Paniro Johnson Is a God...

[jchapman]

I am surprised that Paniro is the only athlete we are hearing about.  I have high school and college aged sons.  Many, many of their friends bet on sports.

[Dogbone]

18 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Would 11/5 be the relevant date though?  I assume he is on some amount of athletic scholarship.  He would have been on campus taking classes courtesy of the athletic department starting 8/22.  

Certainly some NCAA rules reach back before enrollment.  I don't know when gambling becomes prohibited by the NCAA.  When the recruit signs their letter of intent?  When the recruit enrolls?  When they first start classes (~8/2022)?  When they start official practices (~10/2022)?  When they first compete officially 11/5?

My instinct is that it must be before the first competition.  

It would be hard to argue the time period he was a student athlete (but prior to competition) is not relevant, especially if he is betting on ISU events during that period. 

It's also important to separate the criminal changes from NCAA violations. 

Best case:  Paniro denies all criminal charges and remains innocent until proven guilty until he is found not guilty or takes a plea deal on lesser (non NCAA violation type) charges.   Then I don't think (total speculation on my part) the NCAA would have any grounds to suspend since all of the betting took place under someone's else account (i.e. no proof he actually committed a violation). 

[Idaho]

47 minutes ago, jchapman said:

I am surprised that Paniro is the only athlete we are hearing about.  I have high school and college aged sons.  Many, many of their friends bet on sports.

He’s not. 
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38117323/hunter-dekkers-linked-iowa-state-gambling-probe-charged-tampering

[Idaho]

2 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

correct. but that doesn't necessarily put him out of compliance w/ the NCAA (the way i understand it).

However if  bets were placed after he was enrolled at ISU and a member of the team as the timeline suggests (October 2022)  then he would be. Correct? 

[ionel]

13 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

It would be hard to argue the time period he was a student athlete (but prior to competition) is not relevant, especially if he is betting on ISU events during that period. 

It's also important to separate the criminal changes from NCAA violations. 

Best case:  Paniro denies all criminal charges and remains innocent until proven guilty until he is found not guilty or takes a plea deal on lesser (non NCAA violation type) charges.   Then I don't think (total speculation on my part) the NCAA would have any grounds to suspend since all of the betting took place under someone's else account (i.e. no proof he actually committed a violation). 

The NCAA seems to not need evidence.  I remember a case where a college senior lost his last year of competition just because he said he was not at a certain guy's apartment when he was even though it was no violation to be at said location.  Can you take the 5th with NCAA, you could try but then they'll prob take away your eligibility for not answering the question. 

* disclaimer:  I have not recently stayed at a HI Exp so will defer to the legal experts Rasta & knownothing on this matter.

[fishbane]

2 hours ago, Idaho said:

However if  bets were placed after he was enrolled at ISU and a member of the team as the timeline suggests (October 2022)  then he would be. Correct? 

The complaint did not have specific dates for the draft kings transactions in question.  Whilst some may infer that 10/31 would have been the date of one of the bets, but there is nothing explicit in the complaint to confirm or deny that.  Even if there is someway to find the dates of the referenced draft kings transactions it says that is an imcomplete list.  

On FRL today CP seemed to imply that there may be some question as to whether or not the account was really his.  Perhaps there as betting activity on Ms. Freeman's account that pre-dates Johnson's move to Ames.  

Also it may not completely eliminate the NCAA punishment, but it could mitigate the punishment.  If the betting on ISU events all predated the start of classes it could mean that Johnson may change the penalty from potential permanent ban or 1 season+ ban to less than 1 season competition ban.

CP said on FRL that he knew some ISU wrestlers had wagered on the ISU-Iowa football game.  That would carry a 1 year ban. That game was played on 9-10-2022.

[1032004]

23 minutes ago, fishbane said:

The complaint did not have specific dates for the draft kings transactions in question.  Whilst some may infer that 10/31 would have been the date of one of the bets, but there is nothing explicit in the complaint to confirm or deny that.  Even if there is someway to find the dates of the referenced draft kings transactions it says that is an imcomplete list.  

