Christian Horner under Investigation

[stewie325]

"BBC Sport has learned the reason given by Red Bull to the employee was that she had been dishonest."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68501426

I've missed most of the leaks - any word on what the dishonesty was about?

[dans79]

Could be that Red Bull Austria office and entire investigating team were not the source of the leak, and she was the only one in procession of the evidence.

Unlikely imo, if you are going to question Horner for hours you would need to show him what you are accusing him of!

[mendis]

Ideally, she should be fired for falsifying a complaint if that is indeed the case. If there is no evidence (not the filmsy whatsapp screenshots available online), then it's an attempt to tarnish another employee. If the internal investigation lead by a KC barrister has looked at the available evidence and determined, it doesn't justify the harassment complaint, it amounts to tarnishing reputation of the accused employee. So it would be right to simply let her go. If the woman thinks she is right, then she should file a legal case and if she doesn't, she was making this up all this while.

For a start we've previously established the screenshots you're looking at aren't the ones from the original leak.

But now you're suggesting that if a woman reports sexual harassment in the workplace that if the company finds insufficient evidence to prove her right, or dismisses the case for any other reason such as a technicality, that she should be fired for raising the complaint in the first place?

The law has to work both ways. It's not a charity for women. If it's genuine, there would be ample evidence to fire the haarasser. If not and the committee finds wrong intent in complainant's part, the complainant should be fired for attempting damage of reputation for someone.

[TFSA]

If she's been suspended with pay then it could also be that she's launched legal action against Red Bull, and Red Bull's lawyers have advised that it's prudent to suspend her with pay pending conclusion of the case.

This! If she's taking legal action against Red Bull, then they will pretty much have to suspend her (with pay of course).

So many people don't seem to grasp this. I'm surprised that this isn't obvious to more people.

Unlikely imo, if you are going to question Horner for hours you would need to show him what you are accusing him of!

Not at all. When police pull a suspect into interrogation, they are not gonna show them evidence either, at least not initially. They may allude to the evidence or allude to what people have said, like "Your brother said you left the house at 2 o'clock that day", or "On the video I've seen, it looks like you are holding a knife". But they won't show them exactly what they've got. If a case goes to trial, the evidence will be exchanged in discovery.

It's a basic investigative approach is to not show your hand, because if you pull out the evidence immediately, then it allows whoever you're questioning to potentially fabricate or alter their story, so that it better fits the evidence. The interviewer may have told Horner details, but he doesn't have to show him the evidence.

[Watto]

"BBC Sport has learned the reason given by Red Bull to the employee was that she had been dishonest."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68501426

I've missed most of the leaks - any word on what the dishonesty was about?

the only theory I have and it’s based on well nothing more than a complete guess. Joe Saward blog a few days ago referred to the than side of RB looking at moving red hill technology out of RBGmbH into its own sept car company and to have Horner in charge of that - and rumored Horner would be a shareholder like Toto. But that’s casing a disagreement between the Thai and Austrian side of RB

Anyway in his Blog she seemed point to Horner and his PA having some in office relationship he seems to have a source to of his article I wonder , he referred to the ability/tools to create false conversations on WA - I wonder if he had been fed something about her falsifying some of the messages to make it seem worse and Horner out

Joe suggested there’s is a lot going on behind the scenes

[dialtone]

Joe Saward is a fanboy, always has been. His judgement on this case cannot be taken seriously.

Rumors from the teams, probably right, but he clearly doesn’t know how the law works but adds his personal fanboy opinion to that.

[Watto]

If she's been suspended with pay then it could also be that she's launched legal action against Red Bull, and Red Bull's lawyers have advised that it's prudent to suspend her with pay pending conclusion of the case.

This! If she's taking legal action against Red Bull, then they will pretty much have to suspend her (with pay of course).

So many people don't seem to grasp this. I'm surprised that this isn't obvious to more people.

Sky refers to her turning up on Monday morning for work where she was met with a legal letter giving her 5 days to respond would this be in line with that as well as the ‘ supposed’ claim RB accused her of being dishonest - though no confirmation of that.

[astracrazy]

Which is a bad look isn't it even if that is the case, or of course the alternative is actually this has been some scheme against Horner and the people inside the circle know this.

You'd think Max would be within that circle and he would have publicly backed Horner and kept his dad in line. He's said his dad isn't a liar, and his dad has said Horner is the problem and is ripping the team apart.

