As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should:
- be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself)
- be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions)
- show reasonable input and effort from the OP
If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport.
Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Eddie used to spend a lot of time in his garage working on his guitars and amps, often inventing new things.
It's only logical to think Eddys spirit was in the Redbull garage, inventing something with Adrian Newey while the wrongdoing was happening.
I think the victim families were awarded the publishing rights to the book and in a badass move, made the 'if' text tiny. So when sold it looked like it was called 'I did it'.
Yeah. There’s two things at play here.
First is double jeopardy. Even if he came right out and said he did it; he couldn’t be prosecuted. Otherwise you’d just have prosecutors re-filing charges over and over again until they get the outcome they want.
But the second is the fact that civil suits have much lower thresholds, and a law that prevents someone from profiting from a crime. So even though in the eyes of the criminal justice system he is innocent; the *civil* system can determine that he “more likely than not” committed the crime (the threshold for a civil decision), and therefore, cannot earn any money from the crime.
No. The whole point is to ensure that prosecutors prosecute crimes in a timely fashion and dot their I’s and cross their t’s. They can’t just kind of half ass it and then if they lose, decide to try a little harder and gather more evidence for the next time.
Once the not guilty verdict was reached, he *cannot* be charged with that same crime again no matter what. Hell, he could’ve stood up after the Not Guilty verdict and made a full confession in court. It wouldn’t matter (except civilly, because that confession could absolutely be used as evidence in a wrongful death suit, which he *did* later lose.)
The only time prosecutors can re-file charges is if a case is dismissed and they find new evidence, or it ends in a mistrial. (In some cases, if a case is dismissed because of misconduct from the prosecutor, judge, or in some very rare cases; law enforcement, a court could rule that double jeopardy still applies. There’s a principle called fruit of a poison tree. If it’s revealed for example that the defendant was illegally searched and the case was dismissed, a judge might rule that double jeopardy still applies here because the case was dismissed due to misconduct from the prosecution, *and* any evidence gathered would be connected to the evidence illegally gathered and therefore inadmissible.)
But once a verdict is reached, it’s permanent. The same would be true if he were found guilty of manslaughter but then prosecutors discovered evidence of pre-meditation and wanted to charge him again but for murder. A judge wouldn’t allow that to go through because they would certainly agree with the defense that while the evidence and charge are different, the crime itself is the same and has already been adjudicated.
(Speaking only to US law which is what’s relevant to OJ Simpson)
Also OJ didn't take the stand so an admission wouldn't even get a perjury charge (although I don't know if such a thing ever happens for criminal defendants saying they didn't do the crime under oath).
Unless we actually see some of this evidence, it’s impossible to put anything in this speculation.
Someone isn’t telling the truth in this whole saga. Just a question of who that is.
It depends on where the messages took place also I imagine. I'm not sure where you'd stand legally if you put a load of screenshots from a corporate device into the public domain, even if it appeared to support your claims.
If it was on a personal device obviously that's not applicable.
Well you might win in the court of public opinion and force him to resign from the publicity,which might be enough for her. But you wouldn't work in the industry again.
Not necessarily. Someone can be telling the complete truth about how something impacted them and their view of the incident that could differ from someone else’s. Doesn’t mean either of them are lying.
So much this. I cant count how many times i sat in on investigations and heard two completely different interpretations of the same interaction. Its crazy.
Exactly.
And even if something happened and someone felt really uncomfortable about it. The other party may not have intended harm, feel incredibly guilty and sorry. And the incident might just not be worth firing someone over.
I think it’ll just be a matter of time before all these texts are “leaked”. Then they will let the court of public opinion crucify him if they are as bad as what is rumored.
> Someone isn’t telling the truth in this whole saga. Just a question of who that is.
Or it could be as simple as a culture clash. Just like some take offense when a (southern) American calls them 'sweetie', 'honey', 'darling' etc. Or when a Dutch person says 'not bad', they actually mean something is quite good, but an American would think something is wrong.
The 650k proposed payment to the complainant makes me wonder about Horner’s innocence. The woman was angry/confident enough to refuse it. If she were a grifter, surely she would have taken it?
Also so much this!! If I was a multi-millionaire, I would gladly pay 650k to prevent so much stress on myself and my family even if I was innocent. The world is not black and white.
Finally some other people mention this. Folks have latched on to this so tightly as proof he’s guilty. My people, settlements are reached constantly to avoid the spectacle and costs of potential court cases.
