Christian Horner under Investigation

[Cs98]

I have to ask now about the other side of the coin. horner and family have had so much stress and concern over something he has been found innocent of.
Does the person bringing the charge now just carry on as normal, shrug and say Oh well. Then back to normal life? If the charge was about stressing or making them uncomfortable, surely they, and whoever released it to the press should now face equal charges?

Maybe if you could prove it was a false allegation. But proving an allegation is false requires evidence too. It doesn't logically follow that just because there wasn't enough evidence to prove that an allegation was true it must necessarily be false. Sometimes you simply don't know either way, and then it would be wrong to act on either party. Which just highlights the importance of keeping proceedings like this strictly confidential, because there isn't always a satisfactory clear cut "good" outcome. The fact that this leaked from RB GmbH is just atrocious.

I believe it's the plaintiff who needs to substantiate the case before the matter can go to court. Can't possibly be the other way around because making false accusations requires no thinking or evidence.

I believe there may be some truth but the case may have been exaggerated.

I'm not talking about going to court. I'm simply outlining some basic epistemology.

[CHT]

Maybe if you could prove it was a false allegation. But proving an allegation is false requires evidence too. It doesn't logically follow that just because there wasn't enough evidence to prove that an allegation was true it must necessarily be false. Sometimes you simply don't know either way, and then it would be wrong to act on either party. Which just highlights the importance of keeping proceedings like this strictly confidential, because there isn't always a satisfactory clear cut "good" outcome. The fact that this leaked from RB GmbH is just atrocious.

I believe it's the plaintiff who needs to substantiate the case before the matter can go to court. Can't possibly be the other way around because making false accusations requires no thinking or evidence.

I believe there may be some truth but the case may have been exaggerated.

I'm not talking about going to court. I'm simply outlining some basic epistemology.

The approach is the same because anyone can make false accusations and that doesn't mean the company needs to respond to every accusation, especially if there is no sufficient evidence. e.g. supposed someone accuses Newey of selling technical secrets to Ferrari, how is Newey going to prove that he didn't? This is just not possible.

[Big Tea]

I have to ask now about the other side of the coin. horner and family have had so much stress and concern over something he has been found innocent of.
Does the person bringing the charge now just carry on as normal, shrug and say Oh well. Then back to normal life? If the charge was about stressing or making them uncomfortable, surely they, and whoever released it to the press should now face equal charges?

Maybe if you could prove it was a false allegation. But proving an allegation is false requires evidence too. It doesn't logically follow that just because there wasn't enough evidence to prove that an allegation was true it must necessarily be false. Sometimes you simply don't know either way, and then it would be wrong to act on either party. Which just highlights the importance of keeping proceedings like this strictly confidential, because there isn't always a satisfactory clear cut "good" outcome. The fact that this leaked from RB GmbH is just atrocious.

I believe it's the plaintiff who needs to substantiate the case before the matter can go to court. Can't possibly be the other way around because making false accusations requires no thinking or evidence.

I believe there may be some truth but the case may have been exaggerated.

This matter never went to court, it was handled by (to all intents) a neutral arbitrator not acting on behalf or either party, but the company. So by the same token should it not now be set in motion by the same company an investigation to see if there is or seems to be malicious intent, and if so the punishment would be the same as it would have for Horner.
That being nothing to do with the (official) legal system but sanctions and/or reparation to the appropriate party. If however they were to uncover an internal semi official plot, well, I leave to to the imagination.

[CHT]

Maybe if you could prove it was a false allegation. But proving an allegation is false requires evidence too. It doesn't logically follow that just because there wasn't enough evidence to prove that an allegation was true it must necessarily be false. Sometimes you simply don't know either way, and then it would be wrong to act on either party. Which just highlights the importance of keeping proceedings like this strictly confidential, because there isn't always a satisfactory clear cut "good" outcome. The fact that this leaked from RB GmbH is just atrocious.

