> and he's trying to cheat to get in

Sorry, I don't really follow those sports news, so maybe I missed something; but how did he try to cheat? He applied to Australian Open for an exemption, and was granted an exemption [0]. How is this cheating?

[0] - https://twitter.com/BenRothenberg/status/1478329044156309505

As far as I can follow the accusations this is the current state:

  - lied about travel activity beforr entering Australia (he declared not having traveled within 14 days prior to entering the country but he flew from spain and had an interview in serbia during this time)
  
  - if what zerforschung found here he did not have a negative PCR after getting a positive PCR test first (which would mean he cannot infect others and has bery likely immunity), but a negative PCR and *then* a positive PCR after, which could in the worst case mean he was infected and still travel.

In any case my doubt about the truthfulness might be colored by my experience with the uncorrupting nature of serbian bureaucracy. Were I had multiple instances of public officials trying to get bribes for very basic things.

He got an exemption the Victoria state rules, this is the same as you getting a paper from Florida saying you can travel freely there and trying to enter the US based on that paper.

His exemption was a process provided by the Australian Open tournament. More than twenty people applied for it and only a handful got the exemption. The process they outlined was a blind process (those evaluating the applications did not know who the players were) and two stage.

It's not like he tried to cheat the tournament or Australia with this. He was following a provided process.

Note, this is separate from any notion of him cheating or not with the process. Just saying it doesn't appear he tried to sneak in by bypassing the processes.

The reason he's being looked at instead of the others who went through this process is likely that he posted about it on social media.

> not like he tried to cheat the tournament or Australia with this

If the evidence presented here holds, Djokovic submitted falsified documents to the Australian government and courts. That's potentially visa fraud, perjury and a bunch of things that would put an ordinary person behind bars for years.

I don't think I was clear enough. By going for an exception he wasn't trying to cheat the tournament or government. If he tried to cheat while in the process that's a different matter.

> Djokovic submitted falsified documents

If the dates are real from the records everyone has found then he would, in theory, still qualify. So, why change the dates?

Djokovic has people who do all this stuff for him. I wonder if something happened in translation or somewhere else.

The motive seems to be missing.

> If the dates are real from the records everyone has found then he would, in theory, still qualify

Djokovic pursued an exemption on the basis of recovery. That requires a positive test followed by a negative one. If the allegations here hold, he tested negative and then positive. That wouldn't be proof of recovery, but of infection.

There is a lot we don't know and I'm slow to judge and curious for more information.

For example, was he getting regular rests due to being tennis? Did the wrong ID for the recovery test result get submitted by accident? This is plausible and accidents do happen.

I'll be curious to see more details that come out on this.

> provided by the Australian Open tournament

They're not the Australian federal government though, so it's moot.

Whose fault is it if the tournament didn't put a process together that worked properly with the government? The people who used the process or the organization that created it?

> Whose fault is it if the tournament didn't put a process together that worked properly with the government?

Djokovic may have a claim against the Australian Open for wasting time and causing inconvenience.

That doesn't mean Canberra must grant him a visa. And it is in no way an excuse for submitting falsified documents (if he did that, which is far from proven) to Canberra and her courts.

If he is singled out while the others who successfully went through this process are not wouldn't it should some form of prejudice? Targeting a high profile player to show that a politician in more powerful, or something like that?

The dynamics here are interesting, too.

I assume others who claimed medical exemptions aren't prominent antivaxxers whose request for a medical exemption from completing a course of vaccinations (recommended spacing between doses >21 days) on the basis he was unable to because of a COVID infection less than 21 days before his flight is pretty absurd (even assuming the tests are valid and he answered all visa applications questions truthfully).

Just because the public outcry might have prompted politicians to intervene doesn't mean they were wrong to do so

When you attempt to enter a country, it is your individual responsibility to ensure yoh are eligible, nobody elses.

It was a bit of a stuff up but at the end of the day an unvaccinated non-citizen does not qualify to enter Australia (except with a valid medical exemption which why the hell would Djokovic have).

"people are welcome in Australia. But if you're not double vaccinated and you're not an Australian resident or citizen, well, you can't come." - Australian PM Scott Morrison - 6th Jan https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-canberra-act-35

According to the ATAGI guidelines (which are not the border rules), previous covid infection is not a contraindication for vaccination, and as a temporary exemption vaccination can only be deferred by up to 6 months in the case of "acute major medical illness".

Apparently Tennis Australia was specifically told this by border patrol but they didn't pass that information on to the players. Probably everyone was too chicken to tell Novak.

On that note, I have no idea on what basis he was granted an exemption when he applied for his visa in November, given that he had not even been covid positive in the last 6 months (at that time, lol).

I have a bit of sympathy for Novak with the lack of concise communication but at the end of the day he wouldn't be the first person who has been irritated by bad government communication, or the first person to be turned away from a country because of confusing border rules.

his exemption was based on the fact of him having the virus and being recovered. But based on the twitter thread they are suggesting the positive test happened after the negative test.

