Novak Djokovic He appears to have attended at least two public events in the days following his claim to have tested positive for COVID-19, raising questions about the timeline of his infection.
The tennis champion’s movements are under scrutiny as his lawyers prepare to claim he recovered from COVID before traveling to Australia and met the prescribed requirements for an exemption from vaccination.
Watch the video above to see Tennis Australia boss Craig Tiley address the saga for the first time.
Watch the latest sport on Channel 7 or stream for free on 7plus >>
The 34-year-old Serbian remains in immigration detention in Melbourne after his visa was canceled by the federal government.
His case returns to court on Monday, with Djokovic fighting for the right to remain in the country and the chance to retain his Australian Open title.
Documents submitted to the Federal Court on Saturday claimed Djokovic contracted COVID-19 on December 16 and had no symptoms before arriving in Australia on Wednesday.
But the timeline of his PCR test is now unclear.
He was photographed at a Euroleague basketball game on December 14, while sitting courtside and posing for photos with players.
Djokovic then appears to have attended two events in Belgrade on December 16, including a ceremony hosted by the Serbian national postal service and a panel discussion with his foundation.
The topic of discussion was “the role and establishment of authority in the development of character and discipline,” according to an Instagram post from the Novak Djokovic Foundation which he runs with his wife Jelena.
It has since emerged that Djokovic may have appeared at other events over the next two days.
He was photographed at an awards ceremony for junior tennis players, which reportedly took place on December 17.
Djokovic posed without a mask for individual and group photos with several winners.
The event took place at the Novak Tennis Center in Belgrade, with the tennis federation saying participation was limited to the winners “without a large audience due to epidemiological measures linked to the coronavirus pandemic”.
Following the release of court documents on Saturday evening, French sports media outlet L’Equipe announced that it had organized a publicity photo shoot with Djokovic on December 18.
These developments raise questions about the timing of Djokovic’s PCR test, with court documents only referring to the fact that the positive COVID-19 test was recorded on December 16.
A Tennis Australia document sent to players in early December previously specified that any medical exemption request must be sent “no later than Friday, December 10, 2021”, six days before Djokovic tested positive.
Djokovic was later photographed on December 25 playing tennis in the street and posing with a handball star.
Court documents indicated that Djokovic had no fever or respiratory symptoms in the 72 hours before December 30.
Exemption argument
The tennis champion’s lawyer will argue that Djokovic met the criteria for a temporary exemption under guidelines from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (ATAGI).
Furthermore, it will be argued that he did not benefit from procedural fairness in the decision to revoke his visa.
Court documents cite ATAGI’s advice, including: “Vaccination against COVID-19 in individuals who have had PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection may be deferred for up to six months after illness acute, as a temporary exemption due to a major acute illness. medical illness.”
But health officials have told Tennis Australia that ATAGI’s advice on a temporary exemption does not apply to unvaccinated travelers seeking to enter Australia.
“The visa holder (Djokovic) stated that Tennis Australia facilitated his medical exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement and completed the Australian travel declaration on his behalf,” a Home Affairs representative was quoted as saying. in court documents.
“I consider that Tennis Australia would have facilitated his medical exemption and Australian travel declaration based on the information (Djokovic) provided to them.
“As such, I do not consider these to constitute extenuating circumstances beyond (Djokovic’s) control.
“I place great weight in favor of visa cancellation for this factor.”
After arriving in Melbourne on Wednesday evening, court documents show Djokovic had a sleepless night as he was questioned by authorities at times, including at 4 a.m., before the visa was revoked at 7:42 a.m.
A partial transcript of that interview included “you stated that you are not vaccinated against COVID-19.”
Djokovic has previously refused to confirm his vaccination status.
“Mr Djokovic had received a letter from the Chief Medical Officer of Tennis Australia on 30 December 2021 stating that he had been granted a ‘medical exemption from COVID vaccination’ on the basis that he had recently recovered from COVID,” the court said. documents read.
In a video leaked to media, Tennis Australia denied players were knowingly misled, insisting organizers had followed “directions”.
New food delivered to the hotel
Back in Serbia on Saturday, Djokovic’s family held a support rally in Belgrade for the third day in a row.
Prime Minister Ana Brnabic also promised him the government’s full support in his visa battle to ensure he can enter Australia.
“We managed to deliver gluten-free food to him,” explained the Prime Minister.
“As well as exercise tools, a laptop and a SIM card so he can be in touch with his family.”
Long-term ban persists
Meanwhile, it has emerged that Djokovic could be barred from Australia for up to three years if he fails to have his visa canceled and is deported.
In an emailed response to The Associated Press about what could happen if Djokovic loses his legal fight, Australian Border Force said: “A person whose visa has been canceled may be subject to a three-year exclusion period. years which prevents the granting of an additional visa. temporary visa.
“The exclusion period will be taken into account in connection with any new visa application and may be waived in certain circumstances, with the understanding that each case is assessed on its own merits.”