On FRL today CP seemed to imply that there may be some question as to whether or not the account was really his.  Perhaps there as betting activity on Ms. Freeman's account that pre-dates Johnson's move to Ames.  

Also it may not completely eliminate the NCAA punishment, but it could mitigate the punishment.  If the betting on ISU events all predated the start of classes it could mean that Johnson may change the penalty from potential permanent ban or 1 season+ ban to less than 1 season competition ban.

CP said on FRL that he knew some ISU wrestlers had wagered on the ISU-Iowa football game.  That would carry a 1 year ban. That game was played on 9-10-2022.

Who is this Freeman person? Google says she’s in jail, but is from Erie as is Paniro

[Threadkilla]

19 hours ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

Dayum

I wish I had that kind of money in college (even now would be nice, too) 

That equates to about 35.57 a bet if he wagered 45,640 on 1,283 bets.  He may have never had over 5,000 in his account at any given time.  See Art Schlichter.    

[CHROMEBIRD]

5 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

He did not have $40k to gamble. The complaint says he made 1,283 wagers for $45,640, or $35.57 per bet. What had too much of was time. That is almost 3 bets per day for 16 straight months.

 

4 hours ago, TylerDurden said:

I don't personally gamble on apps, but placing bets quickly and almost unconsciously is part of the design. They make it very, very easy to place wagers. I'm not saying 1,283 doesn't seem like a large number of wagers over the time period for most people, but placing that many bets via an app that you can access 24 hours a day isn't the most noteworthy thing in the complaint. 

These are good observations. That volume of sports betting could signal a serious gambling problem. Hopefully they weren't all Johnson's betting on the falsified account. But what @TylerDurden says about the betting sites and apps making it frictionless and easy is 100% correct. Guy I know lost everything from online sports betting because it fed into his compulsions and he fell into a downward spiral. 

I was looking forward to seeing Paniro compete this season, but the optics does not look good with him covering up his identity on the app. Sorting through the layers will be tough. In addition to the potential legal infractions and NCAA violations, ISU and Dresser will be compelled to act also. 

[ionel]

8 minutes ago, Threadkilla said:

That equates to about 35.57 a bet if he wagered 45,640 on 1,283 bets.  He may have never had over 5,000 in his account at any given time.  See Art Schlichter.    

I know I've read this before somewhere.  

[Threadkilla]

22 minutes ago, ionel said:

I know I've read this before somewhere.  

I don't make iI a habbit to read every post in three pages of these boards.  I'd rather scrape my nuts with a cheese grater.  It is shocking  that 2 seperate people did math on a wrestling board though even if one was me. 

[ionel]

11 minutes ago, Threadkilla said:

I don't make iI a habbit to read every post in three pages of these boards.  I'd rather scrape my nuts with a cheese grater.  It is shocking  that 2 seperate people did math on a wrestling board though even if one was me. 

Withe the whole copyright issues I thought we were only allowed one mathematician per thread but I could be wrong. 

[Threadkilla]

5 minutes ago, ionel said:

Withe the whole copyright issues I thought we were only allowed one mathematician per thread but I could be wrong. 

Well, I'm not a mathematician,  I googled it.    and I know that how much you wager and how much you take home are two totally different things.  

Edited August 2, 2023 by Threadkilla
nunya

[Husker_Du]

https://rokfin.com/post/144094/TFW-Paniro-Uncertainty--Cadet-Worlds-History

(paywalled)

[Dogbone]

4 hours ago, fishbane said:

The complaint did not have specific dates for the draft kings transactions in question.  Whilst some may infer that 10/31 would have been the date of one of the bets, but there is nothing explicit in the complaint to confirm or deny that.  Even if there is someway to find the dates of the referenced draft kings transactions it says that is an imcomplete list.  

