I don't think taking a firm stance against DWI is mandating morality. Morality is vague and open to interpretation depending on one's beliefs. DWI is breaking a hard and fast law that can have severe consequences, both legal and otherwise. So while an organization can't (and shouldn't) dictate whether or not you drink, go to strip clubs, etc., it can (and maybe should) have a firm policy against alcohol related crimes. Personally I think if you get one DWI and then you fired it's a little scary. But I'm not a huge fan of things like drunk tests for most jobs. in an athlete's case, dismissal is neither necessary nor plausible. Suspension, forced rehab, etc. are the more likely avenue. And the benefits go beyond the potential life-saving possibilities. In the Cardinals case, they have a reputation for being a familial, clean organization. Assuming Hancock's accident was alcohol related (still no firm evidence for that) that's 2 DWIs in a few months, with one resulting in a fatality. That can go a long way in harming that familial reputation. So it's in the organization's (any organization's) best interests to prevent that behavior as much as possible.