Helmetgate

[Sir Rols]

No, not the British one @Rob2012

This seems to be headed towards an inevitable flashpoint

 

Ukrainian skeleton athlete ready to be disqualified over ‘helmet of memory

[StefanMUC]

Ukrainians are not afraid to stand up against Putin, why should they bow to Coventry/the IOC?

[Sir Rols]

How serious of a medal hope is he? If he’s not a legitimatel contender for the podium, he has nothing to lose. He’s already got heaps of publicity for the cause, running again with the helmet will get him even more, and if the IOC disqualifies him, the publicity runs into overdrive, he gets heaps of sympathy, and the IOC come out as the bad guys. Win-win.

[StefanMUC]

He had a few top 5 training runs this week, so at least an outside chance, but probably he thinks it‘s worth taking the risk and exposing the IOC.

[Bear]

He’s out.

 

[Sir Rols]

Per the Associated Press:

International Olympic Committee President Kirsty Coventry was waiting for Heraskevych at the top of the track when he arrived at around 8.15am Thursday, or roughly 75 minutes before the start of the men’s skeleton race.

They went into a private area and spoke briefly, and Coventry was unable to change Heraskevych’s mind. He was holding the decision from the International Bobsled and Skeleton Federation when he briefly addressed reporters and said he would appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

“It’s hard to say or put into words. It’s emptiness,” he said. Coventry spoke with reporters after the meeting, tears rolling down her face as she spoke. “It’s a message of memory and no one is disagreeing with that,” Coventry said. The IOC added that it made its decision “with regret.”

Edited February 12 by Sir Rols

[sebastien1214]

53 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Coventry spoke with reporters after the meeting, tears rolling down her face as she spoke

= narcissistic pervert who lives only for the cameras

take that, Coventry's fan club

[StefanMUC]

Not surprised, but still disgusting.

[cfm Jeremie]

32 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

= narcissistic pervert who lives only for the cameras

take that, Coventry's fan club

I think, but it is just my opinion, that this is unfair: she is not Bach!

Although I whish the IOC had let him compete, I can understand that the IOC was concerned that allowing this would be opening a can of worms. Although in this case there is a clear agressor and a clear victim, it is not always so black and white.

[Rob2012]

It confuses the IOC's own messaging around this too. The decision the IOC took when the orcs invaded was entirely correct. The orcs haven't left Ukraine so let's not muddy that message. If a remembrance helmet is "political" are the IOC saying their decision to ban Russia is too, as opposed to being the right thing to do? I think they could've let this one slide (no pun intended).

One might also ask what the IOC is up to in proposing things like this given Russia is as obstinate as ever?

https://www.reuters.com/sports/ioc-wants-return-russian-belarusian-youth-athletes-international-events-2025-12-11/

[Sir Rols]

I’m ready to believe her tears were sincere. Welcome to making tough calls, Kirsty.

But remember this pic if/when the IOC decides to re-admit Russia and Belarus.

 

[sebastien1214]

Honestly, I believe without hesitation that his tears were real, but still, I find this episode very embarrassing for the IOC.

I completely agree with @Rob2012. At one point, if we were to summarize the IOC's position on this helmet in very simple terms, it would be "no politics here, sport comes first." But then, in that case, why are you banning Russia and Belarus? Why are you doing nothing about Israel?

Coventry isn't directly responsible for all these contradictions, which are Bach's legacy. But Coventry would have shown courage, which I would have applauded, if they had resolved all these contradictions (by allowing the Ukrainian's helmet, by sanctioning Israel; obviously, I don't want to lift the ban on Russia and Belarus). In this instance, Coventry prefers to take refuge in the "comfort" of Bach's legacy. Once again, Coventry doesn't want to get involved (since it's then very easy for them to defend herself: "But you know, I'm just complying with what the IOC decided before me...").

(Yes, it's a war, not just a simple political matter, but didn't Clausewitz say that war is simply the continuation of politics by other means?)

