFence around targeted areas to obtain date from every citizen within that geographic area.

"A further complicating factor for the State is that the University of Iowa issued a press release on May 2, 2023, 16 days before the first subpoena to GeoComply, that a sports wagering investigation was underway involving 111 individuals, 26 of which were current student athletes. This press release begs the question, if the targeted individuals used someone else’s betting application, how had the Agent identified them prior to issuing a subpoena to GeoComply unless he/she had already been using GeoComply’s software… Also, if the Agent used GeoComply Software for a criminal investigation the Commission would have had to secure written consent from GeoComply prior to such use pursuant to the terms and conditions imposed upon them by GeoComply, yet no written consent has been provided even though it was requested in State v. Uwazerike. In fact, the State has taken the position that they are not required to provide any information as it relates to how the investigation started, how the targets were identified, whether reports or notices were filed with the Commission pursuant to the IAC, verification of the terms of use the Commission was bound by in using GeoComply Software, all subpoenas, or communications related to the investigation."
 

Arland Bruce, Ahron Ulis among four ex-Hawkeyes to plead guilty to reduced underage gambling charge

Ryan Hansen
Iowa City Press-Citizen
Sep 18, 2023


Four former University of Iowa athletes have pleaded guilty to underage gambling, the latest development in the state’s investigation of collegiate athletes.

The former Hawkeyes include football players Jack Johnson, Arland Bruce IV and Reggie Bracy and basketball player Ahron Ulis.

Each was first charged with tampering with records in early August as part of the state's sports gambling investigation. That charge is an aggravated misdemeanor that could have carried a two-year prison sentence if found guilty. Instead, the tampering charges were dismissed and each of the guilty parties will pay a $645 scheduled fine for underage gambling.

The guilty pleas came less than two weeks after five other athletes, including Iowa State quarterback Hunter Dekkers, also pleaded guilty to underage gambling after initially being charged with tampering with records.

There will not be any additional charges filed against these four athletes or anyone who helped facilitate the underage gambling, according to the pleas.

Under NCAA rules, athletes are permanently ineligible if they are found to have placed wagers on sporting events that involve their school. NCAA gambling rules also stipulate a loss of 50% of eligibility for a single season for betting on another school in the same sport that a student-athlete plays in.

Three of the four Hawkeyes who entered guilty pleas transferred after last season

Bruce, Bracy and Ulis all transferred from the University of Iowa after last season.

Bruce transferred to Oklahoma State in the spring and did not see game action before allegations of illegal gambling came to light. Oklahoma State football coach Mike Gundy confirmed that Bruce was away from the team in mid-August, weeks before the Cowboys made their season debut.

In the initial complaint, Bruce was said to have placed 18 wagers on 11 Hawkeye football games that he participated in.

Bruce is specifically alleged to have placed two “under” bets in 2022, first in Iowa’s 33-13 victory over Northwestern in October, a game in which Bruce tallied 2 catches for 19 yards and rushed 3 times for 27 yards and a touchdown. It was just the second career touchdown for Bruce in his two years as a Hawkeye. The over/under was set at 37.5 total points.

He also placed an “under” bet in the Hawkeyes’ 21-0 victory over Kentucky in the Music City Bowl this past New Year's Eve but did not participate in the game. The total closed at 31.5 at kickoff.

Bruce used a DraftKings account in his father’s name to place bets. Bruce will turn 21 on Sept. 26.

Bracy, a defensive back, transferred to Troy in the offseason, announcing his intention to leave last December, just days after Bruce. He was also suspended by Troy once charges were brought against him in Johnson County District Court in August.

“Reggie Bracy has been suspended from all team-related activity in response to allegations of his conduct while he was a student-athlete at another institution,” Troy said in a statement. “We will have no further comment at this time.”

Bracy was originally alleged to have shared the DraftKings account registered under Bruce’s father’s name with Bruce. In his guilty plea, he admitted to placing wagers while underage. He turned 21 on Nov. 6, 2022.

Ulis made his way west to Nebraska after his third season with the Hawkeyes. Court documents alleged that Ulis placed more than 430 bets on NCAA football and basketball games, including at least one University of Iowa football game. His wagers allegedly totaled more than $34,800. Ulis turned 21 on Oct. 4, 2022.

Johnson was alleged to have placed around 380 bets totaling over $1,800. He pleaded guilty to the same charges and admitted to placing wagers on a DraftKings account in his mother’s name. He turned 21 on June 15, 2022.

Ryan Hansen covers local government and crime for the Press-Citizen. He can be reached at rhansen@press-citizen.com or on X, formerly known as Twitter, @ryanhansen01.

