The Pro Curling Thread - 2025

Other Leagues and Sports
1

Thought it was time for a curling thread. I suspect there’s an overlap, not huge but maybe 15 to 20% of CFL football fans vs. Curling. We’ll see.

Overall, Brad Gushue may have lost a step internationally as international teams ramp up and get steeped by experience. (ie. playing in Canada on tour) but Goo is still the dominant team in Canada - and all the other guys are chasing him around the village. Goo even brought aboard a temporarily retired Brenda Bottcher from Alberta after Botch’s own team kicked him off his squad. Botch was temporarily coaching a women’s team, Team Homan until Gushue plucked him off the scrap heap.

WOMENS - there’s Rachel Homan, then all the others. It doesn’t appear to be close.
Mackenzie Zacharias made a brilliant decision to bolt from the declining Jennifer Jones.

As stated prior, Jones was a legend in decline but that Zacharias team (especially w/ Mackenzie at 3rd) dragged her into 2 Scotties finals. Unfortunately, one was against unbeatable Rachel Homan and the other was against The Scrapper, Kerri Einarson.

After Jones realized her best days were behind her, they brought in equally erratic Chelsea Carey - who obviously didn’t possess Jones’ super-power - leadership & on-ice ferocity. Jones was a 65%-75% skip during her last few years but could somehow make it work against most opponents (excluding Homan).

Karlee Burges made the right move to recently quit on Carey, thus costing Carey a Manitoba Scotties auto-berth. She was scooped up in a New York minute by Kerri Einarson, who have a wounded Shannon Birchard at 2nd and the suspended (drug infractions) gal at lead.

Burgess is a natural fit for the erratic Einarson. I think she’ll inject newfound energy into a championship calibre squad at 2nd stone.

Makes them the odds on favourite for a Manitoba title although they may be already auto-berthed for National Scotties.

If Einarson can shed her erratic shot-making, that team is the only one on Turtle Island who threatens Homan. Homan just delivers too many 85 to 95% games - and while she may not have the best team behind her, those ladies are still outstanding in their own right. Tiny Tracy Fleury has blossomed into the best 3rd in Canada - and she’s drama free. Homan, now with a family in tow has shed her mean ice-queen demeanour to become a decent team player.

Maybe Old Glenny (Howard) also departs Team Carey and hops on as Einarson’s new coach as current coach Reid Carruthers will be busy trying to win another Manitoba title.

Now things get interesting!

2 Likes
2

Is it official that Burgess will play second?

3

I’ve read on both CBC (Devin Hereaux) and TSN web sites that Burgess will replace Shannon Birchard at 2nd stone. Burgess was tossing 3rd stones for Chelsea Carey but Zacharias was used as the stick-holder in the house. Burgess is an amazing brusher, thats a bonus for Einarson. Not quite as strong or big as Birchard but an all round super player.

I would expect Burgess’s shooting numbers to drop slightly under Einarson’s watch but it will be temporary. One of Einarson’s minor downfalls is an inability to read ice at the highest levels (ie. Gushue, Homan, Jacobs, Koe, etc.). Especially in early ends - but I think it will be temporary.

At some point I can see Burgess having her own team but right now, at 26 she’s rapidly learning the ropes and ascending into curling royalty.

4

Team Carey now loses their Scotties spot and more importantly they lose their trials spot… Who gets their trials spot? Team Einerson. Dirty pool if you ask me.

Imagine Rachel Homan poached a player and then ended up getting their trials spot too? There would be riots West of Thunder Bay.

Don’t know how you prevent this stuff but the players are running the sport. Not the governing bodies.

1 Like
5

Burgess was approved under emergency injury provisions for Team Einarson. Einarson already had a trials spot (so I think) but Carey will not only lose her spot, but her spot at the Manitoba Scotties next month. I believe she’ll appeal that one but don’t know whether it matters as I stated - Carey is not very good anymore.

It is hard to stomach. Your analysis of if Rachel Homan had poached a player from the west is something that already happened.

Years ago, Homan poached Val Sweeting’s 3rd Joanne “Super Brusher” Courtney from Sweeting’s super successful Alberta team to serve as a front-end player for Homan.

Just 2 or 3 years ago Homan heisted Tracy Fleury from her own team out of Manitoba, the team Kaitlyn Lawes took over (relatively unsuccessful to date).

Homan might be the biggest poacher ever in Canadian women’s curling.

6

It was announced that Einerson would get Carey’s spot. They did not have one yet.

Homan didn’t poach anyone IN SEASON.

Player movement happens all the time. It’s a free for all, we all know it.

But poaching someone in season, and then getting awarded their trials spot, costing them their Scotties spot is next level.

Curling Canada really needs to look at this stuff and put some sort of guardrails on in season player movement. Same thing on the men’s side. Teams recruiting and cutting players in season. Garbage if you ask me.

1 Like
7

Poaching is hard to define. Did Karlee Burgess leave Carey Chelsea on her own accord or was she cut? I don’t think she was cut because this gal is a team player and a superb shooter. Shot 3rd stone for Carey but served as a front-end brusher.
Perhaps the fix was in. News reports (Hereaux) say she left, didn’t say why. I suspect she was fed up with Carey’s inability to make shots, thats why.
The report then said, Einarson was told Shannon Birchard was out for the season with a knee injury. They jumped all over the opportunity to bring the outstanding young player, Burgess. Burgess agreed.

