RugbyRebels

This has kind of devalued the men's singles.

Djokovic could easily have avoided this, like most other players did. And I certainly disagree with him on vaccines. But I think he's been hard done by: he got the visa legally and then the Aussie government decide they don't like their own rules so they activate god mode and kick him out anyway. Great system they have there.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:This has kind of devalued the men's singles.

Djokovic could easily have avoided this, like most other players did. And I certainly disagree with him on vaccines. But I think he's been hard done by: he got the visa legally and then the Aussie government decide they don't like their own rules so they activate god mode and kick him out anyway. Great system they have there.

That's debateable.
From what I can tell, there's a good chance he lied to get a medical exemption (possible fake PCR); and certainly acted as if his exemption was a lie (didn't isolate, or wear a mask whilst in contact with people), and certainly lied about meeting the requirements of the exemption (did travel during his 2 weeks self-isolation before arrival in Australia). But didn't check that the exemption was valid for "entering the country of Australia" rather than "entering the Australian Open".
It wasn't.
He also had the wrong visa.

He was let in due to a procedural error by border security - who told him he'd have 3 hours to produce his evidence, but made their decision in 1 hour.
He was never able to produce that evidence, even days later - but he was allowed in due to that procedural error.


No sympathy whatsoever for a rich man just thinking that the rules don't apply to him because they're personally inconvenient.

Which Tyler wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:This has kind of devalued the men's singles.

Djokovic could easily have avoided this, like most other players did. And I certainly disagree with him on vaccines. But I think he's been hard done by: he got the visa legally and then the Aussie government decide they don't like their own rules so they activate god mode and kick him out anyway. Great system they have there.

That's debateable.
From what I can tell, there's a good chance he lied to get a medical exemption (possible fake PCR); and certainly acted as if his exemption was a lie (didn't isolate, or wear a mask whilst in contact with people), and certainly lied about meeting the requirements of the exemption (did travel during his 2 weeks self-isolation before arrival in Australia). But didn't check that the exemption was valid for "entering the country of Australia" rather than "entering the Australian Open".
It wasn't.
He also had the wrong visa.

He was let in due to a procedural error by border security - who told him he'd have 3 hours to produce his evidence, but made their decision in 1 hour.
He was never able to produce that evidence, even days later - but he was allowed in due to that procedural error.


No sympathy whatsoever for a rich man just thinking that the rules don't apply to him because they're personally inconvenient.

A lot of that sounds pretty speculative to me.

Look, he's an idiot, and does himself no favours, but (unless the reasons for the recent judgement say otherwise) I think he's been subjected to an arbitrary decision, via an authoritarian system, for a political end.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:This has kind of devalued the men's singles.

Djokovic could easily have avoided this, like most other players did. And I certainly disagree with him on vaccines. But I think he's been hard done by: he got the visa legally and then the Aussie government decide they don't like their own rules so they activate god mode and kick him out anyway. Great system they have there.

That's debateable.
From what I can tell, there's a good chance he lied to get a medical exemption (possible fake PCR); and certainly acted as if his exemption was a lie (didn't isolate, or wear a mask whilst in contact with people), and certainly lied about meeting the requirements of the exemption (did travel during his 2 weeks self-isolation before arrival in Australia). But didn't check that the exemption was valid for "entering the country of Australia" rather than "entering the Australian Open".
It wasn't.
He also had the wrong visa.

He was let in due to a procedural error by border security - who told him he'd have 3 hours to produce his evidence, but made their decision in 1 hour.
He was never able to produce that evidence, even days later - but he was allowed in due to that procedural error.


No sympathy whatsoever for a rich man just thinking that the rules don't apply to him because they're personally inconvenient.

A lot of that sounds pretty speculative to me.

Look, he's an idiot, and does himself no favours, but (unless the reasons for the recent judgement say otherwise) I think he's been subjected to an arbitrary decision, via an authoritarian system, for a political end.

He was only let in due to an error that he had the chance to overcome because he's rich.