[sebastien1214]

[Bear]

Coventry’s personal statement:

https://www.olympics.com/ioc/news/statement-by-ioc-president-kirsty-coventry-following-her-meeting-with-ukrainian-skeleton-pilot-vladyslav-heraskevych

She has pushed for his accreditation to remain in place, even if he can no longer compete

[Rob2012]

Hmm, I actually think that's quite fair insofar as it goes. We wouldn't want the President to be so powerful that personal intervention could override what's laid down, and we wouldn't want any disciplinary commission to interpret the rules willy nilly. Perhaps though, given how long Russia has been banned for, something like this could've been foreseen and accommodated within the rules as written? It feels very, very lead footed for the IOC to still find itself on the back foot on anything related to Ukraine, reacting to this kind of thing and creating outcomes nobody is happy with.

Edited February 12 by Rob2012

[Bear]

1 hour ago, Rob2012 said:

Hmm, I actually think that's quite fair insofar as it goes. We wouldn't want the President to be so powerful that personal intervention could override what's laid down, and we wouldn't want any disciplinary commission to interpret the rules willy nilly. Perhaps though, given how long Russia has been banned for, something like this could've been foreseen and accommodated within the rules as written? It feels very, very lead footed for the IOC to still find itself on the back foot on anything related to Ukraine, reacting to this kind of thing and creating outcomes nobody is happy with.

Yes, I agree - I got the feeling that even Coventry felt the rule was overreaching in this case. Hopefully this triggers a review of the athlete expression rules again, as was the case in 2021.

[Sir Rols]

Jens Weinreich over at The Inquisitor has posted his take

The crocodile tears of the IOC president, a questionable and non-transparent process, and the usual propaganda

For those who can’t get past the paywall, here’s the story

Spoiler

The disqualification of Ukrainian Vladyslav Heraskevych becomes the biggest political issue of the 2026 Winter Olympics – with unforeseen consequences for the IOC and its president, Kirsty Coventry, who are attempting to rectify the situation with propaganda measures. Details on the opaque process. By Jens Weinreich • 12 Feb 2026  View in browser Dignity: not much is known about it in today's IOC.

