Christian Horner under Investigation

[Sieper]

Yes, agree, one of the few bright spots in a thread being filled with excuses, defamation, pure machismo etc. Probs to myurr for keeping it sane.

[billamend]

I'm glad someone with some sense has the patience to reply to those who are dismissing the severity of this case. Thank you, myurr!!

Thank you... I'm really struggling but this is such an important issue. It's appalling the lack of basic human empathy on display.

Either those who are trying to diminish it are kids, or I worry about their lack of understanding of the nuances of work relationships.

What I saw in the leaks, if they're real, should result in the immediate dismissal of Horner. Can't believe anyone thinks otherwise or is framing this as “two consenting adults”. Horner is on the spot for a civil case of sexual harassment, and Red Bull Racing could also be implicated for not handling it properly. It's flabbergasting that anyone doesn't see how bad this is.

[CHT]

I'm glad someone with some sense has the patience to reply to those who are dismissing the severity of this case. Thank you, myurr!!

Thank you... I'm really struggling but this is such an important issue. It's appalling the lack of basic human empathy on display.

Either those who are trying to diminish it are kids, or I worry about their lack of understanding of the nuances of work relationships.

What I saw in the leaks, if they're real, should result in the immediate dismissal of Horner. Can't believe anyone thinks otherwise or is framing this as “two consenting adults”. Horner is on the spot for a civil case of sexual harassment, and Red Bull Racing could also be implicated for not handling it properly. It's flabbergasting that anyone doesn't see how bad this is.

Taking CH to court or file a criminal charge is the best approach instead of leaks I reckon.

[venkyhere]

Pardon me for saying this, but what are we really chatting and posting about, in this thread ; when there is no 'new information' that explodes into the internet ?

I agree this is a gossip/bickering thread, but even then, isn't this too much, the last 5-6 pages of posts ? People will have different opinions. This whole CH disciplinary thing is a cesspool of ethical/legal/moral questions ; where there is never going to be a 'lets all agree' conclusion amongst the public.

This kind of thing is the bread and butter of tabloid media like Daily Mail/Mirror and others of same ilk, whose 'mainstream content' is juicy gossip. Let's not dilute F1Technical to that level. Let's wait for whatever there is to happen, to happen, and then discuss the effects of that 'happening' on :
(i) the intra and inter team dynamics
(ii) the general perception of F1 in public
(iii) how Liberty, FOM and FIA are going to play around this

Those kind of things will be more relevant to the F1technical forum, as the kind of content I am seeing in this forum (I am new here), is really good, coming from people with vast experience of watching/analyzing the sporting & engineering aspects of the sport (a niche audience and niche contributors). Let's not reduce the standards to typical facebook arguments between headless chicken type participants.

[TFSA]

I didn't say RB had to release the private information. The cover up I am alleging is the board of Red Bull GmbH overruling RBR in dismissing the grievance and keeping Horner in place. If the messages turn out to be true, and there is no evidence they are not, then there's a very strong case that Horner is in breach of employment law and one would imagine Red Bull's policies. If so then dismissing the grievance constitutes a cover up to protect him.

May I draw your attention to articles 12.2.1c of the International Sporting Code includes the offence of "any act prejudicial to the interests... of motorsport generally"; 12.2.1.f "Any words, deeds or writings that have caused moral injury or loss to the FIA, its bodies, its members or its executive officers, and more generally on the interest of motor sport and on the values defended by the FIA."; 12.2.1.k "Any Misconduct".

I believe those articles constitute reason for the FIA to have interest in Horner's conduct, treatment of personnel at FIA sporting events, and the conduct of Red Bull in their investigations into the grievance.

12.2.1.o sets out one possible punishment, "Failure to comply with the instructions of the FIA regarding the appointment and participation of persons during official ceremonies at any Competition counting towards a FIA Championship", allowing the FIA to bar Horner from participating in the sport.

12.2.1.g covers why Red Bull would have to comply with any investigation in full: "Any failure to cooperate in an investigation".

It's clear to me that under the ISC, which both Red Bull and Horner are signatories of, that the FIA have the power to investigate, the jurisdiction to exclude Horner, and via Article 8.7 in the Sporting Regulations the power to exclude Red Bull from the championship should they chose to do so.

The ISC does not overrule the law. Red Bull can only corporate with any investigation as far as the law allows them to. 12.2.1g of the ISC does not grant the FIA unlimited jurisdiction or access. That's not how that works.

