The Milan Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics have already seen their first major controversy, and it centers not on athletic performance, but on the right to remembrance. Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych has been disqualified from competing after refusing to remove a helmet adorned with images of Ukrainian athletes and coaches killed during the ongoing conflict with Russia. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) deemed the “Helmet of Remembrance” a violation of its guidelines on athlete expression, sparking a legal challenge and raising fundamental questions about the balance between sporting neutrality and the freedom to mourn.
The disqualification, announced on , came shortly before Heraskevych was scheduled to compete. The IOC stated that despite a meeting with President Kirsty Coventry, Heraskevych “did not consider any form of compromise,” leading to the withdrawal of his accreditation. The decision was made following a review by the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF), which cited breaches of both the Olympic Charter and the newly implemented Guidelines on Athlete Expression for the Milano-Cortina Games.
The specific rules allegedly violated remain somewhat opaque. The IBSF’s decision document does not explicitly detail which clauses of the Olympic Charter or Guidelines were breached by the helmet’s design. However, the core of the issue appears to lie in the IOC’s interpretation of Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter, which prohibits “any kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda” within Olympic venues. This is coupled with Rule 40.2, which ostensibly allows for freedom of expression but only “in keeping with the Olympic values” and “in accordance with the Guidelines” – guidelines that effectively prohibit expression during competition.
Heraskevych has appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the disqualification is disproportionate and infringes upon his rights. He is seeking the annulment of the IBSF jury’s decision and, ideally, reinstatement into the competition. While a swift resolution allowing him to compete in the current Games is unlikely – the skeleton heats took place on – the CAS proceedings could establish a precedent for future cases involving athlete expression.
The legal arguments center on whether the helmet constitutes a permissible exercise of freedom of expression under Rule 40.2 and whether it aligns with the “spirit of Olympism,” which, according to Principle 1 of the Olympic Charter, requires “respect for internationally recognised human rights.” The IOC maintains that the issue isn’t the message itself, but the location – the field of play during competition. This stance, however, appears increasingly difficult to reconcile with the organization’s past actions and the broader context of the war in Ukraine.
The IOC’s rationale – that any expression during competition is prohibited – effectively creates a blanket ban on athletes displaying any personal beliefs or affiliations while actively competing. This raises concerns about the potential for arbitrary enforcement and the suppression of legitimate forms of remembrance or protest. The criteria outlined in the Guidelines for determining a breach – disruption to the event, advocacy of hatred, necessity for protecting Olympic values, and whether the expression was voluntary – appear to have been applied stringently in Heraskevych’s case, despite minimal disruption and the clearly non-inflammatory nature of his tribute.
The situation is further complicated by perceived inconsistencies in the IOC’s application of its own rules. The Algerian team’s display of roses at the opening ceremony of the Paris 2024 Olympics, commemorating victims of a historical massacre, was not met with similar sanctions. Similarly, the Palestinian flag bearer’s attire also drew no disciplinary action. These discrepancies raise questions about the subjective nature of the IOC’s enforcement and the potential for political considerations to influence its decisions.
The case also highlights the inherent tension between the IOC’s desire to maintain a politically neutral environment and the reality that athletes are individuals with personal histories and beliefs, often shaped by significant global events. The IOC argues that allowing political expression could jeopardize the Games’ unifying power. However, critics contend that suppressing such expression is itself a political act, effectively silencing athletes and denying them a platform to advocate for causes they believe in.
The CAS Ad Hoc Division will need to determine whether the IOC’s restrictions on Heraskevych’s freedom of expression are a necessary and proportionate response to the perceived threat to Olympic neutrality. The European Court of Human Rights has established a rigorous standard for evaluating such restrictions, requiring a clear and compelling justification based on legitimate objectives. It is questionable whether the IOC can demonstrate that banning a helmet commemorating fallen athletes is essential for protecting the integrity of the Games or the rights of other competitors.
the Heraskevych case is a test of the IOC’s commitment to human rights and its willingness to adapt its rules to reflect the realities of the 21st century. A ruling in favor of the IOC would reinforce the perception that the organization prioritizes its own image and control over the fundamental rights of its athletes. A decision supporting Heraskevych, however, could pave the way for a more inclusive and expressive Olympic Games, where athletes are free to honor their values and remember those who have been lost, even amidst the pursuit of athletic excellence.
