To the International Olympic Committee (IOC),

Remembrance is not a violation.

I am writing to express my deep concern and outrage regarding the disqualification of Ukrainian athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych for wearing a helmet commemorating Ukrainian athletes who have been killed as a result of Russia’s war against Ukraine.

This decision represents a profound moral and institutional failure. A memorial to murdered athletes is not “provocation.” It is grief, remembrance, and truth. Punishing a Ukrainian athlete for acknowledging the deaths of fellow Ukrainian athletes, while continuing to permit Russian athletes to participate under a “neutral” label, creates the unmistakable impression that the IOC is punishing the victim’s grief while accommodating the aggressor.

The inconsistency is further highlighted by precedent. At the opening ceremony, an Israeli athlete reportedly wore a kippah bearing the names of 13 Israeli sportsmen killed in a terrorist attack, and no disciplinary action was taken. If that act of remembrance was permitted, it is difficult to understand why similar commemoration by a Ukrainian athlete warrants sanction. Such divergence suggests inconsistent application of Olympic rules. This inconsistency becomes even more troubling when considered alongside the IOC’s continued designation of Russian athletes as “neutral.”

The concept of “neutrality” in this context is not credible. Russia is waging a full-scale war against Ukraine. In such a system, international travel and participation at high-profile global events is not politically detached from the state; it is tightly controlled. The idea that athletes representing a country conducting an ongoing war can be meaningfully separated from that state’s propaganda and legitimacy is, at best, naïve—and at worst, a convenient fiction.

Any reliance on Rule 50 in this case would amount to a disproportionate and misdirected application of the provision. Rule 50 is intended to prevent overt political campaigning, propaganda, or demonstrations that compromise competitive neutrality. Respectful remembrance is not political messaging or incitement. It is an expression of grief and recognition of human loss.

This is not a minor issue. It is a test of whether the Olympic Movement defends human dignity and truth—or demands silence from those most harmed.

I therefore request:

• A clear written explanation of the rule(s) relied upon in this disqualification;
• A review and reversal of any sanction imposed for respectful remembrance;
• A reassessment of the continued participation of Russian athletes under “neutral” status while Russia’s war against Ukraine continues.

I request confirmation that this complaint has been received and will be reviewed, and I ask for a substantive response addressing the points raised above.

Kind regards,

[name and address]