Two Oceans goes the legal route (Cavanagh’s last stand)

Doing what I do and writing what I write about, I receive sporadic legal letters. Fortunately, I have a fantastic attorney in Mark Leathers who dispatches the attempted ‘shake downs’ with the disdain that they deserve.

I connected with Mark during the Comrades crisis following the 2024 event when he offered his services to me on a pro bono basis in the fight against the attempted capture of the Comrades Marathon. He was elected to the CMA Board at the November 2024 AGM and his fellow Board members subsequently elected him their Vice Chairperson. Having Mark in my corner lets me sleep peacefully at night.

As an ‘accidental activist’, it’s a great relief to know that if I write the truth and expose the nefarious miscreants of the running world, threats of legal action for defamation and other legal overstretches can be easily and professionally dealt with. I will go so far as to say that without Mark’s support I could not do what I do.

Normally Mark’s advice is to keep the lawyer’s letters off the internet but in a case like this he agreed that it’s in the public interest to share. On the evening of Wednesday the 16^th of April I received the attached letter from Rupert Candy of Rupert Candy Attorneys Inc. representing his client, the Two Oceans Marathon NPC and its Chairperson Toni Cavanagh, accusing me of defamation and harassment.

Some sections to take note of:

• 4 to 6 – where they pick 19 different paragraphs from three different articles that are supposedly defamatory and untrue. However, no alternate facts or explanations about what is considered untrue are provided.
• 7 – If my articles are factual then all the items in this section are indeed true.
• 12 – This letter was received when only one newspaper had reported on the “issues”. The reporter in question is well-known for kowtowing to the establishment and not declaring that he is a paid contractor for events and institutions when writing articles defending them. Subsequently almost every other news outlet has written articles very critical of the Two Oceans organisers.
• 17 – This acknowledges that the gun-to-mat times I published showing that Cavanagh submitted incorrect qualification times and / or jumped batches is correct. Where I obtain information from is irrelevant.
• 18 – There is a bizarre and obscure reference to “The days of it [Two Oceans] being an exclusive Old Boys Club are over.”

In a situation like this there are two simple and absolute legal defences against charges of defamation – “Did the alleged defamer believe it was true when he wrote it?” and “Is it in the public interest?”. The latter is simple, the role of Two Oceans Chairperson is a public position and it is clear that articles concerning her eligibility fulfilling the top job at Two Oceans is in the public interest, especially given the vast number of stories currently making headline news.

The former is more nuanced. Although I expect this is irrelevant in this case, if I have written something that is factually incorrect but applied due diligence and verification in writing the factual error I would still not be guilty of defamation.

Let’s say that I’m a sportswriter with a well-known newspaper and the President of a provincial athletics union as well as a former communications manager of a large ultra marathon collude. They both leak me a plausible sounding story that The Running Mann is in fact related to Ann Ashworth and the only reason he wrote about Rowyn James and his 2023 cutoff mess was because he wanted a family member to replace Rowyn (yes, this did actually happen recently). We now have situation where two different and supposedly trustworthy people have provided me corroborated information so I have some defence against defamation.

However, in a case like the above, the journalist should also provide the right of reply to The Running Mann thereby ensuring fair comment. This is both necessary and reduces the risk of public embarrassment, humiliation and being suspended by one’s employer for sharing a whopper with the public on the internet. Sadly, even journalists with 20 years of experience can make simple mistakes.

Fortunately, I am still new enough to this game to always ensure that I tick every box and provide the right of reply.

Let us look at another real-life example: After an official Two Oceans press release announcing the new Two Oceans Chairperson’s rise to power, I was given information from a trusted and credible source that the new Chair, Toni Cavanagh, had embellished her running and professional qualifications. Unlike our error prone journalist, I did not just take my trusted source’s information at face value. Instead, I scoured the results sites on the Internet. I also enlisted the help of a data scientist who had created a database of all South African road running results.

The press release claimed, “Her [Toni Cavanagh’s] running resume includes nine marathons, over 50 half marathons and numerous long-distance and ultra long-distance trail events.” I could only find evidence of three marathons, fewer than 20 half marathons and no trail events over 42.2km (which is the definition of ultra distance). Of course it is possible that I missed one or two which is where the right of reply comes in.

I’ve attached the original right of reply and follow-up emails sent to Cavanagh (all very polite and not in the least bit antagonistic). She decided not to reply (which is her right) and I went ahead and published this article: Lies, Damn Lies & Two Oceans Press Releases (Has the Chair embellished her running and professional CV?). As such it is completely reasonable and rational for me to call Toni Cavanagh a liar in public without fear of being guilty of defamation. I 100% believe this to be the case and have document the facts proving this to be the case.

Now, if it did turn out later that she did in fact run six additional marathons, 30+ missing half marathon are uncovered and that there was a spelling mistake the year she ran the Western States 100 miler, then I still would not have to worry about defamation because at the time of writing the article I have done more than could be reasonably expected to verify my facts and the opportunity for fair comment from Cavanagh.

Should I have written something factually incorrect, it would of course be good practice to update the article and, depending on the situation, publish a retraction and apology. If Ms Cavanagh does have some information on this or any other article that she has been deftly hidden from myself and the running public, I would strongly encourage her to release the evidence immediately. After a tough and torrid Two Oceans, I am sure that she’d take delight in a public retraction and apology from The Running Mann.

Just to make sure everyone understands the concept of what defamation is an isn’t, I’ve got one final example using the CV that Cavanagh submitted to the 2023 Two Oceans AGM where she was elected to the Board.

The CV lists that she’s an “Ultra distance Road Runner”. We’ve established that this is highly unlikely so I am free to cast scepticism over this claim without fear of defamation. I can also freely point out that this CV is very different to the professional qualifications claimed in the press release. I can also state that if you Google the company “Virtual Learning Africa” (where Cavanagh was “Director – Head of Development” from 2013 to 2021 you get almost no results which is an incredibly strange result for an eLearning platform (which by definition one would expect to be splashed all over the internet).

What I can’t do is cast doubt on the educational qualifications or suggest that she does not actually have the MBA she lists because this is not something I’ve investigated or asked her for proof of. Whilst valid comment, some might consider it petty for me to point out that her current employment experience, “2021 – Current; Owner Chimotoki Customs & Sole Style – Illustrator/Customizer/Artist” is a one woman band shoe painting business. However, it does call into question whether Ms. Cavanagh is in fact “suitably qualified in holding her position on the Board” as is alleged in Candy’s letter.

Legal lesson over.

As I said earlier, I am no stranger to lawyer’s letters. As a standalone blogger, I fastidiously fact check everything. Mark Leathers also provides legal counsel and review on any controversial articles ensuring that I stay on the right side of the law. I am 100% confident in everything that I’ve put out about Two Oceans and Toni Cavanagh. It’s not impossible but I would be very surprised if I do have to retract and apologise (but will do so with humility if that is the case).

I take pride in my writing and appreciate a great piece of prose from others. Therefore I leave you with the legal poetry of Mark Leather’s return volley to Rupert Candy’s floss.

As the matter is currently under legal review, I have been advised not to comment further on the case itself but expect that this matter will resolve itself quickly. Candy’s case has no merit but even if the Two Oceans NPC does want to take this further and waste the NPC’s funds, I expect that Cavanagh and Company do not have very long left before they are removed from their positions. This is in itself a bit of a pity because, whilst being a massive time waster, it would be fun to play a game of Candy crush.

Follow Running Mann:

• 
• 
• 
•