I've never been selected for a Heisman, but perhaps one of the greatest honors I've ever had bestowed upon me was a commission in the US Army. I received it not only because of the work I'd done to attain it, but also because in doing so, I established expectations of me for a position of greater trust and responsibility. Academy Award winners may receive their Oscars based on a movie they made in the past year, but I think there is an implicit expectation that they're not going out to make a bomb the next year, or bring disgrace upon the movie industry (if that's even possible). Presenting bodies, if they take their awards seriously, have a vested interest in not undermining the prestige of their own awards. Similarly, those selected for the awards have a vested interest in maintaining the elite nature of their recognition. In the case of the Heisman, the word "integrity" figures into the criterion, and even the appearance of impropriety besmirches the integrity of the award.
If Winston had asked for his name to be withdrawn after the DA's announcement, he would not have jeopardized any criminal case. Similarly, if he clearly articulated that he was doing so only to remove the controversy from the 2013 award, and declare his intent to vie for it that much harder next year, it would be hard for a civil litigant to paint it as an admission of liability, and in fact, would speak to his character.
Even if it did not, it would still have been the honorable thing to do, but I suppose CS Lewis had it pegged decades ago when he wrote, “We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”
I think I got commissioned the same time you did - you graduated in 91? The good old days before it was “an Army of one.” The Clinton draw down and the beginning of all that good EEO and diversity training - all the things that made the Army (that did not have a diversity problem) so great!
You are simultaneously elevating the Heisman over what it really is - and denigrating Winston on hearsay evidence - all so you can make the case that he does not rise to the appropriate level for that award.
This is not a community service award. There are other awards more targeted at that kind of quality, and he did not win those awards.
BUT - What if there is absolutely no truth to the accusations? Ruh Roh, you hadn’t even let that thought cross your mind, had you.
Meanwhile, if in a civil suit or whatever more evidence comes to light, which might happen by the way, then the award will be taken from him post facto. Thus him getting the award now is the appropriate result, based on what is known.