COURTS: Tennis, Judicial and Public Opinion

[RaulRamirez]

In real time, here are some thoughts on the controvery/ies surrounding Djokovic and the Australian Open.
I'll try not to write 10 pages off the top, which I may be able to do with some coherency.

There are three courts in play here:

A. The tennis Court: Obviously, this revolves around a "slam", but none of the controversy is about actual tennis play. Or. it shouldn't be.
So, in essence, I like Novak Djokovic - the person and the player. But this issue, to me, is not about that. It's more important.
It's okay to think and to say, A) "Hey, I like him, but he's wrong here." B) Or conversely, "I don't like him, but he's in the right."
To be concise, I'm at "A" right now, and perhaps, others are as well. Some are at "B".
But many seem to be at "C" -- I'm a Novak fan, so I'll support him no matter what. Or, of course, "D" - I can't stand him - of course, he's wrong.

B. Judicial Court: Very few of us are experts on visas, immigration issues and the like.
As I understand it, Novak won his case - on a technicality. Rules of procedure are important, and frankly, I wanted him to win the case and be able to play.
As I also understand, this does not guarantee that he will still be in the draw. He can still be deported.
If he plays, it does not necessarily mean that he was right. If he's deported, that doesn't necessarily mean that he was wrong.
How many of us have discussed all kinds of judicial verdicts - whether criminal or civil? I'm sure that we all have, whether we agreed or disagreed.

Which leads us to most of what we do here, and in real life:

C. Court of Public Opinion:
Here's where I seem to be.
At least a couple things are colliding for me here.
I like Novak, and at heart want him to play (and will root for him unless or until he meets Rafa); from what I know about this case, I don't think that he's in the right.

I regard Novak as complex, as many of us are. Highly intelligent, but capable of some head-scratching views.
Temperamental as heck on court, but also as good a sport as I've seen. Irrational at times, but when conversing on tennis and some other issues, highly rational and articulate.
I also never regarded him as anti-vax (yes, I know), but his statements prior to all this, really left it open.
As somebody who has been triple-vaxxed, knows people who have succumbed (death or long-haul effects) to Covid, I was hoping that he simply, quietly, got vaxxed.
I cut him a fair amount of slack for Adria, as I thought his heart was in the right place.
He's also fanatical about his diet and regimen, and while I disagreed with his conclusions, I kind of understand (while I disagree) with his viewpoints here.

If Novak took a stand that he would not play in the Australian Open because he does not believe in getting vaxxed, I would be disappointed, but at some level, would certainly respect his decision. I still don't know exactly what happened here, but even in his own most recent statement (that I'm aware of), he was out in public (at least, the photo shoot) while knowing he was positive. That is hard for me to get my head around.

Does this make him a terrible person? No. But in my mind, it does make him reckless and irresponsible on this issue.
It doesn't mean I suddenly hate or even dislike the guy, but when you're wrong, you're wrong.

It doesn't mean that I don't think he's (at present) the most accomplished, hence best, of the Open Era.
It doesn't affect any of his prior achievements, or perhaps, any future ones.
But it does color some of my personal judgment about him - and I wish that wasn't so.

A further thing on my "rant".
I have never seen the pandemic as a freedom issue; it's a health issue.
Does that mean that epidemiologists have gotten it right every time? No, and there are civil discussions to be had there.
Does that mean that governments have gotten it right every time? No, and there are also civil discussions to be had there.
Not sure where these are being held, but...

I don't think that anybody truly enjoys wearing a mask, socially distancing, getting jabbed, etc, but I (on the cautious side, but not in a bubble) have willingly done so, knowing that no measure was foolproof. I have done so to try to protect myself, my family, my friends and my community.
I have the strong belief that if everyone took this as seriously as I did/do, and acted responsibly, that we all could have enjoyed true freedom a long time ago. But that, obviously, is not where we find ourselves.
...

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Djokovic just wanted to have a Netflix show one day.

 

[spottishwood]

Djokovic just wanted to have a Netflix show one day.

 

[itrium84]

In real time, here are some thoughts on the controvery/ies surrounding Djokovic and the Australian Open.
I'll try not to write 10 pages off the top, which I may be able to do with some coherency.

There are three courts in play here:

A. The tennis Court: Obviously, this revolves around a "slam", but none of the controversy is about actual tennis play. Or. it shouldn't be.
So, in essence, I like Novak Djokovic - the person and the player. But this issue, to me, is not about that. It's more important.
It's okay to think and to say, A) "Hey, I like him, but he's wrong here." B) Or conversely, "I don't like him, but he's in the right."
To be concise, I'm at "A" right now, and perhaps, others are as well. Some are at "B".
But many seem to be at "C" -- I'm a Novak fan, so I'll support him no matter what. Or, of course, "D" - I can't stand him - of course, he's wrong.

B. Judicial Court: Very few of us are experts on visas, immigration issues and the like.
As I understand it, Novak won his case - on a technicality. Rules of procedure are important, and frankly, I wanted him to win the case and be able to play.
As I also understand, this does not guarantee that he will still be in the draw. He can still be deported.
If he plays, it does not necessarily mean that he was right. If he's deported, that doesn't necessarily mean that he was wrong.
How many of us have discussed all kinds of judicial verdicts - whether criminal or civil? I'm sure that we all have, whether we agreed or disagreed.

Which leads us to most of what we do here, and in real life:

C. Court of Public Opinion:
Here's where I seem to be.
At least a couple things are colliding for me here.
I like Novak, and at heart want him to play (and will root for him unless or until he meets Rafa); from what I know about this case, I don't think that he's in the right.

I regard Novak as complex, as many of us are. Highly intelligent, but capable of some head-scratching views.
Temperamental as heck on court, but also as good a sport as I've seen. Irrational at times, but when conversing on tennis and some other issues, highly rational and articulate.
I also never regarded him as anti-vax (yes, I know), but his statements prior to all this, really left it open.
As somebody who has been triple-vaxxed, knows people who have succumbed (death or long-haul effects) to Covid, I was hoping that he simply, quietly, got vaxxed.
I cut him a fair amount of slack for Adria, as I thought his heart was in the right place.
He's also fanatical about his diet and regimen, and while I disagreed with his conclusions, I kind of understand (while I disagree) with his viewpoints here.

If Novak took a stand that he would not play in the Australian Open because he does not believe in getting vaxxed, I would be disappointed, but at some level, would certainly respect his decision. I still don't know exactly what happened here, but even in his own most recent statement (that I'm aware of), he was out in public (at least, the photo shoot) while knowing he was positive. That is hard for me to get my head around.

Does this make him a terrible person? No. But in my mind, it does make him reckless and irresponsible on this issue.
It doesn't mean I suddenly hate or even dislike the guy, but when you're wrong, you're wrong.

It doesn't mean that I don't think he's (at present) the most accomplished, hence best, of the Open Era.
It doesn't affect any of his prior achievements, or perhaps, any future ones.
But it does color some of my personal judgment about him - and I wish that wasn't so.

A further thing on my "rant".
I have never seen the pandemic as a freedom issue; it's a health issue.
Does that mean that epidemiologists have gotten it right every time? No, and there are civil discussions to be had there.
Does that mean that governments have gotten it right every time? No, and there are also civil discussions to be had there.
Not sure where these are being held, but...

I don't think that anybody truly enjoys wearing a mask, socially distancing, getting jabbed, etc, but I (on the cautious side, but not in a bubble) have willingly done so, knowing that no measure was foolproof. I have done so to try to protect myself, my family, my friends and my community.
I have the strong belief that if everyone took this as seriously as I did/do, and acted responsibly, that we all could have enjoyed true freedom a long time ago. But that, obviously, is not where we find ourselves.
...

This is most sound and most based/balanced opinion I've read here this year. Thank you.

 

[ND-13]

OP, what is your definition of terrible person ? Novak got results of test on 16th according to Sworn affidavit. In instagram he says , he did not learn until late Dec 17. That is a BIG BIG gap for someone to accept.

Let me pose you the same question that i asked another Novak fan and i did not get a straightforward answer.

You have an impending non emergency travel to make. You got a positive test and also a negative test. You feel normal. If you hide the positive result and board the flight are you a reckless person or a terrible person ?

 

[Genie Of the Bank]

Goats have similar paths.
Laver was unable to compete in the Grand Slam tournaments during his professional career between 1963 and 1968 and it is argued he would likely have won more titles had he been able to do so.

 

[RaulRamirez]

This is most sound and most based/balanced opinion I've read here this year. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate your reply!

 

[RaulRamirez]

Goats have similar paths.
Laver was unable to compete in the Grand Slam tournaments during his professional career between 1963 and 1968 and it is argued he would likely have won more titles had he been able to do so.

Not exactly analogous, and yes, I often thought that Laver may have won as many as 10-12 more, but we'll never know.

 

[Genie Of the Bank]

Not exactly analogous, and yes, I often thought that Laver may have won as many as 10-12 more, but we'll never know.

I would say probably 5-6 more slams. 10-12 I would give to Monica Seles.

 

[RaulRamirez]

OP, what is your definition of terrible person ? Novak got results of test on 16th according to Sworn affidavit. In instagram he says , he did not learn until late Dec 17. That is a BIG BIG gap for someone to accept.

Let me pose you the same question that i asked another Novak fan and i did not get a straightforward answer.

You have an impending non emergency travel to make. You got a positive test and also a negative test. You feel normal. If you hide the positive result and board the flight are you a reckless person or a terrible person ?

I think that my post is as honest and forthcoming as anything you're liable to read here. Gun at my head, I would say "reckless", but don't see the value of answering this. I answered everything that I'm aware of in this situation candidly. I've also both supported other replies - or disagreed with replies - that I felt were out of balance in either direction.
While RR is, of course, not my real name, I always post knowing that I only represent myself and write what I would if typing under my real name. Right or wrong, that's my standard.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I would say probably 5-6 more slams. 10-12 I would give to Monica Seles.

Obviously, a tangential point of my thread. Didn't Rocket miss the opportunity to compete at 23 slams? all of 63-67 until US Open 68?
He took the true Grand Slam in 1962 (we'll never know how he would have fared with Pancho and Rosewall and a couple other threats competing), and then took the first OE Grand Slam in 1969. Is it reasonable to project that he could have won half of the ones in between? I mean, we'll never know....hard to say with Monica, but any opinion will likely rouse strong sentiment.

 

[Genie Of the Bank]

Obviously, a tangential point of my thread. Didn't Rocket miss the opportunity to compete at 23 slams? all of 63-67 until US Open 68?
He took the true Grand Slam in 1962 (we'll never know how he would have fared with Pancho and Rosewall and a couple other threats competing), and then took the first OE Grand Slam in 1969. Is it treasonable to project that he could have won half of the ones in between? I mean, we'll never know....hard to say with Monica, but any opinion will likely rouse strong sentiment.

Maybe, Novak and Rafa could reach 25 but in reality the more you win, the more you destroy your own body.

 

[ND-13]

I think that my post is as honest and forthcoming as anything you're liable to read here. Gun at my head, I would say "reckless", but don't see the value of answering this. I answered everything that I'm aware of in this situation candidly. I've also both supported other replies - or disagreed with replies - that I felt were out of balance in either direction.
While RR is, of course, not my real name, I always post knowing that I only represent myself and write what I would if typing under my real name. Right or wrong, that's my standard.

Thanks. And what is your opinion of Djokovic giving conflicting dates of when he got the test results ?

 

[Fedforever]

Great post - I'd just add something about this supposedly being "a matter of principle"

@wangs78 had an excellent post about this - if you're going to make a point of principle you have to be prepared to accept the consequences. If he'd stood up and said "I disagree with vaccine mandates and I won't be going to Australia" then you might have thought he was wrong but you could respect it. But using all the powers of your position and privilege to connive with others to create a nice little loophole for yourself is not an ethical stance. Involving yourself in a tissue of risible excuses as your contortions are exposed isn't principle.

 

[jm1980]

Thanks. And what is your opinion of Djokovic giving conflicting dates of when he got the test results ?

He did no such thing. He told the immigration/border agent: “On 16 December 2021, I was tested and diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 (Covid)"

In his social media post he claimed he found out on the 17th

These statements are not mutually exclusive. In the context of the interview, it was irrelevant when he found out, only when he was tested

 

[JustMy2Cents]

In real time, here are some thoughts on the controvery/ies surrounding Djokovic and the Australian Open.
I'll try not to write 10 pages off the top, which I may be able to do with some coherency.

There are three courts in play here:

A. The tennis Court: Obviously, this revolves around a "slam", but none of the controversy is about actual tennis play. Or. it shouldn't be.
So, in essence, I like Novak Djokovic - the person and the player. But this issue, to me, is not about that. It's more important.
It's okay to think and to say, A) "Hey, I like him, but he's wrong here." B) Or conversely, "I don't like him, but he's in the right."
To be concise, I'm at "A" right now, and perhaps, others are as well. Some are at "B".
But many seem to be at "C" -- I'm a Novak fan, so I'll support him no matter what. Or, of course, "D" - I can't stand him - of course, he's wrong.

B. Judicial Court: Very few of us are experts on visas, immigration issues and the like.
As I understand it, Novak won his case - on a technicality. Rules of procedure are important, and frankly, I wanted him to win the case and be able to play.
As I also understand, this does not guarantee that he will still be in the draw. He can still be deported.
If he plays, it does not necessarily mean that he was right. If he's deported, that doesn't necessarily mean that he was wrong.
How many of us have discussed all kinds of judicial verdicts - whether criminal or civil? I'm sure that we all have, whether we agreed or disagreed.

Which leads us to most of what we do here, and in real life:

C. Court of Public Opinion:
Here's where I seem to be.
At least a couple things are colliding for me here.
I like Novak, and at heart want him to play (and will root for him unless or until he meets Rafa); from what I know about this case, I don't think that he's in the right.

I regard Novak as complex, as many of us are. Highly intelligent, but capable of some head-scratching views.
Temperamental as heck on court, but also as good a sport as I've seen. Irrational at times, but when conversing on tennis and some other issues, highly rational and articulate.
I also never regarded him as anti-vax (yes, I know), but his statements prior to all this, really left it open.
As somebody who has been triple-vaxxed, knows people who have succumbed (death or long-haul effects) to Covid, I was hoping that he simply, quietly, got vaxxed.
I cut him a fair amount of slack for Adria, as I thought his heart was in the right place.
He's also fanatical about his diet and regimen, and while I disagreed with his conclusions, I kind of understand (while I disagree) with his viewpoints here.

If Novak took a stand that he would not play in the Australian Open because he does not believe in getting vaxxed, I would be disappointed, but at some level, would certainly respect his decision. I still don't know exactly what happened here, but even in his own most recent statement (that I'm aware of), he was out in public (at least, the photo shoot) while knowing he was positive. That is hard for me to get my head around.

Does this make him a terrible person? No. But in my mind, it does make him reckless and irresponsible on this issue.
It doesn't mean I suddenly hate or even dislike the guy, but when you're wrong, you're wrong.

It doesn't mean that I don't think he's (at present) the most accomplished, hence best, of the Open Era.
It doesn't affect any of his prior achievements, or perhaps, any future ones.
But it does color some of my personal judgment about him - and I wish that wasn't so.

A further thing on my "rant".
I have never seen the pandemic as a freedom issue; it's a health issue.
Does that mean that epidemiologists have gotten it right every time? No, and there are civil discussions to be had there.
Does that mean that governments have gotten it right every time? No, and there are also civil discussions to be had there.
Not sure where these are being held, but...

I don't think that anybody truly enjoys wearing a mask, socially distancing, getting jabbed, etc, but I (on the cautious side, but not in a bubble) have willingly done so, knowing that no measure was foolproof. I have done so to try to protect myself, my family, my friends and my community.
I have the strong belief that if everyone took this as seriously as I did/do, and acted responsibly, that we all could have enjoyed true freedom a long time ago. But that, obviously, is not where we find ourselves.
...

Sane, balanced statement touching on the mtriad facets so well... bravo!

I have one question for you though.... all defenses/justifications for Djoko come with the iteration that he's intelligent and is entitled to his opinions and is executing his freedom.
His behavior goes beyond that... he did not afford the courtesy of the journalist deciding for himself whether he wanted to go ahead with the interview. Instead he unilaterally decided on the other guy's behalf.

Same with regard to the kids he interacted with... he chose to take the call to keep them uninformed.
And there is no apology from his side on any count.

don't want to throw big words around but megalomania comes to mind when such acts are repeated without remorse.

Such a pity for a highly talented guy.

 

[jeroenn]

I cut him a fair amount of slack for Adria, as I thought his heart was in the right place.
He's also fanatical about his diet and regimen, and while I disagreed with his conclusions, I kind of understand (while I disagree) with his viewpoints here.

