
Two Oceans Marathon chairperson squares off with blogger over ‘defamatory' articles
Two Oceans Marathon chairperson Toni Cavanagh has approached the high court on an urgent basis over what she alleges are defamatory and malicious articles written by blogger Stuart Mann.
In the aftermath of last month's Two Oceans Marathon, in which the race organisers drew widespread criticism over multiple issues, the chairperson of the marathon, Toni Cavanagh, is dragging one of her loudest critics to court.
Cavanagh has approached the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Johannesburg on an urgent basis. She wants popular running blogger Stuart Mann to rescind claims that he has made on his platform over the last couple of months.
In her affidavit, she said the articles written by Mann were defamatory and contained half-truths to suit a specific narrative, thus disrupting the operations of the Two Oceans Marathon board. She said her health had suffered since Mann zeroed in on her.
On his blog, The Running Mann, Mann wrote articles in which he alleged that Cavanagh (who was elected as Two Oceans chairperson in October 2024) did not attain the position in an honest manner.
Mann's allegations included the Two Oceans chairperson lying about her running credentials, as well as embellishing her professional CV.
In one of his articles, Mann labelled this year's Two Oceans 'the worst organised' edition of the marathon.
As a direct consequence of accepting more runners than were permitted for the 2025 event, the Two Oceans organisers did not have enough medals to distribute after the race.
Participants also bemoaned the limited number of water tables along the route. Some runners complained of the distance between the tables, which they said were often overcrowded. Mann also highlighted these issues on his platform, with Cavanagh acknowledging to Daily Maverick that she and her colleagues could have done a better job.
Reputational damage
Nevertheless, she said the issues had been blown out of proportion. In her affidavit, she contended that Mann fuelled this furore with his publications.
'This application arises from a series of allegedly defamatory publications authored by the respondent, Stuart Mann, a blogger operating under the alias 'The Running Mann', which the applicants contend constitute a sustained campaign of reputational harm, harassment and character assassination,' she said.
'The publications falsely impugn the first applicant's personal and professional integrity, question the legitimacy of her leadership and cast aspersions on the governance and ethical standing of the Two Oceans Marathon.
'The applicants submit that the publications violate constitutional rights to dignity and psychological integrity, have caused measurable reputational and medical harm and jeopardise the credibility and sponsorship viability of the Two Oceans.'
Cavanagh is asking the court to force Mann to retract and delete his article, and to issue a public apology in the form of a media statement. The Two Oceans boss also wants Mann to stop writing about her and has asked for an interdict to be granted to this end.
Not backing down
Mann, though, is not backing down and argued that he did not set out to humiliate Cavanagh, but aimed to use his powerful platform to hold Cavanagh and her colleagues accountable for their shortcomings.
In his affidavit, Mann highlighted the injustices within the running community that he has exposed over the years.
This includes him breaking the story of Steven Swarts earlier this year. Swarts was the Athletics Free State president despite being a convicted sex offender serving a suspended sentence. Mann's writing led to Swarts being removed from his post by Athletics South Africa.
Mann said he had nothing to gain by aimlessly picking on Cavanagh, but wished to preserve the prestige of the Two Oceans Marathon and extend its lifespan.
'I deny that any statements or comments in the articles were defamatory, but are indeed truthful and in the public interest. [They] represent fair comment and criticism,' he said.
'Any attempt by the first applicant to paint me as a sexist is completely unfounded and I submit (with utmost respect) done in an effort to gain sympathy from the court.'
Mann also said whatever criticism Cavanagh and her colleagues had been subjected to was by virtue of their own incompetence. He used the permit breach saga, which cost the Two Oceans Marathon its sponsorship from the City of Cape Town, as an example.
'I am not sure how I can be blamed for this. The City of Cape Town has, on its own accord and completely separate to any of my articles, shown distrust in the second applicant's leadership as a result of the permit scandal,' Mann said of Cavanagh.
