Originally Posted by Ilow

This is pretty much the essence of why the NFL is so deeply involved. Although the individual teams sign the checks, the players ultimately serve at the discretion of the NFL. If this were not the case, the NFL would not be involved in enforcing in other areas, (performance enhancing drugs, etc).
If you would like another comparison, it is like when someone finds a finger in some chili at Wendy's. The Wendy's corporate is quite aware that this incident that happened in one place affects people's perception of ALL Wendy's, and hurts the Wendy's BRAND. The NFL is extremely concerned about the NFL Brand, and is taking dramatic steps to protect it's image.
As far as your question about race, Pan, I think race is relevant in this matter, but perhaps not in the way that you reference. I don't have the feeling at this point that a white player would have taken a bigger hit from the NFL or the legal system. There is the issue, that in this case, dogfighting is apparently mainly a culturally black enterprise (I seriously doubt that you can find any kind of accurate stats to support this so it is all anecdotal evidence). The people who have spoken out on the topic so far, from the NFL have all been black as far as I've heard, and some have even given tacit approval of the practice (although the often retract). Of further concern for the NFL is the fact that nearly everyone who has been disciplined by the NFL has also been black. Now obviously since the majority of players in the NFL are black this would be a statistical probability, but the non-blacks are significantly less represented. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one white player who has had issues (Perf. enhancing drugs, josh miller, I think). There may be others, but they pale in comparison to the Pac-Mans, Tank Johnsons, and a good portion of the Bengals. Anyway, if I go any further, I feel like it may be a thread hijack (if it isn't already) so I'll stop here.