There is another media event tonight at the Ukrainian Consulate General in Milan. So there will be more news about the IOC and the IBSF disqualifying a Ukrainian athlete for wearing photos of innocent young Ukrainian athletes murdered by Vladimir Putin's troops on his helmet. The IOC's expected decision in Milan is making headlines around the world, and this decision will be etched deeply into Olympic history. That is certain. Before this media event in Milan, at which Vladyslav Heraskevych's application at the Court of Arbitration for Sport(CAS), which is under the control of the IOC, is likely to be announced (see below), I would like to draw your attention to a few details that are being overlooked in the global media coverage. The coverage is based on a lack of research and the deliberate misrepresentation and lack of transparency on the part of the IOC. This is a pattern that we already know from Paris and the disqualification of Afghan breakdancer Marizha Talash at that time. So don't be fooled by Kirsty Coventry's crocodile tears, which were so important to the IOC that the video of her statements was distributed this morning in Cortina for free use by all media worldwide – with a complete shot list. In Paris, the media worldwide only reported that Marizha Talash had been disqualified late in the evening by the World DanceSport Federation (WDSF). But in this newsletter, you learned more: I had confronted Swiss IOC member Denis Oswald with the events by telephone at the time; at his advanced age, Oswald was surprised and confirmed to me: He alone had made the decision as the perceived century-long permanent head of the IOC Disciplinary Commission. He had neither spoken to Marizha Talash nor consulted with other commission members, whose names are apparently supposed to be a secret. In any case, take a look at the IOC website. You won't find anything there to this day. Of course, there is no record of Oswald's tough analysis with himself, no minutes of this meeting with himself – and no decision. Why is this important? Well, Oswald is the Permanent Chair of the Disciplinary Commission. And at the Olympic Games, nothing of such significance happens without this opaque group (Oswald, his mirror image and perhaps someone else) being involved. Back then, in the case of Marizha Talash, and today, in the case of Vladyslav Geraskevych, there were initially no statements from the IOC about the role of Oswald and the strange commission. Today, there was talk of the IBSF jury's decision – back then, only of the WDSF's decision, even though Oswald said he had made the decision himself. Of course, the IOC has such things under control. Just how poorly crafted the IOC's propaganda news is, for which three highly paid people in the rank of directors are now responsible (Mark Adams, Christian Klaue and Coventry's new darling James Pearce, who previously advised the heavily corrupt World Aquaticspresident Husain Al-Musallam for years), can also be seen in the statements released today. In the first press release this morning, which also contains other contradictions, there is no mention of the own Disciplinary Commission, only of the IBSF. It was only later, in the afternoon, that this passage was released: On an exceptional basis, after the very respectful conversation with the athlete, Coventry asked the IOC Disciplinary Commission (DC) Chair to re-consider the withdrawal of Vladyslav Heraskevych’s accreditation for the Milano Cortina 2026 Games. The Chair of the IOC DC agreed to the request, which means Mr Heraskevych can continue to be at the Milano Cortina 2026 Olympic Winter Games despite not being able to compete. The chair of the DC is Denis Oswald, and no one really knows why he hasn't finally stepped down after all the damage he has caused in recent years. Next year, in 2027, his membership will finally expire. So suddenly, an IOC president consults with a commission that is, of course, completely independent and a completely independent permanent commission chairman who complies with her request—even though the IOC had never previously made it clear that Oswald had been significantly involved. And please, don't ask for the documents from this Oswald commission to be published. You're not stupid, are you? Some readers will find these lines rather petty. Others will not, because of course the devil is in the details—and lawyers are very good at working with such details and presenting the case before the IOC-affiliated CAS. It won't do much good, but it's always important for the public to point out the many systemic intransparencies, cover-ups, and unanswered questions. You won't believe it, but just as I'm writing this, the CAS announcement comes in: THE CAS AD HOC DIVISION REGISTERS APPLICATION BY VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH (UKRAINE) Milan, 12 February 2026 - The CAS Ad hoc Division has registered an application by Skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych (Ukraine) against the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF). The application challenges the IBSF Jury Decision to withdraw the Athlete from the Men’s Skeleton event with immediate effect from the Olympic Winter Games Milano Cortina 2026 (2026 OWG). Filed at 16:30 on 12 February 2026, the application challenges the IBSF Jury decision on 12 February 2026 stating that Mr Heraskevych intended to wear in competition a helmet displaying portraits of Ukrainian athletes who lost their lives in the war, which was considered as being inconsistent with the Olympic Charter and Guidelines on Athlete Expression. Mr Heraskevych had communicated earlier to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the IBSF that he would wear the helmet, even after he was informed that he would not be admitted under such circumstances. The helmet was used during 2026 OWG Skeleton training sessions. Mr Heraskevych argues that the exclusion is disproportionate, unsupported by any technical or safety violation and causes irreparable sporting harm to him. His application requests the annulment of the IBSF Jury decision and, by way of provisional measures, that CAS reinstates him in the 2026 OWG with immediate effect, or in the alternative, that the athlete performs a CAS supervised official run pending the final decision. A Sole Arbitrator has been appointed to consider the matter with urgency. An Operative decision (without grounds) is expected first, which will be announced. It is not possible to indicate a precise timeframe for an Operative decision at this stage. This is an unofficial summary for media use. One of the many inconsistencies in the proceedings is this: Coventry met with Heraskevych in Cortina this morning. If I am reporting this correctly, the meeting took place at 7:30 a.m. At that point, however, the disqualification had probably already been decided. Including the final decision of Oswald and his mirror image. The IBSF does not want to answer these questions, citing ongoing CAS proceedings, as I was told a few minutes ago: – I cannot find the composition of the jury that decided on Heraskevych on the IBSF website. Please send me the names of the jury members who decided on this – who signed the decision? – When exactly did the jury meet for the decisive session? – When exactly was the decision made? – Did any IOC representatives attend the meeting? – Is there any correspondence/documentation between the jury and the person concerned/NOC? You would certainly make this available for reasons of transparency. Transparency does not go that far. In any case, the jury's decision was finalized by an IBSF employee at 8 a.m. so that the document, which had apparently been photographed, could be posted on the website. This is evident from the document's metadata. So did Coventry, the crocodile tears lady, meet with Heraskevych, and had the IBSF, in consultation with Oswald and the deeply opaque (and certainly totally dependent) disciplinary commission, long since prepared everything? Questions upon questions. I could list further inconsistencies and questions about the procedure, which was certainly once again not due process. But I had promised to finish this newsletter before the presser at the Ukrainian consulate.

[Bear]

19 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Jens Weinreich over at The Inquisitor has posted his take

The crocodile tears of the IOC president, a questionable and non-transparent process, and the usual propaganda

For those who can’t get past the paywall, here’s the story

 

  Hide contents

The disqualification of Ukrainian Vladyslav Heraskevych becomes the biggest political issue of the 2026 Winter Olympics – with unforeseen consequences for the IOC and its president, Kirsty Coventry, who are attempting to rectify the situation with propaganda measures. Details on the opaque process. By Jens Weinreich • 12 Feb 2026  View in browser Dignity: not much is known about it in today's IOC.

There is another media event tonight at the Ukrainian Consulate General in Milan. So there will be more news about the IOC and the IBSF disqualifying a Ukrainian athlete for wearing photos of innocent young Ukrainian athletes murdered by Vladimir Putin's troops on his helmet. The IOC's expected decision in Milan is making headlines around the world, and this decision will be etched deeply into Olympic history. That is certain. Before this media event in Milan, at which Vladyslav Heraskevych's application at the Court of Arbitration for Sport(CAS), which is under the control of the IOC, is likely to be announced (see below), I would like to draw your attention to a few details that are being overlooked in the global media coverage. The coverage is based on a lack of research and the deliberate misrepresentation and lack of transparency on the part of the IOC. This is a pattern that we already know from Paris and the disqualification of Afghan breakdancer Marizha Talash at that time. So don't be fooled by Kirsty Coventry's crocodile tears, which were so important to the IOC that the video of her statements was distributed this morning in Cortina for free use by all media worldwide – with a complete shot list. In Paris, the media worldwide only reported that Marizha Talash had been disqualified late in the evening by the World DanceSport Federation (WDSF). But in this newsletter, you learned more: I had confronted Swiss IOC member Denis Oswald with the events by telephone at the time; at his advanced age, Oswald was surprised and confirmed to me: He alone had made the decision as the perceived century-long permanent head of the IOC Disciplinary Commission. He had neither spoken to Marizha Talash nor consulted with other commission members, whose names are apparently supposed to be a secret. In any case, take a look at the IOC website. You won't find anything there to this day. Of course, there is no record of Oswald's tough analysis with himself, no minutes of this meeting with himself – and no decision. Why is this important? Well, Oswald is the Permanent Chair of the Disciplinary Commission. And at the Olympic Games, nothing of such significance happens without this opaque group (Oswald, his mirror image and perhaps someone else) being involved. Back then, in the case of Marizha Talash, and today, in the case of Vladyslav Geraskevych, there were initially no statements from the IOC about the role of Oswald and the strange commission. Today, there was talk of the IBSF jury's decision – back then, only of the WDSF's decision, even though Oswald said he had made the decision himself. Of course, the IOC has such things under control. Just how poorly crafted the IOC's propaganda news is, for which three highly paid people in the rank of directors are now responsible (Mark Adams, Christian Klaue and Coventry's new darling James Pearce, who previously advised the heavily corrupt World Aquaticspresident Husain Al-Musallam for years), can also be seen in the statements released today. In the first press release this morning, which also contains other contradictions, there is no mention of the own Disciplinary Commission, only of the IBSF. It was only later, in the afternoon, that this passage was released: On an exceptional basis, after the very respectful conversation with the athlete, Coventry asked the IOC Disciplinary Commission (DC) Chair to re-consider the withdrawal of Vladyslav Heraskevych’s accreditation for the Milano Cortina 2026 Games. The Chair of the IOC DC agreed to the request, which means Mr Heraskevych can continue to be at the Milano Cortina 2026 Olympic Winter Games despite not being able to compete. The chair of the DC is Denis Oswald, and no one really knows why he hasn't finally stepped down after