12.2.1o is a rule relating to official FIA ceremonies. It says it right in the rule. You have misunderstood that rule.

But getting to the point:
Whether Red Bull gets to employ Horner is entirely up to them. It's not for the FIA to decide on teams private employment matters. Red Bull is entitled to make a decision on Horner after the investigation, including keeping him.

Any damage to the motorsport reputation is legally not considered to be caused by Horner or Red Bull, but by whoever leaked the information (including that an investigation was taking place in the first place). You don't get to leak that kind of stuff, and then say that someone else brought the sport into disrepute because your blew a private matter open. That's rarely how that works.

[Watto]

I'm glad someone with some sense has the patience to reply to those who are dismissing the severity of this case. Thank you, myurr!!

Thank you... I'm really struggling but this is such an important issue. It's appalling the lack of basic human empathy on display.

Either those who are trying to diminish it are kids, or I worry about their lack of understanding of the nuances of work relationships.

What I saw in the leaks, if they're real, should result in the immediate dismissal of Horner. Can't believe anyone thinks otherwise or is framing this as “two consenting adults”. Horner is on the spot for a civil case of sexual harassment, and Red Bull Racing could also be implicated for not handling it properly. It's flabbergasting that anyone doesn't see how bad this is.

most that I’ve seen though in think agree if they are genuine he’s toast.

While I think they are real that’s just a pretty unfounded personal opinion.

But I equally say there are reasons some may have doubts - personal experiences where they were investigated and had the person making the complain lie etc is valid enough to cast some kinda doubt

[SoulPancake13]

I really don't get some people here - there is no doubt if those messages are real that Horner should go. His refusal to verify that the leaks are real makes it 100 times more suspicious - in fact the entire lack of transparency makes the whole thing very unnerving. If you can't understand why there is a problem with a CEO flirting with a subordinate while said employee repeatedly asks for the CEO to stop, which is met by a changing of role and job, then you are the problem.

[Mandrake]

I really don't get some people here - there is no doubt if those messages are real that Horner should go. His refusal to verify that the leaks are real makes it 100 times more suspicious - in fact the entire lack of transparency makes the whole thing very unnerving. If you can't understand why there is a problem with a CEO flirting with a subordinate while said employee repeatedly asks for the CEO to stop, which is met by a changing of role and job, then you are the problem.

It's a fully theoretical exercise at the moment. Innocent until proven guilty. A lot of people here write as if the messages are real and show the full picture. Some put "if those are real" and then continue to write what should happen etc.
Fact is we don't know. Currently it's a public crucifying of Christian Horner.

There was a case in Germany around Luke Mockridge, a commedian, accused by his ex girlfriend of rape. There was a whole public cancellation of Mockridge leading to a destroyed carreer and mental health struggles for him. In court later the case was dismissed due to lack od suspicion. So all that outcry and two destroyed lifes in the aftermath. Because people jumped the gun immediately based on rumors and unsubstatiated "proof" from hearsay.

[Watto]

Pardon me for saying this, but what are we really chatting and posting about, in this thread ; when there is no 'new information' that explodes into the internet ?

I agree this is a gossip/bickering thread, but even then, isn't this too much, the last 5-6 pages of posts ? People will have different opinions. This whole CH disciplinary thing is a cesspool of ethical/legal/moral questions ; where there is never going to be a 'lets all agree' conclusion amongst the public.

This kind of thing is the bread and butter of tabloid media like Daily Mail/Mirror and others of same ilk, whose 'mainstream content' is juicy gossip. Let's not dilute F1Technical to that level. Let's wait for whatever there is to happen, to happen, and then discuss the effects of that 'happening' on :
(i) the intra and inter team dynamics
(ii) the general perception of F1 in public
(iii) how Liberty, FOM and FIA are going to play around this

Those kind of things will be more relevant to the F1technical forum, as the kind of content I am seeing in this forum (I am new here), is really good, coming from people with vast experience of watching/analyzing the sporting & engineering aspects of the sport (a niche audience and niche contributors). Let's not reduce the standards to typical facebook arguments between headless chicken type participants.

This is one of the issues I think with these kinds of threads the most vocal seem to be RB/Max fan vs Merc/Ham makes it very very hard to find a neutral analyst even if not intentional. There is enough bs from both sides

I really don't get some people here - there is no doubt if those messages are real that Horner should go. His refusal to verify that the leaks are real makes it 100 times more suspicious - in fact the entire lack of transparency makes the whole thing very unnerving. If you can't understand why there is a problem with a CEO flirting with a subordinate while said employee repeatedly asks for the CEO to stop, which is met by a changing of role and job, then you are the problem.

