Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Sports

"Memory is not a violation": Zelensky presented the Order of Liberty to Vladyslav Heraskevych after IOC disqualification

The president awarded a skeleton racer who had been disqualified ahead of the 2026 Olympics over a "helmet of remembrance." This is not just a gesture of support — it is a signal of how the war is affecting international sport and the principles of remembrance.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 14, 2026 · 2 min read

"Memory is not a violation": Zelensky presented the Order of Liberty to Vladyslav Heraskevych after IOC disqualification

Why this matters

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Ukrainian skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych and his father and coach Mykhailo Heraskevych, and presented the athlete with the Order of Liberty. The event takes place against the backdrop of a high-profile dispute between the Ukrainian athlete and international sporting institutions — the IOC and the IBSF — over a "memory helmet" intended to honor Ukrainian athletes and war heroes killed in the conflict.

What happened

The IOC disqualified Vladyslav Heraskevych before the first run of the skeleton event at the 2026 Olympics after deciding not to allow him to compete wearing a helmet bearing symbols commemorating fallen Ukrainians. Heraskevych announced his intention to appeal the suspension to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). According to reports, an expedited procedure at the CAS was held and on 13 February 2026 the claim was dismissed.

"Ukraine will have champions and Olympians. But the most important thing Ukraine has is its people — those for whom truth and the memory of the athletes who were killed by Russia, and who will never again be able to take part in sporting competitions because of Russian aggression, matter."

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine

"The IOC didn't suspend me, they suspended Ukraine."

— Vladyslav Heraskevych, skeleton athlete

IOC position and the CAS decision

The official arguments from the IOC and the IBSF related to regulations on political messages or symbols on athletes' equipment during competitions. As the CAS decision of 13 February 2026 shows, Heraskevych's appeal was dismissed under the expedited procedure. In practice, this means the athlete remained barred from competing at the 2026 Olympics.

Significance for Ukraine

The award from the head of state is not only recognition of the athlete's personal stance. It is a signal to the international community: the memory of those killed during Russian aggression is part of national identity and should not automatically be classified as "political" in sport. More broadly, the case raises questions about the limits of international federations' regulations during wartime and about how sporting organizations respond to the moral demands of societies suffering from aggression.

What next

Heraskevych has spoken of an appeal — and even if the CAS has already considered the case in an expedited procedure, further steps are possible: public pressure, diplomatic appeals, or initiatives to change the rules of international federations. For the Ukrainian side, the key is to turn symbolic support into practical tools to protect athletes and uphold the norms of international sport.

This episode raises a simple but important question: how to reconcile universal sporting rules with demands for memory and justice from countries experiencing aggression? The answer will shape not only the fate of individual athletes but also the reputation of international institutions.

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