 
In case the quote gets cut off:

Jermari Harris on his suspension due to involvement in gambling investigation:

“A situation that I deeply regret. It was a mistake that I made. I have acknowledged it and trying to move forward. Learn from any lesson, every lesson. It was a mistake. In my --- well, today makes 23 years --- 23 years of life, I’ve made plenty of mistakes. I’m sure I will make a lot more. But the key is acknowledging it and finding a way to be better.”
 
Iowa wrestler Nelson Brands (son of Terry and nephew of head coach Tom) in a now deleted thread regarding the gambling situation:

F6iICYuWMAAzhjy




F6iICYuWUAAEjIK



F6iICYuWYAAQ5oj




 
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: peacehawk and F5n5
Possible Noah Shannon return?

The NCAA is reexamining the penalties that current athletes face for betting on sports — but not their own team. Here's what they're considering moving toward:

F7nJseaWUAABElW




Source:

 
Last edited:
Love this. From tonight's radio show:


The story from 9:05 pm tonight:

Kirk Ferentz hopeful that Noah Shannon could be reinstated from gambling suspension

Chad Leistikow
Des Moines Register
Oct 4, 2023; Updated 9:05 pm CT

A potential 11th-hour ruling by the NCAA could reinstate Iowa football player Noah Shannon to the field, perhaps by early November.

The NCAA's Committee on Athlete Reinstatement is reviewing punishments for gambling-related offenses. Previously, any athlete found to bet on sports involving his/her own school was subject to a permanent ban of eligibility. That was the case for Shannon, a 27-game starter on Iowa's defensive line who was ruled out for the season after placing a bet on a Hawkeye game (not football), according to head coach Kirk Ferentz. Under new guidance in such cases, there would be no eligibility loss on a first offense but the athlete would be required to go through education on sports-gambling rules and prevention.

Wednesday's bulletin said the reinstatement committee will complete its review by mid-October and a Council Coordination Committee would vote by late October. "The guidelines could potentially be applied retroactively," the NCAA said in the statement.

Ferentz, on his Wednesday-night radio show, expressed "happiness" that something good might come about for Shannon, but railed on the NCAA for taking so long.

“You would think since we had this breakthrough revelation (today) that maybe we could act on it in the next couple of days, have an emergency meeting (with) whoever's got to … rubber stamp all this stuff.," Ferentz said. "You'd think it might be something they could address in the very near future. But I realize we're all busy, too. I get that.

“I just hope it does go through and I hope Noah gets on the field this year, because it would be so well-deserved. And then the other side of me said, ‘Could this have taken place somewhere in May, June, July? Anytime before this season actually started and somebody's life was impacted?' And you get a little upset about it.

“It's unfair. And I think that's the problem with bureaucracies. Now the good news is at least we're getting a response here, like somebody's alive over there and paying attention.

“But if we get anything out of this, if there's a good break, then that's a positive. I'll look at the positive side.”

69e6e9db-a279-4abe-b84c-e542c57bf699-IowaVsNeb_20221125_bh_1018.JPG

Noah Shannon's potential return in November would be a boost for the Iowa defensive line.



Shannon, who returned for his sixth-year senior season, has been enlisted as a student assistant after his NCAA appeal was denied in September.

According to the NCAA, athletes who compromise the integrity of the game or bet on their own team (as was the case for former Hawkeyes Aaron Blom, Reggie Bracy, Arland Bruce IV and Jack Johnson as well as several Iowa State players) will still face permanent loss of eligibility.



At Iowa's media day, Shannon was determined to move past this no matter what happened. But he wanted to play more than anything.

“One big thing for me is I’ve been telling myself: I’m not going to let this define me in any way, shape or form,” Shannon said on Aug. 11. “Life goes on. So whenever — I don’t know when the NCAA will come out with the ruling, but I’ll be ready."

If the new guidelines go through, that could also could be a boon for Iowa wrestling, which reportedly had as many as six athletes, including multiple starters, suspended for gambling.

Iowa football has its lone off Saturday on Oct. 28, but plays Northwestern at Wrigley Field in Chicago on Nov. 4, followed by two home games vs. Rutgers (Nov. 11) and Illinois (Nov. 18) then a road finale at Nebraska (Nov. 24). The best-case scenario would have Shannon available for those four games plus the postseason, which would be a big help for a defensive line that has struggled to get pass pressure.

“It’s a better deal for winter sports or spring sports, and I'm happy for anybody who is affected by that,” Ferentz said. “Again, if we're talking about Noah's situation, he was … extremely upfront, very transparent about everything he had done, did nothing criminal. And he did bet on a basketball game, I think. And I just don't think that's a capital crime. I know, rules are rules. I've heard that before, and policies are policies. But sometimes a little common sense and judgment goes a long way.”

 
I’m willing to bet the NCAA knows of other athletes (big names and/or big name schools) that gambled and are getting out in front of it so they don’t lose a year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawksbyamillion
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT