Vladyslav Heraskevych's Remembrance Helmet at Milan-Cortina 2026

Timeline

1. Feb 11, 2022At Beijing 2022, Heraskevych shows a 'No War in Ukraine' sign after a run; the IOC calls it a general call for peace.
2. 2023The IOC's Athlete Expression Guidelines are set and codified under Rule 40.2.
3. Feb 2026Heraskevych wears the helmet in training runs and carries it through mixed zones.
4. Feb 10, 2026The IOC decides the helmet would violate the Olympic Charter; he says he will compete in it.
5. Feb 11, 2026The IOC offers an exception allowing a black armband in competition; he declines.
6. Feb 12, 2026After a race-morning meeting with Coventry, the IBSF withdraws him from the men's skeleton.
7. Feb 13, 2026A CAS ad hoc arbitrator dismisses his application after a procedure lasting just over 24 hours.
8. Feb 17, 2026CAS issues the reasoned award: the Expression Guidelines comply with Article 10 ECHR and a pre-emptive withdrawal was proportionate.
9. Feb 19, 2026Heraskevych and his lawyer announce plans to challenge the award before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

The ethical issues

• Athletes' freedom of expression versus Olympic neutrality on the field of play.
• Remembrance versus political expression.
• Consistency in applying expression rules.
• Proportionality of excluding an athlete from competition.
• Political pressure on athletes and governing bodies.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Vladyslav Heraskevych	Honoring fallen athletes and competing.
Ukrainian athletes and public	Remembrance and recognition of the war's toll.
Other competitors	Focus on sporting performance.
The IOC and IBSF	Consistent application of neutrality rules.
Fans and broadcasters	The competition and its meaning.

The case

At the Milan-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics, Ukraine’s flagbearer, skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych, wanted to compete in a helmet with artwork depicting Ukrainian athletes killed during Russia’s invasion.^[2] He was disqualified after refusing to race without it.^[1][2] The case tests the line between remembrance and political expression, and whether the Olympic movement draws that line consistently.

Background

Heraskevych had tested the line before. At Beijing 2022, days before Russia’s full-scale invasion, he held up a small blue-and-yellow sign reading “No War in Ukraine” after his third run. “I want peace in my country and I want peace in the world,” he said.^[5] The IOC could have treated it as a breach of Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter, which says “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.” Instead it called the sign “a general call for peace” and considered the matter closed.^[6]

After the invasion, the IOC barred Russia from Olympic competition; a handful of Russians competed at Milan-Cortina as neutral athletes.^[4] Ukraine’s sports minister told AFP that Russia had killed “more than 650 athletes and coaches.”^[4] Heraskevych’s “helmet of memory” showed 20 images of athletes and children killed since the invasion.^[3] He wore it in his training runs and carried it through media mixed zones and interviews.^[2] On February 10, 2026, the IOC decided that wearing it in competition would violate the Olympic Charter. Heraskevych said the same day that he would compete in it.^[1]

The rules and governance

The IOC relied on Rule 40.2 of the Olympic Charter, which provides that competitors “shall enjoy freedom of expression in keeping with the Olympic values… and in accordance with the guidelines determined by the IOC Executive Board.”^[2] The Athlete Expression Guidelines, set in 2023, say “the focus on the field of play during competitions and official ceremonies must be on celebrating athletes’ performances.” They allow expression in the media, on social media and on the field of play before competition, but not during competition or medal ceremonies.^[2] The IOC said the guidelines followed consultation with 4,500 athletes. It initially cited Rule 50 by mistake.^[2][3]

Football had faced a similar question. Before Euro 2020, UEFA, after a Russian protest, ordered Ukraine to remove the slogan “Glory to the heroes” from its jerseys while allowing a map including Crimea.^[4]

The negotiation

IOC spokesperson Mark Adams said the IOC would “make an exception to allow him to wear a black armband during competition to make that commemoration,” calling it “a good compromise.”^[4] “It’s not the message, it’s the place that counts,” he said. “There are 130 conflicts going on in the world. We cannot have 130 different conflicts featured… during the field of play.”^[3] He pointed to a U.S. figure skater who had shown a photograph of his late parents after competing as “a very emotional, very human, spontaneous human gesture” that Heraskevych could also make.^[3]