 

That is true with regard to the complaint but the Draftkings ticket IDs are known and the State does have those dates.   We (message board readers) just don't know if they occurred when he was a student or earlier if that period is subject to NCAA rules. 

The State of Iowa is only charging him with is Tampering of Records by falsifying his identity between 8/25/2021 - 10/31/22.   He was a student from at least August - October of 2022 so there is a some potential overlap. 

The State might not even care if a bet was placed when he was subject to NCAA rules; if they can prove he was the one making bets (falsify ID) they could prove their criminal case.

It does seem that Paniro is in some legal trouble but that doesn't necessarily mean he is in trouble with the NCAA, even if he is guilty of the aggravated misdemeanor crime.

[Dogbone]

1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

https://rokfin.com/post/144094/TFW-Paniro-Uncertainty--Cadet-Worlds-History

(paywalled)

Thanks!

The one thing I would clarify is the ~20 bets with the Draftkings ID in the complaint are not the totality of the alleged bets. So not $2K a bet.

Most likely they are just the ones where they think they can prove it was him making bets under his mom's account.  The complaint alleges that the bets were placed on his phone in locations where only he should be (not available to the public) so I am guessing that is why those particular ID are listed in the complaint.  

[DJT]

3 hours ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

That volume of sports betting could signal a serious gambling problem.

But he was winning, and winning isn’t a problem. That's like saying Michael Jordan has a basketball problem, or Def Leppard has an awesomeness problem.

[Idaho]

5 hours ago, fishbane said:

CP said on FRL that he knew some ISU wrestlers had wagered on the ISU-Iowa football game.  That would carry a 1 year ban. That game was played on 9-10-2022.

Explain the 1 year ban.  Johnson was enrolled in school and attending classes  on 9-10-2022 (ISU starts Fall semester in August) and bet on the game that involved his own school. According to updated penalties, Johnson faces a potential permanent loss of collegiate eligibility. How can you say that would carry a 1 year ban? Make me smarter. 

Per the ESPN article above: 

"The NCAA recently updated its penalties for student-athletes who violate its gambling policy. Those who bet on their own games or other sports at their school face a potential permanent loss of collegiate eligibility."

[fishbane]

33 minutes ago, Idaho said:

Explain the 1 year ban.  Johnson was enrolled in school and attending classes  on 9-10-2022 (ISU starts Fall semester in August) and bet on the game that involved his own school. According to updated penalties, Johnson faces a potential permanent loss of collegiate eligibility. How can you say that would carry a 1 year ban? Make me smarter. 

Per the ESPN article above: 

"The NCAA recently updated its penalties for student-athletes who violate its gambling policy. Those who bet on their own games or other sports at their school face a potential permanent loss of collegiate eligibility."

CP said it on FRL today.  "One thing to know.  If you bet on your institution going to be like an automatic year.  And so, if you bet on the Iowa-Iowa State football game, which I know some athletes did on Iowa State, from what I'm told then they're going to lose a year.  And so if Hawkeyes did that it sounds like there's going to be no exceptions, you're going to lose a year for that."

They didn't expand upon where the automatic one year came from in terms of the guidelines.  I've pasted the guidelines as released by the NCAA below.  There really isn't a minimum guideline for athletes that influence outcomes, wager on their own games, or other sports at their own school.  It simply says that permeant loss of eligibility is a potential penalty.  It doesn't list that penalty for gambling on an athlete's sport involving other schools or other violations with cumulative wages totaling $800 or less.  One might infer that the NCAA sees these kinds of violations as more serious than those and that the minimum punishment would be worse than the guidelines for those. The guidelines for those topped out at 50% of the season for wagering on a competition in the same sport at another school.  It probably a safe assumption that a ban between 51% of a season and 100% the remaining career would be considered for athletes that bet on competition involving their own institution.