I find the he fails to deny/verify far too simplistic with the rumours of what’s going on inside RB , maybe your lawyers advised you against those comments may make future legal action harder maybe there are some real ones some fakes ones in there etc

As for the latter agree what’s why laws are needed to protect employees so long as the messages etc are genuine Horner really has to go

[chrstphrln]

...

Any damage to the motorsport reputation is legally not considered to be caused by Horner or Red Bull, but by whoever leaked the information (including that an investigation was taking place in the first place). You don't get to leak that kind of stuff, and then say that someone else brought the sport into disrepute because your blew a private matter open. That's rarely how that works.

No, you probably have to look at it differently.

After all, you can't blame a whistleblower for exposing a possible cover-up.
And in order to judge, you have to know whether the allegations are justified and the screenshots are real. Then it would be a cover-up.
The Yoovidhyas have experience with this.
But if it turns out that everything is fake, that the accusations were falsely made, and that there was even an attempt to force Horner out of office for power-political reasons, then you would be right.
It would therefore be high time for someone from Red Bull or CH itself to say that these screenshots are fake and to finally put an end to the issue.
But that doesn't happen and that doesn't allow for many conclusions.
It is precisely this state of suspension that is harmful. It destroys trust in the process.

CH and RB are the only ones who have the power to end this game. But they don't do that and therefore they are the only ones who harm everyone directly and indirectly involved.

[maxxer]

My evidence is that the company dismissed whatever they had on hand.
And you go by evidence which is not proven to be true by anyone.
So unless you can prove this and not come up with some gossip magazine running for clickbait and full of adverts.

So your only evidence is that a corporation ruled in favour of their rich and powerful CEO. There is no proof that the corporation has acted justly, and plenty of counter examples where corporations can and do cover for actions such as Horner's and pay the fines when they later lose at tribunal.

I have nothing more then that an investigation was started and closed. If you have more please share

[Watto]

I really don't get some people here - there is no doubt if those messages are real that Horner should go. His refusal to verify that the leaks are real makes it 100 times more suspicious - in fact the entire lack of transparency makes the whole thing very unnerving. If you can't understand why there is a problem with a CEO flirting with a subordinate while said employee repeatedly asks for the CEO to stop, which is met by a changing of role and job, then you are the problem.

It's a fully theoretical exercise at the moment. Innocent until proven guilty. A lot of people here write as if the messages are real and show the full picture. Some put "if those are real" and then continue to write what should happen etc.
Fact is we don't know. Currently it's a public crucifying of Christian Horner.

There was a case in Germany around Luke Mockridge, a commedian, accused by his ex girlfriend of rape. There was a whole public cancellation of Mockridge leading to a destroyed carreer and mental health struggles for him. In court later the case was dismissed due to lack od suspicion. So all that outcry and two destroyed lifes in the aftermath. Because people jumped the gun immediately based on rumors and unsubstatiated "proof" from hearsay.

You can put me in the category of thinking they are real but has no real proof/if they are he has to go.

But you raise why I think the messages have to be verified, I am aware of a case/person too that was a victim of trial my media over a few year, via leaks no real charges were ever laid (2 bodies investigated one was a gov/statutory body they never charged him - the other was pretty much a circus) against them, ended in a failed suicde attempt (mods delete if that’s too graphic)

[myurr]

The ISC does not overrule the law. Red Bull can only corporate with any investigation as far as the law allows them to. 12.2.1g of the ISC does not grant the FIA unlimited jurisdiction or access. That's not how that works.

12.2.1o is a rule relating to official FIA ceremonies. It says it right in the rule. You have misunderstood that rule.

But getting to the point:
Whether Red Bull gets to employ Horner is entirely up to them. It's not for the FIA to decide on teams private employment matters. Red Bull is entitled to make a decision on Horner after the investigation, including keeping him.

Any damage to the motorsport reputation is legally not considered to be caused by Horner or Red Bull, but by whoever leaked the information (including that an investigation was taking place in the first place). You don't get to leak that kind of stuff, and then say that someone else brought the sport into disrepute because your blew a private matter open. That's rarely how that works.

12.2.1g will be limited by Red Bull's compliance with the law, but for example where data protection law applies the FIA can ask for anonymised / redacted copies to protect those individuals, and for an anonymised copy of the "independent" report that Red Bull GmbH used to inform their ruling on the grievance.

