Australia v Djokovic - Australia wins...

sp3ctre said:
The authorites dropped the ball, for sure... nobody is denying that. Doesn't change the rest of the facts though... and at the end of the day if they let him play tennis or not, it doesn't really matter.

What he should probably do is put his hands up to either a) getting his documents wrong, or b) socialising while knowingly having Covid... Then he should try and negotiate walking away quietly and not getting banned for 3 years like he may well be (I think he won't though) if he gets booted out.

At least the pending legal battle will be interesting if not for the outcome but for the revelations made along the way

sars said:
[ref]Flyingfifer[/ref], No he was given the vaccination exemption on medical grounds by the State of Victoria and Tennis Australia, both of whom have a vestige interest in allowing him to play. At immigration it was felt that the exemption was incorrect and thus his visa was cancelled at immigration. The first court ruling for Novak was awarded because procedure hadn't been followed correctly, as he was unable to contact his legal representative, which the Government admitted, it was not about the validity of his medical exemption. At this point the Prime Minister stated that it was up to the State of Victoria to decide and then yes as the court of public opinion started to criticise the Government he interceded stating that it was a federal and immigration issue, which it actually is and at this point there was only one real outcome, which occurred today.

You state that it was not Novak's fault, this is untrue, as he or his agents lied on the visa application, which he has admitted. Also you will know that other players have been expelled using the same medical grounds for exemption, which kinda proves that the exemption was bogus, as in all the unvaccinated players had the same medical excuse not to be vaccinated, yeah right. It's not like they couldn't get in legally, all they had to do was isolate for 14 days :poke:

"he was given the vaccination exemption on medical grounds by the State of Victoria" I rest my case. Vested interest or not is irrelevant. He was given a formal medical exemption and told he would be ok to enter by authorities, if the Aus regime disagreed they should have said so immediately instead of allowing a circus to play out and allowing him to travel to Aus and cancel the exception as he did so.

Again, I agree that he should never have been given any exemption, no one should. The Aus regime has imposed this tyranny on its citizens so those from abroad should not have any exemptions. Period.

I believe that the basis of his exemption is related to having had covid so yes, they could all have had the same exemption.
"A medical exemption can be granted in the case of someone dealing with inflammatory cardiac illness in the last three months, or if someone has tested positive for COVID-19 in the last six months in which case the vaccine can't be administered, or if someone is undergoing major surgery, or if someone has suffered serious effects from COVID-19 vaccination in the past."
SAUCE
 
I just hope he plays and is constantly abused by the Aussie crowds.
If it were Wimbledon, the British would roll their eyes and tut a bit but still applaud him politely. Can't see the Aussies doing any of that :thumbsup:
 
Can anybody explain why a visa should be given to a vaccinated person but not to an unvaccinated person considering there is no difference to whether each can catch and spread covid?
 
Nictrix said:
Can anybody explain why a visa should be given to a vaccinated person but not to an unvaccinated person considering there is no difference to whether each can catch and spread covid?

Lets not start that debate. The point is they set the rules and it is about enforcing them… same as Boris’s party outside doesn’t really increase the risk either.
 
Nictrix said:
Can anybody explain why a visa should be given to a vaccinated person but not to an unvaccinated person considering there is no difference to whether each can catch and spread covid?
There is a difference...but it's definitely not an all or nothing situation.

Basically, if you're unvaccinated, you can catch & transmit it more easily.

The viral load stays higher for longer, so it stays in it's more infectious/transmissible state for almost twice as long and you've got more chance of passing it on.

Here are some academic papers on the subject...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/90800
...but you're welcome to do what everyone else on here seems to do and go to a flat-earther, alien abduction, wibble-wibble website for your 'facts' instead!
 
