Grand Slam Novak Djokovic Saga: Australia Returns Serb

Are you happy Novak is NOT playing the AO

  • No

    Votes: 67 27.7%
  • Yes

    Votes: 135 55.8%
  • Such is Life

    Votes: 40 16.5%

  • Total voters
    242

Remove this Banner Ad

Note: This is not a thread to air your views on left/right politics, vaccination mandates or conspiracies, this is a thread to discuss Djokovic and the Australian Open saga only. Humour is accepted and encouraged :D Abuse is not.
Thanks.

AEA78B7C-CABD-42A8-9D94-2ED15A7D2BAB.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Case that the govt reason doesn’t stand up is my point
The case Djokovic’s lawyers are making?

They are suggesting that if Djokovic is deported his influence on health and good order will be worse than if he’s allowed to stay.
 

Alesana

Premiership Player
Oct 13, 2011
3,809
5,707
AFL Club
West Coast
You could argue that the case is extraordinary given the urgency of the tournament beginning on Monday.

He’s already had a case on the matter which he won. If the judges decide in his favour once again, then so be it. If he loses, then so be it too. I think the case has dragged on long enough that a decision of finality should be made.
Yeah two different cases. Though you'd be right in saying this second case has only occurred because Novak won the first case. This is now, in short, just the minister trying to deport Novak simply because he can. He can make up whatever reason he wants, as he is doing.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

A world class sporting event is regarded as a matter of public interest according to the ministers reasoning (among the last few paragraphs before his signature if you’re looking for it).

Its in the public interest but in my view its not extraordinary. After all how many majors has he played in in the last few years? Are we saying every single one is extrordinary. Now if this was the last ever AO or his last ever slam (because hes retiring) then id call that extraordinary but i think beyond the impact these large events give to our economy i dont view them as extraordinary in life terms.
 
Tested negative pre flight.
Of course you have to test negative before your flight, but it doesn’t matter, you need a certificate produced 14 days after you tested positive. He arrived 11 days after he tested positive, how did he get a certificate 14 days after?

Your debunking is just cover up for him.

2BA89186-1FF6-4CD5-A393-0D45B0692270.jpeg
 
Jan 2, 2009
12,964
20,910
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
'Social media' as in twitter and other heavily biased platforms?

'International publications' as in the same MSM which have been fueling the fear for two years?

Yeah, I can tell you have your finger on the pulse of what the regular people think :thumbsu:

But you're not heavily biased on this whole covid issue at all are you...
 

mcnulty

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 18, 2019
6,372
9,370
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Of course you have to test negative before your flight, but it doesn’t matter, you need a certificate produced 14 days after you tested positive. He arrived 11 days after he tested positive, how did he get a certificate 14 days after?

Your debunking is just cover up for him.

View attachment 1311202
That’s IF you continue to test positive.
 
Apr 12, 2010
14,674
23,286
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Which is why it's a bullshit order. Novak may change his mind and choose to get vaxxed while he's here too. No matter how unlikely, it's a still a possibility. This is the Minister taking his ball and going home. It just doesn't sit right with me. Get him on something solid, then sure, send him on his way, but this ain't it.
Totally agree. If the whole reasoning is that the Minister's concern for stirring up trouble, then why wasn't this clearly established a month or even a couple of weeks ago?
Had that much changed since then? Perhaps we have learnt a bit more about his behaviour in France and Spain, but that is all still unverified (by court) news reports.

I'm not sure how Novak's appeal can win, given there's no matters of law or fact in play really; it just comes down to the opinion/judgement of the Minister. Is their current line that it is a "manifestly irrational decision" good enough?

I feel like whatever the outcome, we'll find that either the Minister or the Courts will be shown to be basically useless/powerless in these situations.
 
Last edited:

bato

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 7, 2011
9,386
11,484
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Denver Nuggets, Novak Djokovic
Totally agree. If the whole training is the the Minister's concern for studying up trouble, then why wasn't this clearly established a month or even a couple of weeks ago?
Had that much changed since then? Perhaps we have learnt a bit more about his behaviour in France and Spain, but that is all still unverified (by court) news reports.

I'm not sure how Novak's appeal can win, given there's no matters of law or fact in play really; it just comes down to the opinion/judgement of the Minister. Is their current line that it is a "manifestly irrational decision" good enough?

I feel like whatever the outcome, we'll find that either the Minister or the Courts will be shown to be basically useless/powerless in these situations.
Yep, Novak‘s lawyer has to prove that “no reasonable decision maker could have come to that decision” (Minister’s decision). I just don’t see a way you can.
 
That reason was clearly picked because it'd be the least likely to be overturned (good luck disproving the Minister's feelings). There's always a chance of that, so in my view they're playing it safe. They don't need to bring up exemptions or false decs.
 
Back