all the damage he has caused in recent years. Next year, in 2027, his membership will finally expire. So suddenly, an IOC president consults with a commission that is, of course, completely independent and a completely independent permanent commission chairman who complies with her request—even though the IOC had never previously made it clear that Oswald had been significantly involved. And please, don't ask for the documents from this Oswald commission to be published. You're not stupid, are you? Some readers will find these lines rather petty. Others will not, because of course the devil is in the details—and lawyers are very good at working with such details and presenting the case before the IOC-affiliated CAS. It won't do much good, but it's always important for the public to point out the many systemic intransparencies, cover-ups, and unanswered questions. You won't believe it, but just as I'm writing this, the CAS announcement comes in: THE CAS AD HOC DIVISION REGISTERS APPLICATION BY VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH (UKRAINE) Milan, 12 February 2026 - The CAS Ad hoc Division has registered an application by Skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych (Ukraine) against the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF). The application challenges the IBSF Jury Decision to withdraw the Athlete from the Men’s Skeleton event with immediate effect from the Olympic Winter Games Milano Cortina 2026 (2026 OWG). Filed at 16:30 on 12 February 2026, the application challenges the IBSF Jury decision on 12 February 2026 stating that Mr Heraskevych intended to wear in competition a helmet displaying portraits of Ukrainian athletes who lost their lives in the war, which was considered as being inconsistent with the Olympic Charter and Guidelines on Athlete Expression. Mr Heraskevych had communicated earlier to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the IBSF that he would wear the helmet, even after he was informed that he would not be admitted under such circumstances. The helmet was used during 2026 OWG Skeleton training sessions. Mr Heraskevych argues that the exclusion is disproportionate, unsupported by any technical or safety violation and causes irreparable sporting harm to him. His application requests the annulment of the IBSF Jury decision and, by way of provisional measures, that CAS reinstates him in the 2026 OWG with immediate effect, or in the alternative, that the athlete performs a CAS supervised official run pending the final decision. A Sole Arbitrator has been appointed to consider the matter with urgency. An Operative decision (without grounds) is expected first, which will be announced. It is not possible to indicate a precise timeframe for an Operative decision at this stage. This is an unofficial summary for media use. One of the many inconsistencies in the proceedings is this: Coventry met with Heraskevych in Cortina this morning. If I am reporting this correctly, the meeting took place at 7:30 a.m. At that point, however, the disqualification had probably already been decided. Including the final decision of Oswald and his mirror image. The IBSF does not want to answer these questions, citing ongoing CAS proceedings, as I was told a few minutes ago: – I cannot find the composition of the jury that decided on Heraskevych on the IBSF website. Please send me the names of the jury members who decided on this – who signed the decision? – When exactly did the jury meet for the decisive session? – When exactly was the decision made? – Did any IOC representatives attend the meeting? – Is there any correspondence/documentation between the jury and the person concerned/NOC? You would certainly make this available for reasons of transparency. Transparency does not go that far. In any case, the jury's decision was finalized by an IBSF employee at 8 a.m. so that the document, which had apparently been photographed, could be posted on the website. This is evident from the document's metadata. So did Coventry, the crocodile tears lady, meet with Heraskevych, and had the IBSF, in consultation with Oswald and the deeply opaque (and certainly totally dependent) disciplinary commission, long since prepared everything? Questions upon questions. I could list further inconsistencies and questions about the procedure, which was certainly once again not due process. But I had promised to finish this newsletter before the presser at the Ukrainian consulate.