If Novak took a stand that he would not play in the Australian Open because he does not believe in getting vaxxed, I would be disappointed, but at some level, would certainly respect his decision. I still don't know exactly what happened here, but even in his own most recent statement (that I'm aware of), he was out in public (at least, the photo shoot) while knowing he was positive. That is hard for me to get my head around.

Does this make him a terrible person? No. But in my mind, it does make him reckless and irresponsible on this issue.
It doesn't mean I suddenly hate or even dislike the guy, but when you're wrong, you're wrong.
...

I think you're fairly spot on. I do however tend to give him less slack for Adria and his actions here, because of the possible consequences of his actions. Saying A but doing B isn't a good way to ask for my respect for this things. If you're really concerned about Covid and believe in following those rules regarding self isolation, the very least he could have done is warn the people at L'equipe (and those other events if he hasn't). That to me is taking 'dumb actions' to the next level.

I don't mind his views on vaccinations, crying water and pyramids and what not, that's his own business. I'm all in favor of anyone trying to improve upon themselves in anyway possible and his path is his choosing. As long as it isn't hurting others and with some of his dumb actions, he is hurting others.

He's a complex person with complex actions triggering complex emotions from others as you can see here on these boards.

For me, at some point, there need to be consequences to those actions if you're not willing to learn from your mistakes.

That now seems to be happening and thats good enough for me.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Sane, balanced statement touching on the mtriad facets so well... bravo!

I have one question for you though.... all defenses/justifications for Djoko come with the iteration that he's intelligent and is entitled to his opinions and is executing his freedom.
His behavior goes beyond that... he did not afford the courtesy of the journalist deciding for himself whether he wanted to go ahead with the interview. Instead he unilaterally decided on the other guy's behalf.

Same with regard to the kids he interacted with... he chose to take the call to keep them uninformed.
And there is no apology from his side on any count.

don't want to throw big words around but megalomania comes to mind when such acts are repeated without remorse.

Such a pity for a highly talented guy.

I don't know how to diagnose him, and won't.
Not defending him, but I think he's obstinate and can be single-minded.
He admitted to, apparently, not telling the photographer, and per L'Equipe, I think they stated that he kept his mask on during the interview. But still, just not admirable here. I don't know, for sure, the timelines with the other event and when he knew, but even his own version (most recent statement) is less than satisfying to me.

Yes, I don't give much quarter to anti-vaxxers, which (while hardly pro-vaccine) did not think that Novak was unalterably opposed. He had left that open. In the absence of the eradication of Covid as a health threat, I certainly wish he'd change his mind, and do so publicly, but that's not likely to happen, And yes, a principled stand (even if based on principles that aren't mine) would have been for him to withdraw if that's the policy - not to search for loopholes.

 

[jm1980]

If you look at the QR code of the positive result, it says results delivered on 16th Dec. What really happened between that time and late 17th evening ?

No, the QR code suggests that particular report created on the 26th

COVID tests in Serbia are delivered to the patient through a website that creates these reports (with the QR codes) on the fly, and a new one is generated each time

So he could have created a different report before the 26th. This would have only be damming to his position if it had been created on the 16th

 

[Gary Duane]

In real time, here are some thoughts on the controvery/ies surrounding Djokovic and the Australian Open.
I'll try not to write 10 pages off the top, which I may be able to do with some coherency.

There are three courts in play here:

A. The tennis Court: Obviously, this revolves around a "slam", but none of the controversy is about actual tennis play. Or. it shouldn't be.
So, in essence, I like Novak Djokovic - the person and the player. But this issue, to me, is not about that. It's more important.
It's okay to think and to say, A) "Hey, I like him, but he's wrong here." B) Or conversely, "I don't like him, but he's in the right."
To be concise, I'm at "A" right now, and perhaps, others are as well. Some are at "B".
But many seem to be at "C" -- I'm a Novak fan, so I'll support him no matter what. Or, of course, "D" - I can't stand him - of course, he's wrong.

B. Judicial Court: Very few of us are experts on visas, immigration issues and the like.
As I understand it, Novak won his case - on a technicality. Rules of procedure are important, and frankly, I wanted him to win the case and be able to play.
As I also understand, this does not guarantee that he will still be in the draw. He can still be deported.
If he plays, it does not necessarily mean that he was right. If he's deported, that doesn't necessarily mean that he was wrong.
How many of us have discussed all kinds of judicial verdicts - whether criminal or civil? I'm sure that we all have, whether we agreed or disagreed.

