 And still in sports news, Serbia's premier Novak Djokovic's family on Sunday denounced as scandalous Australia's deportation of the tennis star for not being vaccinated against COVID-19 and the Serbian president said he would always be welcomed in his homeland. A unanimous ruling by a three-judge bench rejecting Djokovic's appeal against the cancellation of his visa dealt a final blow to his hopes of chasing a record 21st Grand Slam win at the Australian Open. We are very much disappointed with court ruling in Australia and with its decision. We believe that it was more political than a decision made by Australian judiciary. And anyway, it was very easy for Australian authorities to say from the very beginning that, okay, only vaccinated, only inoculated people could enter Australian territory. But they didn't say so. They were saying completely different story, including these medical exemptions. Ifi Annene, sports analyst joins us to discuss the deportation of Djokovic, not of it. Ifi, how are you? I'm great. Thank you. How are you too? I'm good. So Novak Djokovic reported, what do you make of all the drama that has played out so far from this Novak Djokovic COVID-19 test? Okay, so for two reasons. I'm just going to say that it's been totally unnecessary because the first one is that the rules were clear. Last year, the Australian Open came out to say that the players who are coming into play would need to be double fully vaccinated. And then for a long time, Djokovic has been very decorative about his vaccination status. That was at the time he was supposed to decide whether or not to play in the tournament. And then, you know, it's clear where Australia stands. I mean, the country has been on lockdown for a very long time. The citizens have been stressed out. And then they've been trying to keep to the rules. And having Djokovic come and just offset the whole balance, I think it's just totally unnecessary. There are other grand slams where you don't, you can isolate for 14 days and then go out to play in the tournament. He could have as well decided at that time to say, okay, no, I'm just going to stay away from this. If he decides he's not going to vaccinate, well, nobody will put a gun to his head. But then his decisions shouldn't cost kind of opera. Secondly, there are so many, there are hundreds of players in the tournament. I mean, in the singles draw for men and women, there are 18 players each, that's making 25 other players who are in Australia to participate in the first grand slam of the year. And then we spent the last 10 days, three weeks talking about one player. I think that's unnecessary. I mean, at this time of the year, the players are the freshest state. I mean, they've been resting and they're all very eager to participate. If you are world number one, you'll be well talked about. So all the attention given to him to say it's unnecessary. I don't know. I'm not so sure. What do you mean unnecessary is because I mean on the part of Djokovic, you know, the rules are clear. And he cannot, the rules cannot change. The rules of a country cannot be changed because of the world number one player. The Australian Open is 100, I think 120 years old. So, you know, the, the, what we say, so jar come, so jar go, Barack D. So he cannot, it's not expected. And, you know, there's so many moral standards. He's supposed to be like a moral standard for, you know, people around the world. And it's totally unnecessary to have, you know, all this debacle. It could have been avoided. Well, anti-vax would say that he's made a strong statement for them. How do you see that? Take into those who are anti-vaccination, you know, anti-vaccine, they would say he's, he stood up for them. How do you respond to that? Maybe if we take a look at all the, all the viruses and all the diseases that we have managed to come in the world, that there is also vaccinations. I don't know. I think this would be another argument for another day, smallpox, yellow fever, you know, if everyone decides, okay, I'm not going to take, if they didn't, if they decided there were no way to take all those vaccines, we will still be dealing with those diseases now. They will not be eradicated, you know. So I think that's an argument for another day. But this is something that I like the way the Australian government has to stand about saying, you know, what's called the public code, you know, this will be setting a bad precedent. And, you know, it would really need, it would have led to a number of court cases coming out as a result of fair treatment, discrimination, you know, why should someone else be allowed into the country and I am not allowed into the country on the safe ground, you know. Well, thank you so much, Ifi and Nene, for your time. Thank you. Hello. Hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.