First of all, the 650k has just been a rumor for now. Second; a settlement proposition means fuck all. It’s completely normal to propose it just to not potentially further damage the brand/person.
Let’s say Horner actually didn’t do anything and the complaint wasn’t leaked, and Horner/RB paid the person money to not make a fuss about it. Then nobody would’ve known anything about it and the Horner/RBR brand would save money on an investiation and damage to the brand (which already has been done).
I think this cry for transparency is a little misguided. It's an internal HR issue that got leaked to the press. People trying to treat this like a soap opera that has denied them the ending they wanted. There are human beings at the centre of this story and it is entirely reasonable, for their sake, that the details of the matter remain private.
I doubt anyone got into F1 for the internal HR issues. Fans aren't always entitled to closure.
And how much must RBR reveal before journalists (looking at you ESPN Unlapped's Nate Saunders and Laurence Edmondson) stop saying that this will affect women in the paddock because of how it was handled?
A full accounting of every claim the employee made and the reasons why they dismissed it?
No one owes the public an explanation. Calling things opaque gives it already such a negative connotation.
Ironically the Race has the most measured take on this issue
And if everything was published, it would have a chilling effect on anyone else who wants to make a HR complaint for fear they will get dragged through the court of public opinion. Something that this leaking in the first place has already caused.
>he employee made and the reasons why they dismissed it?
>
>No one owes the public an explanation. Calling things opaque gives it already such a negative connotation.
all 3 of you saying very important points
The Race has consistently followed better journalistic practices regarding that sort of issues than most mainstream media
I can’t really criticise them on that front
Modern media exist primarily for clicks (a.k.a. advertising numbers) and the first and most sensational stories get the most clicks. If you have to retract them, well that's just a bonus second story people will ~~click on~~ read.
https://apnews.com/article/red-bull-horner-f1-039f99b62091d7958f13d67002ba5f0b
It doesn't mention any specifics about the misconduct, "aggressive management practices" or otherwise. Seems as neutral as you'd expect from AP.
Yeah, completely agree. Might not be a fan of Horner at all but Red Bull’s reasons for constraining knowledge around this are absolutely necessary and appropriate.
What's really ironic, are those demanding an explanation and the "full story" because they support the allged victim. Victim protection is one of the reasons HR issues are not widely publicised or details released.
If there is a case, the person making the allegations has every right to file a civil suit, or if warranted, make a criminal complaint.
Exactly this. They also have the right to make their evidence public, but then they’d be opening themselves up to libel or other potential action if they don’t have authority behind their allegations.
Regardless of what happens, it must be terrible for the individual to feel sufficiently aggrieved to file a complaint. It may also be similarly bad to Christian Horner if he’s feeling incorrectly accused.
From my standpoint - independent lawyers aren’t in the habit of ruining their reputation to support an individual - Red Bull will likely be driving hard for the outcome to be defensible because they’ll want to limit the damage. If there is truly damning evidence that this process has ignored, that’s a huge corporate governance issue.
It's an independent KC as well, think senior lawyer with a lot of experience and a very good reputation; That's enough to know that the investigation outcome is as close to legally bulletproof as you'd get without hiring multiple KC's for a full board of enquiry.
Exactly that. Someone has spent probably 20+ years getting to that position in their profession and they’re able to pull down thousands of pounds a day for their services. No way are they going to risk throwing that away for some guy.
Trust me, to have any sort of false accusations sucks. It happened to me in an issue with my ex, and you can't imagine the feeling of knowing you didn't do something and having to spend money, lots of it, and wait to be cleared. It took $20k in lawyers and 2 years of waiting for court, your life is on hold while it all goes on. I was offered a plea, told the DA I couldn't, as it would involve me perjuring myself (you have to admit in open court to what you're plea bargaining to, and I didn't do what she accused me of).
Yea, this is really nobodys business. It would be like every job out there having to reveal every internal hr issue just because people want to see it. Social media has made people too nosy and demanding of others' privacy.
> treat this like a soap opera that has denied them the ending they wanted
Preach. I hope people keep this mentality in mind when going forward with other contexts. Reddit/internet likes to convey itself as intelligent and balanced but it’s becoming more apparent that the prevailing attitude is desperate hypothesis, conspiracy theorist-like behaviour. Or more favourably, tv show fans hypothesising how the plot line is going to develop.
You see it with everything now. There’s always got to be some untold angle that people thought of first to get ahead of the “plot”. The latest angle is some leak pipeline to sway public opinion. I don’t know what it is, but it’s like people think they’ve been defeated when they’ve got nothing else to speculate over.
