The evidence lies in media reports from the weekend, perhaps written by the same people who vote, wondering aloud whether Jameis Winston still has a shot at the Heisman Trophy.

The same Mr. Winston who earned the nickname "Crime Time" in the Twitterverse last week.

And so the time has come for the purveyors of the Heisman to consider removing the "integrity" clause found in the Heisman's mission statement. This just in: Mr. Winston's bouts with "integrity" have been, you know, sporadic.

The mission statement: "The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity."

Mr. Winston's scorecard:

• Investigated for $4,200 in damage at his apartment complex in 2012 for involvement in a BB gun fight just hours after he and an accomplice were stopped on campus.

• Involved in a sexual assault case, but did not face charges.

• Stole crab legs from a supermarket.

• Stood on a table in the student union and hollered vulgar comments that got him suspended.

Send up a few smoke signals the next time Mr. Winston displays a hint of integrity.

And yet he's still mentioned for the Heisman, almost matter-of-factly in most media outlets. Why? Because nobody, really, takes the integrity clause seriously.

So consider removing it.

Because the award resembles a bit of a farce right now.

With Mr. Winston as the best and worst example.

Full disclosure: I am a Heisman voter. I take the integrity clause seriously. I didn't have Winston on my ballot last year. Was he the best player? No question. But his behavior was - and is - mortifying. Hence: You either voted him first because he was the best player and integrity means nothing to you, or you didn't vote for him at all because you read the entire mission statement.

I chose the latter.

I've seen arguments from Heisman voters, one more simplistic than the next, suggesting that applying the integrity clause is dangerous because we don't always know what candidates may be hiding. That's gutless. A cop out wrapped in self-congratulatory rationalism.

The real reason voters choose the best player, even if they ignore the integrity clause? They don't want to subject themselves to public scrutiny. Many of them are in the media. Amazing how some of them can criticize routinely, but don't like it so much when the public gets its swing.

Our job is to consider the entire mission statement and vote on the facts we know. Example: It was a pretty safe bet last year that BC's Andre Williams was the best combination of excellence with integrity. He led the nation in rushing, was a teaching assistant at BC in a class about diversity, justice and faith and was in the middle of writing what he called a "philosophical memoir."

And yet he was pretty well ignored by most voters who were either starstruck or scared. And who are they scared of? A social media sphere that might hit them over the head with a snow shovel. Note to the voters: Grow a backbone.

Fans will never change. They'll rationalize exponentially, not in the name of what's decent, but for not ruining their social plans on fall Saturdays or the trip to the Orange Bowl for a week of merriment.

Voters ought to realize it's not what they tell each other in gin mills, around water coolers and in press boxes. It's what they tell themselves. We are all given a conscience. We should use it.

I'm not voting for Jameis Winston. The rest of his season is irrelevant. He violates the Heisman's integrity clause. But the time has come for the Heisman Machine to reevaluate its mission statement:

Does integrity count or not?

This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro.

Twitter: @BCgenius