When you enter the curling hall in Cortina, the first thing that you notice is not the shouting that is going on. It’s the peace.
A low murmur of players calculating angles, the scrape of brooms, and the hollow knock of granite colliding are all sounds that can be heard. It is a form of mutual restraint that is the foundation of curling. It has always taken great pride in that very fact.
Canada Curling Cheating Controversy (Milano Cortina 2026)
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Allegation | “Double-touching” the stone after release, beyond the hog line |
| Teams Involved | Canada (men’s and women’s), Sweden, Switzerland |
| Key Figures | Marc Kennedy, Oskar Eriksson, Rachel Homan |
| Governing Body | World Curling |
| Rule in Question | Touching the granite during forward motion after the hog line results in stone removal |
| Outcome So Far | No formal cheating charge; additional officials assigned to monitor deliveries |
This is the reason why the controversy surrounding cheating in curling in Canada has been so shocking.
The controversy started, at least in public, when Oskar Eriksson of Sweden accused Marc Kennedy of “double-touching,” which means that he brushed the granite again after he was released, going beyond the hog line, which is a position where contact is prohibited. The response that Kennedy gave was instantaneous and heated, and it was an expletive that reverberated sharply across the ice.
He yelled out in a huff, “I haven’t done it once.”
Videos were uploaded to the internet within a few hours. The camera of a Swedish broadcaster had moved closer to the hog line after concerns were raised about the state of affairs. In each frame, social media slowed the moment down to something that could be considered forensic: a fingertip, a fraction of a second, or a possible graze may have occurred.
Regarding curling, that is sufficient.
The rule itself is clear. In the process of forward motion, the stone is removed when it comes into contact with the granite after it has been released. Human eyes placed at the ends of the sheet have always been the primary means by which enforcement has been carried out. No system performs routine video replay. The authorities are unable to see everything.
Trust, which is more fragile than technology, has been the foundation upon which curling has traditionally been built.
As a result of their victory over Sweden, the Canadian men’s team won 8–6. In the argument, they were not victorious. The Swiss voiced concerns that were comparable the following day. In a turn of events that further complicated the situation, Canada’s women’s skip Rachel Homan had a stone removed from her foot for the same infraction that occurred during a close competition. She appeared to be in a state of shock, shaking her head and forming a silent “no” with her mouth.
There was a sudden shift in the optics. There was no longer a single confrontation between competitors in this situation. The pattern was established.
This led officials from Canada to speculate that Sweden had strategically placed cameras to “catch” deliveries being made. When asked about the footage, Sweden stated that it was obtained from public broadcast coverage and denied any improper orchestration. Within venues, accredited rights holders are permitted to film thanks to the framework established by the International Olympic Broadcasting.
World Curling, on the other hand, chose not to file formal charges of cheating but instead responded by assigning additional officials to monitor deliveries with a greater degree of meticulousness.
Just a minor modification to the procedure. A significant one that is symbolic.
When I was at a world championship many years ago, I remember standing close to the practice sheets and watching veteran players casually admit to minor infractions, such as a brush here or a nudge there, and then correct them themselves. This culture, which consisted of self-policing and quiet honor, was an integral part of the identity of the sport.
This week, our identity has been brought into the open.
According to Kennedy, he has never stepped onto the ice with the intention of cheating. There was a point in time when he stated that he was unable to even determine in the split second of a throw whether or not he was approaching the stone.
This confession was remarkable not because it was defiant but rather because it sounded like it was made by a human being. In curling, deliveries are fluid, kinetic movements that have been honed over the course of decades. The concept that a fingertip could move one centimeter beyond the intended path does not appear to be beyond the realm of possibility.
However, the intention and the result are two distinct things.
In this situation, the tension is caused by a genuine trade-off. In order to maintain a sense of rhythm and tradition, should the leaders of elite sports rely on trust and limited officiating? Alternately, should it be subjected to complete technological scrutiny, even though it will slow down play and remove some of the gentlemanly air associated with curling?
The answer is made more difficult by Canada’s status. Curling at the Olympic level has been dominated by the country for decades. Especially in situations where the results are close and medals are scarce in other areas, dominance is accompanied by suspicion. As a result of a mixed doubles team that is no longer in contention for a medal and the women’s team that is struggling to maintain its position in the standings, Canadian pride has already been damaged.
It is possible that adversaries sincerely believe they are defending fairness. The people of Canada might genuinely feel targeted.
Both feelings can coexist.
It wasn’t the profanity or even the video clips that were automatically looping online that were the most unsettling moment. It was a sight to behold: two teams that compete on the same tour regularly, players who share locker rooms and bonspiels throughout the year, suddenly gesturing sharply at each other across the ice.
The fiercest rivalries in curling have typically been focused on strategy rather than morality.
The assertion was made by Homan that she was being unfairly linked to the controversy involving men. The moment her stone was removed, she remarked, “It has absolutely nothing to do with us.” In a certain sense, she is correct: every single delivery is its own individual act. However, perception does not function in such a straightforward manner. As soon as suspicion is introduced into the atmosphere, it lingers like a chilly breath above the comforter.
The decision made by the governing body to include observers at the hog line is an acknowledgment of a significant structural flaw. “They admitted that they are unable to physically see every delivery infraction,” the officials mentioned. I am being truthful. Additionally, it is a call to action for future disagreements, unless the systems are updated.
When there is clear evidence of contact on video, there are some fans who believe that penalties should be applied retroactively. It has been warned by some that if curling were to become a spectacle driven by replays, it would lose its unique identity.
In this case, there is no ideal solution. It is not always easy to find a comfortable balance between precision and trust.
An illusion has been shattered by this episode, and that is the notion that curling’s culture alone could protect it from the controversies that are common to other sports. The ice in Cortina is still perfectly clean and shines brightly when illuminated by bright lights. There is no change in the muted rumble that the granite slides with now.
But the silence that occurs between throws has a different feel now. In addition, once uncertainty becomes a component of the soundscape, it is more difficult to remove than frost.