Though some of the Giants-leaning commenters seem to be confused about our curiosity regarding the basis for the 30-day incarceration of running back Ahmad Bradshaw, the reason is pretty simple.

Whenever an NFL player is thrown in jail for 30 days, we’re going to be curious.

In this case, our curiosity is piqued by the clumsy effort to obfuscate (thanks, former Giants running back) the basis for the incarceration.

Tom Rock of Newsday offers up a theory that possibly explains the situation.  Here it is:

“Bradshaw did something naughty when he was a kid (it’s a sealed juvenile thing) and was sentenced to probation by Tazewell County which covers his hometown of Bluefield, Va.  Then he went to college (at UVa) and pleaded guilty to the underage drinking thing in 2004.  Then he went to another college (Marshall) and was tagged with the [petit] larceny in 2006.  He was sentenced to probation in each of those instances, but apparently those arrests — not sure if it’s either one or the combination of the two — violated the first probation agreement from when he was a juvenile in Bluefield.  Thus, 30 days behind bars in Abingdon.”

Makes sense, except for the fact that Bradshaw somehow ducked the probation violation during the months and years following the arrest in Charlottesville and later in Huntington.  Has this issue been merely percolating through the legal system all this time?  Or was Bradshaw somehow able to delay the dispensation of justice until he was able to get himself ensconced in the National Football League?

Moreover, if Rock is right, why in the hell didn’t the team or Bradshaw’s lawyer just say so?  Instead, both parties carefully have ducked addressing the basis for the development.