Heraskevych refused. “I will not betray these athletes,” he said. “At this point, I would say a medal is worthless in comparison to people’s lives.”^[3] He called the situation “a theatre of the absurd” and noted that other athletes at the Games had spoken out on political issues.^[3][4] President Volodymyr Zelensky said the helmet’s message “cannot be inconvenient, inappropriate or called a ‘political demonstration at a sporting event.’”^[4]

The decision

Coventry met Heraskevych and his father at 7:30 a.m. on race day. She told reporters, “No-one is disagreeing with the messaging,” and said she had proposed paying homage to the helmet before he raced and showing it in the mixed zone afterward. No compromise was reached.^[2] The International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (IBSF) withdrew him from the start list, executing the IOC’s February 10 decision, and his accreditation was withdrawn.^[1]

Adams said, “The field of play could become a field of expression, you could see it would lead to chaos,” and denied pressure from Russian officials.^[2] Heraskevych told the BBC he felt “emptiness” and argued that other athletes’ helmets carried national symbols, “also expression.”^[2] Former Olympians criticized the decision. Zelensky said the IOC was “playing into the hands of the Russian aggressor.”^[2]

Aftermath

Heraskevych applied to the CAS ad hoc division at 4:30 p.m. on February 12. After a hearing in Milan, the sole arbitrator dismissed his application on February 13.^[1] She said she was “fully sympathetic” to his commemoration but found the guidelines’ limits “reasonable and proportionate,” given other opportunities to raise awareness, “in mixed zones, in press conferences, on social networks,” and in his case four training runs. The guidelines, she said, protect athletes’ shared interest in “undivided attention for their sporting performances.” She was bound by the rules and “has no means to override them.”^[1] She added that withdrawing his accreditation was unfair and supported the IOC’s decision to return it.^[1] The IOC’s underlying February 10 decision was not challenged and remains in force.^[1]

Inside the award

The full award in CAS OG 26/009, dated February 17, 2026, was later published in the CAS Bulletin. It sets out how the arbitrator reached the result announced on February 13.^[7]

Jurisdiction. The IBSF argued that its jury’s decision was a final field-of-play call that CAS could not review. The arbitrator disagreed. The jury’s decision did no more than implement the IOC’s decision, and the IOC’s decision was “not a field of play decision.” She also found the application admissible, because the jury’s decision stated that it was “final and incontestable” and so left no internal remedy to exhaust.^[7]

The legal basis. At the hearing, the respondents confirmed that they were not relying on Rule 50.2, the ban on “demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda.” The question was therefore not whether the helmet was propaganda. It was whether wearing it in a race complied with the Expression Guidelines made under Rule 40.2. The arbitrator noted that the Guidelines cover any “expression of views,” which is wider than propaganda.^[7]

Freedom of expression. The arbitrator held that the European Convention on Human Rights does not bind the IOC directly. Its guarantees must still be respected by bodies that hold a market-dominant position over major events, because athletes have to sign non-negotiable Conditions of Participation to compete. Applying Article 10, she accepted as legitimate the aim of keeping the core moments of competition “undisturbed from anything that does not relate to the sports performance as such.” She pointed to the Guidelines’ long list of places where athletes may speak, including mixed zones, press conferences, social media and the field of play before the start. On that basis she held that the Guidelines strike “a fair and reasonable balance.”^[7]

Remembrance or a view? The arbitrator left open whether some acts of remembrance, such as remembering close relatives “in entirely non-political contexts,” fall outside the Guidelines. This case was not one of them: “Wars always have political connotations,” and the athlete had said publicly that he wanted to raise awareness of Ukraine’s situation. She added that the helmet was “fully in line” with Olympic values, and that changing the field-of-play rule would be “a legislative issue outside the scope of the present proceedings.”^[7]

Acting before a breach. No rule had yet been broken, so the withdrawal was not a disciplinary sanction. The arbitrator reasoned that if the IOC may sanction a breach under Rule 59.2, it may also, “a fortiori,” take the same measures to prevent an imminent one. It was undisputed that he still meant to wear the helmet when he met Coventry less than two hours before the race. He had not appealed the IOC’s decision; he had chosen “to fight a legal decision by rebellion rather than by using the judicial system.” A competition ban had to be the “ultima ratio.” Even so, the only alternative open to the respondents was to let him race and sanction him afterwards, and they were not required to tolerate a breach. The IBSF had said other helmets were available, so he could have raced and challenged the ban later. On the accreditation, the arbitrator found that withdrawing it “was not necessary.” She also held that six other examples of expression he cited had “no bearing” on his case.^[7]

The IOC’s written submissions argued that the political nature of the helmet was confirmed by the reaction to it, and cited President Zelensky’s award of the Order of Freedom to the athlete.^[7] On February 19, at a briefing in Kyiv, Heraskevych and his lawyer said they intended to take the case to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, the only route of challenge against a CAS award. Heraskevych said, “Even though the IOC betrayed them, I will not betray them.”^[8] No ruling from that court had been reported at the time of writing.

