MILAN — Fifty-eight years ago, during a medal ceremony in the 200 meters, Americans Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists in silent protest to express support for black power. Furious IOC President Avery Brundage kicked the U.S. track and field medalists out of the Games and threatened to expel the entire U.S. delegation.
Fifty-eight hours ago, Ukrainian skeleton pilot Vladyslav Heraskevych showed off a helmet engraved with the photos of more than a dozen athletes and coaches who have lost their lives in Ukraine’s ongoing war with Russia. IOC President Kirsty Coventry met with Hraskevich to express sympathy for his message and implored him not to wear a helmet while actually competing.
advertise
Under IOC rules, Hraskevich can wear the helmet during training, he can show it at press conferences, and he can even – hypothetically – display it at a medal ceremony. He just can’t put the helmet on During the game. When Hraskevich refused to acknowledge the condition, the IOC removed him from the only event.
Two protests. Twice demonstrated belief in something more important than the Olympics. Yes, two expulsions from the Olympics, but under very different circumstances – one out of vengeful rage, the other out of regret. The IOC, one of the most tradition-bound organizations in the world, is changing with the times – albeit slowly, but still changing.
In every sense, free speech will one day arrive with the Olympics. So why not now? Why not today?
Ukraine’s Vladyslav Heraskevych wears a helmet with pictures of people killed in the war with Russia. (Andrew Milligan/PA Photo via Getty Images)
(Andrew Milligan – PA Photo via Getty Images)
In 1968, an International Olympic Committee spokesman called Smith and Carlos’ silent protest a “deliberate and violent violation of fundamental principles of the Olympic spirit.” Brundage called for Smith and Carlos to be expelled from the Olympic Village. When the U.S. Olympic Committee (as it was then called) fought back against Brundage, he threatened to expel the entire U.S. delegation—every American athlete—from the 1968 Olympics.
advertise
On Thursday morning, IOC spokesman Mark Allen told the gathered media, “We very much wanted (Hraskevich) to compete. It would send a strong message. We are happy to provide him with many opportunities to express his grief.” What a change in six years – and by the IOC’s current standards, Smith and Carlos’ protests are perfectly acceptable.
Coventry noted that the IOC had no problem with Hraskevich expressing his thoughts outside of the Games themselves. “It’s not about messaging,” she said Thursday, “it’s really about rules and regulations. In this case, on the playing field, we have to be able to maintain a safe environment for everyone, and unfortunately that means not allowing any messaging.”
The fact is that when it comes to Russia, the IOC has sent some indisputable messages. Russia, as a collective state, has been banned from the Olympics since 2022 due to its invasion of Ukraine. Not to oversimplify, banning an entire country from the Olympics is a political message written in the sky, not just on a helmet.
The key question, of course, is: once you open the door to intra-competitive messaging, where do you stop? It’s not hard to imagine how one athlete’s noble protest against a devastating war could turn into another athlete’s partisan protest against a political candidate, and before long, there would be athletes protesting for a host of causes that fall below the level of genocide.
advertise
The IOC doesn’t often inspire sympathy, but you can at least see the seriousness of the problems they face here. Does the IOC limit protests to certain parts of the body or certain sizes, such as brand logos? How does the IOC determine which causes are “worthy of protest”? If helmets are allowed to be worn in protest, why not wear full uniforms? So what about the rights of athletes from other countries? Could they be on the other side of the protest issue? Shouldn’t they also have a say in the matter?
International Olympic Committee spokesman Allen pointed out that the Olympic Games have provided athletes with a way to express grief, and that is black armbands. But according to an estimate by the International Olympic Committee, there are currently 130 conflicts ongoing in the world, so where does the line draw? “If everyone was allowed to express themselves in this way, beyond the black armband,” Allen said, “it would create a playing field and become a field of expression. Even though someone might agree or disagree with the views, you can see how that could lead to chaotic situations.”
The entire controversy can be easily dismissed with a wave of your hand: This is the Olympics! Can’t they just put the protest aside for two minutes? But for many athletes haunted by challenges, fears and trauma most Americans can’t imagine, the protests yes focus. The memory of the dead, the desire to hold sinners accountable, the dream of a better life… For them, these goals are their true mission, and the Olympic Games are just a tool for them to let the world hear their voices.
If there’s a bright side to Hraskevich’s expulsion from the Olympics, it’s this: Had he simply been allowed to compete without incident, his protests would now be wider than ever. This is a classic example of the Streisand effect, where the IOC’s attempts to prevent and suppress protests have the effect of amplifying them. His voice and his career are now reaching further than in any other context, even winning a medal.
advertise
Soon, athletes will be able to say what they want, when they want to say it. But it can’t come soon enough for Vladislav Hraskevich and his Olympic dream.