Briefly — why this matters
The IOC’s decision affects more than a single athlete: it touches on how remembrance for the dead is reconciled with the apolitical nature of international competitions. For Ukraine this is a symbolic knot between the right to honor and a rulebook that demands a neutral arena.
What the IOC decided
On February 10 the International Olympic Committee announced that Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych will not be able to use his “helmet of memory” during competition, but he is allowed to wear a black armband as an alternative. The decision was reported by Reuters.
"We tried to approach his wish with sympathy. The IOC fully understands athletes' desire to honor the memory of friends who died in this conflict"
— Mark Adams, IOC spokesperson
Why the helmet was deemed problematic
The IOC cites Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter, which prohibits demonstrations of a political, religious or racial nature on sporting venues and podiums. By the committee’s interpretation, a helmet bearing images of the dead could create a political context during competition, so its use after the official start of events is forbidden.
Sports law experts say such interpretations will always balance athletes’ freedom of expression against international bodies’ desire to preserve the neutrality of competitions. In this case the IOC chose a compromise option — permitting a symbolic, less explicit form of commemoration.
Ukraine’s reaction
Heraskevych, a 27-year-old athlete who trained in Italy wearing a helmet with portraits of Ukrainian athletes killed as a result of Russian aggression, expressed dissatisfaction — the National Olympic Committee of Ukraine’s request to allow the helmet was denied.
"This is unfair treatment. I see no violation of Rule 50. This is not propaganda of discrimination, it is not political propaganda"
— Vladyslav Heraskevych, Ukrainian skeleton racer
The President of Ukraine thanked the athlete for "reminding the world of the price of our struggle," and the NOC of Ukraine appealed to the IOC to permit the helmet. The IOC, meanwhile, opted for the less controversial alternative — a black armband.
What next: consequences and risks
This episode has several practical consequences: first, it sets a precedent in the interpretation of Rule 50.2 regarding memorial symbols; second, it signals to other athletes seeking public commemorations that compromises are possible, but the form will be limited.
For Ukraine the decision is both symbolic and pragmatic: a black armband allows memory to be preserved without an open clash with the regulations of the Olympic Games. At the same time, the question remains about long-term practice: will rules on non-military memorials be reviewed under pressure from states and the public, or will similar cases remain isolated?
For now it appears as a tactical victory on the emotional level and a partial institutional concession. The next step for the Ukrainian side is to promote the value of such commemorations in formats that do not violate sporting regulations but preserve the dignity of the memory.
