Yevgen Zinchenko

Here is the full text of the CAS decision. For now, I can comment on it overall, quoting some of its most important parts — that will be enough to understand the absurdity of this decision. So, CAS recognized: 1. Although no actual violation has yet occurred, the intention [to commit a violation] was obvious and confirmed (Pronin: so they consider it to have happened in advance); 2. The athlete consciously refused to use the permitted helmet. (Pronin: I’ll comment on this right away — it looks very unprofessional and shows a lack of knowledge by the court and the opponents about the sport, because the helmet frame is cast to fit the anatomical structure of the athlete’s head, it’s a one-of-a-kind item, and it had been approved by the technical and regulatory commission for training and competitions at the Olympics); 3. The authorities (Pronin: obviously referring to IOC representatives or the international federation) can prevent an inevitable violation rather than wait for it to be committed. 4. The helmet is an expression of a position regarding the war, and war has a political character; In the court’s opinion, the preventive exclusion of an athlete before the start of competitions can be lawful. At the same time, CAS emphasized: the athlete has every right to speak about the war, but not during the sporting performance itself. Such a vinaigrette, pun, and IOC logic voiced through CAS. This story is definitely not over yet.

Це ціна нашої гідності. This is price of our dignity.

I want to thank everyone for all the support we’re receiving. There really is an incredible amount of it. For me, the sacrifice of the people depicted on the helmet means more than any medal ever could - because they gave the most precious thing they had. And simple respect toward them is exactly what I want to give.