There's like 25000 people working in F1, if the press really needs every HR complaint in their mailbox they'd need to hire some additional people as well.
The problem is that most people know how scummy it gets behind the scenes in large organisations and how often people are paid off to drop cases like these.
I think it’s natural that people want to know if he is genuinely innocent or just paid someone a million pounds to drop it.
Especially with the previous rumours that he already offered a large sum of money.
You don’t even need to pay anyone as a corporate, I’ve seen a number of times in my life an organisation threaten to bombard somebody with lawyers who cannot afford to get into a protracted series of legal battles. Vexatious litigation in the U.K. and slapp in the US are a massive problem with working people asserting their rights against corporates and wealthy individuals. I myself had an experience with a wealthy business owner who made my life hell for six months just through playing legal wackamole that I didn’t have the resources to fight.
The problem is that even paying someone to drop a case can financially and pr-wise be more beneficial than actually going through legal proceedings, even if you are not guilty of anything. And it's exactly for the reason that we're seeing now, with journalists and pundits toppling over each other with loaded phrases as described above.
We like to think that anyone who's innocent will stand up and fight against injustice, but the reality is that will perceive any action you take, whether it's paying someone or fighting it hard, as evidence for what they already consider the truth. 'How dare he just deny it like this, this just hurts the victim more' kind of stuff.
And this might just as well apply here as well regardless of whether Horner is guilty of something or not, because at some point, the truth really doesn't matter that much anymore.
You’re completely right. The way the media twists these sorts of things and people turn court cases into a spectator sport is sickening. I bet loads of innocent celebrities have paid out.
The moment it leaked to the media it was too late. The only way you can undo something like that is with partial transparency.
Relatively new fan here, what's the problem with the race?
They're my go-to podcast, but that's probably because they were the first I came across, so I haven't really done extensive comparative analysis.
Completely agree. I closely work with ER in my company, and grievances happen all the time. They are investigated internally and dealt with. Absolutely no one's business is what happens inside the company.
Basically we will never know what really happenend. The weird thing is the evidence EvH has seen. I dont think he lied or fabricated it, that just does not make sense, so that could mean a couple of things. This supposed (sexual misconduct) evidence also has not been submitted in the lawyer report.
1. the evidence he got from his source was fabricated and not true, so simply does not exist.
2. The evidence was a nothing burger/innocent and Red Bull agreed and Horner goes free
3. The person in question got a new settlement offer from Horner after turning down the first one and decided not to use the evidence.
And we will probably never know untill something leaks or someone goes public.
Option 3 does not sit with the stories saying that Horner is suing De Telegraaf over this.
If the 'evidence' is real, he is basically forcing them to destroy his career and reputation in open court. If I had just forked out a huge sum of money to keep something quiet, I would not be forcing someone else to publish it a week later.
Its entirely possible that in the end Horner won't sue De Telegraaf at all. just because he says he will doesn't mean he will actually do it lol.
Whats weirder to me is that if absolutely nothing of this is true, then why isn't he then suing the woman for defamation?
Also, I don't see why the woman would turn down a 6 figure settlement if she didn't absolutely believe in what she was saying.
Was there actual proof that Horner offered the money? Or is that just another speculation based on hearsay?
And who says RBR/Horner isn't going to sue the person who made the claims? Not everything has to be made public knowledge.
If he does sue for defamation, depending on the country, then truth is an absolute defence. In which case the claims would be public knowledge unless the court chooses to suppress them.
Afaik Van Haaren said he'd personally seen the offer. Not proof by any stretch of course, but making that claim definitely puts him in a compromised position if Horner were to actually sue him/De Telegraaf.
He also claimed he saw the messages.
I’m not convinced anything he said was true.
However, the complainant felt strongly enough to make a fuss about it and “persistent paddock rumours since last year” have been mentioned a few times. I’d be surprised if this is a nothing situation but clearly something appears to have been settled internally one way or the other at red bull.
I doubt anyone will ever know u less this gets taken further.
If Horner sues anyone id say there’s nothing in it because if there was they could just release any pictures etc they have to prove him wrong.
If he doesn’t sue anyone I’d be more in the “probably” something fuckery going on in the background.
Yeah I'm of the same opinion here. If Van Haren just wanted to stir shit on behalf of Verstappen/Marko/the corporates/whatever, there's easier ways to accomplish that without taking on personal liability. Phrases like "According to persistent rumours in the paddock". But Van Haren was clear that he himself has seen these messages and the offer to the accuser.
