Christian Horner under Investigation

[organic]

They don’t have much to say but it has now attracted F1’s attention

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68333346

Formula 1 has urged Red Bull to resolve the controversy surrounding Christian Horner as soon as possible.
"We hope that the matter will be clarified at the earliest opportunity after a fair and thorough process," an F1 statement read.
"We have noted Red Bull has instigated an independent investigation into internal allegations at Red Bull Racing," it added.
"We will not comment further at this time."

Isn't it a bit late in the day for F1 to make a statement now? Almost 15 days after the Redbull statement.

I believe it's because a lot of parties want this resolved before testing begins. There seems to be ever mounting pressure for the investigation to be resolved ASAP so as not to overlap with the season. Last week it was suggested that the investigation could last even beyond the Bahrain GP itself, but latest reports have that timeline now being a lot shorter

[ME4ME]

Since the media claim they have seen evidence, and Ford has requires accountability I now feel its less likely that Horner survives this saga. The geni is out of the bottle and Red Bull can no longer cover anything up or pay off the employee. And as always with these cases with people in power, there is no middle ground punishment. Either they are entirely innocent or they get axed because the company cannot be seen to support anyone remotely unetical.

My guess would be that they'll announce either Berger, Bayer or one of the senior people currently at RBR as the new team principle shortly, before the first race.

[Wouter]

Just a few "facts" mentioned by Erik van Haren and Ralf Bach that I question .
Horner and the lady who sued him sent each other apps over an extended period of time that were sexually tinged.

So the lady initially participated in that herself, otherwise it would have ended after a few days.

.
It doesn’t fully say what you are implying , it says
.

The app traffic between the female Red Bull employee and Horner, seen by De Telegraaf, shows that Horner (50) has regularly sent sexually suggestive messages to the employee over a considerable period of time.

.
There is quite a difference between what is stated and what you are implying.

.
I'm not implying anything at all! I'm saying: "So the lady initially [i.e. in the beginning] participated in that herself."

[f1jcw]

Just a few "facts" mentioned by Erik van Haren and Ralf Bach that I question .
Horner and the lady who sued him sent each other apps over an extended period of time that were sexually tinged.

So the lady initially participated in that herself, otherwise it would have ended after a few days.

.
It doesn’t fully say what you are implying , it says
.

The app traffic between the female Red Bull employee and Horner, seen by De Telegraaf, shows that Horner (50) has regularly sent sexually suggestive messages to the employee over a considerable period of time.

.
There is quite a difference between what is stated and what you are implying.

.
I'm not implying anything at all! I'm saying: "So the lady initially [i.e. in the beginning] participated in that herself."

It is quite clear what you posted and yes, what you are implying as it contradicts the Dutch newspapers reports.
There is no mention anywhere that she was a willing participant in the sending and receiving of sexual texts, so please don’t imply it.

[denyall]

Just a few "facts" mentioned by Erik van Haren and Ralf Bach that I question .
Horner and the lady who sued him sent each other apps over an extended period of time that were sexually tinged.

So the lady initially participated in that herself, otherwise it would have ended after a few days.

.
It doesn’t fully say what you are implying , it says
.

The app traffic between the female Red Bull employee and Horner, seen by De Telegraaf, shows that Horner (50) has regularly sent sexually suggestive messages to the employee over a considerable period of time.

.
There is quite a difference between what is stated and what you are implying.

.
I'm not implying anything at all! I'm saying: "So the lady initially [i.e. in the beginning] participated in that herself."

I haven't read anywhere what you are saying. Receiving a message is not "participating" ...

[Cs98]

Since the media claim they have seen evidence, and Ford has requires accountability I now feel its less likely that Horner survives this saga. The geni is out of the bottle and Red Bull can no longer cover anything up or pay off the employee. And as always with these cases with people in power, there is no middle ground punishment. Either they are entirely innocent or they get axed because the company cannot be seen to support anyone remotely unetical.

My guess would be that they'll announce either Berger, Bayer or one of the senior people currently at RBR as the new team principle shortly, before the first race.

It'll come tomorrow . I hope the replacement is internal, sending in some Austrian outsider will not be good for morale when there are respected people within the organisation who have put in decades of effort and know it well.

[bonjon1979]

The only reason this is being delayed is because they’re desperately trying to pay the other party off. I guarantee that a number will be reached that they say yes to will be achieved and by the end of the week this will all disappear as they withdraw their allegations.

If that happens, I’m not sure the smell will dissipate quite as fast

I think quite the opposite. Everyone in f1 will want to brush it under the carpet ASAP, and if anyone’s offered 7 figures, they usually take it.

