There's been abundant talk around various newspapers about what action the Indianapolis Colts should take in regard to Joe Lefeged who is facing gun charges following a strange arrest earlier this week. Bob Kravitz of the Indy Star, for instance, suggested the Colts wait for the justice system to work through the case before making their move, suggesting that releasing Lefeged now would set a precedent for doing so with more important player later.
That's fine and dandy Mr. Kravitz, but that's not how the NFL operates.
Too often we view the NFL and its teams as judicial entities. Teams are in the business of winning football games. Period. If a team comes across as a group of model citizens, all the better, but that's not what NFL teams are concerned with. That's not what sells tickets on Sundays.
The Indianapolis Colts don't need to wait for the litigation in this case to wrap up. Kravitz suggested that murder or violent charges should be held to a different standard, but that's simply poor logic. Using such reasoning, who decides the severity of infractions?
The truth of the matter is the Colts will do whatever they feel benefits their team, or in this case hurts the team the least. If that means the Colts cut a distraction before it festers, more power to them. If that's the route they decide to take, don't expect them to apply that action to a star player. If, for instance, Andrew Luck was arrested on similar charges, you can bet the Colts would keep him as long as possible.
The notion that teams need to take moral stands or establish universal precedents is ludicrous. We have to remember, NFL teams are in the business of making money. They're not here to distribute social justice; that's the court's business. That's why teams deal with players on a case-by-case basis, and that's the way it should be.