From the looks of it, it's because he may have lied about his activity and the documents may also be false. Seems that he didn't want to take the vaccine so instead he got a backdated positive test because the rules allow for unvaccinated people with recent positive tests to have more freedom of movement.

You may not follow sports news, but do you follow the link of the thread you're commenting in?

I did; it was in German; so I closed it.

Tennis Australia don't have the authority to issue travel visas or decide entry requirements to the country.

Especially in tennis where tournaments are designed to be 'open', that is semi-professional and allowing for amateur entrants. If he were professionally affiliated with a particular country, that might be an extenuating circumstance.

But as he is a private citizen seeking glory in AU, it's inappropriate to make an exception in this case.

The "open era" in tennis refers to the opposite situation: where the grand slam tournaments are open to professionals. Amateurs were always allowed in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tennis#Open_Era

The exception was a process provided by the Australian Open tournament. More than 20 people applied for it and a handful of people were approved.

Should all of the people who got exceptions be turned away now?

Was the Australian Open tournament wrong for providing this process? Was Novak wrong for taking advantage of a process provided by the tournament?

> Should all of the people who got exceptions be turned away now?

Some (or maybe all) already were.

> in tennis where tournaments are designed to be 'open'

I thought 'open' meant 'open to people from outside the host region' not 'open to amateurs and professionals alike'?

OT: what sports and games have the most open major "Open"s? Are any more open than US chess?

The US Open in chess is open to anyone who is a USCF member, which is anyone who wants to buy a membership ($45/year, $40 for seniors, $27 for young adults, $20 for youth, $85 family plan covers parent and children under 19 and college age students up to 24, $55 family plan that covers all children under 19 in the same household). Obtain a USCF membership, pay the US Open entry fee, and you are in.

When you play in the open, regardless of whether you are an experience pro grandmaster or some newbie who barely knows the rules that entered on a whim, everyone is in the same group. It uses the Swiss system rather than a knockout system, so every plays the same number of games.

There's really not much difference as far as the tournament goes between that top grandmaster and that newbie, except that the press and spectators will be a lot more interested in watching the grandmaster play, so the top boards will usually be set off in some place making it easier for observers, and they might be fancy wood boards and set instead of the paper or vinyl boards and plastic pieces most players will be using, and maybe nicer chairs.

If that newbie wins enough to be a leader, that newbie will be playing on those top boards.

If that grandmaster has some bad games and ends up in the middle of the pack, they will be down playing with the hoi polloi.

BTW, if you win the US Open you are automatically invited to the US Championship, an invitation only round robin tournament.

Every other year the US Championship also serves as the "zonal" tournament for the US in the World Championship cycle. Doing well in your zone's zonal earns you a spot in the FIDE World Cup. Doing well in the World Cup earns you a spot in the Candidates Tournament. Win that and you are the next challenger for the World Chess Championship.

In chess then if you sell your soul to the Devil in exchange for winning the next 50 games of chess you play you should be able to become World Champion!

9 to sweep the US Open, 11 to sweep the US Championship, 8 for the World Cup, 14 for the Candidates Tournament, and 8 for your match with Carlsen for the Championship.

Is there any other individual sport or game where selling your soul gets you such a short path from complete unknown to World Champion?

Golf has a shorter path to "world championship." Compete in local qualifiers, then sectional qualifiers, and then win the British Open ("The" Open). I suppose you'd need a some number of rounds (6? 20?) before then to build up an official handicap first, so that they'd let you into the local qualifier, or you could fake those.

Opens are for amateurs - see the golf open tournaments as well. Its kind of like open enrollment

The tennis Grand Slams used to be for amateurs only (I think the Olympics were the same). Professionals used to be looked down on as selling out to money etc.

Eventually tournaments became Open as they also allowed pros in.

My bad I thought the opens were amateur and professionals. I.e. giving the amateurs a chance to take on the pros.

I agree he shouldn't get a pass but for different reasons. If the wealthy can get exempted from onerous burdens like quarantining or waiting 3 weeks + 14 days to become vaccinated then they will never remove that burden for the rest of us.

It's a great point. We could turn things around and point out that if a questionable and unexpected restriction can be imposed on a wealthy, given what's at stake, and knowing all the press coverage it would generate, then they would never hesitate to jeopardise important stakes for the rest of us due to some bureaucratic interpretation of the current travel restrictions, interpretation of course hardly possible to challenge.

Which wealthy are you speaking of? I haven't heard of wealthy people getting this kind of treatment...

This is basically the Canada problem: we have tough rules for 95% of people, but we exempt 5% from it, so every variant quickly ends up here uncontrollably anyway.

Windsor Ontario has something like 1000+ health care workers commuting to the Detroit area that have been exempt from most entry test/vaccination/quarantine requirements. Same for truckers and flight crews and ~30 other groups.

I think this is only changing next week with an actual vaccination requirement.

If you want to go for covid-zero, go for it, but if you half-ass it, you get all the disadvantages without any of the advantages.