I believe it's the plaintiff who needs to substantiate the case before the matter can go to court. Can't possibly be the other way around because making false accusations requires no thinking or evidence.

I believe there may be some truth but the case may have been exaggerated.

This matter never went to court, it was handled by (to all intents) a neutral arbitrator not acting on behalf or either party, but the company. So by the same token should it not now be set in motion by the same company an investigation to see if there is or seems to be malicious intent, and if so the punishment would be the same as it would have for Horner.
That being nothing to do with the (official) legal system but sanctions and/or reparation to the appropriate party. If however they were to uncover an internal semi official plot, well, I leave to to the imagination.

For RB, the best outcome is to kill the news and not blow this up regardless if there is any malicious intent by the accuser. RB has got nothing to gain from going after the accuser for any false accusation. I have reason to believe that the evidence against Horner is weak, which is why they can reach this conclusion.

[Watto]

I believe it's the plaintiff who needs to substantiate the case before the matter can go to court. Can't possibly be the other way around because making false accusations requires no thinking or evidence.

I believe there may be some truth but the case may have been exaggerated.

This matter never went to court, it was handled by (to all intents) a neutral arbitrator not acting on behalf or either party, but the company. So by the same token should it not now be set in motion by the same company an investigation to see if there is or seems to be malicious intent, and if so the punishment would be the same as it would have for Horner.
That being nothing to do with the (official) legal system but sanctions and/or reparation to the appropriate party. If however they were to uncover an internal semi official plot, well, I leave to to the imagination.

For RB, the best outcome is to kill the news and not blow this up regardless if there is any malicious intent by the accuser. RB has got nothing to gain from going after the accuser for any false accusation. I have reason to believe that the evidence against Horner is weak, which is why they can reach this conclusion.

Yep most likely I think thats the best case, its why just saying Horner to do after news agencies for defo isn't as easy as it sounds have to prove one more than just their were false accusations make - more I don't think the media has said what he was accused off just a generic 'aggressive management style/inappropriate behavior without transcripts i'm unsure how that would go the accusers eveidence was not made public.

Also going to court just means this drags on even longer and a lot of than perhaps becomes very public may not be in RB best interests. Don't think its as easy as saying he hasn't sued them so he must've done something sometimes people just want to move on.

[Sevach]

Change the name of the thread to Christian Horner exonerated in investigation!!!

[CHT]

This matter never went to court, it was handled by (to all intents) a neutral arbitrator not acting on behalf or either party, but the company. So by the same token should it not now be set in motion by the same company an investigation to see if there is or seems to be malicious intent, and if so the punishment would be the same as it would have for Horner.
That being nothing to do with the (official) legal system but sanctions and/or reparation to the appropriate party. If however they were to uncover an internal semi official plot, well, I leave to to the imagination.

For RB, the best outcome is to kill the news and not blow this up regardless if there is any malicious intent by the accuser. RB has got nothing to gain from going after the accuser for any false accusation. I have reason to believe that the evidence against Horner is weak, which is why they can reach this conclusion.

Yep most likely I think thats the best case, its why just saying Horner to do after news agencies for defo isn't as easy as it sounds have to prove one more than just their were false accusations make - more I don't think the media has said what he was accused off just a generic 'aggressive management style/inappropriate behavior without transcripts i'm unsure how that would go the accusers eveidence was not made public.

Also going to court just means this drags on even longer and a lot of than perhaps becomes very public may not be in RB best interests. Don't think its as easy as saying he hasn't sued them so he must've done something sometimes people just want to move on.

With over 500 employees working at RBR, if there was systematic abuse by Horner on his staff, I would think there should be more than 1 complaint.

With this RB statement, I think it is fair to say that the evidence against Horner is noncriminal, and doesn't warrant further action or termination. F1 after all is not exactly the most women or family-friendly environment, in DTS season 5 there is already 163 uses of f-word.

