If the IIHF or the tournament directorate made a player ineligible indefinitely for whatever heinous crime committed, I could see that sanction then applying to the awarding of medals.
Conceptually, I suppose, you could argue that the tournament directorate said that Veleno was done for the 2023 tournament, and thus he shouldn't have been eligible to participate in the on-ice medal ceremony. (Was he there?) The suspension was for five games, which was the number of games Canada had remaining. He is eligible to play in 2024. And before anyone suggests otherwise, the suspension doesn't end until the conclusion of the ceremonies following the fifth game.
But that's not what is being proposed here. What this thread is about is some moral high-horsing, a term I just made up right now. We want to arbitrarily say that some things are so bad we get to make up extra punishments because we think a player is a bad guy.
Veleno's actions were bad. They weren't Marty McSorley bad or Todd Bertuzzi bad, in part because there was no real consequence to them. That's important, because if Veleno actually went into that situation wanting to end the player's career by stomping on him, I think he could have done so.
We live in a brief part of time where we want declare people either good or bad. Bad people, we have decided, don't deserve anything but negative consequences, forever and always. We want to punish bad people, continually and repeatedly. Bad people should never have nice things. Because Joe Veleno did a very bad thing, he should never have happiness ever again, so the fact that he was a small part in a gold medal-winning team should be erased from history forever.
I hope Veleno doesn't represent Canada again, because I don't trust him enough to not do something stupid. But that's entirely different than what's being proposed here. He was suspended for five games because the IIHF thought his actions were terrible. That's his punishment and we don't get to keep punishing him just because we think he's one of The Bad Ones.
