4 ms·

From other sources; His medical exception was approved, so he hopped on a plane, and mid flight Morrison’s government had a change of mind now blaming Victorian

From other sources; His medical exception was approved, so he hopped on a plane, and mid flight Morrison’s government had a change of mind now blaming Victorian Government and Tennis Australia for giving Djokovic a pass. https://news.yahoo.com/dennis-young-novak-djokovic-denied-221800636.html https://news.yahoo.com/dennis-young-novak-djokovic-denied-22...

detaro 5y ago
Curious what the actual structure of the "permit" looks like. E.g. that article says > On Tuesday, the Australian Open announced that it had given the player a medical exemption, which to me reads like the tournament approved it. Which I guess it has to do if it enforces the rule otherwise for participants, but why does that matter for the visa (except that he needs to play the tournament to get a visa for the tournament of course)? Was there some explicit agreement along the lines of "we approve your decision process, and then will allow everybody you accept in", was it just an expectation that immigration would accept the same standard, ...? EDIT: a slightly older article about the decision also frames it as purely the tournaments decision: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-05/authorities-respond-to-novak-djokovic-decision/100738780 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-05/authorities-respond-t... EDIT2: https://www.theage.com.au/national/visa-bungle-delays-novak-djokovic-s-entry-into-australia-20220105-p59m75.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/visa-bungle-delays-novak-... also reads similar. So unless there's something missing in that reporting (quite possible), it doesn't really sound like "he got permission and then they changed their mind" quite fits what's going on? But rather "it was approved tournament-side and assumed whatever he provided there would also be enough for the visa, turns out it isn't/he asked for the wrong visa/..."? Especially for comparison with other people with exemptions it sounds like details that aren't public matter, i.e. the specific documentation provided.

detaro 5y ago

Curious what the actual structure of the "permit" looks like. E.g. that article says > On Tuesday, the Australian Open announced that it had given the player a medical exemption, which to me reads like the tournament approved it. Which I guess it has to do if it enforces the rule otherwise for participants, but why does that matter for the visa (except that he needs to play the tournament to get a visa for the tournament of course)? Was there some explicit agreement along the lines of "we approve your decision process, and then will allow everybody you accept in", was it just an expectation that immigration would accept the same standard, ...? EDIT: a slightly older article about the decision also frames it as purely the tournaments decision: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-05/authorities-respond-to-novak-djokovic-decision/100738780 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-05/authorities-respond-t... EDIT2: https://www.theage.com.au/national/visa-bungle-delays-novak-djokovic-s-entry-into-australia-20220105-p59m75.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/visa-bungle-delays-novak-... also reads similar. So unless there's something missing in that reporting (quite possible), it doesn't really sound like "he got permission and then they changed their mind" quite fits what's going on? But rather "it was approved tournament-side and assumed whatever he provided there would also be enough for the visa, turns out it isn't/he asked for the wrong visa/..."? Especially for comparison with other people with exemptions it sounds like details that aren't public matter, i.e. the specific documentation provided.