was not correct, because he had travelled between serbia and spain in that window. he also is raising more questions with his story about having a positive test on 16 december, which is a couple of days before, he was at other events in public including one large event with a bunch of kids, all not wearing masks, and that would have been the day after djokovic received a positive pcr test on his timeline. certainly a lot of questions for him to answer once he finally faces the media here in melbourne. finally faces the media here in melbourne- finally faces the media here in melbourne. , , . , , melbourne. this is anything but straightforward melbourne. this is anything but straightforward first melbourne. this is anything but straightforward first something | straightforward first something that should be straightforward. so where does that leave us, do you think, and what sort of chanceis you think, and what sort of chance is there that djokovic s dream of being there for the op
not give him the time that they promised and this was deemed by the judge to be procedurally unfair and in the end, the government admitted that and did not contest. so essentially would you call this a technicality? technicality? 0h, very much a technicality- technicality? 0h, very much a technicality. very technicality? 0h, very much a technicality. very much - technicality? 0h, very much a technicality. very much a - technicality? 0h, very much a - technicality. very much a procedural point. the interesting point about that therefor is that the substance of the decision, which revolves around whether the medical exemption he received was good enough, or whether it is necessary that all players beat double vaccinated was not dealt with by this particular court. it was dealt four in procedural terms only. the reason that becomes interesting is now we switch to, as your correspondent said, another minister s decision. and ministerfor immigration, who in their discretion can decide