Allen's first brush with the law? Not exactly.

[Jaycelt58 at aol.com]

My take is that Bassy's history has quite a bit to do with their  decision. 
With Tony, it was the first time he was involved in something like  that. 
With Bassy, it is not. This is now the third time he has been involved  in a 
situation like this in like the past 14 months. At some point it  doesn't 
become a coincedence anymore. Guilty or not guilty in this case, I  think the 
fact that he keeps getting himself in these types of situations  played a lot 
into there decision.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
This was not the first time Allen has been involved on something like this,  
it was just the first time as a Celtic.  
 
_http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/10/update-tony-allen-charged-with.html_ 
(http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/10/update-tony-allen-charged-with.html) 
_http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/10/tony-allen-and-whataburger-incident.ht
ml_ 
(http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/10/tony-allen-and-whataburger-incident.html) 
 
It seems that Mr Allen has been very lucky, or unlucky, whichever the case  
may be, in at least three different brushes with the law.  Of course,  that's 
not uncommon with the athletically privileged.  Perhaps that's why  they keep 
getting into trouble in the first place?  I'd also be very, very  surprised if 
the Celtics didn't know about these incidents since they are  readily 
available by a simple google search and were written about in the  Oklahoma papers. 
 
The one thing I haven't seen brought up in this argument is the Celtics  
player code of conduct rules that every player was, I believe, made to  sign.  I 
also believe that this was instituted after the Allen  situation.
That is the one reason I'm not willing to call hypocrisy in this case. 
 



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.