The court case will be heard on Tuesday, 13 May. DM

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The South African
5 hours ago
- The South African
Two Oceans Marathon organisers respond to High Court ruling
The Two Oceans Marathon NPC has responded to the ruling handed down by the Gauteng High Court on Thursday. The social media post read: 'The Two Oceans Marathon NPC acknowledges the recent High Court judgment concerning public commentary made about the organisation and its leadership. 'While the matter was dismissed, we note that the judgement was based on procedural grounds – 𝙣𝙤𝙩 on the factual correctness, ethical appropriateness or moral acceptability of the statements made. It therefore cannot be said that the statements made were found to be truthful, justified, or ethically appropriate. 'As an organisation, we welcome constructive criticism and learn profoundly from it. However, we believe that such engagement must be 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘧𝘶𝘭, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘴, including runners, those who serve the organisation, suppliers and stakeholders. 'As one of Africa's most iconic running events, we value fair criticism and a spirit of public engagement that falls within the boundaries of what can be considered fundamentally decent and respectful.' In the Gauteng High Court case between Two Oceans chairperson Toni Cavanagh (first applicant) and the Two Oceans Marathon NPC (second applicant) and Stuart Mann (respondent), the Honourable Judge Yacoob ruled emphatically against Cavanagh and the TOM NPC granting a costs order on scale C (the most severe possible outcome). This will reportedly cost Cavanagh and the TOM NPC around R400 000. Whether Cavanagh will cough up the cash herself or turn to the NPC for help remains to be seen. The full 15-page judgement can be found HERE This developing news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version. The future of the Two Oceans Marathon is in serious doubt after the City of Cape Town pulled its sponsorship of the event following a number of flagrant contraventions of conditions by the organisers of this year's race. Organisers were on the receiving end of more criticism this year – as is seemingly the case every year – as runners took to social media in their droves to vent their unhappiness and frustration. Runners lashed out at the organisers for – among many other things – shocking (read: no) communication pre-race, a lack of sufficient markings on the trail race, goodie bags hardly worth taking home, a lack of water tables during the race and running out of medals for finishers. Race director Hilton Kearns is on record as saying they 'overcompensated in predicting the number of silver medallists they expected and did not have enough bronze medals'. This was proven to be a lie by well-known South African runner and blogger, Stuart Mann, who, writing on his blog ' The Running Mann ' this week exposed the latest untruth. Mann ran the numbers and the percentage of silver medallists in the Two Oceans Half Marathon has been the same for the last three years: 1.3%. A mere 234 runners earned silver medals, while 17 443 runners earned bronze this year. The real reason the race ran out of thousands of bronze medals was the fact they accepted – and took payment for – more entries than they were allowed by the City of Cape Town. Meanwhile, according to Two Oceans chairperson Toni Cavanagh, the race has struggled to rope in enough sponsors since emerging from the Covid pandemic a few years ago. While they appreciated the support from current headline sponsor Totalsports – and the runners who paid entry fees – they are falling short of the claimed nearly R27 million required to organise the event. RELATED | Tributes pour in for runner after tragic death at Two Oceans Marathon In the irony of all ironies, just two short years ago prior to taking over as Two Oceans chairperson, Cavanagh took to social media to slate the race organisers following her 'fudging ridiculous' experience at race collection back in 2023. The South African website has in its possession a letter of demand to cease and desist from the Two Oceans Marathon NPC and Toni Cavanagh sent to Mann on Wednesday. The South African website also has it on good authority that Mann plans to neither cease nor desist from exposing the truth. It appears clear that the City of Cape Town is siding with Mann – and the truth. In a response sent to The South African website on Thursday, the City confirmed: 'Following the Two Oceans Half Marathon on Sunday, 6 April 2025, the City of Cape Town's Events Permitting Office discovered that the Two Oceans Marathon race management allowed more participants to take part in the half marathon than what was approved in the official permit. 'The Two Oceans Marathon race management contravened conditions of its permit and subsequently the Events By-Law by allowing more than the permitted number of runners to take part. 