We reported earlier today how British paraswimmer Josef Craig was disqualified at the IPC Swimming European Open Championships event in Funchal, Portugal due to his chest tattoo displaying the Olympic rings emblem within the design.
Per the IPC, ‘body advertisements are not allowed in any way whatsoever (this includes tattoos and symbols)’. Specifically the fact that his tattoo included the Olympic rings were in violation of the meet’s rules as as they are ‘exclusive property of the International Olympic Committee.’ As such, they are a protected mark and cannot be used without the IOC’s prior consent.
However, walk on the pool deck of any elite swimming meet held around the world and you’d be hard-pressed not to see the Olympic rings emblazoned on various men’s and women’s shoulders, arms, legs and backs, which begs the question ‘are all of these athletes out of compliance’?
SwimSwam checked with USA Swimming Assistant Executive Director Mike Unger to get his take on how today’s ordeal with Craig could potentially have ripple effects at the U.S. Olympic Trials being held in Omaha next month.
“This is really an issue for the U.S. Olympic Committee, which owns the U.S. Olympic Trials – Swimming,” Unger started out. “However, we have had conversations with the USOC on this topic, and the USOC does not intend to pursue this as an issue (meaning…no DQs).”
Unger continued to SwimSwam, “Many of our Olympians do have a tattoo of the rings. Many of these are not visible (ie under the swimsuit), while some have this on an arm, back, shoulder, etc. This has never been an issue at past Olympic Trials, and I don’t believe it will be an issue in 2016.”
Interestingly, the question “Can I use the Olympic Rings” is included on the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) list of FAQ’s on its website’s homepage. The site points to IOC Charter Chapter 1, Rules 7-14, which essentially dictates that “the Olympic rings are the exclusive property of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). They are a mark protected around the world and cannot be used without the IOC’s prior written consent.”
I’m still confused. Why are they making athletes cover their tattoos? Are the Olympic Rings the only tattoos needing to be covered? And how would they cover them?
Glad it’s not an issue for trials but, what about the Games?
Cynthea – I suspect it won’t be an issue there either. The IOC won’t see the Olympic rings as unauthorized advertising, like the IPC might. I think to much of the public eye, the IOC and the IPC are the same organization, but this highlights the fact that they are not. Rather, they are two separate organizations that have signed a partnership contract (which I believe at present extends through 2020).
Is the Texas longhorn logo copyrighted? Would all of Texas be disqualified?
I would have drawn another circle making 6
lol thats genious
The IPC continues to prove that they are far more invested in their rules (regardless of how ill-conceived) than their athletes. They defend a classification system that clearly has flaws since athletes receive different judgements depending upon their classifiers. Lives are made and ruined by the inconsistency of classifiers with no medical background making medical assessments. Certain organizing committees manage to push through questionable athletes while others are deemed “classed out” when they clearly have a well-documented history of disability. And then, of course, we have the old rules and the new rules. There is no level playing field between the two.
Defend your athletes, IPC, like you do your classifiers and your errant rules!
The Olympic rings belong to… Read more »
why should he be treated differently? he got his strip of tape himself for the next race and followed the rules
Because this is completely asinine. By your rational, Rosa Parks should have given up her seat for the white person. Just because something is a rule or law, doesn’t mean it is reasonable or just. Hopefully, the fact that this happened will draw attention to the idiocy of someone following the letter and not the spirit of a rule…and change will come of it.
i hope you didn’t just call me a racist. anyways, the rule is asinine, i agree. That is NOT my point. My point is why should he be treated differently? Rule in place applies to everyone. Rule removed also applies to everyone.
Not sure how you’d got from A. to B. My point was simply that by “covering up” and going along (not making waves, pun intended), swimmers are condoning this type of idiocy. By refusing to bow to it, they will draw attention to it…the only way things will change. I guess that’s a lot to ask from anybody though.
Very well said Paraparent. However the IPC only follow their rules as and when it suits them to. Let’s DQ over a tattoo but ignore annual review of short statured minors because that makes a whole lot of sense and won’t affect competition in Rio at all for example.
The classification system used is woefully inadequate for neurologically impaired swimmers e.g Cerebral Palsy and Josef Craig himself fell foul of this being classed up from S7 (he was 2012 Paralympic Champion S7 400fr and all the trappings that came it). The thing is, CP doesn’t actually get better, if anything functionality decreases in many over the years. Was the S7 class wrong then or is the S8 wrong? Your… Read more »
Since US trials are not an IOC meet, why would it be up to USOC to enforce copyright law?
Will prior Olympians be disqualified at the games? Seems stupid.
Funchal* small typo there, greetings from a slightly offended Portuguese
I think this is ridiculous.. Why are having tattoos even an issue?
I think they don’t want someone to put a HUGE Speedo tattoo on their chest and get paid for it? Just guessing?
Nobody would do that…
I knew a swimmer from Ohio that swam for Harvard that DID have a speedo tattoo, so someone did do that.
Not exactly.HSwimmer was referencing the tattoo work around of a sponsorship rule. You’re talking about someone who just got a Speedo tattoo.