Joe, I’m sorry you don’t understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The facts in this case, as they are known, indicate that a young lady who brags on social media about chasing cleats….chased and caught her cleat….Jamies Winston. She apparenlty caught at least one other dude for sex that same night.
She then lied about being drunk to the cops, made a lot of inconsistent claims and charges, and then had a crazy relative bring the case back to life once that cleat became nationally famous.
So apparently you think it’s the onus of the Heisman committee to do more due diligence than that, simply so you won’t be offended by their award. That’s just absurd and stupid. And yet, you hide your absurdity behind your pharisee robe of phony self righteousness.
It is YOU sir who are guilty of the impropriety of prejudgment in a situation you know nothing about, and apparently have spent little time to research, since doing so would rip your high horse right out from under you. So climb down off your high horse …..slowly podner……you are way up there…..and a quick fall would hurt.
Meanwhile, if in the course of due diligence, the known facts indicate that this predatory vixen was somehow not in character on this particular night, and was for some reason not chasing cleats this particular night….and was only re- energized in her cleat chasing pursuits with the help of a date rape drug…or something similar….then that would change everything. And at that time, The Heisman committee…who are not required to be attorneys, let alone sayers and seers and prophets….can easily and appropriately reverse their decision.
But to assume enough guilt to make this appropriate now puts you in the un American camp of prejudgement.
Apparently I understand it better than you. It applies to the legal system, and not to private organizations or administrative proceedings.
And I'm going to stay right here on my high horse, knowing that if I was offered an award by a civic or professional organization, or appointed to an office of special trust and responsibility, and my name came under a cloud of suspicion that would reflect discredit upon said honor or office, I would voluntarily ask to be withdrawn from consideration until such time as any ambiguity or doubt had been removed, even if I knew all along, I was innocent of said impropriety.
An award or an office bestowed by an organization are bigger than, and do not belong exclusively to, the person to whom they are entrusted.
I have the utmost respect for the principles of American jurisprudence to include standards of proof, the admissibility of evidence, and innocence until proven guilty; I work within the system every day and firmly believe those principles should be applied within that system. They do not apply to judgments and decisions made by private organizations.
Personally, our nation suffers from an aversion to "judgmentalism," with people who would never otherwise touch a Bible, incorrectly citing Matthew 7:1. The standard put forth therein simply advises that on judge only by the same standards one would expect to be judged by. There's no high horse involved there. I've already stated (repeatedly) on this thread what I believed Winston should have done, and if I were in his shoes, I would have done just that. Namely, ask for my name to be withdrawn from consideration for this year.