My apologies on 1.2.1o - I did misread it. I was trying to find the rule they used to exclude Pat Simmonds and Flavio Briatore from F1 and found the wrong rule. I believe it's actually 1.3.2 that may be used. I've spent enough time scanning that document, legal speak tends to make me go cross eyed after a while. So rather than state it's definitively 1.3.2 I'll just point to the prior action of excluding Simmonds and Briatore.

Red Bull are entitled to keep him, and the FIA are entitled to exclude them from the competition if they so choose. I believe Horner is also directly licensed by the FIA as a team principal and the FIA can revoke that license.

Damage to the reputation of the sport is only one angle, one which I think applies but let's agree to disagree on that one. There is also the general rule of misconduct, which breaching employment law and Red Bull policy would constitute. And there is the requirement for all competitors to conduct themselves in a manner compatible with the values of the FIA and sport. Again a breach of the law / policy would breach that clause. I maintain that the FIA are well within their powers to investigate and compel Red Bull and Horner to comply with that investigation.

[myurr]

But you raise why I think the messages have to be verified, I am aware of a case/person too that was a victim of trial my media over a few year, via leaks no real charges were ever laid (2 bodies investigated one was a gov/statutory body they never charged him - the other was pretty much a circus) against them, ended in a failed suicde attempt (mods delete if that’s too graphic)

Likewise I have personal experience of the opposite, where a boss abusing their position of power to sexually assault a subordinate, who then covered it up and warned other businesses not to employ her. All off the record of course making it impossible to prove. Sadly that led to the victim taking her life.

It is vital that due process be followed, both for Horner but far more importantly the victim and others who Horner may be a threat to if he is guilty yet escapes unpunished. I am primarily calling for the FIA to investigate as an independent body to provide that guarantee (or as good as we'll get) of justice being served, one way or the other.

And I am pushing back on those (not you) who suggest sexual harassment is a giant nothing burger, men being men, commonplace so okay, etc. This is a deadly serious matter all round and if Horner deserves due process (which he does) then so does the victim.

[Watto]

The ISC does not overrule the law. Red Bull can only corporate with any investigation as far as the law allows them to. 12.2.1g of the ISC does not grant the FIA unlimited jurisdiction or access. That's not how that works.

12.2.1o is a rule relating to official FIA ceremonies. It says it right in the rule. You have misunderstood that rule.

But getting to the point:
Whether Red Bull gets to employ Horner is entirely up to them. It's not for the FIA to decide on teams private employment matters. Red Bull is entitled to make a decision on Horner after the investigation, including keeping him.

Any damage to the motorsport reputation is legally not considered to be caused by Horner or Red Bull, but by whoever leaked the information (including that an investigation was taking place in the first place). You don't get to leak that kind of stuff, and then say that someone else brought the sport into disrepute because your blew a private matter open. That's rarely how that works.

12.2.1g will be limited by Red Bull's compliance with the law, but for example where data protection law applies the FIA can ask for anonymised / redacted copies to protect those individuals, and for an anonymised copy of the "independent" report that Red Bull GmbH used to inform their ruling on the grievance.

My apologies on 1.2.1o - I did misread it. I was trying to find the rule they used to exclude Pat Simmonds and Flavio Briatore from F1 and found the wrong rule. I believe it's actually 1.3.2 that may be used. I've spent enough time scanning that document, legal speak tends to make me go cross eyed after a while. So rather than state it's definitively 1.3.2 I'll just point to the prior action of excluding Simmonds and Briatore.

Red Bull are entitled to keep him, and the FIA are entitled to exclude them from the competition if they so choose. I believe Horner is also directly licensed by the FIA as a team principal and the FIA can revoke that license.

Damage to the reputation of the sport is only one angle, one which I think applies but let's agree to disagree on that one. There is also the general rule of misconduct, which breaching employment law and Red Bull policy would constitute. And there is the requirement for all competitors to conduct themselves in a manner compatible with the values of the FIA and sport. Again a breach of the law / policy would breach that clause. I maintain that the FIA are well within their powers to investigate and compel Red Bull and Horner to comply with that investigation.

out of interest are you a lawyer (same goes for TFSA) the reason I ask is I’ve in the past found far too many forums where ‘ internet lawyers’ dissect ( I’m a little guilty of it I this thread too) legal jargon but when you get a lawyer to explain it often gives a very very different picture not that they are always right either but I’ve found they often give a better view on what’s going on in such matters.