Bit lengthy, but seems to be accurate.
Timeline
November 18

Djokovic is granted an Australian temporary entry visa to compete in the Australian Open, a tournament the 34-year-old has won nine times. Djokovic applied for the visa sometime in October or November 2021.
November 29
Australian Health Minister Greg Hunt reportedly writes to Australian Open Tournament Director and Tennis Australia CEO Craig Tiley stating that a Covid-19 infection alone in the past six months -- without full vaccination -- does not meet the requirements for quarantine-free entry into the country, according to a leaked letter published in Australian local media.
December 7
Tennis Australia reportedly sends a letter to players stating that a Covid-19 infection in the past six months, together with an accompanying letter from a doctor, would qualify as a valid medical exemption; and noting that players have until December 10 to submit their medical exemption applications, according to a leaked letter published in Australian local media.
December 14
Djokovic attends a basketball game in Belgrade -- after which it was reported that a number of people tested positive with Covid-19 -- according to a statement posted on Djokovic's verified Instagram account on January 12, 2021.
December 16
Djokovic takes a rapid antigen test -- which is negative -- and also takes an official and approved PCR test "out of an abundance of caution," according to Djokovic's statement.Djokovic's PCR test result comes back positive later that day, according to a copy of his test result in his affidavit, but his January 12 statement says he did not receive the notification of a positive PCR test result until after a tennis event on December 17. Later, he is photographed at two events, according to images posted on his foundation's official social media, and none of the participants are masked.
December 17
Djokovic attends a tennis event in Belgrade to present awards to children, having taken a rapid antigen test prior, which was negative, according to Djokovic's statement. The Belgrade Tennis Association's Facebook page posts various photos of Djokovic pictured alongside a group of young people at a tennis awards ceremony. One photo shows at least 26 -- mostly young -- people posing with him. Social distancing measures are not being observed and no masks are being worn.
At some point after the event, Djokovic receives the notification of a positive PCR test, according to his statement.
December 18
Djokovic is at his tennis center in Belgrade to fulfill a L'Equipe interview and photoshoot. His statement says he socially distanced and wore a mask except when his photograph was being taken.
Journalist Franck Ramella and photographer Etienne Garnier were not told Djokovic was Covid-positive before, during or after the interview with the tennis star in Belgrade, the French sports newspaper reported on January 12. Djokovic admits to "an error of judgment" in attending.
December 22
Djokovic tests negative for the virus, according to his affidavit.
December 23
Djokovic has antibodies to the coronavirus a document issued by the Public Health of Serbia Institute shows, supporting the tennis player's contention that he had recovered from Covid-19 when he arrived in Australia for the Australian Open.
CNN has contacted the Public Health of Serbia Institute in Belgrade to ask if antibodies could have come from a previous infection in June 2020.
December 30
Djokovic receives a medical exemption from Tennis Australia allowing him to enter Australia without Covid vaccination or quarantine on the grounds that he has just recovered from Covid, according to court documents.
Before the year ends, video and images appear to show Djokovic in Spain and Serbia in the two-week period before traveling to Australia. Djokovic had ticked 'No' on a travel declaration when asked if he had traveled in the 14 days prior to his arrival into Australia, according to court documents obtained by CNN.
January 1
Djokovic's team submits his travel declaration to the Australian Ministry of Home Affairs, which notifies them that it has been assessed and he is cleared for quarantine-free arrival, according to the affidavit.
January 2
Djokovic receives a Border Travel Permit by the state government of Victoria, according to his affidavit, where Melbourne is located and where the Australian Open will take place.
January 5
Having left Spain the day before, Djokovic arrives in Melbourne close to midnight. His passport is taken and he is escorted to a small room where he is interviewed by border control officers, according to the affidavit.
January 6
Djokovic's visa is canceled by the Australian government and he is taken to a temporary detention facility at the Park Hotel in Melbourne, according to the affidavit. In a news conference, Prime Minister Scott Morrison confirms and reads out the letter sent on November 29 from Health Minister Hunt to Tennis Australia stating that a Covid-19 infection alone in the past six months does not meet the requirements for quarantine-free entry.
January 10
Djokovic's hearing commences, with the judge deciding to quash the cancellation of his visa and order his release from detention. The judge, though, says Australian Immigration Minister Alex Hawke reserves the right to deport Djokovic.
A press conference, held by his family, is ended abuptly in Serbia when awkward questions about his travel, while allegedly infected, are raised.
January 11
The Australian Border Force (ABF) is investigating whether Djokovic submitted a false travel declaration ahead of arrival in Australia.
January 12
Djokovic says his team has provided additional information to the Australian Government to clarify the issue of his travel declaration.
However, Australian Border Force (ABF) officials are investigating possible inconsistencies in documents related to Djokovic's December PCR result as well as the tennis player's movements in the days after he tested positive for Covid-19 in Serbia, a source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN. In an Instagram post he admits to attending the interview on Dec 18th despite being infected with the virus. He admits to providing false information on his travel declaration form, but blames members of his entourage.
January 13
As he awaits a decision on whether he can remain in Australia, Djokovic is drawn against fellow Serb Miomir Kecmanovic in the first round of the Australian Open.
January 14
Australia's immigration minister revokes Djokovic's visa ahead of the Australian Open, saying "it was in the public interest to do so."

