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.
"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."
I know you had your ties to the Newt campaign, so I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with the concept, but out here in the real world there are people in business, the clergy, the military and pretty much every other walk of life that deal with a little concept called the "appearance of impropriety." Since you're obviously unfamiliar with it and how it applies, I'll take a bit of my Sunday morning to explain it to you.
Sometimes it is not enough for people of conscience to be morally correct, but when people are put in certain positions of trust and/or honor, they need to ensure that their behavior is not only beyond reproach, but that they make an extra, concerted effort to avoid tainting the position with perfectly legitimate behavior that might otherwise reflect poorly upon the position or the confidence they hold. Sometimes, things are bigger than one's self, and to service them properly one must go above and beyond one's own personal standards and live up to an even higher expectation. Part of this country's problem right now is people equating that which is legal with that which is ethical or moral. "It's perfectly legal" is a great excuse for much that is entirely unethical or unseemly, or gives off that appearance. In this case I would aver that the Heisman voters dropped the ball (pun intended), but Winston could have preserved much of the award's mystique and prestige simply by voluntarily withdrawing his name.
"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."
So go ahead and give him the award without knowing all the facts...that's essentially what you're saying. Maybe next weekend I can teach you about the concept of "due diligence."