If you’re wondering why cornerback Perrish Cox is still on the Broncos’ roster, you’re not alone. Presuming club officials want to minimize the number of times their helmet appears on TMZ this fall, he won’t be for much longer.

In any case, he shouldn’t be, and not because the Broncos have prejudged the facts of his criminal case, sordid as the allegations are. They should release Cox by Sept. 3, when teams are required to cut down to 53 players, in their own interests. No matter how the case turns out, it’s going to get ugly between now and then, and the Broncos have every right to distance themselves from the blowback.

Cox is entitled to a presumption of innocence under the law. But a new Broncos front office trying to restore the organization’s reputation is under no obligation to go along for the ride.

The question, frankly, is why Cox wasn’t waived as soon as the NFL lockout ended, just days after the affidavit of probable cause for his arrest warrant on two counts of sexual assault was made public. The answer appears to involve a careful legal dance.

When players are accused of crimes — and Cox stands charged with two particularly odious felonies — the NFL and its teams generally try to strike a delicate balance. On the one hand, they want to disassociate themselves from bad behavior. On the other, they don’t want to be vulnerable to charges they prejudged the facts if the case falls apart or the player is acquitted.

I’m told the Broncos’ top executives read the 13-page affidavit when it was released and found the allegation that Cox had sex with a woman who was incapable of consent very disturbing. Indeed, Cox himself described such an act as “sick” during a police interview in which he also denied having sex with the alleged victim, according to the affidavit.

One supposes his defense in court will take a different tack. The alleged victim ended up pregnant, and police said a DNA test indicated Cox was the father.

Harvey Steinberg, who represents Cox, and Craig Silverman, who represents the alleged victim, declined comment for this column. The Broncos’ only comment has been the terse statement they issued when the affidavit was released, in which they called the allegations “extremely serious and troubling to our organization.”

If the Broncos had cut Cox when the lockout ended, based solely on the allegations in the affidavit, I’m told they feared vulnerability to a union grievance.

I’m no lawyer, but this seems like a pretty cautious interpretation considering teams don’t have to give any reason for cutting a player and, in any event, can always claim they are protecting against “distractions” or the like. Make no mistake: You don’t have to prejudge the case to know that if and when Cox goes to trial, it will be a big distraction to the Broncos.

Defensive back Cassius Vaughn, who was sharing an apartment with Cox at the time; injured wide receiver Demaryius Thomas, who spent the night of the alleged assault in that apartment; and even linebacker Wesley Woodyard, with whom the alleged victim said she had a subsequent consensual relationship, could be called as witnesses.

If Cox is still a member of the Broncos, the possibility of teammates testifying against teammates would be very real. According to the affidavit, Thomas made at least two statements to police that would not appear to be helpful to Cox’s defense.

Provocative pictures of a woman rumored to be the complainant in the case are circulating on the Internet. Given the DNA match, the defense seems likely to argue the sex was consensual, Cox’s previous denials notwithstanding, and cast the alleged victim as an unhappy Broncos groupie. Even if this proves to be true and Cox is exonerated, it won’t exactly advance the wholesome image the Broncos are going for.

The trial is scheduled for October, smack in the middle of the NFL season, but the Broncos might be spared the awkward timing by Steinberg, a very able defense attorney who has represented a number of their players. Continuances are not uncommon in serious criminal cases, and the Broncos would no doubt be relieved to see this one pushed back into the offseason.

At the same time, they seem to be laying the groundwork for Cox’s release. He has been dropped from second team and starting nickel back at the end of last season to third team on this season’s first depth chart.

Cox had the team’s only interception in its first preseason game last week, but the play of the backup cornerbacks was otherwise uninspiring and gave the Broncos plenty of football-related reasons to look for replacements among the hundreds of players who will hit the waiver wire Aug. 30 and Sept. 3.

To limit the hit to their reputation from the sideshow Cox’s trial is certain to be, the Broncos need to release him by that final cutdown day. If he’s exonerated, he’ll find another job in the league soon enough.

Dave Krieger: 303-954-5297, dkrieger@denverpost.com or twitter.com/DaveKrieger