The Case of Heraskevych v IBSF and IOC: Why the IOC Can No Longer Ignore the Politics of Sport
The Olympic Games and International Olympic Committee (IOC) once again stand at the forefront of the debate about whether human rights and political expression have a place in sport.[1] It can be argued that the Guidelines on Athlete Expression (Guidelines) have been utilised at the recent Milano-Cortina Winter Olympic Games to selectively suppress discourse about contested political issues rather than merely regulate the boundaries of what constitutes the acceptable expression of a view.
Guidelines on Athlete Expression
The Guidelines produced by the IOC emphasise the need to sport to remain neutral and reiterate the focus of the Games being on the performances of athletes as opposed to their political views.[2]
Importantly, in conveying these guidelines, the Guidelines reference Rule 40.2 of the Olympic Charter, which all athletes must comply with to compete in the Games.
Rule 40.2 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”.[3]
However, as explained by the IOC President Kirsty Coventry, the right of athletes to enjoy freedom of expression, and in particular express their views, is limited to media mixed zones, social media, press conferences and interviews.[4] This means that an athlete’s “expression of a view” is strictly prohibited during the “field of play”.[5]
Background to the Case of Vladyslav Heraskevych v International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) & International Olympic Committee (IOC)
At the recent Milano-Cortina Games in February, Ukrainian athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych was banned from competing in the Mens Skeleton event after he announced that his competition helmet would display images of twenty Ukrainian athletes who have been killed during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.[6] In an Instagram post made on 12 February, Heraskevych wrote that “...plain, simple respect toward them is exactly what I want to give them”.[7]
During the Skeleton competition, the IOC met with Heraskevych to advise him that his helmet breached the Guidelines on Athlete Expression because firstly, it was an expression of a view, and secondly, this expression would be occurring during the “field of play”.[8] At that point, Heraskevych had already worn the helmet in four previous training runs. After Heraskevych confirmed to the IOC that he would continue to wear it during the competition, the IOC issued him with a letter advising that he was not allowed to compete and would be withdrawn from the event due to breaching Rule 40.2 of the Guidelines.[9]
Heraskevych subsequently filed an application to have the matter heard in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where he sought to challenge the decision so he could continue to compete. At the hearing, the core issues being decided were (1) whether the Expression Guidelines complied with Heraskevych’s right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and (2) whether Heraskevych’s withdrawal from the competition was lawful, which involved determining whether the helmet breached Rule 40.2 (i.e. did not comply with the Guidelines) and whether the subsequent withdrawal from competition was a proportionate response to this breach.[10]
On the first issue, the Sole Arbitrator held that the Guidelines complied with Heraskevych’s right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the ECHR and therefore the Guidelines applied to this case. [11]
On the second issue, the Sole Arbitrator found that although the helmet was an act of “commemoration for athletes killed in a war”, wars always possess political connotations which therefore meant that it was an “expression of a view”, and that by displaying this during the competition, Heraskevych breached Rule 40.2. [12]
On this basis, Heraskevych’s application was dismissed and he was not allowed to compete.
Reconciling the Olympic Charter Rules with The Right to Freedom of Expression
Whilst the decision focused more on where Heraskevych’s message was intended to be displayed (i.e. during the field of play) rather than the message itself, the CAS decision nevertheless offers some considerations about the role of politics in sport and how this is defined and managed by the IOC and CAS through arbitration.
The CAS decision proffers the idea that it is easier for politics and sport to exist in isolation from one another, whilst also suggesting that perhaps it is only contentious, contested political issues that are subject to this separation.
This is especially interesting to consider given that Rule 40.2 has had somewhat of an inconsistent application. At the 2022 Beijing Winter Games, Heraskevych did not breach the Olympic Charter when he displayed a sign that said “No war in Ukraine”.[13] At the recent 2026 Winter Games, Italian snowboarding athlete Roland Fischnaller displayed the Russian flag on his helmet, despite the Russian flag being banned at the Olympics.[14] At the same Games, Ukrainian luge athlete Olena Smaha had the words “remembrance is not a violation” written on her glove.[15] All of these examples would have constituted the “expression of a view” by an athlete, yet these athletes were not sanctioned.
In comparing Heraskevych’s CAS decision to the situations above, it could be suggested that the issue is not so much about the inclusion of politics in athletes’ views, but more so about which political ideas in particular are acceptable enough to be platformed at competitions (and which are not). Moving forward, it may be that the utility of Rule 40.2 will reduce, because the line between a prohibited view and a simple call for solidarity will blur, potentially weakening the ability for athletes to rely on Rule 40.2 to protect their right to express their views during competition.
This is especially pertinent to consider given one of the "principles of Olympism is universality and solidarity, suggesting situations like these will continue to put the Olympic Charter not only in tension with athletes’ right to freely express their views under Rule 40.2, but also with its own aforementioned Olympic values.[16]
And so, as the global world order becomes increasingly volatile amidst a myriad of conflict, the case of Heraskevych v IBSF and IOC is a crucial step in continuing to query the extent to which politics and the law is intertwined with sport, begging the question: can athletes be active political citizens in their capacity as professional sportspeople without sanction?
The answer it seems is presently unsettled, though it is becoming increasingly evident that sport can no longer exist in a vacuum and is not immune to the impacts of the laws of global conflicts. The IOC must now account for this.
Reference list:
[2]https://www.olympics.com/athlete365/topics/athlete-expression
[3] https://www.olympics.com/ioc/olympic-charter
[5] Ibid; https://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-decisions
[6] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnv63q1vpv1o; https://theconversation.com/the-iocs-ban-of-a-ukrainian-athlete-over-his-helmet-reveals-troubling-double-standards-275896#:~:text=12%2C%20the%20International%20Olympic%20Committee,invasion%20of%20his%20home%20nation
[7] @heraskevychvladyslav (Instagram, 12 February 2026) www.instagram.com
[10] https://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-decisions
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] https://globalnews.ca/news/11664498/heraskevych-banned-helmet/
[16] https://www.olympics.com/ioc/principles