Roughriders left one question about Hughes unanswered

The Saskatchewan Roughriders’ initial public response to the Charleston Hughes matter was forthcoming and admirable — save for one put-a-bag-over-the-head moment. Chris Jones, the CFL team’s head coach and general manager, was discussing the revelation that Hughes had been charged Oct. 11 with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample for analysis.

When asked about possible team-imposed discipline, Jones responded: “Charleston is human and he made a huge mistake. We don’t condone it. We think of the offence very seriously. It’s tough to gauge. We’re certainly not going to just throw out one of our own but, at the same time, he’s got to understand that it’s a very serious offence.”

But we also want to understand: What is a serious enough offence to warrant dropping a player?

In late July, the Roughriders released running back Jerome Messam shortly after he was charged with voyeurism.

Nearly a year earlier, Saskatchewan defensive back Justin Cox had been released after being charged with assault causing bodily harm in an alleged incident of domestic violence.

The league promptly imposed a ban on any CFL team signing Cox. Head office distributed a similarly stern dispatch when Messam was charged.

One difference is the fact that Messam and Cox, unlike Hughes, were charged with crimes against women. Someone who drives drunk puts other people at risk, but there is not an injured party in the charge against Hughes. Could that be why the Roughriders seem to be applying a different standard or threshold in the case of Hughes?

That was the purpose of questioning to Jones on Wednesday, when I began: “In the case of Jerome Messam, it was a different matter, but it was an immediate release…”

“We’re not talking about Jerome Messam,” Jones interjected. “We’re talking about this and it’s all I’m talking about.”

“It was an immediate release of a player based on a legal matter,” I responded. “Why is this one a different scenario?”

Jones looked the other way. And there was silence.

Now, let’s be clear. The intent here is not to advocate the release of Hughes, whose situation is being handled “as an individual event,” in the words of Jones.

But it is reasonable to wonder why one charge compels the Roughriders to summarily terminate a player, whereas Hughes remains with the team. Where does the team draw the line?

Aside from the refusal to address that issue, Jones fared well (as did Hughes) while addressing members of the media Wednesday, one day after the news came to light.

Jones appropriately acknowledged the severity of the situation, noting that Hughes made “a huge mistake.” The Riders’ boss added that the team is still gathering more information.

The 34-year-old Hughes, who has a league-high 15 sacks, subsequently met with reporters and was suitably contrite.

To their credit, Jones and Hughes did not evade the issue or recite the standard “we’re not going to comment on the matter while it is before the courts,” etc.