I'd say this is a pretty perfect use of political power. Show you can't buy your way in.

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: That's debateable.
From what I can tell, there's a good chance he lied to get a medical exemption (possible fake PCR); and certainly acted as if his exemption was a lie (didn't isolate, or wear a mask whilst in contact with people), and certainly lied about meeting the requirements of the exemption (did travel during his 2 weeks self-isolation before arrival in Australia). But didn't check that the exemption was valid for "entering the country of Australia" rather than "entering the Australian Open".
It wasn't.
He also had the wrong visa.

He was let in due to a procedural error by border security - who told him he'd have 3 hours to produce his evidence, but made their decision in 1 hour.
He was never able to produce that evidence, even days later - but he was allowed in due to that procedural error.


No sympathy whatsoever for a rich man just thinking that the rules don't apply to him because they're personally inconvenient.

A lot of that sounds pretty speculative to me.

Look, he's an idiot, and does himself no favours, but (unless the reasons for the recent judgement say otherwise) I think he's been subjected to an arbitrary decision, via an authoritarian system, for a political end.

He was only let in due to an error that he had the chance to overcome because he's rich.

I'd say this is a pretty perfect use of political power. Show you can't buy your way in.

Ive got no sympathy for him. I dod wonder at first if this was a political football, but if he provided misleading statements on his visa application then tough.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: A lot of that sounds pretty speculative to me.

Look, he's an idiot, and does himself no favours, but (unless the reasons for the recent judgement say otherwise) I think he's been subjected to an arbitrary decision, via an authoritarian system, for a political end.

He was only let in due to an error that he had the chance to overcome because he's rich.

I'd say this is a pretty perfect use of political power. Show you can't buy your way in.

Ive got no sympathy for him. I dod wonder at first if this was a political football, but if he provided misleading statements on his visa application then tough.

Even if not, using political power to overrule someone entering the country against the rules because of a technicality seems like an eminently sensible thing to do. It's not as if the case to let him in was based on anything more than a procedural screw-up.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
He was only let in due to an error that he had the chance to overcome because he's rich.

I'd say this is a pretty perfect use of political power. Show you can't buy your way in.

Ive got no sympathy for him. I dod wonder at first if this was a political football, but if he provided misleading statements on his visa application then tough.

Even if not, using political power to overrule someone entering the country against the rules because of a technicality seems like an eminently sensible thing to do. It's not as if the case to let him in was based on anything more than a procedural screw-up.

Provided the country isnt abusing political power then Id agree. The original appeal was successful and there no reason to think the judge was a massive tennis fan and thus biased. The extradition seems to have been on the 'mistakes' made in the application, which relate to covid but could be for anything.

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: That's debateable.
From what I can tell, there's a good chance he lied to get a medical exemption (possible fake PCR); and certainly acted as if his exemption was a lie (didn't isolate, or wear a mask whilst in contact with people), and certainly lied about meeting the requirements of the exemption (did travel during his 2 weeks self-isolation before arrival in Australia). But didn't check that the exemption was valid for "entering the country of Australia" rather than "entering the Australian Open".
It wasn't.
He also had the wrong visa.

He was let in due to a procedural error by border security - who told him he'd have 3 hours to produce his evidence, but made their decision in 1 hour.
He was never able to produce that evidence, even days later - but he was allowed in due to that procedural error.


No sympathy whatsoever for a rich man just thinking that the rules don't apply to him because they're personally inconvenient.

A lot of that sounds pretty speculative to me.

Look, he's an idiot, and does himself no favours, but (unless the reasons for the recent judgement say otherwise) I think he's been subjected to an arbitrary decision, via an authoritarian system, for a political end.

He was only let in due to an error that he had the chance to overcome because he's rich.

I'd say this is a pretty perfect use of political power. Show you can't buy your way in.

There's no good way to use such powers IMO. Laws should be universally applicable. If the laws don't deliver the results you want, rewrite them. The power to alter the results for a single case for personal, political, who-knows-what reasons is an open door to corruption.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-controv ... 3f6598f46f