Which leads us to most of what we do here, and in real life:

C. Court of Public Opinion:
Here's where I seem to be.
At least a couple things are colliding for me here.
I like Novak, and at heart want him to play (and will root for him unless or until he meets Rafa); from what I know about this case, I don't think that he's in the right.

I regard Novak as complex, as many of us are. Highly intelligent, but capable of some head-scratching views.
Temperamental as heck on court, but also as good a sport as I've seen. Irrational at times, but when conversing on tennis and some other issues, highly rational and articulate.
I also never regarded him as anti-vax (yes, I know), but his statements prior to all this, really left it open.
As somebody who has been triple-vaxxed, knows people who have succumbed (death or long-haul effects) to Covid, I was hoping that he simply, quietly, got vaxxed.
I cut him a fair amount of slack for Adria, as I thought his heart was in the right place.
He's also fanatical about his diet and regimen, and while I disagreed with his conclusions, I kind of understand (while I disagree) with his viewpoints here.

If Novak took a stand that he would not play in the Australian Open because he does not believe in getting vaxxed, I would be disappointed, but at some level, would certainly respect his decision. I still don't know exactly what happened here, but even in his own most recent statement (that I'm aware of), he was out in public (at least, the photo shoot) while knowing he was positive. That is hard for me to get my head around.

Does this make him a terrible person? No. But in my mind, it does make him reckless and irresponsible on this issue.
It doesn't mean I suddenly hate or even dislike the guy, but when you're wrong, you're wrong.

It doesn't mean that I don't think he's (at present) the most accomplished, hence best, of the Open Era.
It doesn't affect any of his prior achievements, or perhaps, any future ones.
But it does color some of my personal judgment about him - and I wish that wasn't so.

A further thing on my "rant".
I have never seen the pandemic as a freedom issue; it's a health issue.
Does that mean that epidemiologists have gotten it right every time? No, and there are civil discussions to be had there.
Does that mean that governments have gotten it right every time? No, and there are also civil discussions to be had there.
Not sure where these are being held, but...

I don't think that anybody truly enjoys wearing a mask, socially distancing, getting jabbed, etc, but I (on the cautious side, but not in a bubble) have willingly done so, knowing that no measure was foolproof. I have done so to try to protect myself, my family, my friends and my community.
I have the strong belief that if everyone took this as seriously as I did/do, and acted responsibly, that we all could have enjoyed true freedom a long time ago. But that, obviously, is not where we find ourselves.
...

RR: My position:

He is generally articulate, and very good with languages. That makes him seem intelligent, and at one point I thought he was. But some of his opinions are so pathetically ignorant that I now think he is only of average intelligence in the areas that are important to me.

As a person who is simply not too bright about important matters, I don't think he is selfish, mean, evil or anything like that. Just ignorant. Terribly ignorant on some matters. But ignorance can kill in subtle ways. He's in a position of leadership about the pandemic, and he has failed utterly.

I've never disliked him as a person, and in fact long ago much liked him for his humor and apparent honesty. I never liked his playing style, but I have never EVER in my life judged a star by his playing style. I can love watching a tennis player but not like the person, or the opposite.

I was looking for a smoking gun, or the lack. Proof that the took a test on the 16th and isolated after getting the results would have been fine. But he has now admitted attending a photo shoot on the 18th when he knew he was positive. From where I sit he must have known that was wrong, and in fact doing that in this pandemic is just about the worst thing you can do, not immediately isolate when you know you are positive. That's the smoking gun. It makes guys like Aussie Darcy right. I didn't want these people to be right. Now there is proof that they were, although apparently he did not know when he was with children, so I will personally give him a pass on that.

I've been very slow to make a decision for myself. On the basis of deliberately choosing to do publicity, in public, after now admitting he knew he was positive, I think he's shown a side of himself that is very ignorant of the realities of our present situation.

The rest of us (most of us) have made sacrifices in playing by the rules. He didn't. For me, case closed.

