Djokovic: I’d rather miss Wimbledon than get jab
Tennis star insists he has a right to choose ... but denies being an anti-vaxxer
NOVAK Djokovic would rather miss out on a place in tennis history than get a Covid jab, he revealed yesterday.
The 34-year-old Serbian was speaking for the first time since he was deported from Australia last month after a row over his vaccine status.
He claimed he was prepared to forego future trophy success and even to sacrifice becoming the greatest men’s singles player of all time.
‘That is the price that I’m willing to pay,’ the 20-time Grand Slam winner said in an interview with the BBC’s Amol Rajan – yet he insisted he was not against vaccines and dismissed claims that he had become a pin-up for the global anti-vax movement.
‘I was never against vaccination,’ the world number one said. ‘But I’ve always supported the freedom to choose what you put in your body. The principles of decision making on my body are more important than any title.’
The six-time Wimbledon champion insisted that he was ‘keeping my mind open’ about having the vaccine in the future. ‘I was never against vaccination,’ he added.
‘I understand that globally, everyone is trying to put a big effort into handling this virus and seeing, hopefully, an end soon to this virus.’
Australia required foreign visitors to be double vaccinated. Otherwise, they needed to quarantine for 14 days.
‘I take this very seriously’
Djokovic announced he had obtained a medical exemption to enter the country to play in the Australian Open because he had just recovered from Covid-19.
This sparked outrage in Australia, where residents have faced some of the toughest Covid restrictions in the world and more than 90 per cent of adults are now double-jabbed.
He was detained at an immigration hotel for five days on arrival on January 5 and released when a court decided he had been unfairly treated.
However, his travel documents posed further questions and immigration minister Alex Hawke ripped up his visa, arguing that his presence could incite ‘civil unrest’ and encourage anti-vaccine sentiment.
In his BBC interview, the nine-time Australian Open winner denied reports that suggested a positive coronavirus test on December 16 had been tampered with to provide him with the exemption for Melbourne.
‘I understand that there is a lot of criticism, and I understand that people come out with different theories on how lucky I was or how convenient it is,’ he said.
‘I take this very seriously, I really don’t like someone thinking I’ve misused something in my own favour, in order to, you know, get a positive PCR test and eventually go to Australia.’
Djokovic left the country on January 16 after losing his appeal against deportation. Under Australian immigration law, he is banned from entering for three years, although ministers can waive this for compelling or compassionate reasons.
It meant he missed his chance to claim a record 21st major title, an honour that went to Rafael Nadal.
The All-England Club has not indicated that it is going to ban unvaccinated players from this year’s Wimbledon tournament.
Current government rules say those who are unvaccinated can enter England but must test for Covid before and after arriving.
But there are now huge question marks over whether Djokovic will be able to play at the French Open that begins on May 22.
France’s sports ministry said last month that even sportsmen will not be exempt from president Emmanuel Macron’s hardline vaccine passport law.
Djokovic also faces the prospect of being banned from the US Open. The United States has a similar policy to Australia that means foreign visitors, with a limited number of exceptions, must be at least double jabbed.
Dr Peter English, a former chairman of the British Medical Association’s public health medicine committee, said: ‘The evidence is overwhelming, that the vaccine is extremely safe, and much safer than infection or re-infection.
‘So [Djokovic’s] is a highly irrational choice, not compatible with “having an open mind”, and strongly indicative of being anti-vaccine.’
Jonathan Ives, professor of empirical bioethics at the University of Bristol, added: ‘We should explain loudly and clearly why he is wrong, and why the public should not consider a tennis player, or any other celebrity, as an authority on, or a role model for, vaccine decisions.’