I don't understand the inconsistencies being claimed - Weinreich states that the meeting between Coventry and Heraskevych took place at 7:30 AM, with the decision finalized at 8 AM. What's the inconsistency? If it's the short turnaround between the meeting and the decision (30 minutes), couldn't that be explained as the meeting serving as a last ditch effort (which the IOC notes it was), where if the athlete had conceded, the IOC could contact IBSF immediately after to stop the decision from being issued? It makes sense that a decision was drafted up by that morning, ready to go, considering the IOC had already had 2 other meetings with Heraskevych, and each time he publicly and explicitly stated he would not follow the IOC rules. That's already doing more compared to the situation with Marizha Talash, who was immediately DQ'ed in 2024.

[Sir Rols]

I took it as he’s mainly trying to put the finger on Oswald and the lack of transparency snd accountability on his role.

I respect Jens, he’s one of the few much needed media observers prepared to rake through the IOC’s dirty laundry. But he does tend to let his polemics get in the way of objectiveness and clarity, and he likes making points from obscure paper trails.

Personally, I think this was always going to be the inevitable flashpoint of the saga. If anything I think the IOC have tried to be as accomodating as they can, but neither can anybody fault Heraskevych for sticking to his guns.

[Sir Rols]

I think this is a better analysis/sum-up of the saga

Heraskevych’s ‘helmet of memory’ forces IOC on to PR back foot at Winter Olympics

[Bear]

2 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

I think this is a better analysis/sum-up of the saga

Heraskevych’s ‘helmet of memory’ forces IOC on to PR back foot at Winter Olympics

Definitely, much better. Some of my thoughts:

Quote

Heraskevych also cut through with his claims that the IOC was inconsistent in its application of its rules over athlete expression. At the opening ceremony, for instance, his fellow skeleton racer, Israel’s Jared Firestone, wore a commemorative kippah to remember the 11 victims of the Munich massacre at the 1972 Games, which said: “We remember. We endure. We rise.”

This week the US skater Maxim Naumov, who lost his parents in the Potomac air collision last year, honoured them by holding up a photograph in their memory after he competed. Why, Heraskevych pointed out, was his case any different?

1. The Munich Massacre was a tragedy that directly took place at an Olympic Games - not in war, not in a conflict far away, but right there in Munich targeting competing athletes
2. Maxim Naumov was honoring his immediate family who was killed just a year ago in a civil accident

I don't know if this is why the IOC is doing nothing in those two examples, but it's clearly not the same situation to me.

---

I want to make it clear, since I feel like I might be coming off as anti-Heraskevych, that I agree that the he should be able to keep his helmet on. But the rule exists, and he broke them purposefully, knowing full well what the consequences were. He seems to understand this, and he has his plan to further his beliefs, which I deeply respect and commend. But for everyone else who is claiming the IOC to be this evil anti-Ukrainian entity, they need to calm down. I love the article author for that last section, because yeah I also don't think the IOC is acting on behalf of Russia or its interests here. It's just a deeply unfortunate situation for them. That being said, I would love for the rule to be amended, and I hope pressure can be maintained, especially ahead of the next IOC Session.

[Bear]

I think the CAS decision will be key, and hopefully if Heraskevych can be allowed to compete, it'll be another point of pressure on the IOC to convince them to amend Rule 50.

[AustralianFan]

17 minutes ago, Bear said:

Definitely, much better. Some of my thoughts:

1. The Munich Massacre was a tragedy that directly took place at an Olympic Games - not in war, not in a conflict far away, but right there in Munich targeting competing athletes
2. Maxim Naumov was honoring his immediate family who was killed just a year ago in a civil accident

I don't know if this is why the IOC is doing nothing in those two examples, but it's clearly not the same situation to me.

