We have hijacked this thread and I wonder if one of the mods doesn't want to cut this little debate with Purity out and put it into a new thread, so as to keep the police/legal blotter thread focused.
Actually, Purity has clouded the facts here, SB. Allen did not throw a punch in the heat of a situation against a man who was rushing toward him, as Purity argued. Nor was he convicted because he was a football player and thus was physically fit enough to "run away'.
Allen was convicted because numerous eyewitnesses indicated that he was drunk, picking fights with people and then assaulted an innocent bystander in an action that
was premeditated...see
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2005-08-19-roundup_x.htm
"Allen was accused of punching Maurice Payne in the face on Nov. 27 when a series of fights broke out on the downtown pedestrian mall shortly after the mall's bars closed.
Payne, 21, suffered a broken jaw and had to have his mouth wired shut for six weeks.
During his trial earlier this month, Allen testified he acted in self-defense and reacted after being punched, knocked to the ground and dazed by another man.
Witnesses said Allen had been drinking that night and got into an argument with three other people before being "sucker punched" by a man who immediately fled.
Moments later, (note SB, he had time to reflect) witnesses testified that Allen got up, approached Payne from behind and punched him once on the right side of the face (note SB, the premeditated walk over to the man and the courageous act of hitting a bystander from behind who never saw the punch coming).
Witnesses also said there had been no interaction between Payne and Allen prior to the scuffle and that Payne merely was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The judge deliberated for a week before issuing his verdict.
"
The state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (Allen) was not justified in his conduct and that he did not act in self-defense," Gerard wrote. "He did not avail himself to a number of reasonable options short of striking Payne with his fist in the face."
I am not arguing that the crimes are "equivalent", SB. I am arguing that both are violent and thus comparable. Remember, SB, Purity has implied that the Troy Smith and Allen cases are equivalent, or at least comparable.
I agree with the penalties Tressel handed out in these cases.
So, if we have Irizarry and Guilford on one extreme (a violent crime that results in expulsion from the team and likely the end of football careers) and Troy Smith on the other (violation of NCAA rule with no physical harm to anyone and requiring restitution and suspension for two games which include a bowl game), where does the right "sentence" for Allen (missing an opener against a weak opponent) fit? Is it inside the spectrum? I certainly can't find any way to reasonably put it there.
Now then, think what ESPiN would have been doing with this news last year if Allen was at Ohio State and Tressel suspended him for Miami of Ohio? Given that Iowa has much more serious and numerous violations than Ohio State, where is Tom Friend? Prince Albert and the May Queen? Where are the allegations of "a program out of control"? Where is the criticism of this incredibly weak sentence for such thuggery?
So, I reject with contempt the implied suggestion by Purity that, having demonstrated the failed logic of his posts, our posts lack objectivity because we are Ohio State fans.
Hey, it's not like Iowa is a major rivalry or hated competitor. Nor is Purity hated here. But, if he wants to come here and post, then he should not imply slurs against our players and members simply because he wishes to obscure the facts about how his own coach has badly handled this issue.