The core dilemma

The IOC sought to keep competition neutral and apply its rules consistently. Heraskevych saw the helmet as an act of remembrance, not politics. Should neutrality rules give way to remembrance, and was exclusion a proportionate response?

Competing values

• Freedom of expression vs. neutrality.
• Remembrance vs. politics.
• Rule consistency vs. compassion.
• Athletes’ agency vs. protection from political pressure.

Strongest arguments

For the IOC: a clear line protects all athletes from political pressure and keeps competition focused. Exceptions would be hard to limit given many conflicts.

For Heraskevych: remembrance of fallen athletes is not propaganda. Exclusion was disproportionate when he had other options and the helmet was barely visible during the run.

On consistency: national symbols and designs are allowed, which suggests the line is not neutral in practice.

Applying the frameworks

Rights

A rights lens weighs Heraskevych’s freedom of expression against limits that apply equally to all athletes, and asks whether the limit was proportionate.

Kantian ethics

A Kantian lens asks whether a rule allowing all athletes to display commemorations during competition could be universalized, and whether respecting the athlete means honoring his conscience.

Utilitarianism

A utilitarian lens weighs the precedent of allowing such displays against the harm of excluding an athlete and the reputational cost.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are an IOC official. Stakeholders include Heraskevych, other athletes and Ukraine. Less visible are athletes elsewhere who face political pressure. The codes are Rule 40.2 and the guidelines.
2. Gather facts. What does the helmet show, and when is it visible? Beware conflating remembrance with propaganda, or the reverse.
3. Test options. (a) Allow the helmet. (b) Offer alternatives and exclude if refused. (c) Allow it with a warning.
4. Check codes and law. Check the guidelines and CAS precedent.
5. Decide and document. Record reasons and alternatives offered.
6. Communicate and follow up. Explain publicly and review the guidelines.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the IOC decision, the withdrawal, the CAS ruling and the return of his accreditation.
• Contested: whether remembrance should count as expression; whether exclusion was proportionate; whether the rules are applied consistently.

Why this case matters

The case updates long-running debates about athlete protest, such as Tommie Smith and John Carlos in 1968, for an era of codified expression rules and war.

See also: Rule 50: Should the Olympic Podium Be Protest-Free?.

Key terms

Agency

An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.

Institutional accountability

Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Due process

Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.

Codes and guardrails

Written rules of conduct, backed by real consequences, that turn values into expected behavior. Without enforcement they are decoration.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Is a helmet honoring athletes killed in a war political expression or remembrance? Does the distinction matter?
2. The IOC argued that allowing such displays would turn the field of play into a field of expression. Do you agree?
3. Was excluding Heraskevych from the event proportionate? What alternatives were there?
4. Heraskevych said helmets with national symbols were also expression. How should rules handle that?

Sources

1. The CAS Ad hoc Division denies application by Vladyslav Heraskevych (Ukraine) — Court of Arbitration for Sport
2. 'Shocking' or correct? Why Ukrainian skeleton slider was banned — BBC Sport
3. Ukrainian skeleton athlete ready to be disqualified over 'helmet of memory' (Feb. 11, 2026) — The Guardian
4. IOC allows black armband as Ukrainian athlete insists on war tribute helmet (AFP) — Kyiv Post
5. Winter Olympics: Ukrainian skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych holds up 'No War' sign (Feb. 11, 2022) — BBC Sport
6. Ukrainian athlete escapes Winter Olympics censure after anti-war protest (Feb. 11, 2022) — The Guardian
7. CAS ad hoc Division (OG Milano-Cortina) 26/009, Heraskevych v. IBSF & IOC, award of 17 February 2026 (CAS Bulletin 2026/1) — Court of Arbitration for Sport
8. Heraskevych's team to challenge IOC disqualification in Swiss court (Feb. 19, 2026) — Ukrinform