mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, unvaccinated foreigners aren't allowed. Doesn't sound open to me.
Rafa: "not having one of the best players of the history in the draw of Grand Slam is always an important miss, no?”
- Thread starter pj80
- Start date
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
It's not the fault of other players though. I don't think anyone is surprised that from all players in the tour, Djokovic is the only one who made a problem from this situation.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Point is, it's not an open slam.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Why not? The players are equal, they all get the choice.
On the other hand, in Wimbledon the Russian players had no choice, they were just banned. That is definitely wrong. If they only banned the players who support the war, that would make sense.
>17
Rookie
no slam is open
octobrina10
Talk Tennis Guru
You didn't include the bit where
"Australian judge reinstates tennis star Novak Djokovic’s visa"
after all of that BS.
Australian judge reinstates tennis star Novak Djokovic’s visa
Australian judge Anthony Kelly reinstated tennis star Novak Djokovic’s visa, which was canceled after his arrival last week because he’s unvaccinated.nypost.com
You didn't include the reason the judge reinstated his visa (Djoko wasn't given enough time to contact his lawyers):
Judge reinstates Djokovic's visa, orders release
Novak Djokovic on Monday won a court battle to stay in Australia to contest the Australian Open despite being unvaccinated against COVID-19, but the government threatened to cancel his visa a second time.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
That's not the full reasoning of the judge. And it's just a newspaper report detailing the abusive process.
Even in this report, however, you'll read that the judge states that the medical exemption was valid and should have been accepted by the officials.
You obviously didn't want to either read or cite that section.
Even in this report, however, you'll read that the judge states that the medical exemption was valid and should have been accepted by the officials.
You obviously didn't want to either read or cite that section.
You didn't include the reason the judge reinstated his visa (Djoko wasn't given enough time to contact his lawyers):
Judge reinstates Djokovic's visa, orders release
Novak Djokovic on Monday won a court battle to stay in Australia to contest the Australian Open despite being unvaccinated against COVID-19, but the government threatened to cancel his visa a second time.www.espn.com
octobrina10
Talk Tennis Guru
The article says that judge Kelly just noted that Djokovic had provided officials at Melbourne's airport with a medical exemption given to him by Tennis Australia and two medical panels [of Victorian state government, not the federal government].
Official documents are available here:
Last edited:
Autodidactic player
Professional
So you must also believe that people are forced to go to medical school if they want to be doctors; or that you are forced to get a license if you want to drive legally or even that you are forced to wear clothing if you want to walk around in public. The fact is that many, many activities have legal requirements for participation. If you choose not to meet the legal requirements you can't participate but no one is forcing you to go to medical school, get a drivers license or even wear pants, just like no one is forcing Djokovic to get a vaccine!
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Did you read the part of the article that you cited where the judge criticises officials for not accepting the medical exemption Djokovic provided?
It destroys your procedural error thesis so it seems likely you didn't read it. He had a visa with medical exemption aka his documents were all in order.
There was no substantive reason to deny him entry so the cancellation of his visa was quashed.
It destroys your procedural error thesis so it seems likely you didn't read it. He had a visa with medical exemption aka his documents were all in order.
There was no substantive reason to deny him entry so the cancellation of his visa was quashed.
Official documents are available here:
octobrina10
Talk Tennis Guru
The judge did not criticise border officials for not accepting the medical exemption Djokovic provided.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
He can play - he cannot enter the country. This slam is open and has made no statements whatsoever.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
It's clear that the judge thinks they should have accepted the documents provided, and that he would have found in favour of Djokovic if the government had continued the case.
It was a substantive and procedural aka complete victory for Djokovic. He had a visa with a valid exemption and he was free to enter the country once again.
It was a substantive and procedural aka complete victory for Djokovic. He had a visa with a valid exemption and he was free to enter the country once again.
intrepidish
Hall of Fame
Wrong. The first hearing was only a question of procedure and all of this is referenced in the 2nd hearing. Please stop repeating these falsehoods. Djokovic never had an acceptable medical exemption.
Yeah, that's not how it works.
If the judge wants something to be known or clear, he puts it in his order or judgement. The law is not a guess game. It's all spelled out in minutia details for a reason.
But then again, since you continue to barf up whatever fits your distorted mind over and over again even with the actual facts shown from the actual source right in your face time and time again,
I'm not going to rehash it any further.
In stead, I'm going just consider you to be on the same mental level as a flat-earther.
Rattie
Legend
Blimey, are you still going? I hope you never sit on a jury, fact assimilation isn’t your strong point.
antony
Hall of Fame
“It was a substantive and procedural aka complete victory for Djokovic. He had a visa with a valid exemption and he was free to enter the country once again.”
These are all facts.
Autodidactic player
Professional
octobrina10
Talk Tennis Guru
The facts are (post #225):
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...portant-miss-no-”.734572/page-5#post-16739521
Similar threads
