Camille Herron suing Canadian Runner magazine

Camille’s AuDHD Hyper-Focus is Manifested in Her Need for Rule Adherence in the Ultrarunning Community

That is an actual subheading from the lawsuit. Thanks to rojo or whoever worked over $10 for that 33-page piece of work.

The gist of the lawsuit seems to be this:

178. Defendant Canadian Running publicly published a Defamatory Article on
September 23, 2024, asserting that Camille was personally involved in a Wikipedia scandal
that falsely described her accomplishments while taking down well-earned accomplishments
on other ultrarunner Wikipedia pages as set out in detail herein.

In short, Camille claims she was defamed because she had no involvement in the Wikipedia edits. But, she acknowledged that her husband and coach made all the edits.

Camille's legal counsel, to say nothing of Camille, seem to be completely ignoring the basic legal concept of agency. Because her agent was acting on her behalf, in most cases, Camille will be legally liable for her agent's actions.

So her entire argument is? I didn't do it. My husband did it.

She thinks saying, "My husband is crazy... not me, and Canadian Running said it was me!" is a legitimate excuse for a lawsuit.

This lawsuit argues otherwise...

I also feel like if the courts didn't throw it out straight away (they will) then Camille would have to prove that her husband made all the edits. If the evidence they have links her beyond reasonable doubt to the edits (matching IP address for their family home, wiki account linked to her personal email address, timelines of inactivity that match up with her racing schedule) then surely the burden of proof then switches so that she has to prove that every single edit was done by him? This will also be difficult given that everything about her public persona (campaigning to have other athlete's DQ'd etc), strongly matches the online persona she is claiming isn't her. So any betting man would have to say that it was indeed her, and so proving it wasn't becomes all the more difficult.

Umm, I appreciate the sentiments, but this isn't real legal analysis. There's no concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" (a criminal standard) and thus burden-shifting in a defamation case. In the end, she has to show falsehoods and malicious intent by Canadian Running, and that's laughable under these facts. Not only was what they wrote true ("it was actually my husband" is silly), the idea that CR was intentionally trying to defame her is obviously absurd.

A sad situation all the way around, and I doubt that litigation will make the situation any better. Instead, what's already happened will get picked over again and again.

Sometimes people have an exaggerated view of how much it's possible to fix things through litigation. In a case like this, the only "fix" available is paying money. There are many steps between filing a case and making claims and actually seeing any money. Even if you end up getting money, the money still can't undo what's already happened.

What I think is sad is that a very talented runner hasn't moved on and thinks that filing litigation can improve her situation. As others have said, it's not a strong case, and I wouldn't expect any good to come of it for anyone except maybe Canadian Running's lawyers, who will presumably be paid by the hour.

What is the world record for posts removed from a thread? 15 already removed from this one page.

i compete at hot dog eating contests, but i came to this thread to catch up and it's hard because so many posts got removed bro like wth