The starting gun fired thirteen times before dawn on Saturday the 13th of April as wave after wave of Two Oceans ultra marathon runners set off on another voyage around the Cape Peninsula. Three weeks later and one smoking gun remains.
Controversy erupted shortly after the event when it appeared that a group of runners were cutoff early at the marathon mark. Despite the fact that the official race website listed three different cutoff times and that participants were assured that the “issue would not be swept under the carpet”, the brooms came out when an official statement on the cutoff was published: https://www.twooceansmarathon.org.za/ttom2024-cut-off-statement-from-the-tom-npc/
Despite the fact that the marathon cutoff time was 10-13 minutes stricter than in previous years, communications on the cutoffs bordered on negligent and that runners would need to run substantially faster to the marathon mark than they needed to make the 7-hour finish line cutoff, the Two Oceans Board transferred all blame and culpability for the mass confusion and chaos surrounding the cutoff times from themselves and onto the runners.
Specifically, the Two Oceans Board hid behind the race’s digimag, insisting that participants were at fault for not reading the 76-page, 100 megabyte document from cover to cover, “The cut-off time of 10:46 was listed in the final communication to all runners through the official digimag, which has the latest information regarding race details. This is sent to all participants directly via SMS days before the race. This format of communication is widely used across the world on all big sporting events, as details sometimes change at the 11th hour. This information is regarded as full and final.”
However, it now turns out that the cutoff times were not even included in the originally published version of the digimag. I have received multiple screenshots from runners whose downloaded versions of the digimag clearly shows that the cutoffs were missing from the publication.
Whilst the statement claimed that using the digimag to communicate last minute changes is common practice at international sporting events, this was refuted by international participants impacted in the mess. Furthermore, according to the Two Oceans Board’s own words, “details sometimes change at the 11th hour” – the content of the digimag definitely changed well after the witching hour but the question remains as to who was riding the broomstick.
Whilst I was conducting my my own independent research and investigation into the cutoff chaos, I diligently followed up all leads and angles. After hearing from some runners that they believed the cutoff times on the website were changed after the race, I sent a WhatsApp message to the editor of the digimag, Roxanne Martin, to check whether any updates were made to the cutoff times after the race.
READ MORE: Two Oceans 2024: Copycat cutoff chaos
Martin’s initial response was “I’m not sure what you are implying?” before clarifying, “We had minor edits where I realized I hadn’t updated the expo venue but no cutoffs were not updated. There were as they are now.”
After it turned out that the cutoff information was not actually in the published version of the digimag, I presented Martin with the evidence. I pointed out that her original response indicated that she had corrected the expo venue but the cutoffs were untouched. As you can clearly see, the originally published digimag contains the correct expo information but no cutoff details at all. Notably, the 2022 and 2023 Two Oceans digimags are also 100% void of any cutoff information.
Lots of questions but unfortunately no answers. After getting radio silence, my follow-up message requesting a response elicited, “Pls send all questions to TTOM”. This response from Roxanne Martin turns on all the red lights – and they are flashing violently.
In parallel, I had sent through a similar set of questions to Hilton Kearns (Race Director), Ilse de Wet (Chair) and Liezel Short (Vice Chair) from Two Oceans and presented them with the evidence. My initial email got crickets but a follow-up received the following response from Kearns, “The live digimag as per the link disseminated via SMS on Wednesday 10 April at 10.12pm and on social media on Wednesday 10 April at 10.27pm contained the correct information.”
The confused Kearns concluded, “We do not know why the download version submitted by the reader was not synchronised to the official version disseminated.”
As they say in the classics, ‘Ignorance is bliss’.
The gun is smoking, there’s a bullet hole in the wall but the Two Oceans Board has no idea how it got there. Perhaps this is an even bigger mystery than why the Two Oceans Board continues to double down on misinformation and are unable to take accountability for their own failings.
The two questions that remain are:
- Who pulled the trigger, and
- What time was the gun fired?
Let’s take a look at the facts. Multiple people who downloaded the digimag after the publication date have provided screen shots showing the cutoffs were not in the magazine. For example, I verified that one of them was downloaded on 11 April at 8:06am using the link from Two Oceans’ Facebook post. I also have a full copy of this download.
Here’s another one with a download date time stamp over a day later than the one above (and less than 17 hours before the start of the ultra).
The expo venue information, which the digimag editor said was the only update made after publication, is correct in all the “missing cutoffs” screenshots I’ve been provided.
What is also very curious, since the Two Oceans Board’s cutoff announcement places the digimag front and centre of their excuse, is that their social media post promoting the digimag spotlights ten different sections of the magazine. Attention is drawn to everything from ‘pace setters ‘to ‘parking’ but cutoffs are strangely missing. I guess you can’t highlight what doesn’t exist.
It is clear that the cutoffs were a late or very late entrant to the Two Oceans digimag. In running terms, the digimag cutoffs missed every timing mat along the route before mysteriously appearing at the finish line with a medal around their neck. If the cutoffs were indeed added to the digimag after the race concluded, it would be the most sinister case of gaslighting since the Hindenburg exploded*.
* The only other possible explanation is the ‘Terminator Theory’ – namely that the robots have already taken over and GenAI made the updates. However, this theory is easily refuted because artificial intelligence is clever enough to realise that the stated marathon cutoff time was illogical and AI would have added 10 to 20 minutes onto the cutoff time.
