On 12 February 2026, Vladyslav Heraskevych had his Olympic accreditation withdrawn by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), ending his ability to compete in the Men’s Skeleton event at the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Games. The reason provided by the IOC was that the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (IBSF) had decided that Heraskevych’s “Helmet of Remembrance” was inconsistent with the Olympic Charter and the Guidelines on Athlete Expression – Olympic Winter Games Milano-Cortina 2026 (the Guidelines). It is not clear from the IBSF’s decision which specific Rule of the Olympic Charter or which of the Guidelines is breached by the helmet’s design. The helmet depicts images of 20 Ukrainian athletes who have been killed in the war with Russia. This post will explain why this disqualification, which is now being appealed to the Ad Hoc Division (AHD) of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), should be deemed unlawful and raises key questions regarding the way in which the IOC regulates freedom of expression during the Olympics.

Principle 1 of the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, found at the start of the Olympic Charter, requires “respect for internationally recognised human rights” from everyone in the Olympic Movement. However, Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter, the subject of a previous Verfassungsblog Symposium, is an absolute prohibition on athlete activism and on athletes’ freedom of political expression. It states that: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.”

This must be read alongside Rule 40.2, which states that: “All competitors, team officials or other team personnel in the Olympic Games shall enjoy freedom of expression in keeping with the Olympic values and the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, and in accordance with the Guidelines determined by the IOC Executive Board.” The Guidelines mentioned in Rule 40.2 reiterate that athletes’ freedom of expression is prohibited during Olympic competitions and the Opening, Closing and medal ceremonies.

The applicable Rules and Guidelines raise a number of important legal issues, each of which has come to a head in this case. The outcome of any legal proceedings that follow will not only determine the legality and scope of Rules 40.2 and 50.2 and, therefore, the scope of athletes’ right to freedom of expression during the Olympic Games, but more broadly the constraints that human rights law imposes on the IOC’s decision-making.

Next stop: the CAS Ad Hoc Division

At 16:30 on 12 February, Vladyslav Heraskevych registered his application to challenge the Jury decision of the IBSF. Heraskevych will argue, inter alia, that the decision is disproportionate and requests the annulment of the IBSF Jury decision. By way of provisional measures, he requests that CAS reinstates him in the 2026 Olympic Winter Games with immediate effect, or in the alternative, that the athlete performs a CAS supervised official run pending the final decision.

The AHD sits at all editions of the Olympic Games and determines all disputes arising out of Olympic competitions. Its decisions must be given in under 24 hours to minimise disruption to the events taking place. Yet, as the Skeleton competition took place on the morning of 12 February, the AHD will not be in a position to allow Heraskevych to compete at the Milano-Cortina 2026 Olympics and earn a medal. However, he might be able to recover his accreditation and obtain the formal annulment of his disqualification.

In the process, the AHD would need to determine whether:

• This act of remembrance is a permitted exercise of Heraskevych’s freedom of expression under Rule 40.2 and the Guidelines.
• Heraskevych’s actions are supporting of or in breach of the spirit of Olympism, which requires in Principle 1, “social responsibility and respect for internationally recognised human rights and universal fundamental ethical principles.”
• An interpretation of the Olympic Charter, which leads to Heraskevych’s disqualification for a wearing a memorial helmet, is a necessary and proportionate restriction of the freedom of expression of the athlete.

The criteria for determining a breach of the Guidelines are:

• The degree of disruption caused by the behaviour on the field of play, during an official ceremony or in the Olympic Village.
• Whether the expression constituted advocacy subject to prohibition under international human rights law, such as national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
• Whether disciplinary action is necessary to protect the legitimate interests and values of Olympism.
• Whether the expression was a one-time event.
• Whether the Participant subject to disciplinary proceedings carried out the act voluntarily or at the behest of or under pressure from another person, organisation or entity.
• Whether another Participant (e.g. another athlete) complained about the expression.

It is certainly arguable on Heraskevych’s behalf that none of these criteria are satisfied, or that there has been only a minor breach of some of them, and certainly not enough to require the withdrawal of his accreditation and his ex ante disqualification, the harshest sanction available. There has been minimal disruption caused by his wearing of the helmet as all practice sessions and the event itself were able to take place as planned. The expression is lawful under international human rights law and does not constitute hate speech. The helmet promotes Olympism, peace and the Olympic Truce, and there are no known complainants, other than the IBSF and the IOC. As Heraskevych was allowed to wear the helmet in the training runs, it can even be argued that the expression had not yet been made in a competition setting, so that he has been punished for the intention to breach the Guidelines, not their actual breach.

The IOC endorses a total ban on “expression” during Olympic competitions

The regulation of freedom of expression at the Olympic Games is governed by Principle 1, Rule 40.2 and Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter, yet there is no explanation of the relationship between them or whether there is a hierarchy that determines their order of application. Principle 1 requires respect for human rights, including freedom of expression, whilst Rule 40.2 restricts that right and Rule 50.2 prohibits its exercise in certain, ill-defined circumstances. In the present case, the argument of the IOC, as applied in practice by the jury of the IBSF, is that Heraskevych violated the IOC athlete expression Guidelines, which have been devised to enable compliance with Rule 40.2’s commitment to “freedom of expression” at the Olympics, and which provide that “expressions are not permitted […]during competition on the field of play”. The publicly available information does not provide further information on the reasoning that led to this conclusion.

