Christian Horner under Investigation

[Watto]

No. Simply no.
That's the miserable excuse of those who don't want to change.
In the Middle Ages, there were public rapes that affected women who had little male protection. In India, rape is still a huge problem today.
"Man will always be Man"?
No. Socially accepted behaviour is changeable. And there are enough men who have made this change in their minds.
For a damn long time.

The responses from some people in this thread highlight exactly why F1 needs to make it clear what is and what is not acceptable conduct for senior leaders of the sport.

Thankfully the law already does that, and if the leaks are genuine then Horner broke the law, as have Red Bull in covering it up. It's amazing how misguided many posters' moral compass is proving to be.

the thing I question in it is perhaps with all the power play going on have the Austrian arm of RB tried to leverage a complaint to be more than it is and remove Horner after his apparent hostile take over attempt does not excuse what CH did (if confirmed) and may not mean a court:tribunal would find him In breach of workplace laws. But do we have a very selective leak against him the tail end of an office romance gone wrong. That she still has a role that very much involves interaction with CH - or maybe she simply enjoys he role overall and does not want to give that up. - or maybe even as I did post earlier she lodged the complaint but didn’t want Horner removed just acknowledgment something had to change if that happen she was happy to move on. I under though why she stays silent as too many internet warriors attack people like that these days for no reason

[balex]

The best thing about this is I get to enjoy that tasty hit of scandal (that I don't want to admit I love), while still getting to pretend like I care about the victims (despite relishing all this private information being dragged through the public eye).

Did I miss any actual facts coming out since the RB announcement on the conclusion of the investigation, or are we still safe to pick and choose from the crap spewed by various "journalists" to affirm what we want to believe to be true?

Thanks!

Red Bull haven't released any facts of their investigation. Compounding the problem.
We don't even know if it was thorough. Judging by the leaks(if genuine), it might have just been a whitewash coverup.

Ah right, yes I can see the word "if" is still in full force here. Well I shall continue to look forward to this petering out without anyone getting their moral vindication. Ciao.

[Quantum]

Ah right, yes I can see the word "if" is still in full force here. Well I shall continue to look forward to this petering out without anyone getting their moral vindication. Ciao.

Of course, that's how whitewashing works.

[Watto]

100% Max dont care about the situation, aslong as hes got a good car and winning races, thats all drivers care about winning

He may well walk if unhappy I don’t discount that for a moment, but I question if leaks maybe very selective/designed to suit a purpose

Probably, but it all comes down to whoever said no, stop, enough, etc first.

Agree I’ve said a few times i think he should be sacked, but not everyone that lodged an internal complaint like that wants to leave scorched earth in their wake what if her goal was better internal guidelines. Yes this is hypothetically course

[balex]

Ah right, yes I can see the word "if" is still in full force here. Well I shall continue to look forward to this petering out without anyone getting their moral vindication. Ciao.

Of course, that's how whitewashing works.

Indeed. None of us want whitewashing, so imagine how much harder it would be to whitewash if anyone were to pursue allegations in a court other than that of public opinion. Imagine if they used anything other than anonymous leakers and sources! I think they'd have a much harder time with the whitewashing then.

At least I can understand why RB didn't release the report though: It's absolutely none of our business.

[Watto]

Yes, which is why I said it could've been the reason it was supressed from publication, as everyone knows the 2 parties involved now.
The question being would the KC have any grounds to make a statement of misrepresentation?

I’d argue maybe he found some wrongdoing but didn’t find legal grounds for termination.

That's possible too. But why not release the report with redacted names/numbers to validate the findings?

The investigation report is confidential and contains the private information of the parties and third parties who assisted in the investigation, and therefore we will not be commenting further out of respect for all concerned

Being frontrun by a leak was always bound to happen when there was no transparency. As it stands, we don't know if the leaks are genuine. But they are plausible.
If they are plausible there is a contravention which makes the internal investigation itself suspect, right?

At a guess only as someone pointed out it only really involved 2 people wouldn’t take much for people to work out and for some idiots in the internet to harass her undeserved- iirc she shut down all her SM profiles once some put together who it was not much a stretch to say it was a small minority of RB fans that would harass trolling in Sm can be very toxic

[myurr]

the thing I question in it is perhaps with all the power play going on have the Austrian arm of RB tried to leverage a complaint to be more than it is and remove Horner after his apparent hostile take over attempt does not excuse what CH did (if confirmed) and may not mean a court:tribunal would find him In breach of workplace laws. But do we have a very selective leak against him the tail end of an office romance gone wrong. That she still has a role that very much involves interaction with CH - or maybe she simply enjoys he role overall and does not want to give that up. - or maybe even as I did post earlier she lodged the complaint but didn’t want Horner removed just acknowledgment something had to change if that happen she was happy to move on. I under though why she stays silent as too many internet warriors attack people like that these days for no reason

The other angle to look at it is that Horner was cleared behind closed doors by the Thai owners of RB GmbH, that are seemingly engaged in a financial transaction with Horner that would net them a large sum of money to buy RBR off of them. They are incentivised to protect him.

The messages also cover many months of interaction - May / June through to early this year from memory - and very early on she is asking him to stop. That's months of harassment rather than just being the tail end of an office romance. It's not even clear to what degree they had an actual romance, not that it would ever excuse Horner persisting after she'd asking him to stop.