• Student-athletes who engage in activities to influence the outcomes of their own games or knowingly provide information to individuals involved in sports betting activities will potentially face permanent loss of collegiate eligibility in all sports. This would also apply to student-athletes who wager on their own games or on other sports at their own schools.
• If a student-athlete wagers on their own sport at another school, education on sports wagering rules and prevention will be required as a condition of reinstatement, and the loss of 50% of one season of eligibility will be considered.
• For all other wagering-related violations (e.g., wagering on professional sports), cumulative dollar value of the wagers will be taken into consideration with the following terms for reinstatement:
  • $200 or less: sports wagering rules and prevention education.
  • $201-$500: loss of 10% of a season of eligibility, plus rules and prevention education.
  • $501-$800: loss of 20% of a season of eligibility, plus rules and prevention education.
  • Greater than $800: loss of 30% of a season of eligibility, plus rules and prevention education.

For cumulative wagering activities that greatly exceed $800, NCAA reinstatement staff are directed to consider whether additional loss of eligibility, including permanent ineligibility, are appropriate.

[Lipdrag]

Can a professor from State U bet on State U winning?  If so, why is this allowed but an 18 year old who is wise enough to vote not be wise enough to bet (not on his own sport/competition)?  Can the president of the university bet?  Does the 18 year old have more access to inside knowledge than the professor or the president?

The 18 year old can spend my money by voting to raise my taxes but he can not spend his own money?  AND, we think the an 18 year old betting with insider knowledge (my roommate's boyfriend on the lacrosse team has a sore knee?!?) will skew the Vegas odds?  This is all a bucket of spit.  All of the moralizers stating "a rhule is a rhule" better never drive 1 mph over the speed limit nor forget to claim all the cash his wife in the garage sale as income on his taxes.  Period.

 

P.S.  Pete Rose should be in the MLB Hall of Fame.

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Lipdrag
Pithy provocative post script.

[billyhoyle]

1 hour ago, fishbane said:

CP said it on FRL today.  "One thing to know.  If you bet on your institution going to be like an automatic year.  And so, if you bet on the Iowa-Iowa State football game, which I know some athletes did on Iowa State, from what I'm told then they're going to lose a year.  And so if Hawkeyes did that it sounds like there's going to be no exceptions, you're going to lose a year for that."

They didn't expand upon where the automatic one year came from in terms of the guidelines.  I've pasted the guidelines as released by the NCAA below.  There really isn't a minimum guideline for athletes that influence outcomes, wager on their own games, or other sports at their own school.  It simply says that permeant loss of eligibility is a potential penalty.  It doesn't list that penalty for gambling on an athlete's sport involving other schools or other violations with cumulative wages totaling $800 or less.  One might infer that the NCAA sees these kinds of violations as more serious than those and that the minimum punishment would be worse than the guidelines for those. The guidelines for those topped out at 50% of the season for wagering on a competition in the same sport at another school.  It probably a safe assumption that a ban between 51% of a season and 100% the remaining career would be considered for athletes that bet on competition involving their own institution.

• Student-athletes who engage in activities to influence the outcomes of their own games or knowingly provide information to individuals involved in sports betting activities will potentially face permanent loss of collegiate eligibility in all sports. This would also apply to student-athletes who wager on their own games or on other sports at their own schools.
• If a student-athlete wagers on their own sport at another school, education on sports wagering rules and prevention will be required as a condition of reinstatement, and the loss of 50% of one season of eligibility will be considered.
• For all other wagering-related violations (e.g., wagering on professional sports), cumulative dollar value of the wagers will be taken into consideration with the following terms for reinstatement:
  • $200 or less: sports wagering rules and prevention education.
  • $201-$500: loss of 10% of a season of eligibility, plus rules and prevention education.
  • $501-$800: loss of 20% of a season of eligibility, plus rules and prevention education.
  • Greater than $800: loss of 30% of a season of eligibility, plus rules and prevention education.

