This is the fourth installment in a new series we launched in September that highlights opportunities for taking a third side approach to difficult decisions about the most pressing issues of the day. Our hope is to provide support for navigating disagreement in a constructive, principled way during this period of heightened conflict. (To see what we mean by the Third Side, please see our Guiding Principles here.)
The Controversy: At the 2026 Winter Olympics, Ukranian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych was not allowed to compete because he refused to change his helmet, which had photos of Ukrainian athletes and coaches killed during the ongoing war in Ukraine. Reuters He called his helmet a “helmet of remembrance” and it featured 24 Ukranian athletes who were killed including: weightlifter Alina Perehudova, boxer Pavlo Ischenko, ice hockey player Oleksiy Loginov, actor and athlete Ivan Kononenko, diver and coach Mykyta Kozubenko, shooter Oleksiy Habarov and dancer Daria Kurdel. Heraskevych explained,"I believe they deserve to be with me on competition day."HuffPost
Heraskevych and his team argued that the helmet was not a political protest, but a tribute, a way to honor the memory of fellow athletes who lost their lives and to bring attention to the human cost of war. They point out that personal tributes are commonplace in sport, and that remembering the fallen aligns with the Olympic spirit of humanity and solidarity. Some also argued that strict neutrality rules can inadvertently silence meaningful human expression. AP The first deputy prime minister of Ukraine, Denys Shmyhal said of the IOC’s decision, “It is moral surrender dressed up as ‘neutrality’.”Guardian
Explaining the IOC’s Decision: After much discussion with Heraskevych, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) barred him from competing while wearing the helmet with the photos. The IOC’s guiding principle throughout the controversy has been that the Olympics must remain a neutral space where athletic performance is the focus and where no single conflict or viewpoint dominates. The IOC explained its decision by pointing to Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter, which bars political messaging or demonstrations within competition zones. Specifically, Rule 50.2 states that no form of demonstration or political, religious or racial issues can be raised on fields of play or podiums, though athletes can express themselves freely elsewhere. During the appeal, the IOC also pointed to the helmet’s violation of the Guidelines on Athlete Expression under Rule 40. IOC officials offered compromises, including wearing a black armband or displaying the helmet during media events and practice outside of competition, to keep the Games politically neutral. TIME
The IOC President Kirsty Coventry explained, “No one, especially me, is disagreeing with the messaging, it’s a powerful message, it’s a message of remembrance, a message of memory, and no one is disagreeing with that... “The challenge was to find a solution for the field of play. … Sadly, we’ve not been able to come to that solution. I really wanted to see him race. It’s been an emotional morning.CNNB
This wasn’t the only case the IOC has had to decide during these Olympic Games: the Ukrainian short-track speed skater Oleh Handei was required to tape over a line from the Ukrainian poet Lina Kostenko reading: “Where there is heroism, there can be no final defeat;” and two athletes from Haiti were required to paint over an image of Toussaint Louverture, the leader of the Haitian Revolution, on horseback that was originally on their uniforms. Guardian
Heraskevych appealed the IOC’s decision, but the court upheld the IOC. Ruling on the appeal, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled that the IOC’s decision was a "reasonable and proportionate" balance between an athlete's right to express views and the need to protect the sporting, non-political focus of the competition. Washington Post
The Third Side: This is truly a difficult situation where the actions of both the athlete and the IOC were articulated as expressions of clear principles and goals. Heraskevych’s goal was to honor fallen Ukrainian athletes and carry their memory into competition. The IOC’s goal was to preserve the neutrality of competition zones so the Games remain focused on sport rather than geopolitical conflict. This seems like a moment where finding a third side should have been possible. And in some sense, the IOC tried that by acknowledging the importance of Heraskevych’s message of remembrance and offering the black armband, but unfortunately no solution was identified in time for the competition.
Takeaways for Business Leaders: For many businesses and organizations, like the IOC in this case, there are times when the organization’s defined principles may conflict with those of its stakeholders, in this case the athlete. This is where the third side can help each side pause and consider the principles that are motivating the other side’s actions. The Third Side is not compromise in the sense of splitting the difference. It is holding firm to core principles while looking for areas of overlap that can lead to ways forward. In this case, instead of continuing to view the situation as a binary dispute between freedom of expression and neutrality, is there a solution that protects both values? It would seem like there is quite a bit of overlap between the principles guiding both Heraskevych and the IOC, for example unity, fairness, dignity, and remembrance. This will always be a space fraught with difficulty in making these distinctions, but this is also a space where the third side may offer some real paths forward. Below are a few questions that may help business leaders in similar positions, having to balance freedom of expression with maintaining a neutral/safe workplace:
Are there opportunities to create more spaces to accomplish the stakeholders’ goals (in this case, more space at the Olympics for commemoration outside of the competitive venues)?
Is there an opportunity to further clarify the rules for expression (in this case, Rules 40 and 50), to draw a cleaner distinction between the twin goals of expression and safety?
What words are being used to describe the company’s goal? Are the definitions clear or would it be helpful to get more specific? For example, could the IOC have been more specific in what it means by “neutral” and “political”? Could the athlete have been more specific about why wearing the helmet during competition was so important to his goal of commemoration?
Share Your Thoughts
This stuff isn’t easy. The more we talk and share best practices, the better we all will get at finding new ways to the third side, especially during these challenging times. Let us know what you think: please share your thoughts. What decision would you have made as the IOC? How might this example inform your company’s policies about free expression?