 

[FlamingCheeto]

RR: My position:

He is generally articulate, and very good with languages. That makes him seem intelligent, and at one point I thought he was. But some of his opinions are so pathetically ignorant that I now think he is only of average intelligence in the areas that are important to me.

As a person who is simply not too bright about important matters, I don't think he is selfish, mean, evil or anything like that. Just ignorant. Terribly ignorant on some matters. But ignorance can kill in subtle ways. He's in a position of leadership about the pandemic, and he has failed utterly.

I've never disliked him as a person, and in fact long ago much liked him for his humor and apparent honesty. I never liked his playing style, but I have never EVER in my life judged a star by his playing style. I can love watching a tennis player but not like the person, or the opposite.

I was looking for a smoking gun, or the lack. Proof that the took a test on the 16th and isolated after getting the results would have been fine. But he has now admitted attending a photo shoot on the 18th when he knew he was positive. From where I sit he must have known that was wrong, and in fact doing that in this pandemic is just about the worst thing you can do, not immediately isolate when you know you are positive. That's the smoking gun. It makes guys like Aussie Darcy right. I didn't want these people to be right. Now there is proof that they were, although apparently he did not know when he was with children, so I will personally give him a pass on that.

I've been very slow to make a decision for myself. On the basis of deliberately choosing to do publicity, in public, after now admitting he knew he was positive, I think he's shown a side of himself that is very ignorant of the realities of our present situation.

The rest of us (most of us) have made sacrifices in playing by the rules. He didn't. For me, case closed.

welcome to the right side of history mate. It definitely comes down to playing by the rules, and accepting consequences for breaking them.

 

[jeroenn]

Now there is proof that they were, although apparently he did not know when he was with children, so I will personally give him a pass on that.

Almost.
The L'equipe people were never told and found out about it in the news as we did. That to me is an error upon an errror. It tells me that if he wasn't caught, he didn't care. For all we know he didn't had any other appointments that day (and in fact, Vasek Pospisil posted a video on IG of them together shooting hoops on the 18th). If he wasn't caught, would he still have condered it an error in judgement to let the interview go on? Or would it be that he just wouldn't give a crap?

 

[ND-13]

No, the QR code suggests that particular report created on the 26th

COVID tests in Serbia are delivered to the patient through a website that creates these reports (with the QR codes) on the fly, and a new one is generated each time

So he could have created a different report before the 26th. This would have only be damming to his position if it had been created on the 16th

Novak said he got a diagnosis on the 16th in the sworn statement ( I got tested and diagnosed, note the operative word "AND" ). That means he got the results that day, no ?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1480528255547412487

 

[jm1980]

Novak said he got a diagnosis on the 16th in the sworn statement ( I got tested and diagnosed, note the operative word "AND" ). That means he got the results that day, no ?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1480528255547412487

He was diagnosed by the lab on the 16th (as seen in the test report), but I don't see how that means he necessarily knew of the diagnosis that same day

 

[MichaelNadal]

How are y'all still this invested?

 

[Gary Duane]

welcome to the right side of history mate. It definitely comes down to playing by the rules, and accepting consequences for breaking them.

The right side of history is to wait for facts before making a judgement. I did not have such facts until today. Pre-judging is is the same as prejudice and simply shows us who is after truth, and who is likely to be a part of a lynch mob.

For me breaking quarantine/not isolating is simply wrong because it absolutely negates the needs and beliefs of other people. If there is even a 1% chance I can give a virus to other people by not staying home, I'm not going to do it. That's my line. For the question of vaxxing vs not vaxxing, I think things are far more murky, and I say that being double vaxxed and booster.

 

[FlamingCheeto]

The right side of history is to wait for facts before making a judgement. I did not have such facts until today. Pre-judging is is the same as prejudice and simply shows us who is after truth, and who is likely to be a part of a lynch mob.

For me breaking quarantine/not isolating is simply wrong because it absolutely negates the needs and beliefs of other people. If there is even a 1% chance I can give a virus to other people by not staying home, I'm not going to do it. That's my line. For the question of vaxxing vs not vaxxing, I think things are far more murky, and I say that being double vaxxed and booster.

Thank you for your sensible and logical reply and thank you for being vaccinated.