For cumulative wagering activities that greatly exceed $800, NCAA reinstatement staff are directed to consider whether additional loss of eligibility, including permanent ineligibility, are appropriate.

Those guidelines say permanent loss of eligibility. 

[billyhoyle]

40 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Can a professor from State U bet on State U winning?  If so, why is this allowed but an 18 year old who is wise enough to vote not be wise enough to bet (not on his own sport/competition)?  Can the president of the university bet?  Does the 18 year old have more access to inside knowledge than the professor or the president?

The 18 year old can spend my money by voting to raise my taxes but he can not spend his own money?  AND, we think the an 18 year old betting with insider knowledge (my roommate's boyfriend on the lacrosse team has a sore knee?!?) will skew the Vegas odds?  This is all a bucket of spit.  All of the moralizers stating "a rhule is a rhule" better never drive 1 mph over the speed limit nor forget to claim all the cash his wife in the garage sale as income on his taxes.  Period.

 

P.S.  Pete Rose should be in the MLB Hall of Fame.

 

Student athletes can influence the outcome of games. They therefore shouldn’t bet on them. Having an athletic scholarship is not a god given right. 

[fishbane]

24 minutes ago, billyhoyle said:

Those guidelines say permanent loss of eligibility. 

Those 4 words permanent loss of eligibility are in the guidelines, but you are taking them out of context.  In context from the NCAA website it says, "will potentially face permanent loss of collegiate eligibility in all sports." 

DI approves changes to reinstatement guidelines for sports wagering violations - NCAA.org

[fishbane]

1 hour ago, Lipdrag said:

Can a professor from State U bet on State U winning?  If so, why is this allowed but an 18 year old who is wise enough to vote not be wise enough to bet (not on his own sport/competition)?  Can the president of the university bet?  Does the 18 year old have more access to inside knowledge than the professor or the president?

The 18 year old can spend my money by voting to raise my taxes but he can not spend his own money?  AND, we think the an 18 year old betting with insider knowledge (my roommate's boyfriend on the lacrosse team has a sore knee?!?) will skew the Vegas odds?  This is all a bucket of spit.  All of the moralizers stating "a rhule is a rhule" better never drive 1 mph over the speed limit nor forget to claim all the cash his wife in the garage sale as income on his taxes.  Period.

 

P.S.  Pete Rose should be in the MLB Hall of Fame.

 

Many university employees are banned from betting under NCAA rules.  The president of a university is definitely prohibited from wagering on his/her university.  Athletics staff cannot bet either.  I really don't know about professors.  A recent ESPN article said the NCAA betting rules apply to "student-athletes, coaches, administrators and officials."  I guess that leaves open the possibility of some staff being exempted from them. I think there could be the possibility for a conflict of interest with a professor, so it would make sense if they were banned.  A professor could bet against his employer to win an athletic competition and then fail a key player in their class which could rule them ineligible and by extension influence the result. 

If I were writing the rule I would ban all university employees from wagering on NCAA sports.  I think this is pretty standard in professional sports (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL).  If you work for the league or a team you cannot wager on their competitions.

[flyingcement]

1 minute ago, fishbane said:

Many university employees are banned from betting under NCAA rules.  The president of a university is definitely prohibited from wagering on his/her university.  Athletics staff cannot bet either.  I really don't know about professors.  A recent ESPN article said the NCAA betting rules apply to "student-athletes, coaches, administrators and officials."  I guess that leaves open the possibility of some staff being exempted from them. I think there could be the possibility for a conflict of interest with a professor, so it would make sense if they were banned.  A professor could bet against his employer to win an athletic competition and then fail a key player in their class which could rule them ineligible and by extension influence the result. 

If I were writing the rule I would ban all university employees from wagering on NCAA sports.  I think this is pretty standard in professional sports (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL).  If you work for the league or a team you cannot wager on their competitions.

I attended USC for grad school and observed professors develop unusually cozy relationships with football players.  I imagine corruption among professors would be pretty common.