'This is a complete disregard of the months of work behind the scenes to plan the logistics and safety measures in place around the event. 'The contravention of stipulated permit conditions places at risk the safety of people taking part in events. 'The sponsorship agreement between the City of Cape Town and the agreement between the City and the Two Oceans Marathon NPC is clear that any breach of permit will result in the municipality pulling sponsorship of the event. 'The Two Oceans Marathon NPC was notified of the City's decision withdraw support on 10 April 2025. 'The City provides support in kind in the form of municipal services which assist in the event safety and logistics planning for the Two Oceans Marathon. 'The City's actions pertain specifically to its sponsorship of the Two Oceans Marathon – the Event Organiser can continue to apply for permits through the normal channels, as they are required to do in any event – irrespective of City sponsorship.' Quite how the Two Oceans Marathon plans on holding an event without the sponsorship of the City of Cape Town remains to be seen, considering the lack of funding alluded to by the organisers themselves. Whether any other sponsors wish to come on board and be associated with the race and its current Board remains to be seen. In addition, race founder Celtic Harriers (a club which still receives royalties from the Two Oceans brand, but is no longer involved in the organisation) has said it wants to meet with the Two Oceans board out of concern for the future of the race. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.


The Citizen
8 hours ago
- The Citizen
Creecy intervenes in Acsa baggage screening services dispute
The dispute has resulted in multiple review applications, interdictory proceedings, and related appeal proceedings in the High Court. ACS provides baggage services on behalf of airlines operating at Acsa-managed airports. Picture: iStock Transport Minister Barbara Creecy has directed the Airports Company South Africa (Acsa) board to enter mediation with the firm responsible for baggage handling services at its airports. This comes after Acsa and the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) suffered a legal blow last month in their battle with Aviation Co-ordination Services (ACS) to take control of hold baggage control screening (HBS). Legal battles The Gauteng High Court dismissed the urgent appeal by Acsa and SACAA, which barred it from bidding for or purchasing baggage screening equipment. The court judgment upholds the High Court's order of 5 November 2024, requiring Acsa and SACAA to allow ACS to replace the relevant equipment at OR Tambo and King Shaka International Airports while a main review case is still before the courts. It confirmed that the critical replacement of old hold baggage screening (HBS) equipment may proceed at the international airports, which is needed to ensure public safety and airport efficiency. The dispute has resulted in multiple review applications, interdictory proceedings, and related appeal proceedings in the High Court. Creecy's ministerial orders issued on Thursday empower the minister to take necessary steps to safeguard national security where a risk to critical infrastructure, public safety, or the national interest has been identified. ALSO READ: Acsa loses appeal for control of baggage screening services at major airports 'Negative impact' The minister said she is concerned about the 'negative impact' the protracted litigation could have on the integrity and reliability of HBS as the first line of defence against threats in the aviation system at Acsa's airports. 'In this regard, I am satisfied that intervention is necessary to prevent potential disruption, compromise of national security, and reputational harm. 'As such, my engagements with the Acsa board have, in the main, related to finding a solution to resolve the dispute amicably and timeously to obviate any destabilisation of an essential national security function,' said Creecy. ALSO READ: Acsa interdicted from adjudicating and awarding R3bn tender Terms of reference Creecy ordered the board to finalise and execute a mediation agreement which contains the following terms of reference: The implementation of interim measures relating to the maintenance regime and whether ACS / ACSA can or should install any HBS maintenance-related equipment, including the back-up HBS units. The dispute pertaining to ACS, which is responsible for the provision of the HBS and interrelated services, will be addressed at the mediation. The provision of service of HBS and its maintenance, compliance with the applicable regulatory frameworks, budgetary and fiscal constraints, the safety of passengers who use ACSA's airports, potential revision of agreements, and the commercial relations between the parties. Negotiate, during the mediation proceedings, must be in good faith as the legal prescripts require that parties to the mediation act in the best interests of national security. Prepare and submit a comprehensive report within two weeks, setting out the total costs incurred in relation to the dispute to date. This report must include a detailed breakdown of all the legal fees, disbursements, and any other associated expenses borne by the State. Mediation ACS CEO Duke Phahla welcomed the ministerial order announced by Creecy 'We strongly believe that the current challenges can be resolved without further delay or public expenditure through the courts. Our priority is, and always has been, the safe, secure, and compliant screening of baggage on behalf of our airline clients and their passengers. 