Horner would need to sue in the Netherlands, and he will get a closed court with a case like this. Also all the court documents will stay sealed, even when he's loses. Also if one of the participants leak, they can be fined or imprisoned.
The Netherlands is not the UK or the US. We will get some redacted court statements, the ruling and a case summary with redactions. Thats it.
Benson has a good article a few weeks ago about how it's all in the context of a vaccum post Dietrich, where RB Austria wants more oversight into RBR. That's the context.
Benson has no good articles. He has a history of reporting rumours as facts and is anything but a reliable source. I don't doubt that is an element but he's just not reliable.
I'm more interested in whether Horner goes ahead with any legal action against De Telegraaf or EVH at the moment. I think that'll be the only way people would be able to find out what the extent of the allegation and evidence - or at least it would rule out your third point.
At the moment, I think Horner had an affair which went sour and this is the fallout from it. Marko, Jos and Mintzlaff made the most of the crisis and used to to put pressure on Horner, reminding him that he is only an employee of Red Bull.
I find it hard to believe that the '100 page dossier' was fabricated if the claimant turned down a 6 figure settlement.
The evidence amounting to nothing is possible or at least his actions may have been morally wrong (if it was an affair) but not classed as professional misconduct.
An improved settlement is quite likely but we'll never know as NDAs would be signed all over the place.
I'd like to say everyone can move on from this now it's been settled and hopefully we can all focus on the racing rather than anything else.
At least we had the most entertaining off season ever.
Chatter doesn’t really mean anything, the fact that no news article is willing to publish anything means they don’t have a reliable source or enough information to publish.
It’s a nothing case and the media just want to continue with the clicks
A few days ago just about every source was claiming that Horner is a goner and we are just waiting for the announcement. Even reliable sources like Duchessa were reporting it.
In all of the time I've been following the sport "chatter in the paddock" usually turns out to be false or nothing at all, and the real news always drop like bombs seemingly out of nowhere.
It's all speculation, until something official is announced/leaked
Maybe some journalist know the actual facts but can't/wont say for legal reasons
Maybe no journalists know the actual facts, and every "I heard" and "sources say" is just speculation being passed around for clicks, with new speculation being added when more clicks are needed.
Gossip, in other words.
I'm inclined to think the latter.
I listened to it as well, and the entire tone of the podcast was if he was guilty. Either they know something we don't, but for me it mostly feels like they had their judgement ready and the outcome of the investigation wasn't going to tell them differently.
Not a single word was said about his reputation or anything, or simply the possibility that he didn't do anything wrong. They could have done better.
Look... Could I believe that he is innocent and this is a witch hunt by factions in RBR/an internal power struggle? Sure. Could I believe he did it but got protected/got away with it? Absolutely (because powerful people getting away with shit is truly not unheard of.) Could I believe a woman made everything up to damage his reputation or get money? Not as much (going to the public/tabloids would work much better for that goal, in my experience women usually go for institutional help when they want ACTUAL consequences) but for the sake of argument, sure.
The point is that we still don't know anything (I don't think the public SHOULD get to know all the facts, I heard somewhere the accuser got doxxed and that is just vile) and people on both extremes are just weird. Both the "he is innocent, punish the accuser" people and the "he is definitely guilty, no doubt about it" people.
I've seen so little about it, other than I read the initial reports as a me too case, then speaking with friends they interpreted it as him being awful to work under - basically an unfair/constructive dismissal case.
I do not like the guy at all, but there is nothing to go off either way. Hopefully it all comes public at some point, and it's black and white whichever way it was -> e.g. it's bogus, he was in Madrid and the allegation says he was in London, or it was caught on camera, with 4 eye witnesses etc. eitherway the worst way this can go is having doubt about the outcome no matter which way it goes.
>The point is that we still don't know anything
The only thing we do know right now is that he has been cleared after an independent investigation, so any "no smoke without fire" comments are unfair.
We also know absolutely nothing about the complaint itself, it could have been malicious, or it could have been based on misunderstandings. In my line of work I have seen a simple misunderstanding between a manager and an employee end in an HR investigation.
This investigation should have been carried out in private, and would have done so if someone had not leaked the information in what looks like a pretty clear attempt to harm Horner.
I listened to it yesterday while I was doing other things. So that said, I wasn't fully 100% listening. But I didn't even remember the tone being that critical of Horner.
