The board of the Two Oceans marathon and its chairperson Antoinette Cavanagh have approached the Johannesburg high court in an effort to gag runner and blogger Stuart Mann, seeking an urgent order that he delete certain critical online posts and apologise for making them .
On his popular blog site, The Running Mann, Mann has accused Cavanagh of:
- embellishing her CV;
- lying about her running credentials;
- being a “Karen”; and
- being responsible for “the worst organised” marathon in the event’s 54-year history.
He said that at this year’s event:
- runners were given shirts that didn’t fit;
- goody bags had run out;
- there were not enough water tables;
- the organisers had run out of medals; and
- they had breached the City of Cape Town’s rules by accepting 21,000 entries for the half marathon when their permit allowed 17,000 runners.
Last month the City of Cape Town announced it was withdrawing its support for the race after organisers exceeded the permit limit. This had placed the safety of runners at risk and breached the terms of the sponsorship, the city said.
Cavanagh says Mann's comments on the race amounted to defamation, harassment and a smear campaign. But Mann — who is expected to file an opposing affidavit within days — said he had offered her a right to reply regarding her running credentials — which she declined — and as such it was “completely reasonable and rational for me to call Toni Cavanagh a liar in public without fear of being guilty of defamation”.
He said he “100% believed” this to be the case and had documents to prove so.
In her application, Cavanagh accused Mann of a “prolonged and harmful campaign of defamation, harassment and character assassination” through his writing.
She said he had thousands of followers on social media and was considered by the running community to be an “expert commentator”.
However, he was not a journalist bound by a formal code of media ethics.
“This is relevant because he has built for himself his own supportive community of runners who also repeat and repost his defamation — and often end up amplifying his attacks on the marathon and me. This not gives rise to a toxic online culture for the running community, but has real-world consequences.”
Cavanagh said she did not want to silence Mann — and the board in some instances had taken accountability for some of the issues he raised.
“I approach this court as a woman subjected to public humiliation through a sustained campaign of untrue, unfair and malicious commentary. It also implicates broader interests; they threaten to undermine the credibility of the marathon, cast aspersions on its governance, and imperil its relationship with funders, sponsors and strategic partners.”
She said this had the potential to collapse — if not permanently destroy — the marathon.
Mann, she said, had attacked her and the board’s integrity, competence and fitness to lead. He presented these allegations as facts, not opinion, and had asserted, without evidence, that “I lied, cheated and misrepresented myself” in a series of blog posts.
After her lawyers sent him a “cease and desist letter”, he had written about this, referring to the board as “her cronies” and reiterating the accusation that she had fabricated her CV, which, she said, “is particularly damaging”.
In that post, he had also written that she “would not be around much longer”.
“This is not neutral reporting. It is a call to action premised on a calculated and deliberate campaign to damage reputations and destabilise governance structures through public pressure based on misinformation,” Cavanagh said.
The cumulative effect was to “cement the false narrative” that she was dishonest, unqualified and corrupt, and a leader who resorted to legal bullying rather than transparency.
She said that in a letter received from Mann’s legal representatives, it appeared he relied on the defences of truth, public interest and fair comment.
But this did not help him because he had not established the required factual foundation for making the statements.
Further, the use of the terms “cronies” and “Karen” played into the historically embedded stereotypes of women in sport being unqualified for leadership, “suggesting my presence on the board is due to favouritism rather than competence”.
“I do not claim that Mr Mann lacks the right to speak. I assert that his campaign has crossed the line from speech into sustained, strategic reputational harm. It is not defensible journalism. It is malice and it is unlawful,” Cavanagh said.
Mann’s attorney, Mark Leathers, confirmed he would oppose the application and was drafting his response.
“He denies all allegations of defamation. We regard this application as wholly unfounded and an attempt to stifle legitimate comment and fair criticism concerning the administration of the Two Oceans marathon and the multitude of questionable decisions by Ms Cavanagh,” Leathers said.
“Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy, and Mr Mann has at all times acted in the public interest. We are confident that the court will see this action for what it is and dismiss the application.”
He said it was a sad day “when nonprofit organisations use funds meant for the public good to bring frivolous court proceedings against a respected writer in the road-running fraternity”.
The urgent application has been set down for May 13.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.