Your entry tests aren’t strong enough to prevent 100% of cases anyway. You need a strict, no exceptions quarantine that lasts long enough to cover any incubation period. And even then, workers at the quarantine site might get infected.

Probably not even worth attempting given our border has so many illegal crossings.

I agree with you that Detroit/Windsor has been a sieve when it comes to sealing cases outside of the country, but considering that we've never come anywhere close to COVID zero, it's a minor concern at this time.

A vaccination requirement wouldn't do anything to control the spread of every new variant. The primary benefit of vaccination is preventing severe symptoms; it doesn't prevent infection or transmission.

Covid-zero is impossible in any open society. China is still pursuing a covid-zero policy, but even with locking down entire cities and imposing travel bans they're far from zero.

> The primary benefit of vaccination is preventing severe symptoms; it doesn't prevent infection [...]

I think this dichotomy (prevents vs doesn't prevent) is false. Vaccination reduces the likelihood of getting infected and it reduces the likelihood of severe illness. Perhaps not to the same degree, but my point here is that it's not black & white as the quoted wording implies.

> A vaccination requirement wouldn't do anything to control the spread of every new variant

It may increase it by selecting the un-protected strains.

> it doesn't prevent infection or transmission

Source? We’ve (largely) vaccinated our way out of other diseases. I haven’t heard of any outbreaks of mild measles or mild rubella and I suspect it’s because vaccination gets the R lower.

The COVID-19 vaccines are far less effective than measles and rubella vaccines.

https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...

The mRNA and viral vector vaccines are great at their targets. The targets have changed, but our vaccines haven’t.

If we end up with measles2 and rubella2, I wouldn’t be surprised if my measles1 and rubella1 vaccines weren’t effective.

If the vaccines don't prevent spread or contraction of the virus, why are people upset with him standing up against these pointless vaccine mandates?

> why are people upset with him standing up against these pointless vaccine mandates?

In these events he is not standing up against anything. He appears to be quietly proving false statements about his test results and/or his recent travel history in order to manipulate the system to his advantage (i.e. gain the ability to take part in a tournament in a country he is likely not eligible to enter).

Nobody's upset about his beliefs. However if you don't meet entry requirements to a country, you shouldn't be surprised if you're not let in.

They don’t prevent the spread or contraction of the virus but they reduce the transmission period and greatly reduce the severity of the disease if a fully vaccinated person contracts Covid-19. They may not be a panacea but they’re a very useful tool in dealing with Covid-19 and keeping people out of hospital unnecessarily.

> keeping people out of hospital

Are there many previously young and healthy people ending up in hospital with Covid?

> Are there many previously young and healthy people ending up in hospital with Covid?

Yes, of course, more than a thousand of children and young adults in their prime died just in US.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wrecked-lives-families-young-adult...

250 0-4 year olds died with Covid and 573 5-18 year olds died with Covid. Remember these are people that died in the hospital with a positive Covid test. One study out of UCSF found more than 40% of kids hospitalized with Covid were there for a reason other than Covid, like a broken arm, and then also tested positive with an asymptotic case. Likely the kids dying with Covid could be overcounted as well.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-...

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/05/study-number-of-kids...

The time to have this discussion was two years ago. We are talking about children and youngs that were killed by Covid, not with Covid and the number is 'too much' to keep ignoring the plain facts.

Because boostered individuals have a drastically reduced infection risk by 80%.

On top of they are 66% less infectious when being infected since they clear the virus twice as fast and 40% of their virus particles are dead.

This gives them an overall reduced risk of infecting someone else by 93%.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.24.21266831v...

https://news.arizona.edu/story/covid-19-vaccine-reduces-seve...

Thanks for the info and those links. There hasn't been nearly enough public information on _how_ jabs help. The rhetoric is always 'get jabbed because it protects health services', which despite being true, leaves a lot out. It also doesn't help that a lot of easily accessible information is contradictory and focuses on considering one's own heath rather than everyone's.

> This gives them an overall reduced risk of infecting someone else by 93%

Q: How long does that reduced risk persist for?

Then read this story:

We can’t vaccinate the planet every six months, says JCVI chief https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/03/fourth-covid-jab...

"Prof Sir Andrew Pollard said there was no point in trying to stop all infections, and that 'at some point, society has to open up'"

> Sorry - it's only tennis

Real question is why are the Australians running an international tennis competition in the first place?

I'd imagine the same reason why anyone runs an international tennis competition?

Although in this case at least they've been doing it for 117 years... so they do have precedent on their side.

I think the parent comment’s question is more along the lines of “if Australia is so deathly afraid of Covid, why are they hosting an international sporting event at this particular time?”

Ah, I see, that does make a bunch more sense!

They're taking suitable precautions, such as requiring entrants are fully vaccinated.

> such as requiring entrants are fully vaccinated

That's not what they're doing, which is the whole point of this story and controversy.

But anyway a tennis competition should be the very bottom of the list of anyone's priorities.

In a country that currently has rules that exclude the current world No. 1...