[mendis]

the thing I question in it is perhaps with all the power play going on have the Austrian arm of RB tried to leverage a complaint to be more than it is and remove Horner after his apparent hostile take over attempt does not excuse what CH did (if confirmed) and may not mean a court:tribunal would find him In breach of workplace laws. But do we have a very selective leak against him the tail end of an office romance gone wrong. That she still has a role that very much involves interaction with CH - or maybe she simply enjoys he role overall and does not want to give that up. - or maybe even as I did post earlier she lodged the complaint but didn’t want Horner removed just acknowledgment something had to change if that happen she was happy to move on. I under though why she stays silent as too many internet warriors attack people like that these days for no reason

The other angle to look at it is that Horner was cleared behind closed doors by the Thai owners of RB GmbH, that are seemingly engaged in a financial transaction with Horner that would net them a large sum of money to buy RBR off of them. They are incentivised to protect him.

Is there source for all this information? Would love to read that.

[myurr]

Is there source for all this information? Would love to read that.

The decision to dismiss the grievance was made by RB GmbH as per their press release. That means the board of directors - the lawyer prepared a report covering the results of his investigation for the board to make the decision. That is standard procedure.

The behind the scenes power struggle and buyout has been linked several times in this thread but is rumour at the moment.

[Quantum]

Ah right, yes I can see the word "if" is still in full force here. Well I shall continue to look forward to this petering out without anyone getting their moral vindication. Ciao.

Of course, that's how whitewashing works.

Indeed. None of us want whitewashing, so imagine how much harder it would be to whitewash if anyone were to pursue allegations in a court other than that of public opinion. Imagine if they used anything other than anonymous leakers and sources! I think they'd have a much harder time with the whitewashing then.

At least I can understand why RB didn't release the report though: It's absolutely none of our business.

Pursuing through court is independent of public opinion, and an avenue that might be explored.
What did "they" use exactly, as it appears you are outright accusing the complainant of leaking this as your sentence contains no ifs buts or maybes.

[mendis]

Is there source for all this information? Would love to read that.

The decision to dismiss the grievance was made by RB GmbH as per their press release.

The behind the scenes power struggle and buyout has been linked several times in this thread but is rumour at the moment.

I am not looking for speculation, fiction and conjecture. If there is a Red Bull GmbH press release that talks about Thai owners engineering a dismissal of the case, it would be a great info to read.

[chrstphrln]

Is there source for all this information? Would love to read that.

The decision to dismiss the grievance was made by RB GmbH as per their press release.

The behind the scenes power struggle and buyout has been linked several times in this thread but is rumour at the moment.

I am not looking for speculation, fiction and conjecture. If there is a Red Bull GmbH press release that talks about Thai owners engineering a dismissal of the case, it would be a great info to read.

Well, at least the BusinessF1 report gives a more detailed picture than the Red Bull press releases.
However, I wouldn't expect Red Bull to confirm the reports publicly either...
Nevertheless, they remain completely plausible.
And as far as I know, they have not been denied so far.

[balex]

Pursuing through court is independent of public opinion, and an avenue that might be explored.

Oh we could wait for that then? No silly me that wouldn't be as fun as making stuff up! And we and the journalists are entitled to our fun! Doesn't matter the toll on the victim, whoever that might be!

What did "they" use exactly, as it appears you are outright accusing the complainant of leaking this as your sentence contains no ifs buts or maybes.

I don't think you understand what I wrote: "They" has nothing to do with the complainant, so no I was not accusing them of that in the slightest. What I rail against are hypocrites, cowardly power-plays by restless egomaniacs, invasion of privacy, and the garbage that passes for journalism and informed opinion these days.

[mendis]

The decision to dismiss the grievance was made by RB GmbH as per their press release.

The behind the scenes power struggle and buyout has been linked several times in this thread but is rumour at the moment.

I am not looking for speculation, fiction and conjecture. If there is a Red Bull GmbH press release that talks about Thai owners engineering a dismissal of the case, it would be a great info to read.

Well, at least the BusinessF1 report gives a more detailed picture than the Red Bull press releases.
However, I wouldn't expect Red Bull to confirm the reports publicly either...
Nevertheless, they remain completely plausible.
And as far as I know, they have not been denied so far.

It's a speculation if something is said without any official source for it. BusinessF1 isn't Red Bull GmbH, it's just media.
If something isn't denied, it's true? Did anyone even ask Oliver Mintzalaf if Thai owners engineered the dismissal of the case? He is the CEO.

[myurr]

I am not looking for speculation, fiction and conjecture. If there is a Red Bull GmbH press release that talks about Thai owners engineering a dismissal of the case, it would be a great info to read.

If you want to treat Red Bull press releases as gospel then you may as well go back to arguing they didn't break the budget cap, or that "There are no issues here. The team are united and we are focused on racing".

I can tell you categorically that it was the board of directors who made the decision, rather than an independent lawyer, based upon 25+ years of being a board director and having voted on more than one case of this nature. The "independent" investigation was a report by a lawyer given to the board documenting their interviews with all relevant parties and any other evidence gathered. It would not include a definitive conclusion. Red Bull's press release on this is deliberately ambiguous but note the semantic separation between saying the report is complete, and Red Bull can confirm the grievance has been dismissed. Not that Mr Horner was found innocent by the investigation. Not that the investigator dismissed the grievance. It's the board who dismissed the grievance as it is a decision they make on behalf of the business as the legal entity responsible for complying with the relevant laws and regulations.