---

I want to make it clear, since I feel like I might be coming off as anti-Heraskevych, that I agree that the he should be able to keep his helmet on. But the rule exists, and he broke them purposefully, knowing full well what the consequences were. He seems to understand this, and he has his plan to further his beliefs, which I deeply respect and commend. But for everyone else who is claiming the IOC to be this evil anti-Ukrainian entity, they need to calm down. I love the article author for that last section, because yeah I also don't think the IOC is acting on behalf of Russia or its interests here. It's just a deeply unfortunate situation for them. That being said, I would love for the rule to be amended, and I hope pressure can be maintained, especially ahead of the next IOC Session.

 

15 minutes ago, Bear said:

I think the CAS decision will be key, and hopefully if Heraskevych can be allowed to compete, it'll be another point of pressure on the IOC to convince them to amend Rule 50.

Absolutely, spot on.

[krow]

i think, if i had to guess at arcane IOC motivation, i would say they are at heart the same sport purists they have been since the 19th century, updated slightly for modern sensibilities. this is still ultimately the same org that took jim thorpe's medals away and thought it made the right call.

the IOC believes they are an international governing body independent of sport and thus are allowed to make political decisions (banning russia; deciding host city selections; taking bribes).

but they also believe that sport is a sacred "magic circle" that must remain pure of the taint of commercialism, doping, and politics, and that athletes are held to different standards than they are BECAUSE they are athletes. here's how wikipedia describes the magic circle:

Quote

In games and digital media, the "magic circle" is the space in which the normal rules and reality of the world are suspended and replaced by the artificial reality of a game world ... the boundary delineating this space "can be considered a shield of sorts, protecting the fantasy world from the outside world"

when you step onto the sliding track as an athlete, you are entering the olympic magic circle and you cannot bring the real world into it, because the real world does not exist at that moment, only the pure expression of sport.

thus, russia/ukraine poses no contradiction to the IOC. the mere presence of russia and its flag would taint the magic circle, so it is not allowed. likewise, the helmet. this makes absolute sense to the executive board of the IOC, and especially to athlete/execs like bach and coventry who have been inside the magic circle themselves and have - as they see it - dedicated their lives to preserving it. 

it is also why they have a bug up their ass about things like the olympic "truce" and munich, which also break the circle. the olympic field of play has special rules, which they alone can dictate, and you can no more break them than you can invent new rules for tennis during the gold medal match.

[StefanMUC]

1 hour ago, krow said:

i think, if i had to guess at arcane IOC motivation, i would say they are at heart the same sport purists they have been since the 19th century, updated slightly for modern sensibilities. this is still ultimately the same org that took jim thorpe's medals away and thought it made the right call.

the IOC believes they are an international governing body independent of sport and thus are allowed to make political decisions (banning russia; deciding host city selections; taking bribes).

but they also believe that sport is a sacred "magic circle" that must remain pure of the taint of commercialism, doping, and politics, and that athletes are held to different standards than they are BECAUSE they are athletes. here's how wikipedia describes the magic circle:

when you step onto the sliding track as an athlete, you are entering the olympic magic circle and you cannot bring the real world into it, because the real world does not exist at that moment, only the pure expression of sport.

thus, russia/ukraine poses no contradiction to the IOC. the mere presence of russia and its flag would taint the magic circle, so it is not allowed. likewise, the helmet. this makes absolute sense to the executive board of the IOC, and especially to athlete/execs like bach and coventry who have been inside the magic circle themselves and have - as they see it - dedicated their lives to preserving it. 

it is also why they have a bug up their ass about things like the olympic "truce" and munich, which also break the circle. the olympic field of play has special rules, which they alone can dictate, and you can no more break them than you can invent new rules for tennis during the gold medal match.

Yeah, that‘s a really good description about the IOC school of thought.

Though obviously people like Bach or Coventry know very well that this is all completely detached from reality.