No, Max wouldn't - not even close and has no right to be. When I say circle I mean the people in charge of investigating this and who have seen all the evidence. The KC, Horners bosses, whoever suspended the women etc.

If she's been suspended with pay then it could also be that she's launched legal action against Red Bull, and Red Bull's lawyers have advised that it's prudent to suspend her with pay pending conclusion of the case.

This! If she's taking legal action against Red Bull, then they will pretty much have to suspend her (with pay of course).

So many people don't seem to grasp this. I'm surprised that this isn't obvious to more people.

Because that's just your interpretation and theory. A number of things could have happened to lead to this happening. You have no idea, like every other person on here. It's all theory, speculation and opinion.

[TFSA]

Because that's just your interpretation and theory. A number of things could have happened to lead to this happening. You have no idea, like every other person on here. It's all theory, speculation and opinion.

I never directly said that this was the definitive answer - that's just your interpretation and theory about what i said.

But it's one of the more likely explanations. So I was just surprised that it took almost 2 pages for someone to suggest it. In those two pages, there were a lot of alternate and much less viable theories being thrown around.

[FW17]

Could be that Red Bull Austria office and entire investigating team were not the source of the leak, and she was the only one in procession of the evidence.

Unlikely imo, if you are going to question Horner for hours you would need to show him what you are accusing him of!

Well it would have been quiet easy within the Red Bull Technology and Red Bull Gmbh for the IT team to track the evidence file. Who had access to it through email, and who had made a copy of it or forwarded it to some other personal account.

It could be that the women and her team outside Red Bull were the source of the leak

[skwdenyer]

For there to be a reason of being “dishonest” can mean many things.

Like Horner, however, she has a right to due process and to have her case heard. We should respect that.

Frankly we should also respect that in Horner’s case. There are far too many on here keen to damn him on the basis of incredibly flimsy substance.

Of course I can hypothesise. But what good does it do us?

What is perhaps telling us that the woman in question has been suspended, whereas Horner was not. That may give a steer as to the relative weight of evidence and seriousness of the respective allegations.

[myurr]

None of what you said here adresses his points myurr. He's not wrong in what he's saying and i don't find it toxic at all.

There are absolutely genuine concerns and problems with allowing potentially false accusations to go unpunished. It's perfectly possible for someone to make a complaint with ill intentions. Although it's most likely that it's an an insanely larger problem compared to harrassment cases, we see it all the times in custody cases, where lies and false accusations are weapons being waged on a grand scale. Bad faith absolutely exists, and it absolutely needs to be punished if it happens.

On the other hand, it's important to protect employees and make sure they can safely complain, without instantly scrutinizing them from all angles, and assuming they're lying. You don't want to discourage victims to come forward.

Ultimately it's an extremely hard balance to get right. But that doesn't invalidate his points or make them toxic.

Oh I agree that there should be genuine concerns with false accusations, and that those who falsify claims should be punished.

I take great issue at the suggestion that having a case dismissed automatically means that it was a malicious claim. There is a burden of proof the other way round to show that the claim was deliberately fabricated. There is a large grey area between the two where either the evidence was insufficient, there was genuine misunderstanding or misinterpretation, there was a process or procedural deficiency, etc.

[myurr]

What is perhaps telling us that the woman in question has been suspended, whereas Horner was not. That may give a steer as to the relative weight of evidence and seriousness of the respective allegations.

Or the relative balance of power

[TFSA]

Oh I agree that there should be genuine concerns with false accusations, and that those who falsify claims should be punished.

I take great issue at the suggestion that having a case dismissed automatically means that it was a malicious claim. There is a burden of proof the other way round to show that the claim was deliberately fabricated. There is a large grey area between the two where either the evidence was insufficient, there was genuine misunderstanding or misinterpretation, there was a process or procedural deficiency, etc.

I never read that from his post. What he said was:

If it's genuine, there would be ample evidence to fire the haarasser. If not and the committee finds wrong intent in complainant's part, the complainant should be fired for attempting damage of reputation for someone.

...which to me doesn't imply that's it's a given - just that it's a possibility.

[Mogster]

What is perhaps telling us that the woman in question has been suspended, whereas Horner was not. That may give a steer as to the relative weight of evidence and seriousness of the respective allegations.

Or the relative balance of power

It’s been suggested since this broke that payoffs have been offered and refused. Maybe suspension is more leaverage.

Whatever, I feel RBR needs to be transparent about about what has happenned and why, as the optics of this are very bad.