Helmet of Controversy

Other than a Norwegian biathlete deciding that the postrace press conference would be the best time to admit he cheated on his girlfriend, figure skaters scrambling to secure music rights and the inevitable questions about figure skating judging, the first week of the Milan Cortina Olympics was relatively controversy-free.  With one notable exception.  Ukrainian skeleton rider Vladyslav Heraskevych made headlines for the unapproved helmet he wanted to wear and his subsequent disqualification and appeal.

It's been four years since Russia invaded Ukraine days after the 2022 Olympics ended.  The difficulties Ukrainian athletes have faced because of the war are well-documented, as have the number of lives lost during the conflict.  Heraskevych wanted to pay tribute to the more than 20 athletes and coaches who've been killed during the war by wearing the "memory helmet" with their faces on it.  The helmet, however, violated IOC rules, which is why he was told he couldn't wear it.

While it's impossible to keep politics out of the Olympics entirely, the Olympic Charter prohibits athletes and coaches from making any sort of political message on the field of play.  They have other opportunities to express themselves (such as in the mixed zone and during press conferences...just as some American athletes about that).  Just not on the field of play.  The helmet was deemed to be a political message.  Thus, its use wasn't approved.

No one disagrees with the message, either.  That's not what this was about.  Nor is this what anyone wanted to happen.  The IOC tried to compromise with Heraskevych.  They let him wear the helmet during practice (which otherwise wouldn't have been allowed, either) and offered to let him wear a black armband during the competition instead (which would've been making an exception to their rule).  Heraskevych wouldn't budge, so they, unfortunately, weren't left with any other choice.

IOC President Kirsty Coventry personally met with Heraskevych hoping to find common ground.  Unfortunately, they couldn't.  Coventry left the meeting in tears, clearly disappointed that the situation came to this.  However, since Heraskevych refused to yield, he was disqualified and the competition began without him.  Heraskevych appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but he knew that his chance to race was already over.

He, of course, doesn't see things the same way as the IOC.  Heraskevych feels he wasn't violating any rules and was unfairly being singled out.  He pointed out how he and other Ukrainian athletes have seen Russian flags in the stands, even though Russian flags are supposed to be banned.  And how there are Russian athletes competing under the "AIN" designation.  Heraskevych even cited some examples of other athletes who he felt were making political statements that the IOC chose to ignore--all of which were false equivalencies.

One of Heraskevych's examples really bothered me...because it's not even close to the same thing!  American figure skater Maxim Naumov's parents were both figure skating coaches who died in that plane crash involving an Army helicopter in Washington last January.  After both his short program and free skate, Naumov took out a picture of himself with his parents at a skating rink when he was a little boy.  There's nothing political about that, and the kiss & cry area is not the field of play.  So, no, that's not the same.  (Even if you wanted to argue that the helmet isn't political, the Naumov example still wouldn't apply since his tribute to his parents took place in an approved area and way.)

This isn't something that was suddenly sprung on him, either.  Hersakevych was given ample warning that he wouldn't be allowed to wear the helmet in competition.  He didn't care and insisted he was going to wear it anyway.  Heraskevych was basically taunting the IOC, telling them "Go ahead, DQ me," doubting that they would call his bluff.  They did.  Heraskevych was told that would only be allowed to compete if he wore a different helmet.  When he refused to yield, the IOC made good on their threat.

Whether you agree with Heraskevych's position and message or not isn't even the point.  Kirsty Coventry herself has said she sympathizes with him and wanted to come up with a solution that both sides were comfortable with.  Heraskevych believed he was right and stood by that stance, aware of what the potential consequences were.  So, right or wrong, he brought this upon himself.  And nobody takes any joy with this situation.

Despite knowing it would have no bearing on his ability to actually compete, Heraskevych appealed the decision to CAS in what really seemed like a matter of principle more than anything else.  He left the hearing confident that he'd been successful.  The arbitrator announced their decision a few hours later and, while sympathetic to Heraskevych, ruled against him.  The arbitrator agreed that the helmet violated IOC policy and found the limitations to be "reasonable and proportionate."  Heraskevych was also aware of this policy, which applies to all Olympians from all countries.

After his last run in Beijing, Heraskevych held up a Ukrainian flag with the phrase "No War Ukraine" on it.  The IOC deemed that to be an anti-war message, not a political one, so it didn't run afoul of IOC rules.  Whether the helmet makes a political statement is definitely subjective, but both the IOC and the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation feel it does.  Which makes it a violation...a point that was emphasized in a letter to the Ukrainian Olympic Committee informing them of their decision (and sparking the controversy).

Specifically, the helmet violates Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter, which states that "no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas."  Part of the reason Rule 50 exists is precisely because not everyone necessarily shares the same political viewpoints, so it's best to keep them out of the competition area entirely.  It's also a protection for athletes so that they're not pressured into pushing a certain point of view on the Olympic stage.  Whether the helmet actually violates Rule 50 is a matter of debate, but that doesn't change the purpose of Rule 50.  Or the fact that allowing it would've opened Pandora's box.

Was banning the helmet the easy way out for the IOC and the IBSF?  Maybe.  But did they have their reasons for doing it?  Absolutely.  And it wasn't because they're sympathetic to Russia or discriminating against Ukraine.  It's much simpler than that.  Some people would consider the helmet a political statement.  And if it was allowed, you'd inevitably get the questions of "how come that was allowed but my thing isn't?"  Questions that would much rather be avoided.

Heraskevych claims that he never expected it to be such a big scandal.  Really?  Because it sounds to me like he knew exactly what he was doing.  Making his point was more important to him than competing.  Which was clearly a sacrifice he was willing to make.  But he's not a victim.  The 20 people on his helmet are.