_edited_edited_edited.png)
Ice, Ice Maybe: The Stone-Cold Olympic Showdown. Are the Canadians Skating on thin Ice?
- DDL Ltd
- Feb 21
- 4 min read
In the grand tradition of Winter Olympic drama and yes, curling absolutely counts, this year's controversy didn’t come from a rogue Zamboni or an over-enthusiastic mascot, but from an accusation: Did somebody cheat?
At the centre of the icy storm is Canadian curler Marc Kennedy, who found himself in a colourful disagreement with Sweden’s Oskar Eriksson. The allegation? That Kennedy ‘double-touched’ the stone - a curling no-no.
The Swede accused Kennedy of 'double touching' - essentially, touching the stone again after initially releasing it down the sheet of ice during Canada's 8-6 win.
Following the controversy, World Curling clarified the rules of the sport. “During forward motion, touching the granite of the stone is not allowed. This will result in the stone being removed from play,” they said.
Television replays showed why Eriksson might have thought something was up, but referees concluded that no rules had been broken by Kennedy.
"I haven't done it once" the Canadian shouted across the sheet at Eriksson, amid his furious outburst that was captured on the SVT broadcast, "You can f*** off".
Marc Kennedy does not say, ‘No I didn’t,’ the shortest and expected answer or, ‘No I didn’t touch the granite when the stone was in motion.’ The latter provides a solid denial by taking ownership via the first-person pronoun ‘I’ followed by a direct denial via the word ‘didn’t’ and latterly made allegation specific by referencing the rule i.e. touching the granite when the stone was in motion. Often, it is what people don’t say which is equally important.
Here Kennedy says, ‘I haven’t done it once.’ ‘Haven’t’ is used in the present perfect tense and is often associated with the word ‘yet.’ In FSLA, the shortest answer is the best. Extra unnecessary words can be used to convince as opposed to simply convey.
Here, the unnecessary word, ‘once’ is added. Unnecessary words may not appear important to the reader or listener, but they are doubly important to the person saying them, hence the need for their inclusion. In this instance, we believe what Kennedy says, he hasn’t done it once. Video footage appears to show him touching the stone twice on at least two separate occasions. He is telling the truth.
He then sought to bolster his narrative in turning the air bluer than was already the case by saying: "I'll show you a video after the game". Eriksson responded. "I'll show you a video where it's two meters over the hog line."
Marc Kennedy further claimed that he and his teammates were caught in a premeditated trap as their international rivals continued to accuse them of unsportsmanlike behaviour amid the Winter Olympics cheating storm.
Kennedy and Canadian coach Paul Webster accused Sweden of installing cameras to catch them cheating. "I know we're not the only team that they've done that to" Kennedy continued. "So, I think this was, I don't know what the word is for that, but like a premeditated plan to try to catch us".
Kennedy seeks to go on the attack and deflect attention on to the Swedes and away from the Canadians.
We would ask, ‘what was it that Kennedy thought the Swedes were trying to ‘catch us’ at?’
"They have come up with a plan here at the Olympics, as far as I know, to catch teams in the act at the hog line" Kennedy claimed following the incident. "This was planned... it was kind of evident that something was going on, and they were trying to catch us in an act".
How does Kennedy know that the Swedes were trying to catch ‘teams in the act?’
What does ‘catching in the act’ mean to Kennedy? It’s only as far as Kennedy himself knows. It allows for the possibility of others knowing differently to stand. It’s an uncorroborated, unnecessary statement to make which is used to take the heat off of his team and focus it elsewhere. As opposed to denying the claim, he goes on the attack and seeks to deflect.
It might have been planned, for which Kennedy states the reason as being to catch Canada, ‘in an act’, which refers to a single distinct action whereas ‘in the act’ refers to one out of many. Either way, Kennedy allows the allegation to stand.
"I know we're not the only team that they've done that to... So, I think this was, I don't know what the word is for that, but like a premeditated plan to try to catch us".
In saying, ‘I know we’re not the only team…’ The Canadian uses a distancing tactic. By grouping himself with others, he reduces personal focus. He does not directly deny wrongdoing here; instead, he redirects the attention toward Swedish behaviour by making a counter accusation.
His language is emotional, vague in key places and heavy on interpretation rather than facts.
In the final later today, Team GB aim for Gold while Canada try not to lay a finger on it.
As to who wins... It could be ‘touch and go.’
For more insights and expert services in Forensic Statement and Linguistic Analysis, subscribe to our Blogs or contact our specialists at DDL leading the field in the UK.
