LEICESTER showed over the summer that they will take a strong stance on players who are racist.

Three players, James Pearson, Tom Hopper and Adam Smith, were all released for calling a group of Thai women “slit eye” during an orgy which was filmed by the players.

It was the correct decision and the club were applauded for it. But just a few months later they are back in a similar situation.

Jamie Vardy was caught on camera calling a man “jap” during a game of poker in a casino.

Though Vardy has apologised for the racial slur, the club have launched an investigation into the incident.

It is likely that he will be given a heavy fine and warned about his future conduct.

He may even have to go on a course telling him that racism is wrong. But should the club terminate his contract?

There are a number of differences between Vardy and the trio of youngsters.

For one, he was not partaking in sexual intercourse when he was being racist.

Another difference is that it didn’t happen on the club’s goodwill tour of Thailand.

But the third, and probably the biggest, difference is that the England international has more value to the club.

The 28-year-old proved at the back-end of last season that he can be relied upon to put in stellar performances when needed.

And his goal over the weekend shows that he has continued his fine form into this season and the board will not be as willing to part with him.

Not to mention, if you cancel his contract the club lose out on a potential fee which is the last thing they will want.

Pearson, Hopper and Smith were never going to break into the first team and would have eventually been released on a free transfer.

But given that Vardy has scored in the Premier League and has an international cap, he could fetch upwards of £7 million on the transfer market.

Leicester can’t afford to let that kind of money walk out the door so are unlikely to punish him that severely.

I may be wrong, it could be that they continue their stern stance against racism and following the investigation, conclude that they have no option but to release him.

But look at the way Chelsea handled the John Terry case. Or Liverpool backed Luis Suarez with T-shirts.

The Premier League champions released a youth player for letting off a stink bomb but was never going to show Terry the exit because of what he means to the club.

Suarez went on to command a fee of £60m and had he not bitten a player months before he joined Barcelona, he probably could have been sold for £100m.

Only chairman Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha and the rest of the board know whether they want to release Vardy.

They could be thinking that if they release him now, they can delve back into the transfer market before the window closes and replace him.

But going from the behaviour of other clubs in similar situations, and not just for racial incidents but violent ones, it cannot be underestimated what a club will ignore if they feel an individual can win them games.

Look at how many clubs were reportedly interested in convicted rapist Ched Evans.

This isn’t another discussion on Evans, more an example of how desperate clubs are to pick up three points on a Saturday afternoon.

Vardy apologising for his actions is a bonus to Srivaddhanaprabha, as the player has shown remorse and makes things a bit easier should they decide to keep him.

They could argue that he knows what he did was wrong and that he vowed never to do it again.

Him quickly releasing a statement was a step in the right direction, something Suarez failed to do which never sat right with many people.

But ultimately, it shouldn’t get him off the hook. And it will be interesting to see if the Football Association gets involved.

It wouldn’t surprise me if they don’t and use the excuse that it happened off the field and in the player’s spare time, therefore it doesn’t fall within their jurisdiction.

But at the end of the day, it makes their brand look bad and will open the door to more arguments that the league are not doing enough to combat racism.

Especially after the way they handled the Malky Mackay incident by letting him get away the racist, sexist and homophobic texts.

It set them back so many steps after the positive work they did regarding Dave Whelan, when they fined and banned him for making anti-semitic remarks at a press conference.

After the sacking of the racist trio, Leicester said: “(The club) is committed to promoting a positive message of community and family values and equality and to upholding the standards expected of a club with its history, tradition and aspirations.”

If Vardy is allowed to stay, that image would surely be tarnished.