Analysis: Djokovic is the biggest culprit, but has partners in an embarrassing tennis chapter

In recent years, Novak Djokovic has taken solid steps to be considered the best tennis player in history. At the same time, the Serb was ruining his image with a series of reprehensible behaviors.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the number 1 in the world has expressed distrust in relation to vaccines, propagated treatments without scientific support, promoted tournaments that disrespected sanitary measures, was disqualified from the US Open for hitting a ball in the throat of a judge and was marked by the lack of of sportsmanship at the Tokyo Olympics.

In all these cases, the athlete paid for his own thoughts and attitudes himself. When he recognized that he was wrong, which was not always the case, all that remained was to say that he was misunderstood.

In the episode that culminated in his deportation from Australia, Djokovic found someone to share the blame and amplify the embarrassment of the loudest of all career controversies. Far from the victim role that the tennis player and his family usually portray, he has partners this time around.

It is necessary to remember that the Serb could have avoided all the fuss of the last few weeks with a measure – which should be – simple: vaccinate himself against Covid-19. If not out of conviction, at least out of solidarity in a pandemic that has already killed 5.5 million people in the world.

Were he a staunch defender of individual freedoms willing to fight the vaccination requirement to enter a country, he would postpone the fight for the record of Grand Slam titles in the name of what he believes.

Djokovic did neither one nor the other. He looked for a loophole to play the Australian Open without being vaccinated and found it on the list of medical exemptions from Tennis Australia (sports federation in the country) and the state government of Victoria.

It is not known what his plans were until December 15, 2021, but a PCR test carried out on the 16th in Serbia put him back in the game when he tested positive. The federation-appointed and Victorian government-appointed panels of doctors approved his waiver of showing proof of vaccination to enter the country because of the recent contagion.

The world did not know of the positive test at the time because Djokovic did not disclose it. Instead of immediately isolating himself, he attended an interview with a photo shoot scheduled for the 18th, without wearing a mask or notifying the French newspaper L’Équipe about the infection.

“I didn’t want to disappoint the journalist, but I made sure to socially distance myself and wear a mask, except when my picture was being taken,” he tried to justify. It took so badly that it even led Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabic to reprimand the national hero.

Only those who could have regarded the situation as strange at that point were those who knew about the positive test, Australian federation and state government included, but there is no record of them having acted. It is because of the behavior of these entities, in addition to the wavering role of the Australian government, that Djokovic does not bear responsibility for the long soap opera alone.

Over the past few months, the possibility of unvaccinated people playing in the Australian Open has been widely discussed in the country, mainly because of the Serb.

Tennis Australia was fearful of missing out on the world No 1, nine-time champion of the tournament, and was permissive as far as it could with an unjustifiable inferiority complex. For a long time, the event was indeed the “poor cousin” of the four Slams, seen as distant and unattractive, but that perception has clearly changed in recent decades.

In addition to ignoring Djokovic’s erratic behavior, the federation disregarded two emails sent in November by Australian government officials to tournament director Craig Tiley. In them, federal health authorities stated that a recent Covid-19 infection is not a criterion for dispensing a vaccine upon arrival in the country.

Celebrated by many for the decisions to bar the tennis player, the Australian government was also heavily criticized by the press and public opinion throughout the process.

Before the Serb, two other tournament participants used the same exemption granted to him and were successful in immigration. They were “discovered” and left the country without appealing in court only after the episode with the number 1 in the world came to light.

The alert was only raised at the political summit on January 4, when Djokovic posted on social media a photo at the airport and a message in which he said he had obtained the exemption.

The massive backlash prompted Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison to change his tune abruptly. Hours after he shied away from saying that the issue was Victoria’s responsibility, he stated that the tennis player could not enter the country if he did not prove the reasons for waiving the vaccine.

Upon arrival in Melbourne, Djokovic spent nearly eight hours under interrogation at the airport, including the entire morning of the 6th, and was confused as to why the assurance he had received was not recognized by the federal government. With virtually no access to his phone and to people who could help him with immigration, his visa was canceled and he was sent to a detention hotel.

“Rules are rules,” Morrison said triumphantly, in an attempt to shine a light on a process that turned out to be a major tussle, with accusations between the country’s officials just months away from an election process.

The Australian government’s idea was for the tennis player to be deported as soon as possible, but his lawyers won a hearing on Monday (10), with the return of his passport and authorization for the tennis player to stay in the country.

Judge Anthony Kelly did not address the merits of the vaccination requirement or the exemptions. It considered that the visa cancellation was unreasonable given the way in which the immigration process was handled by Australian Border Force agents.

The decision passed into the hands of the Minister of Immigration, Alex Hawke, who on Friday (14) chose to use his discretion to cancel the visa again. The player, in the government’s view, would pose a risk to health and order in Australia, with the possibility of stimulating anti-vaccination movements in the country.

It was not such an easy position to justify under that pretext, especially after four days had passed in which the leader of the ranking had circulated around Melbourne and had gone to the court to train more than once.

On the other hand, how can you let him play without meeting entry criteria while others, in the same condition, were expelled? With public opinion overwhelmingly against Djokovic, according to polls in the local press, and about 90% of the country’s adult population vaccinated, it would be another gesture seen as a sign of weakness.

Political calculation prevailed, the tennis player’s lawyers were unable to reverse the decision again and the athlete was finally deported.

The Australian Open could have been the venue for Djokovic’s quest for a record 21 Grand Slam trophies, so all parties are hurt by this massive embarrassment. Tournament organizers remain concerned that it will lose prestige on the circuit, and governments can only be relieved after weeks of exposure and a drop in credibility.

The candidate for the best tennis player in history left under escort the country in which he is the biggest winner, pointed out as harmful to public health in the midst of a pandemic. Aware of it or not, he has become an icon for the global anti-vaccine movement.

He will play from now on as a pariah in the eyes of many, under threat of constant booing — and only in tournaments that don’t require a vaccine. Was it worth the attempt to be a martyr? Djokovic may be proud and never admit it, but it will be hard to convince that yes, it was worth it.