Thus, the IOC and the IBSF seem to hold the position that any type of expression (not only political, religious or racial propaganda) is prohibited during competition on the field of play. In other words, athletes are expected to be human robots focused exclusively on performance and showing no trace of any other social commitments or personal views; a total erasure of their individual and collective personality while on the field of play. As IOC President Kirsty Coventry reiterated: the problem is not about the content of the expression, but with the place that it is being expressed. Such a wide interpretation of the notion of expression would, however, be difficult to reconcile with the IOC’s treatment of a range of other cases in the past. For example, at the Opening Ceremony of the Paris 2024 Olympics, the Algerian team were not sanctioned when team members threw roses and rose petals into the water to commemorate the deaths of over 100 Algerian independence campaigners who were shot and killed by French police during demonstrations on 17th October 1961. Similarities between the shirt worn by the Palestinian team’s flag bearer in Paris and Heraskevych’s helmet are also clear, yet only Heraskevych has been punished. Heraskevych and the National Olympic Committee of Ukraine both state that the Helmet of Remembrance is a respectful commemoration of athletes killed in the war. It is not a political statement, but an act of remembrance. This interpretation is analogous to the actions of the Algerian delegation at Paris 2024.

The AHD will have to determine why the Paris 2024 “expressions” were deemed acceptable when they occurred during the Opening Ceremony and did not lead to disqualifications, whilst Heraskevych’s helmet was found to be inconsistent with the same Rules and Guidelines. Further, it seems that banning “expressions” wholesale from certain parts of the Olympic Games is problematic from the point of view of legal certainty, as what constitutes an “expression” under the Guidelines remains entirely undefined. It is also unclear how Rule 40.2 relates to Rule 50.2 and whether all forms of expressions are banned or only those with a specific political edge. If the former is true, it would mean that in a truly Orwellian move, the IOC enshrined the right to freedom of expression in the Olympic Charter while at the same time gutting it entirely through its Guidelines on “Athlete Expression” at the most visible moments of the Olympic Games. In any event, one would be hard-pressed to consider that such a vague and indeterminate understanding of “expressions” complies with the principle of legality, which is central to CAS jurisprudence.

Can the IOC’s Guidelines on “Athlete Expression” at the Olympics be reconciled with freedom of expression?

Following the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Semenya v Switzerland, the CAS (and thereafter the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (SFSC) if the award is challenged in a setting aside procedure) will have to engage in a “particularly rigorous examination” of the case as it constitutes a fundamental restriction of Heraskevych’s freedom of expression as protected under the Swiss Constitution (Article 16) and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In principle, a restriction of freedom of expression can be justified only if it is a necessary and proportionate means to achieve a legitimate objective. More precisely, Article 10.2 ECHR limits the ability to restrict freedom of expression to situations that are in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. These do not include protecting the claimed political neutrality of sport, nor to quote Mark Adams, is it a sufficient reason to ban Heraskevych’s helmet because, “There are 130 conflicts going on in the world. We cannot have 130 different conflicts featured, however terrible they are, during the field of play, during the actual competition.”

The IOC argues that its Guidelines are necessary to guarantee “that sport at the Olympic Games is neutral and must be separate from political, religious or any other type of interference”. It also claims that the expressions of athletes “on the field of play during competitions or official ceremonies may distract the focus from the celebration of athletes’ sporting performances.”  Both rationales seem a priori difficult to reconcile with the limited grounds provided in Article 10 ECHR to justify restrictions on freedom of expression. Stretching it, one could imagine that the IOC could try to defend its Guidelines by claiming that they are necessary for the protection of the rights of other athletes, as well as their health and morals. At this point in time, there is no example of the ECtHR ever considering these aims applicable in a similar case, but this cannot be definitively excluded.

Nevertheless, even if one were to concede the existence of a valid legitimate objective behind the Guidelines, it seems difficult to conclude that they would constitute a proportionate restriction of freedom of expression. It is entirely unclear why, in order to protect the neutrality of the Olympic Movement or the rights of other athletes, every form of “expression” would need to be banned on the field of play. In the case of Heraskevych, it would be for the IOC to demonstrate that him wearing the helmet would actually endanger the safety of his competitors or the fundamental interests of the Olympic Movement.

If the CAS takes seriously its responsibility to ensure that the IOC’s regulations and decisions imposed on Olympians are compatible with international and European human rights law, in line with the IOC’s express commitment in its Olympic Charter, it is difficult to see how it could not declare Heraskevych’s disqualification and loss of accreditation unlawful and reinstate at least the athlete’s accreditation. Any other decision would strengthen the perception that the CAS lacks independence vis-à-vis the Olympic Movement and would subject it to the “particularly rigorous review” of the SFSC. If the latter continues to adopt a lenient approach to its role as a check on the CAS, the case could ultimately reach the ECtHR.

This case is about an athlete in grief wanting to use the unique global platform of the Olympics to pay his respect to his fallen fellow Ukrainian athletes. Let’s not be fooled; while the IOC itself is happy to leverage the visibility of this global event for its own financial benefit and the benefit of its executives by subjecting us to constant advertising, it is denying the opportunity to athletes, who are the pillars of the Olympics, to express their personal views even when they are consensual (as a teary IOC President  Kirsty Coventry acknowledged “No one – no one, especially me – is disagreeing with the messaging”) or aligned with the values of the Olympic Charter. The IOC’s power to exclude the expression of athletes during the Olympics, primarily used to monopolise the attention they create for its own benefit, should be strictly limited and checked. It is CAS’s duty to do so and, if it fails to deliver on this duty, it will be for national and European courts to remind the IOC that human rights are not only a nice label to add to the Olympic Charter but are there to trump power when it is abused.