Heraskevych ban reflects badly on the International Olympic Committee | Letters

Letters: Readers respond to the barring of a Ukrainian athlete after he insisted on wearing a helmet featuring photos of athletes and children killed during Russia’s war on his country

Lizzy Yarnold says the ban on the Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych centres on this rule in the Olympic charter: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas” (Olympic chiefs have got it badly wrong over Heraskevych ban and owe him an apology, 13 February).

However, I’m not sure how the International Olympic Committee can say Heraskevych is presenting “political propaganda” when he simply has the images of deceased athletes on his helmet – there was no statement nor overt symbolism that is anti-Russia, and no mention of the war or nationalism etc.

If those athletes had all died in a plane crash on holiday in the Caribbean, would they disqualify him? If his mother had died in the war and he had her picture on his helmet, would they disqualify him? If he was Christian and had a neck tattoo of a cross, would they disqualify him? This was a human tribute, not political propaganda. The IOC botched the interpretation of the rules here. I agree that they owe him an official apology.
Nicholas Markos
Chicago, US

• Well said, Lizzy Yarnold. If politics doesn’t come into Olympic sport, why is Russia banned? Vladyslav Heraskevych’s helmet was a mark of remembrance. The other athletes should have supported him and refused to compete. The International Olympic Committee president, who was in tears over the ban, should visit Kyiv and see the tears of mothers who have lost their sons in that terrible war.
Wayne Godfrey
Huntley, Gloucestershire

• It seems to me that, perversely, the ban on Vladyslav Heraskevych has done more to highlight the human consequences of the criminal behaviour of Vladimir Putin and Russia than allowing him to compete with his remembrance helmet would have done.
Johnston Anderson
Beeston, Nottinghamshire

• Lizzy Yarnold’s article highlights the tug of war between freedom of expression and rules, a recurring theme in our society of late. The International Olympic Committee is against the politicisation of sport but, as its spokesman argued, with 130 conflicts around the world, “once you start, as a sporting organisation, taking stands against wars and conflicts there is no end”. So does the IOC’s choice to ban some countries and not others break its own rules?
Chris Drabble
West Byfleet, Surrey

• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.