Just when the “Good News” surfaced that the Australian Open 2022 would see the participation of the “Big Two”; Djokovic, Nadal; every sports aficionado across the continents were relishing at the mouth-watering prospect of a riveting contest. However, an unwanted controversy over the exemption given to Djokovic is diluting the excitement to a great extent. Questions are being raised on the fairness of the decision to wave off vaccine rules for Djokovic. In India coach Jignesh Rawal was livid at the organisers of the tournament for denying his disciple Amit Dahiya to participate in the junior championships for being unvaccinated.
“It (rules) should not be different. That is why players like Nick Kyrgios have been complaining about Federer and Nadal getting preferential treatment. Circumstances don’t matter. If rules say two vaccine doses then you can’t enter. So, why did they allow Djokovic?” said Rawal.
Read More: After The Ashes Debacle, Who Can Reverse The Sliding Fortunes Of English Cricket?
Before jumping to any conclusion, let us learn about the rules governing exemptions. An immunity on medical grounds is given if:
- The Player was afflicted by an Inflammatory cardiac illness in the last three months
- He or She went through major surgery or was in the hospital for a critical illness
- The player tested for COVID-19 recently implying that vaccination is not possible for six months
- He or She was impacted adversely by an anti-COVID-19 shot in the past
- The anti-Covid jab becomes a threat to themselves or others during the vaccination process
- The player is suffering from developmental or mental health disorders
For the full guidelines kindly click here.
Tennis Australia in November made it obvious that everyone, not just players and support staff, even the spectators has to be inoculated with an anti-Covid vaccine or must have a medical exemption approved by an independent panel of experts. So, for the Serb, the vaccine criterion might have been waived off based on any of these conditions. Though there is nothing to conclude that he fits into any of the given scenarios.
In November last year, Australia’s state deputy premier James Merlino had clarified that if any player enters the country to participate in the tournament without being vaccinated for the virus then it can never be due to preferential treatment. “They’re the rules. Medical exemptions are just that — it’s not a loophole for privileged tennis players,” said Merlino.
Afterward, an Australian Open media statement clarified that: “Novak Djokovic will compete at the Australian Open and is on his way to Australia. Djokovic applied for a medical exemption, which was granted following a rigorous review process involving two separate independent panels of medical experts.”
All these make it very apparent that the 20-times Grand Slam champion was not the beneficiary of any favour from the tournament organisers. At the same time, it can’t be denied that the Serb was not in favour of getting himself jabbed with an anti-covid vaccine, but it would be inappropriate to cast aspersion on the panel of medical experts, who found merits in Djokovic’s application seeking relief from the rule mandating vaccine. Hence, it is time to rest all wild speculations and find out whether the Serb or the Spaniard would eventually be the “King of Grand Slams” by securing the 21st title.
(With Inputs From Agencies)