Was the fix in?

We may never know. But it sure looked like all the dominoes fell the right way.

8

The long saga of Briane Harris has come to a close. As it turns out her husband was taking a steroid and it was passed through bodily fluids to the athlete.

A reminder for all athletes that they are responsible for not only what enters their system, but their partner’s.

This precident has been set a few times now. And what seems to be a go-to excuse for some as turned out to be a viable defense for others.

1 Like
9

I wish that more information was made available to the public like it would be in a court of law. It should be that way for all sports involving public figures. You constantly hear criticisms about why one athlete gets a pass and another athlete in a similar situation such as in tennis last year doesn’t get a pass. It would then be easier to avoid valid questions and conspiracy theories. As you said, this type of defence has been a go to excuse and a viable defence. Why?

We should know the details of the investigation. Presumably the drug entering your system second hand wouldn’t give as severe a reading as direct consumption. What are the scienticically accepted numbers on this and where was Briane at? We also should know why it is that her husband is taking this substance. Is the story reasonable? Is her husband some kind of athlete or is he a mild mannered cub reporter named Peter Parker. There are many other details we should know in this or any other case. It is a disciplinary proceeding. Maybe the details are availabvle somewhere and I just don’t know about it? They certainly aren’t being reported by the mainstream press in most cases I have seen.

Without such disclosure for every case everywhere there will always be questions when someone is exonerated and there are no public guidelines or precedents that allow athletes to know what they must overcome or prove to avoid the negative consequences of a positive test.

10

If the test result wasn’t above the maximum acceptable level there would not have been a suspension … I-M-O, why her husband was taking them is irrelevant … but I suppose “Enquiring minds want to know.”

11

I don’t think it is irrelevant. It goes to credibilty and how believable her excuse is. He could be spinning a highly suspect story or actually have receipts for the purchase of the drug and paraphernalia. I don’t know anything about this drug. Maybe it has legal uses and was prescribed to him? If that is the crux of your defence it must be open to full cross examination.

12

It was open to full cross examination … at the Court of Arbitration for Sport … they were satisfied with her explanation/evidence, and that is all that matters … I admit that I too am curious, but I don’t believe the public has any inherent right to more details.

13

The point he’s making (and it’s valid) is that the levels in ones system from directly taking the drug are indeed much higher than through bodily contact. She would have had to prove this as well as many other things for the husband excuse to fly. Evidently it did.

1 Like
14

I will say outright that I am not familiar with the Court of Arbitration for sport and it’s procedures and at the moment don’t have time to research it so you can correct me if I am wrong.

Initially there isn’t any kind of hearing and therefore no cross examination when someone tests positive for a drug in sports. And generally any appeal court doesn’t conduct hearings but rather argues law and principle and reviews evidence from a prior hearing if it is alleged to be misinterpreted, and there was no prior hearing here. I expect therefore that they actually just file Briefs and Affidavits on appeal, although it is possible they hear live evidence. My point is that I am getting a Star Chamber feeling from this process as I do from similar processes in virtually any sport. It needs to be an open process to be fair and effective and to set a meaningful precedent. If there are gawkers and National Enquirer types interested then so be it. These type of people also follow court proceedings for fun.

Right now I don’t know Jack Squat about why Briane was excused and why someone else was not or why Jannik Sinner was given a pass and why Iga Swiatek was suspended for what appears to be virtually identical “offences”. There have certainly been many complaints about what happened in the tennis world last year from players and they have no idea what precedent will govern in the future or why. With power comes responsibility.

15

But that responsibility is towards the sport and the athletes, not the public.

16

I disagree. Athletes, like musicians and actors, earn a living solely because of the public. It is ultimately the public that pays them. This means they have a responsibility to answer to the public professionally. It’s not that different fom government in having to be responsible and transparent in what they do when they are spending our money. If not for a league and fans and television contracts the best baseball player in the world might be playing in a field in the Dominican Republic with egg carton bases and sticks for bats. It is in recognition of this that athletes in virtually all sports must spend a certain amount of time with the media and the media has mandated access to locker rooms, players, etc. Many athletes get fined for not adhering to their media obligations and shirking that responsibility.

17

It is very different … governments are spending taxes citizens are legislatively required to pay … athletes, musicians, actors and other entertainers are paid from money individuals CHOOSE to spend because they value the entertainment they are provided … the public is no more owed transparency than they are from private corporations; public corporations, on the other hand, are legislatively required to provide information.

But I guess we should just agree to disagree.

18

We will agree to disagree obviously.

I don’t know how you get around the fact that athletes who convince the public to choose to spend their money on them and are found to have cheated by using PED’s, are committing a fraud. I am of the view that they owe an explanation for that fraud at the very least.

19

If you expect the same from a private company found to have committed fraud, or some other crime, then I can see the consistency in your perspective.

BTW - truly, have a great day

20

Yes I do expect the same from a private company and they do have to explain themselves to the public via the authorities that charge them with fraud. Everything is in court for the public to see. I see the athletes as quasi private and quasi public individuals, but however you view them, they shouldn’t be held to a lesser standard than a private company.

Have a good day as well.