 

[Al Czervik]

"For me breaking quarantine/not isolating is simply wrong because it absolutely negates the needs and beliefs of other people. If there is even a 1% chance I can give a virus to other people by not staying home, I'm not going to do it. That's my line. For the question of vaxxing vs not vaxxing, I think things are far more murky, and I say that being double vaxxed and booster."
How long are you going to stay home while this is a possibility?

 

[N01E]

Novak said he got a diagnosis on the 16th in the sworn statement ( I got tested and diagnosed, note the operative word "AND" ). That means he got the results that day, no ?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1480528255547412487

How many more times are you going to tell us that you can't read?

 

[Gary Duane]

He was diagnosed by the lab on the 16th (as seen in the test report), but I don't see how that means he necessarily knew of the diagnosis that same day

It does not, but he has admitted he knew during the photo shoot on the 18th - his words. He only told us because at this point he had to, as likely someone would eventually prove he had the info before that shoot. It's not like he has been forthcoming, right?

 

[ND-13]

He was diagnosed by the lab on the 16th (as seen in the test report), but I don't see how that means he necessarily knew of the diagnosis that same day

Previously you argued that it takes 3 days to get results. That is no longer valid as the results were there in 7 hours. The time of result means that is the time the results were available for Djokovic to see. If he did not see, it is upon him. How did he choose to mingle with children after going for a PCR test, after a super spreader event ?

Date of Sampling : 12/16 13:05

Date of result : 12/19 20:19

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1480448426332413953

 

[Gary Duane]

"For me breaking quarantine/not isolating is simply wrong because it absolutely negates the needs and beliefs of other people. If there is even a 1% chance I can give a virus to other people by not staying home, I'm not going to do it. That's my line. For the question of vaxxing vs not vaxxing, I think things are far more murky, and I say that being double vaxxed and booster."
How long are you going to stay home while this is a possibility?

I assume you are asking because you would not stay at home if you got a positive test and want to ridicule anyone who would.

 

[jm1980]

Previously you argued that it takes 3 days to get results. That is no longer valid as the results were there in 7 hours. The time of result means that is the time the results were available for Djokovic to see. If he did not see, it is upon him. How did he choose to mingle with children after going for a PCR test, after a super spreader event ?

Date of Sampling : 12/16 13:05

Date of result : 12/19 20:19

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1480448426332413953

I just floated that as a possibility. He apparently ordered an express PCR test so it was done within hours

His justification for mingling with children is that he got a false negative with rapid tests, which is a plausible explanation

 

[ND-13]

I just floated that as a possibility. He apparently ordered an express test so it was done within hours

So, what is your thought ? He ordered an express test but chose not to see the result that came out the evening on 16th ?

 

[Al Czervik]

I assume you are asking because you would not stay at home if you got a positive test and want to ridicule anyone who would.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your post to mean you're essentially staying at home for the length of the pandemic. I didn't realize you meant in the case of a positive test.

 

[Gary Duane]

Sorry, I misinterpreted your post to mean you're essentially staying at home for the length of the pandemic. I didn't realize you meant in the case of a positive test.

OK. No, I've simply watched the numbers and stayed home as much as possible when cases spiked. I hardly left home last summer when FL had the worst spike ever, and during that time a huge % of my private music students were positive. In fact, one is positive for the 2nd time yesterday. I teach on Zoom. For the same reason I'm mostly at home now because we are peaking at the moment and will be extremely high until around Feb.

I haven't even had a cold in three years. I'm just playing the odds, as I personally understand them.

We had 151 000 cases in FL in the middle of August, with almost no drop by the end. At the end of Nov. that was down to 9 000. Now it's 451 000. I believe it will be back down to 9 000 or lower by April, and I'll feel pretty safe being out and about at that time.

 

[jm1980]

So, what is your thought ? He ordered an express test but chose not to see the result that came out the evening on 16th ?

According to his statement, he only did so because his rapid test yielded a negative. I can see someone not checking if they felt reassured they were not positive

However, I do think it was irresponsible of him to not isolate once he did learn of the positive result, and not to notify his contacts of said positive result

 

[Gary Duane]

According to his statement, he only did so because his rapid test yielded a negative. I can see someone not checking if they felt reassured they were not positive

However, I do think it was irresponsible of him to not isolate once he did learn of the positive result, and not to notify his contacts of said positive result

Irresponsible here is an understatement.

 

[ND-13]

Irresponsible here is an understatement.

Terrible but not malicious is how I want to describe