[Wouter]

.
It doesn’t fully say what you are implying , it says
.

.
There is quite a difference between what is stated and what you are implying.

.
I'm not implying anything at all! I'm saying: "So the lady initially [i.e. in the beginning] participated in that herself."

It is quite clear what you posted and yes, what you are implying as it contradicts the Dutch newspapers reports.
There is no mention anywhere that she was a willing participant in the sending and receiving of sexual texts, so please don’t imply it.

.
OMG! Learn to read what is written and stop making up things!

I am NOT implying it contradicts the Dutch newspapers reports at all.
I ask myself what has happend between the first messages and the last messages so she went to RB GmbH and filed a complaint.
That's all. Don't read things I didn't write!

[denyall]

.
I'm not implying anything at all! I'm saying: "So the lady initially [i.e. in the beginning] participated in that herself."

It is quite clear what you posted and yes, what you are implying as it contradicts the Dutch newspapers reports.
There is no mention anywhere that she was a willing participant in the sending and receiving of sexual texts, so please don’t imply it.

.
OMG! Learn to read what is written and stop making up things!

I am NOT implying it contradicts the Dutch newspapers reports at all.
I ask myself what has happend between the first messages and the last messages so she went to RB GmbH and filed a complaint.
That's all. Don't read things I didn't write!

For all you know she left CH on read for months.... Asking the question "well did she participate and then change her mind" is victim blaming...

[Cs98]

The only reason this is being delayed is because they’re desperately trying to pay the other party off. I guarantee that a number will be reached that they say yes to will be achieved and by the end of the week this will all disappear as they withdraw their allegations.

If that happens, I’m not sure the smell will dissipate quite as fast

I think quite the opposite. Everyone in f1 will want to brush it under the carpet ASAP, and if anyone’s offered 7 figures, they usually take it.

Not anymore. This story has been going for too long, too many damaging rumours have spread in the media. If this just goes away now without explanation the optics are terrible regardless of what is true. He either gets sacked (in which case details might be sparce) or there's a strong rebuttal from Horner/RB towards the allegations. Anything else would just feed the media frenzy.

[Wouter]

.
It doesn’t fully say what you are implying , it says
.

.
There is quite a difference between what is stated and what you are implying.

.
I'm not implying anything at all! I'm saying: "So the lady initially [i.e. in the beginning] participated in that herself."

.
I haven't read anywhere what you are saying. Receiving a message is not "participating" ...

.
This is what The Telegraaf stated:
.

From the app traffic between the female employee of Red Bull and Horner, viewed by The Telegraph,
the picture emerges that Horner (50) sent sexually oriented messages to the employee regularly
and over a considerable period of time.

.
So she participated and not only receiving messages. And as I said before: initially [in the beginning].

[f1jcw]

It says traffic but it says the sexual texts came from Horner, not that she was a participant in them. There’s a very clear distinction.

[denyall]

.
I'm not implying anything at all! I'm saying: "So the lady initially [i.e. in the beginning] participated in that herself."

.
I haven't read anywhere what you are saying. Receiving a message is not "participating" ...

.
This is what The Telegraaf stated:
.

From the app traffic between the female employee of Red Bull and Horner, viewed by The Telegraph,
the picture emerges that Horner (50) sent sexually oriented messages to the employee regularly
and over a considerable period of time.

.
So she participated and not only receiving messages. And as I said before: initially [in the beginning].

If I send you a message you ignore there is app traffic "between" us. It doesn't mean you participated...

[Wouter]

It says traffic but it says the sexual texts came from Horner, not that she was a participant in them. There’s a very clear distinction.

.
Where did I wrote that she send also sexual messages?! He texted her and she answered those messages, at least in the beginning.
I'll leave it like this. I only said I have a few questions and I wasn't victim blaming because I don't know what happend. Nobody does!!

[dialtone]

It says traffic but it says the sexual texts came from Horner, not that she was a participant in them. There’s a very clear distinction.

.
Where did I wrote that she send also sexual messages?! He texted her and she answered those messages, at least in the beginning.
I'll leave it like this. I only said I have a few questions and I wasn't victim blaming because I don't know what happend. Nobody does!!

You can acknowledge what you wrote was very ambiguous and asking what happened between the first message and the report is not a normal question, it leaves the idea that you think she might have participated and only later decided to stop.

And by the way, if even that happened and at some point she stopped and he kept sharing, that’s also not ok. Therefore the question is just inappropriate, that’s why you are getting fire.