Australia has the most stringent border controls of just about any country on earth, and people are removed from here on a daily basis for breaches of their visa, but the only one to make the headlines is a self entitled, privileged, overpaid, pampered tennis player.
That would appear to be "game, set and match.....but in a land of tyranny (where he has employed the most expensive lawyers available and been able to readily access the justice system) who knows?
 
I think he'd have even less hope of getting away with his arrogant bs in New Zealand. :wink:
 
Novax served to remain in the match - a desperate lunge at match-point down failed to make contact with the ball and even his desperate appeal to the umpires for relief came to nothing, he's out of the tournament....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-60014059
 
It would have been very bad for the image of Australia if they had lost that.
 
PerryGunn said:
Novax served to remain in the match - a desperate lunge at match-point down failed to make contact with the ball and even his desperate appeal to the umpires for relief came to nothing, he's out of the tournament....

Brilliant! :lol: :thumbsup:
 
pvr said:
It would have been very bad for the image of Australia if they had lost that.

No winners here. No doubt he is an exceptional tennis player, but he had to go after all the lockdowns in Victoria over the last 12 months...it just wouldn't look right to let him in and we really don't like people in positions of power believing they don't need to follow the rules.....reminds me of something else going on, but can't put my finger on it..... :evil:
Should have been sorted out well before he arrived, but not being forthcoming with the truth will get you offside with Border force, who have the final say when you arrive (unless you have bags of money to go through the courts) on whether or not they let you in.
Tennis Aus chief, Craig Tilley, will quietly leave in about 6 months to "spend more time with the family" and one or two others will find them selves looking for alternative employment....none of whom will have any actual responsibility for the debacle.
 
There have always been countries where if you wanted to visit you would need one or more jabs to do so. Can’t see a difference, have the jab and visit, don’t have the jab don’t visit. This anti vax stuff is more about politics than personal choice imho.
 
As soon as you state that there are exceptions to any rule people will try and exploit them. In the end no one involved in this debacle has come out looking good.

Whether the argument that Australia has a tyrannical Government or not depends on how far you think those in authority have the right to interfere with your personal liberty in the name of protecting the people. Australia has one of the lowest COVID deaths whilst the land of the free has the highest.
 
But a similar argument can be had about gun laws. The land of the free has the highest number of deaths via guns, but the citizens do not want to give them up. If you would put the question forward to the citizens, would they want to be locked down with fewer deaths or freedom with higher?
 
pvr said:
But a similar argument can be had about gun laws. The land of the free has the highest number of deaths via guns, but the citizens do not want to give them up. If you would put the question forward to the citizens, would they want to be locked down with fewer deaths or freedom with higher?

They’d probably argue they have less deaths because of the firearms, it would tend to persuade robbers from burglary & mugging if they thought they’d be leaving with large holes blown in them.
Over here we’d be prosecuted for swearing at the burglars! :o
Rob
 
Mr Tidy said:
PerryGunn said:
Novax served to remain in the match - a desperate lunge at match-point down failed to make contact with the ball and even his desperate appeal to the umpires for relief came to nothing, he's out of the tournament....

Brilliant! :lol: :thumbsup:

Another self-centred anti vaxxer bites the dust, i can’t feel sorry for him.
Rob
 
pvr said:
But a similar argument can be had about gun laws. The land of the free has the highest number of deaths via guns, but the citizens do not want to give them up. If you would put the question forward to the citizens, would they want to be locked down with fewer deaths or freedom with higher?
Americas gun laws are the greatest example of personal freedom, nothing says more than being able to defend one’s personal view than at the end of a semi-automatic rifle even at the expense of every other adult and child alike.

At the beginning of the pandemic we were all scared, most of us had never lived with this type of omnipresent fear and we turned to our leaders happy for them to limit our rights as long as we felt secure. Two years on and are we now, as a society, beginning to feel that the deaths are acceptable as long as our liberty isn’t restricted further. How many deaths are too many?
 
I don’t know sars, but we accept it for other areas in society. We accept that when building a large development there will be x deaths on average. The same for travel, each form will be associated with a number of deaths but we have struck a balance for those. Perhaps we should do the same for this like we do for normal flu
 
sars said:
At the beginning of the pandemic we were all scared, most of us had never lived with this type of omnipresent fear and we turned to our leaders happy for them to limit our rights as long as we felt secure. Two years on and are we now, as a society, beginning to feel that the deaths are acceptable as long as our liberty isn’t restricted further. How many deaths are too many?
From a Government POV there is no 'too many', as long as the NHS can cope with them IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom