In both practical and legal sense, its main responsibility is to adjust to what the federal court decides before the first round of the men’s draw and to conduct a tennis tournament.
If it tends to take Mr Hawk’s discount at face value, Tennis Australia may even be tempted to claim proof.
This may indicate that the Minister now acknowledges that the decision of his independent medical panel to grant Djokovic a medical exemption on the basis of the recent COVID-19 infection was consistent with the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Vaccination Guidelines.
Read a harsh, black letter Mr. Hawk’s cause, First published by Age And Sydney Morning Herald On Saturday, Tennis Australia could also be comforted, if it chooses, on the assumption that it no longer has a case to answer.
Tiley is an intelligent and experienced enough sports administrator to understand that it will not be washed away.
Although Mr Hawke’s reasons avoid all critical questions about Tennis Australia’s behavior in one episode that damaged the social license and international reputation of one of Melbourne’s major signing events, they do not address them.
At some point, after the federal court has given its verdict and the Australian Open has played with or without its defending champions, Tennis Australia and the federal departments and agencies they have dealt with need a cold, rigorous reckoning of their activities. Led by the arrival of Djokovic.
Within Tennis Australia, its most important financier and supporter, there is also a need for honest introspection as to why it pushed for a way to allow non-vaccinated tennis players to enter Australia in the face of clear signals from the Victorian government, which the government did not. I don’t want them here.
A highly qualified panel consisting of Doeharty Institute professor Joe Torresi, an infectious disease specialist at Austin Hospital and a professor of medicine at the University of Melbourne and an infectious disease specialist at Monash University, Dr. Nenad Massek – awarded Djokovic a medical exemption in the first place. A big flaw in the process.
There is nothing wrong with the panel members.
Under the guidelines of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunization, a recent COVID-19 infection may be considered a temporary barrier to vaccines because it may require people to delay their inoculation in their medical advice. It is not designed to open a gap for people who have never wanted to be vaccinated.
This, of course, is not the case with Djokovic, who refuses to be vaccinated for the best part of a year, luckily catches the bug a month before the tournament, and immediately booked his release.
The panel members had no way of applying such considerations because they did not know that the application they were evaluating was made by Djokovic. Anonymizing the evaluation process, to make sure that star players like Djokovic were not given special attention, he was allowed to cut under the cove-proof fence.
Was it all by devilishly cunning designs or just a devastating set that pushed the world’s number one tennis player into immigration captivity just one day before the first major tournament of the year? Did any of Tennis Australia’s board members who Tyle briefed on the matter express concern about his approach?
In sports administration any competition between cock-up and conspiracy is usually a one-way contest. If Tennis Australia wants to understand its failure, it can’t pretend it’s already off the hook.
The MorningThe ing version is the newsletter, the most important and interesting story of our day, a guide to analysis and insight. Register here.