Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Heraskevych's "Helmet of Remembrance": NOC asks IOC to permit honoring of fallen athletes

The Ukrainian NOC believes that the helmet bearing portraits of fallen Ukrainian athletes complies with the rules and safety standards. The IOC's decision could set a precedent: remembrance or politics — where is the line in the modern Olympic Games?

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 10, 2026 · 2 min read

Heraskevych's "Helmet of Remembrance": NOC asks IOC to permit honoring of fallen athletes
Владислав Гераскевич (Фото: Facebook-акаунт спортсмена)

Summary

The National Olympic Committee of Ukraine has appealed to the International Olympic Committee asking that Ukrainian skeleton racer and flagbearer Vladyslav Heraskevych be allowed to compete at the XXV Winter Olympic Games wearing a helmet bearing portraits of athletes who died as a result of Russian aggression. According to the NOC, the helmet fully meets safety requirements and IOC rules, contains no advertising, political slogans or discriminatory elements, and was approved during official training.

"The NOC of Ukraine emphasizes that it [the helmet] fully meets safety requirements and IOC rules, contains no advertising, political slogans or discriminatory elements, and was confirmed as compliant with established standards during official training"

— National Olympic Committee of Ukraine

Why this matters

This is not only about a single accessory. The issue touches three levels: the memory of the dead, the Olympics' rules on political symbols, and the international signal about how Russian aggression is perceived. For Ukraine, permission would be a formal recognition of its losses in the international sporting arena; a ban would prompt discussion about the limits of neutrality in wartime.

Context and facts

On 9 February 2026 Heraskevych reported that one of the IOC officials had prohibited the use of the helmet showing athletes killed as a result of Russian aggression. The Olympics in Italy run from 6 to 22 February 2026; the main locations are Cortina d'Ampezzo and Milan, but competitions are also being held in other northern regions of the country.

"Thank you, Vladyslav, for reminding the world of the cost of our struggle"

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine

Possible consequences

If the IOC allows the helmet, it would signal that symbolic commemoration of victims can be compatible with the format's rules. If it bans the helmet, the issue will become the subject of a broader public debate about where the line between remembrance and politicization of sport should be drawn. Sports law experts note that the final decision could set a precedent for future Games in the context of regional conflicts.

What's next

The next step now lies with the IOC: reviewing the NOC's arguments and issuing a final decision on permission. For the Ukrainian side this is both a symbolic and a practical matter — the remembrance of fallen athletes and the world's stance on aggression. Whether the international community can find a way to honor war victims without breaching Olympic neutrality is a question whose answer will affect not only one helmet but also the standards for future Games.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026