Just how late an entrant were the cutoffs? The current version digimag (which can be downloaded here) shows it was created on 16 April at 11:42am, a few hours before Two Oceans put out their ill-conceived statement / excuse on the cutoffs. An amazing coincidence. If the digmag’s editor is to be believed, only the expo venue was updated after the original publication date. All very suspicious. I would assume that very few people have edit and upload rights so it should be easy for an ethical organisation to determine what changes were made, who made the changes and why they made them.
The post-race sentiment amongst runners is that the Two Oceans organisation has displayed a lack of transparency, honesty and integrity with their handling of race day issues. With a set of questions and follow-up questions, I have given the Two Oceans leadership and digimag editor Roxanne Martin every opportunity to provide a plausible explanation for the curious case of the disappearing digimag cutoffs. None has been forthcoming. One must therefore assume the worst.
As Mark Twain observed, “There are three types of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics.” Two Oceans have already shown that they abhor using their own data for statistical analysis in the decision-making process. That leaves just two options.
Either Kearns, De Wet and Short are guilty of making bald-faced lies to the running community or someone is telling them bald-faced lies and they are trusting (or gullible) enough to believe and repeat them.
What Likely Happened
The 2022 and 2023 digimags did not include cutoff information and the same template, format and content was copied and pasted for 2024. I do not believe cutoff times were ever in the the original version of the digimag. There is no screen shot evidence from downloads nor a plausible explanation of the sans-cutoffs screenshots I provided.
After the event, social media erupted with the cutoff controversy. The Two Oceans Board then went into damage control. On realising that the official website had three different cutoff times in various locations, someone (it would almost definitely have to be more than one person) hatched a plan to save face and transfer accountability for their negligence.
It was at this stage that the cutoff information was added into the digimag. The ‘genius’ of the plan was that Two Oceans could hide behind the digimag content as the “standard way of communicating” whist knowing that the few runners who read the magazine would not have noticed that the cutoffs were missing amongst 76-pages of text. Were it not so sinister, one would have to admire the audacity of asserting that everyone should have taken note of the cutoffs in the digimag when they were not even there.
Unfortunately, what our evil masterminds forgot was that people can download a hard copy of the digimag. This has enabled the deceit and dishonesty of the Two Oceans organisation to be exposed.
A Few Good Men and Women?
It’s back to the Two Oceans Board. In the face of damning evidence how will they respond? They seem to have already closed the door on the cutoffs issue and have moved on to celebrating a ‘successful’ event (together with plenty of gratuitous social media back-patting, further rubbing salt into the wounds of those impacted). One senior board member even went so far as to comment on Facebook that the cutoffs were a “trivial matter”.
No doubt there are some members of the board who do operate with integrity and honesty. Now is the time to make yourself known. Either you can be known as the Two Oceans Board members who stopped the slide and turned the ship around or as the Two Oceans Board who rearranged deckchairs on the Titanic.
What Should Happen Next in an Ethical Organisation?
There are three things that should already have happened in any ethical organisation and a fourth based on the resultant deceit:
- An unconditional apology to the runners impacted. If you want to see how it’s done take a look at this apology from the Wally Hayward Marathon and the comments from runners (which are overwhelmingly positive). Runners are quick to forgive mistakes when the organisers are honest and take accountability.
- An unreserved commitment to ensure that cutoffs in future years are sensible and do not result in participants who are able to finish under the final 7-hour cutoff being removed from the race prematurely.
- Restitution for the runners impacted. I would assume that, at a minimum, this would include a free entry to the 2025 event.
- The dismissal or resignation of those involved in the fraud. Forensically, this is relatively easy to determine. There will be a digital paper trail of all the edits made to the digimag and (I would assume) access control showing who actually made the changes. This is not difficult to find unless you are scared of the answer.
Afterword
If you downloaded a copy of the Two Oceans digimag before or after the race, I would be interested to know the download time and date as well as the .pdf’s metadata “Created Date” (go to ‘Menu => Document Properties’ or use ‘Ctrl+D’ in Adobe Acrobat).
Follow Running Mann:
It’s very tragic that an iconic race that I enjoyed every km has been blown into turmoil. Folk,domestic and International will think twice about participating in 2025 . Surely proof reading is done by a few people before been published? Or was it a rush job 🤔? Perhaps professional experienced race administrator should be employed to prevent these kind of problems. One just looks at Comrades 2024 , seems to be very much all systems go. Forensics should be done , one and for all to bring this to a conclusion.
Thankyou for all of that, as they say, the plot thickens, and that is just the debacle regarding the marathon cut off times. I wonder if you will ever get a straight answer, and the runners affected by this, a proper apology. You have landed the ball well into their court, so we await their response.
They also have not, it would seem, addressed problems and queues at water tables, lack of rehydration fluids on the bailing busses, the fact that they took so long to get to the finish at UCT, then dropped the off 3km away. I truly believe that in the interests of transparency these issues should be fully investigated and dealt with by the race organisers to prevent a repeat failure.
The digimag that I have has no cutoff. At least not on Page 23 or under C in the A to Z chapter. I had downloaded it to the device.
The formatting of the create_date field is in UTC format, which means it’s 2 hours different from our timezone (GMT+2). The local time would actually be 13:42. See https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/utc-to-gmt-converter
Not sure if that’s helpful or not to the timelines!
Thanks – that is indeed helpful as it means that the update was made even closer to the announcment (and also that the last update I have of the digimag without the cutoff information is even closer to the start time).
Hi Stuart. A few days late so hopefully this is useful to you. I downloaded my digi-mag on 12/04/2024 @ 07:54. The created timestamp is 11/04/2024 13:31:06.
This version has the Totalsports image and no mention of the cut-off times.