"The independent investigation into the allegations made against Mr Horner is complete, and Red Bull can confirm that the grievance has been dismissed. The complainant has a right of appeal. Red Bull is confident that the investigation has been fair, rigorous and impartial."

[Watto]

For RB, the best outcome is to kill the news and not blow this up regardless if there is any malicious intent by the accuser. RB has got nothing to gain from going after the accuser for any false accusation. I have reason to believe that the evidence against Horner is weak, which is why they can reach this conclusion.

Yep most likely I think thats the best case, its why just saying Horner to do after news agencies for defo isn't as easy as it sounds have to prove one more than just their were false accusations make - more I don't think the media has said what he was accused off just a generic 'aggressive management style/inappropriate behavior without transcripts i'm unsure how that would go the accusers eveidence was not made public.

Also going to court just means this drags on even longer and a lot of than perhaps becomes very public may not be in RB best interests. Don't think its as easy as saying he hasn't sued them so he must've done something sometimes people just want to move on.

With over 500 employees working at RBR, if there was systematic abuse by Horner on his staff, I would think there should be more than 1 complaint.

With this RB statement, I think it is fair to say that the evidence against Horner is noncriminal, and doesn't warrant further action or termination. F1 after all is not exactly the most women or family-friendly environment, in DTS season 5 there is already 163 uses of f-word.

"The independent investigation into the allegations made against Mr Horner is complete, and Red Bull can confirm that the grievance has been dismissed. The complainant has a right of appeal. Red Bull is confident that the investigation has been fair, rigorous and impartial."

When the story first broke my though were a long the lines of RBR are used to people that perform in high pressure environments and he ran into someone that didn't and were quite possible given a serve for not performing as intended and not taken kindly to it. Made a comment earlier I remember a top footballer here (played in to 2000s -2010s comment about what coaches could and couldn't say to players changed over his career where some things from teh start could get you sacked. Not racist/abusive etc just sometimes players needed the riot act read to them so to speak. I remember him saying he though it had gone way too far.

I think enough happened to trigger the investigation. Just that maybe not as bad as the media reports made out. I think we see enough from the media to see he can be kinda abrasive - his stoushes with Toto and Merc doesn't mean though he crossed lines - as said somewhere hes almost like a politician

[Jurgen von Diaz]

F1 is full of corruption. We have had Briatore and Ecclestone. FIA wants to drive in middle east with missile strikes. So I think it isn't so impossible that Red Bull and Horner did get away from it with money.

[mendis]

F1 is full of corruption. We have had Briatore and Ecclestone. FIA wants to drive in middle east with missile strikes. So I think it isn't so impossible that Red Bull and Horner did get away from it with money.

If FIA is corrupt, so are the teams involved and the drivers. FIA is taking the sport where there is money. That money is going to the teams and they are happy. The drivers are being paid crazy money due to that and they are happy too. Audience sitting at home and watching F1 has no reason to be unhappy about where the races are being conducted. If the European countries cannot pay that kind of money to host races, too bad. But FIA doesn't do charity. Whether Christian Horner got away in this incident by throwing money at it or an extortion attempt from an employee failed. Who is there to confirm it?

[PapayaFan481]

This matter never went to court, it was handled by (to all intents) a neutral arbitrator not acting on behalf or either party, but the company. So by the same token should it not now be set in motion by the same company an investigation to see if there is or seems to be malicious intent, and if so the punishment would be the same as it would have for Horner.
That being nothing to do with the (official) legal system but sanctions and/or reparation to the appropriate party. If however they were to uncover an internal semi official plot, well, I leave to to the imagination.

For RB, the best outcome is to kill the news and not blow this up regardless if there is any malicious intent by the accuser. RB has got nothing to gain from going after the accuser for any false accusation. I have reason to believe that the evidence against Horner is weak, which is why they can reach this conclusion.

