Lead: The International Skating Union (ISU) issued a public defence on Friday of Olympic ice-dance judging after a single judge’s scoring gap shaped the outcome of the Milano Cortina Games free dance. France’s Laurence Fournier Beaudry and Guillaume Cizeron captured gold by a narrow margin over Americans Madison Chock and Evan Bates, a result that prompted intense viewer scrutiny and an online petition. The ISU said variability among judges is expected and highlighted procedural safeguards—including discarding extreme marks—that it says protect results from individual bias. Still, the finish has reignited debate about subjectivity and transparency in figure skating scoring.
Key takeaways
- The French pair won with 225.82 points; Chock and Bates took silver with 224.39, a gap of 1.43 points.
- A judge on the nine-member panel awarded the French duo nearly eight points more than the American team on the free dance component, a difference that became central to the final ranking.
- The ISU uses a “trimmed mean” approach that discards the highest and lowest marks for each element and programme component before averaging to limit outliers’ impact.
- ISU officials told reporters several of the French judge’s highest marks were excluded during scoring aggregation; the ISU nevertheless rejected claims of systemic failure.
- An online petition calling for ISU and IOC review had approached 15,000 signatures by Friday afternoon, reflecting broad viewer unease.
- Under current rules, athletes can only request formal review in limited circumstances; there is no sign the ISU has opened an investigation.
- The result has revived long-running criticism that the post-2002 scoring system retains subjective elements that are hard for casual audiences to interpret.
Background
Figure skating’s current scoring system was introduced after the 2002 Salt Lake City controversy, which exposed vulnerabilities in a judge-centred 6.0 model. The contemporary system separates technical element scores from programme component scores (PCS) and aggregates marks from a multi-judge panel; it was designed to reduce single-judge influence and increase objectivity. Despite these safeguards, programme components—assessing interpretation, transitions and performance quality—remain inherently subjective and can produce wide spreads among judges.
The French partnership of Laurence Fournier Beaudry and Guillaume Cizeron only began competing together internationally last autumn after Fournier Beaudry changed national representation; both skaters’ prior partnerships ended amid separate allegations about their former partners. The duo rapidly rose to contend at top events, winning the European Championships earlier in the season and posting a season-high total at the Olympics. The American team of Madison Chock and Evan Bates entered the final having delivered multiple strong results over recent seasons and secured a season-best skate at Milano Cortina.
Main event
The free dance at Milano Cortina produced one of the tightest finishes of the Games. Five of the nine judges placed Chock and Bates ahead on the panel, but a notably larger mark from a single judge for the French pair shifted the aggregated outcome. Under the ISU procedure, many element-level extremes are trimmed, and ISU officials say multiple of the French judge’s highest marks were excluded before the final averaging took place.
Still, the French judge’s free-dance submission was influential enough that, had that judge’s marks not been submitted or had they been lower, the Americans would have moved into gold position based on the arithmetic of the panel. The ISU statement rejected the notion of a failed system and emphasised that range among judges is expected and mitigated by rule design.
Chock and Bates, who said they delivered the strongest skate of their careers, focused on pride in their performance rather than direct critique of the panel. They finished with 224.39 points—less than two points behind the French champions’ season-high 225.82—and noted the emotional and physical toll of an Olympic schedule that required four performances across team and individual events in a week.
Analysis & implications
At stake is public confidence. The episode crystallises a familiar tension: a system engineered to lower individual bias still relies on human judgement for programme components, which viewers and some experts perceive as opaque. When large inter-judge spreads occur in a marquee final, the audience’s expectation of a clear, comprehensible result collides with the technical aggregation rules that can produce counterintuitive outcomes.
Institutionally, the ISU faces a reputational choice. It can stand by the existing methodology while increasing explanatory outreach—publishing more granular score breakdowns and visual aids for broadcast—or it could consider procedural tweaks, such as varying panel composition, changing discard rules, or expanding independent review powers. Each option carries trade-offs between perceived fairness, logistical complexity and the athletes’ need for stable, predictable rules.
For athletes and national federations the incident underscores limited recourse. Current regulations put the onus on the ISU to initiate any formal review of judging conduct. Absent an internal review or referral from the IOC, affected teams have few instruments to alter results after the fact, leaving grievances largely to public petition and media pressure.
Comparison & data
| Team | Final total | Season high | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fournier Beaudry / Cizeron (FRA) | 225.82 | 225.82 | Gold; free-dance marks included one notably high judge’s scores |
| Chock / Bates (USA) | 224.39 | 224.39 | Silver; season-best performance, five judges placed them top on panel |
The table shows final tallies and the season-high values recorded at the Olympics. Independent analysts highlighted that while a majority of judges ranked the Americans higher, the magnitude of one judge’s marks for the French team shifted the trimmed-mean aggregation. The publicly reported petition and media attention indicate the controversy is measured more by perceived fairness than by a numerical anomaly alone.
Reactions & quotes
“The ISU has full confidence in the scores given and remains completely committed to fairness.”
ISU spokesperson (official statement)
Context: The ISU reiterated that the system’s discard rules reduce outlier influence and that variability among judges is expected.
“It was our Olympic moment. It felt like a winning skate to us and that’s what we’re going to hold on to.”
Evan Bates (athlete)
Context: Bates stressed pride in the performance and acknowledged the difficulty of immediately processing the result amid an intense schedule.
“Any time the public is confused by results, it does a disservice to our sport.”
Madison Chock (athlete)
Context: Chock framed transparency as central to fan trust and the sport’s long-term health, reflecting wider audience frustration.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the French judge’s scoring represented deliberate misconduct; no formal ISU investigation has been announced.
- Whether the judge’s highest marks for all elements were fully trimmed from the final calculation in every instance; ISU said several high marks were discounted but did not publish a complete element-by-element audit.
- Whether the ISU or IOC will initiate a post-competition review in response to the petition; at the time of publication no review had been announced.
Bottom line
The episode highlights a persistent fault line in judged winter sports: aggregated statistical safeguards can reduce, but not eliminate, the perception and effect of subjective outliers. For athletes, the outcome is final and medals stand unless the governing body acts; for fans, the controversy undermines confidence if results appear to contradict on-ice impressions.
Looking ahead, the ISU’s handling will be closely watched. Greater transparency—publishing more granular scoring data, clearer broadcaster explanations and a defined independent review mechanism—could reduce similar disputes. Without such steps, high-profile finishes will continue to generate petitions and public debate, leaving the sport to balance technical precision with legitimacy in the court of public opinion.
Sources
- The Guardian (international news outlet; primary report on the event)
- International Skating Union (ISU) (official governing body; public statements and rule descriptions)
- International Olympic Committee (IOC) (official Olympic organisation; rules and appeals guidance)