So many fans claim Tommy abandoned Ken, which isn't true at all. Let me break it down:

Firstly, Ken was the one who made the decision to addictively use coke, and we all know that coke addicts like Ken would have been a detriment to business. Secondly, Tommy sent Ken to rehab, and Ken was the one who made the decision to walk out of the building and wound up in the desert. In what way would Tommy have to know Ken would walk out into the desert? And here's something that's a hilariously weak counter-argument: "Oh, Tommy shouldn't have had the coke around Ken to use!" Dude, Ken is a grown adult. He shouldn't have even been using it to begin with. Tommy dealt those drugs. He didn't force Ken to sniff that sh*t. Ken chose to do it. It's idiotic to blame Tommy for that while infantilizing Ken at such an attempt to defend him. Face it. Tommy had every right to cut ties with Ken. And that's a fact, too.

5 hours ago, Silver said:

Yeah, Ken shouts that he's "cleaner than a new toilet seat" - he didn't walk out on the rehab center, he was finally clean. Then he tries to call Tommy who won't take his call, ostensibly putting an end to their friendship/business relationship as Ken later becomes Salvatore's middle man in Caligula.

I think it's pretty clear Tommy didn't want to keep Ken around. It's very likely he was the one who sent Ken to rehab, for reasons we can infer, but to send him to a rehab center in a remote town in the middle of the desert? in the opposite side of the country? Yeah... I don't think Tommy planned to ever see Ken again by sending him there, regardless if he actually cleaned up his act or not.

You can view it as Tommy abandoning Ken, but we don't have the exact reasons as to why Tommy chose to ditch him.

Maybe Ken became a liability and was putting Tommy's business ventures and organization into jeopardy, somehow. Or maybe Tommy became too arrogant from owning VC and progressively viewed Ken and his coke addiction as beneath him in spite of their history. It's open to interpretation.

It's not to interpretation. It's open to factual logic. Ken was a coke addict whose addiction would have definitely been detrimental to business had Tommy kept him around. Remember the motto of Scarface? "Don't get high on your own supply." Yeah, I know you'll probably say "ah, Tony and Ken aren't comparable.", but my point still stands. A coke addict has a lot of unpredictable behaviors, and regardless what their personality is, coke addicts cause more harm than good for business, which is why it would be incredibly idiotic for Tommy to keep him around, unless he didn't learn his lesson after what Lance did to him. Also, it wouldn't have mattered where the rehab center was located. Either way, Ken would have nowhere to stay after making the decision to leave the building instead of actually staying there until he could call someone else to give him a place to live. Tommy is arrogant in general, but cutting ties with the lawyer who fractured their partnership himself isn't an example of that. Had Ken stayed sober, Tommy would very most likely kept him around.

13 hours ago, Desmond D said:

It's not to interpretation. It's open to factual logic. Ken was a coke addict whose addiction would have definitely been detrimental to business had Tommy kept him around. Remember the motto of Scarface? "Don't get high on your own supply." Yeah, I know you'll probably say "ah, Tony and Ken aren't comparable.", but my point still stands. A coke addict has a lot of unpredictable behaviors, and regardless what their personality is, coke addicts cause more harm than good for business, which is why it would be incredibly idiotic for Tommy to keep him around, unless he didn't learn his lesson after what Lance did to him. Also, it wouldn't have mattered where the rehab center was located. Either way, Ken would have nowhere to stay after making the decision to leave the building instead of actually staying there until he could call someone else to give him a place to live. Tommy is arrogant in general, but cutting ties with the lawyer who fractured their partnership himself isn't an example of that. Had Ken stayed sober, Tommy would very most likely kept him around.

I don't disagree. I believe Tommy had every right to get rid of Ken, surely his addiction was detrimental to their business relationship and friendship. But we don't know what exactly happened during those six years.

At the end of the day, Tommy didn't plan on keeping Ken around, even after he got clean. Assuming Tommy is the one who sent him to Fort Carson, Ken most likely didn't get the message that by being sent to a rehab center in the other side of the country, Tommy was essentially telling him to f*ck off and to move on. Ken only realized that when he tried to get him on the phone afterward. From that perspective, one can view that as Tommy abandoning Ken as he never planned on giving him a second chance at all (maybe he did during those six years but Ken relapsed and f*cked it all up again, who knows).