'We enter this process in the spirit of collaboration and transparency. We look forward to engaging with Acsa and the Department of Transport to find an outcome that protects the integrity of South Africa's aviation security systems,' said Phahla. ACS was established by the airline industry to provide HBS services on behalf of airlines operating at ACSA-managed airports. NOW READ: Acsa wants a look over in fight over baggage screening services

TimesLIVE
9 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Blogger Mann will not be silenced on Two Oceans Marathon matter, court rules
Freedom of speech has won the day in a matter in which Two Oceans Marathon chair Antoinette Cavanagh and her board tried to silence marathon runner and blogger Stuart Mann. Cavanagh wanted the court to rule certain of his articles on his blog The Running Mann are defamatory, to order they be removed and that he apologise publicly for them. But Mann, in opposing the application, said his allegations — that she had embellished her CV, lied about her running credentials and was responsible for 'the worst organised marathon' in the event's 54-year history — were true and in the public interest. In a ruling handed down on Thursday, Johannesburg high court judge Seena Yacoob said Cavanagh's case was lacking in many respects and she had not established Mann's publications were defamatory. 'In this case neither of the applicants (Cavanagh and the board) have made out a case that the esteem in which they are held is of a particular type. 'Cavanagh does not favour the court with her own full history nor does she demonstrate she is viewed with any particular esteem or she has a reputation for integrity and good leadership. 'Two Oceans does not contend it has run its events in a manner reasonably beyond criticism and above board. It does not even contend, let alone attempt to demonstrate, it has conducted its events lawfully and in a manner compliant with its permits from the City of Cape Town. There is no attempt to demonstrate any of the factual claims made in the publications is untrue, though there are bald allegations that they are all false,' Judge Yacoob said. The judge criticised the 'chaotic and vague manner' in which the urgent application was pleaded. 'The founding papers are vague, voluminous and lacking particularity. They contain more argument than fact. To require a judge to trawl through papers to try to make sense of them is unacceptable in an urgent court.' She said Cavanagh and the board had failed to set out a 'clear factual background' and the founding affidavit consisted almost entirely of argumentative matter. It did not contain dates of the publications, nor the specific problematic statements or utterances. They had also not dealt with why they alleged each publication, in its entirety, was defamatory, instead pleading defamation in a 'broad and sweeping manner'. Yacoob said while it was possible an entire publication may, on the face of it, be defamatory, in this case the publications complained of were not. For example, it was not clear how a photograph of Cavanagh, with a caption she had recently completed a running event, could be defamatory. 'There are reams of examples of patently non-defamatory and even complimentary statements in the publications. A cursory glance demonstrates that the publications consist as much of opinion as fact, and that at least some of the factual matter has a proper basis,' the judge said. 'It is not the function of the court to attempt to sift out what may be defamatory and how.' Yacoob said the applicants had wrongly approached the matter on the understanding that all they had to do was show publication of uncomplimentary statements about themselves. However, in discharging their onus to establish that the publications were defamatory, they were required to establish both what their status or esteem was and that the publications tended to lower these in the eyes of the community. This had not been established, she said. Yacoob dismissed the application, and ordered the applicants to pay the costs. She said she had considered 'showing her displeasure in which the application had been run with a punitive costs order but on reflection, I consider the failure of the application is sufficient indication of the court's displeasure'.