Yep most likely I think thats the best case, its why just saying Horner to do after news agencies for defo isn't as easy as it sounds have to prove one more than just their were false accusations make - more I don't think the media has said what he was accused off just a generic 'aggressive management style/inappropriate behavior without transcripts i'm unsure how that would go the accusers eveidence was not made public.

Also going to court just means this drags on even longer and a lot of than perhaps becomes very public may not be in RB best interests. Don't think its as easy as saying he hasn't sued them so he must've done something sometimes people just want to move on.

The other problem with taking any case to court is that you never know what discovery will find. Might be that Horner did nothing wrong, but discovery uncovers someone else doing something they shouldn't etc. Plus you never know how a jury will rule.

I think from a PR stand point, which is what F1 is ultimately all about, RBR and Horner are best putting this one to bed.

Given the speculation that the complainant was Horner's PA, I wonder if they'll clear her name if that was wrong because, sadly, she could face some abuse from fans too.

[Quantum]

Given the speculation that the complainant was Horner's PA, I wonder if they'll clear her name if that was wrong because, sadly, she could face some abuse from fans too.

Too late for that, she's already been abused online by some sections of fans.

[Redragon]

For RB, the best outcome is to kill the news and not blow this up regardless if there is any malicious intent by the accuser. RB has got nothing to gain from going after the accuser for any false accusation. I have reason to believe that the evidence against Horner is weak, which is why they can reach this conclusion.

Yep most likely I think thats the best case, its why just saying Horner to do after news agencies for defo isn't as easy as it sounds have to prove one more than just their were false accusations make - more I don't think the media has said what he was accused off just a generic 'aggressive management style/inappropriate behavior without transcripts i'm unsure how that would go the accusers eveidence was not made public.

Also going to court just means this drags on even longer and a lot of than perhaps becomes very public may not be in RB best interests. Don't think its as easy as saying he hasn't sued them so he must've done something sometimes people just want to move on.

With over 500 employees working at RBR, if there was systematic abuse by Horner on his staff, I would think there should be more than 1 complaint.

With this RB statement, I think it is fair to say that the evidence against Horner is noncriminal, and doesn't warrant further action or termination. F1 after all is not exactly the most women or family-friendly environment, in DTS season 5 there is already 163 uses of f-word.

"The independent investigation into the allegations made against Mr Horner is complete, and Red Bull can confirm that the grievance has been dismissed. The complainant has a right of appeal. Red Bull is confident that the investigation has been fair, rigorous and impartial."

I heard or read i don’t remember that he gave a speech to the workers on Tuesday. night. Not knowing the outcome and every one was supportive and clapping. So if he was such a bullie would be not that type of celebration

[Wouter]

With over 500 employees working at RBR, if there was systematic abuse by Horner on his staff, I would think there should be more than 1 complaint.

With this RB statement, I think it is fair to say that the evidence against Horner is noncriminal, and doesn't warrant further action or termination. F1 after all is not exactly the most women or family-friendly environment, in DTS season 5 there is already 163 uses of f-word.

"The independent investigation into the allegations made against Mr Horner is complete, and Red Bull can confirm that the grievance has been dismissed. The complainant has a right of appeal. Red Bull is confident that the investigation has been fair, rigorous and impartial."

.
I heard or read i don’t remember that he gave a speech to the workers on Tuesday. night. Not knowing the outcome and every one was supportive and clapping. So if he was such a bullie would be not that type of celebration

.
viewtopic.php?p=1191940#p1191940

[De Wet]

“The investigation report is confidential”

In a professional world, that's what happens, as legally required by laws of the land.

Exactly.

This happened to me about 20 years ago, except the situation was reversed, I was accused of inappropriate behaviour by a female manager (she was more senior than me) in a different part of the company I worked for.

The only other difference was, I got a weeks paid holiday while the investigation was carried out before I was cleared of wrong doing.

I still to this day have no f’n clue why she really raised a complaint against me.

Woman are Weird...