http://www.bigpondsp...me/default.aspx

Look who is going to be inducted......Bloody Disgrace IMO

NOT HAPPY JAN.

Unhappy Jan.

Yeah, I think he deserves it from his football, but I also think the AFL has done the right thing in waiting to see genuine remorse & a wish to make amends.

On top of this is the fact that the young Carey endured a lot of abuse & pain growing up which would only have caused to twist his mind. A little similar to Ablett senior, all round really, both with abused childhoods.

Good Luck to him, and I hope he continues to make good his way through life.

I would for two reasons 1/ On pure ability and 2/ He was found innocent anyway.

He lost a subsequent civil trial on the matter (but hasn't paid any of the damages awarded). Also, a jury found Simpson guilty of armed robbery and kidnapping in October 2008 and he was sentenced to nine years in prison, currently being served.

If AFL clubs are now placing a strong emphasis on integrity, I don't see why the AFL Hall of Fame shouldn't have a criterion on the idea. That's not to say Carey should be left out.

No, i just don't believe Carey should be given any acolades that's all. Watch the interview he does with Denton-if you know anything about body language Carey is showing all the signs throughout that interview. I don't believe one word he says.

I am in the minority around here Fair enough, but Carey deserves no awards in my Book.

To you and others, should the AFL take away his Premiership medallions? Because those are in awards for football achievements. Carey has every right as possibly the greatest player to play the game, to be listed as a Legend, let alone a Hall of Famer, in my opinion. Let the AFL judge him on his footballing ability, and keep the law where it belongs - regular society.

Let the AFL judge him on his footballing ability, and keep the law where it belongs - regular society.

I don't think you can separate out just a footballer's record. If integrity wasn't important in football, we might still have Nathan Carroll or the Blues Angwin.

Besides, the criteria for entry to the AFL Hall of Fame include that "the Committee may consider a candidate's individual record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship and character. That was always the sticking point on Carey's admission.

OJ Simpson certainy wouldn't get admitted. Many wouldn't go to the Hall of Fame if it meant being confronted by a murderer, rapist or habitual felon, regardless of how good they were at football.

How about a thief, public drunk or a single assault? Or a drug addict? Or a litterer?

Where's the line?

The point is, it's not for us, or the AFL, to be moral arbiters.

And we are not proud of players in the HOF because of their off-field conduct anyway. We are proud of them for the on-field prowess.

My point about Carey is that we talk about his criminal activity and draw a nexus between that and the HOF, but not his actions that actually devastated a football club. Hypocritical methinks.

Is there no off-field behaviour that would cause you to exclude someone from the HOF on ethical grounds?

Think about it carefully, people do some heinous things.

Although it's a tough decision a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Maybe Carey is inside the line and maybe he isn't but there has to be a line.

His actions that devastated a football club could come into the equation depending on where the line is drawn.

Is there no off-field behaviour that would cause you to exclude someone from the HOF on ethical grounds?

Think about it carefully, people do some heinous things.

Although it's a tough decision a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Maybe Carey is inside the line and maybe he isn't but there has to be a line.

His actions that devastated a football club could come into the equation depending on where the line is drawn.

I honestly don't think so. I do understand why some people would say "X person (maybe or maybe not Carey) should not be celebrated in any way", but I just think that's illogical. Also, by drawing a line somewhere, those that are within it are somehow sufficiently moral.... Have you thought about what happens if someone is in the HOF and then commits a heinous act? Withdrawn? Obviously my opinion is not because I condone heinous acts, it's simply that I don't think HOF and those acts are in any way related.

Have you thought about what happens if someone is in the HOF and then commits a heinous act? Withdrawn? Obviously my opinion is not because I condone heinous acts, it's simply that I don't think HOF and those acts are in any way related.

If a HOF member were to commit or found to have committed a heinous crime he should be withdrawn.

I think your assessment of the HOF would be different to the AFL and the general community.

There are enough example in life that demonstrate that sporting efforts cannot be separated from personal behaviours off it. I dont see how the HOF is such a protected species from reality. And it isn't.

I honestly don't think so. I do understand why some people would say "X person (maybe or maybe not Carey) should not be celebrated in any way", but I just think that's illogical. Also, by drawing a line somewhere, those that are within it are somehow sufficiently moral.... Have you thought about what happens if someone is in the HOF and then commits a heinous act? Withdrawn? Obviously my opinion is not because I condone heinous acts, it's simply that I don't think HOF and those acts are in any way related.

So for example Christopher Hudson would be inducted into your HOF and if he was in it when he committed his crimes would stay in?

It's a very strange world we live in Master Jack.

So for example Christopher Hudson would be inducted into your HOF and if he was in it when he committed his crimes would stay in?

It's a very strange world we live in Master Jack.

Understand your point. If the HOF has the word integrity in it, then no. So under current rules, no. But I just think the footy HOF should limit itself to footy achievements. If the achievement is there then it should be recognised. If Christopher Hudson (Hudson surname probably a bad example!) were a HOF footballer, by not putting him in it is simply denial of what the HOF is there for. And it means it will keep getting raised (for example, when he is out of jail, if he pleads guilty and blames his Mummy, etc...).

So I think it's high and mighty to give the HOF some moral purpose.

A tool no doubt, but also the best player i have ever seen.

Maybe Before the Game can create a tool of the week hall of fame and induct him as the founding member to offset the accolades afforded to him by the AFL hall of fame?

Understand your point. If the HOF has the word integrity in it, then no. So under current rules, no. But I just think the footy HOF should limit itself to footy achievements. If the achievement is there then it should be recognised. If Christopher Hudson (Hudson surname probably a bad example!) were a HOF footballer, by not putting him in it is simply denial of what the HOF is there for. And it means it will keep getting raised (for example, when he is out of jail, if he pleads guilty and blames his Mummy, etc...).

So I think it's high and mighty to give the HOF some moral purpose.

"Character" is one of the Hall of Fame criteria and IMO it must be - just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing. If you remove character Josef Fritzl is in your HOF. It's like the old joke about the bar conversation "... now that we've established what you are, we're just haggling over price ...".