Can someone with knowledge explain the following to me, especially the last line....Without saying I agree or disagree, it's a big call. The findings against Cable are disgusting. But judging the Hall of Fame for non-football acts is a can of worms. They'd be a lot of old-timers who'd be a bit nervous about their place. How do you judge Cable's crimes against Ablett's negligence in the death of a young woman? Is it a bit off that they should be compared?
And if being a s**t-bloke is a mark against you, then being a positive force in the community should therefore count for you. How Wayne Schwass isn't in the Hall of Fame yet is mystifying.
"Barry Cable is no longer a legend in the eyes of Western Australia, with the disgraced footballer stripped of a host of honours after a judge found the former star sexually abused a Perth girl while at the height of his playing career.....
Cable, who repeatedly attempted to have the court case proceedings permanently thrown out and did not attend the trial, has denied the abuse.
He has not been charged with any criminal offences."