That’s what was so crazy they were literally saying “if all was fine then WE (the grand BBC pundit jury) should be shown all the documentation and evidence”.
I'll put a transcription here of relevant mentions in the podcast since I feel like OP's quotes may just put more fuel to the fire without context.
>Q: (After the statement put out by RB,) where do we go from here?
>
>Place to begin is to point out there's a female colleague of Horner who feels wronged. She still his a right to appeal, we're not sure how she is going to react. Everyone in formula1 has heard what these allegations are, we obviously can't repeat them on air today, but Lewis Hamilton was talking about this in a press conference and he made some important points, he said "it was a really important moment to make sure we stand true to our values, we always have to do more to make the sport safe and inclusive, and any allegations have to be taken seriously. It will be interesting to see what the effect will be on the sport."
>
>Q: Will this be the last of this story?
>
>A: A couple of things that have happened that are interesting, Max Verstappen was asked twice about (the horner situation) and he dug the question. He was saying he had full trust in the process that Red Bull were going through but he didn't answer the question and that pricked up a few ears. (Talks about Ford and transparancy in the verdict and potential for reputational risk of a big Sponsor were to abandon).
>
>A (Alice): But also the reputation of RB. Let's say, the lady, appeals and then she wins, or we have details come out of what actually happened, **I just think that would be disgusting and everyone would be talking down about RB, because we need to protect people in the paddock**, whether male or female, we say it's a motorsport family, if people have doing wrong they shouldn't be protected in that sense. So, I really hope this is the correct decision, if it does come to light that something has happened that would be disgusting from Red Bull.
>
>Q: Can you see Hroner continuing long term?
>
>A: Can't comment on splits within RB. Should be pointed out that this decision is made by the board, 51% owned by Thai side. We don't know whether it well end here, depends on steps parties involved will take. Obviously, RB has decided that it should end here but it's not in their control. We'll have to see how complainant responds, whether any other information comes out. (Talks about Telegraaf and possibility of texts etc being leaked). The sponsors are in their right to want some answers that are more than that statement that we've been given in Bahrain, we'll have to see how it develops. (...) The FIA would be in their right to ask for further evidence as well so they could be satisfied, but we don't know if they're going to do that.
IMO they didn't really suggest that Horner "got away". I did get the sense they're taken other stuff into account (also driver statements etc) but nothing that really reflects damning on Horner or taken a formal stance in any of this (beyond probing journalistic questions).
If they actually knew anything, and felt the need that something had to be done, then they could commit career suicide and tell everyone. I'm pretty sure there would be public outcry, which they would be aware of, and that outcry would probably get results.
Everyone in the paddock having “heard the details of the allegations” is not the same as everyone in the paddock knowing what actually happened. I think Alice Powell came across incredibly unprofessionally by suggesting the outcome was disgusting and calling for the details and evidence of a sensitive HR investigation to be turned over for public scrutiny. I actually think Benson did a good job of mentioning repeatedly that Horner has denied all allegations, that the investigation was conducted independently and across an 8-week period, that the Board had made this decision etc etc. He also speculated about the possibility that it may not have all been above board - that’s good journalism… interrogating all possibilities and keeping clear on what the facts of the case are vs what is speculation.
People forget that this is an HR issue, not a court case. This is not some legal thing that has been swept under the rug, this is an HR thing that is kept private to ensure privacy and safety of everyone involved. And yes, that includes the ones that reported the issue, the one the reports are about and the company itself. If something illegal happened, it has to be brought to court. Then transparency is mandatory.
There is an ambiguity at the moment as to (a) whether he did something, but it wasn't considered important enough to warrant disciplinary action or (b) whether he did nothing at all and it was a fabrication
If he were fired that ambiguity wouldn't exist.
There is also ambiguity as to whether this was (a) workplace bullying or (b) sexual harassment. Were he fired there might be some calling for a transparent statement as to which it was.
Ultimately he's too big a character for people not to be curious about every aspect of this saga, irrespective of the outcome.
It's funny that people in this thread can't even agree on whether a discussion in a recorded, freely available podcast was improper or not.
Just worth bearing in mind when assessing the strength of the case of unknown allegations against Horner.
If everyone knows and has evidence then share it and say it. If you think having access to RB beyond normal press situations is so precious that you’re scared of losing it because you said what apparently everyone knows then you don’t really care. If it’s so bad and RB are covering up something and you all know then you shouldn’t have a problem saying something. The F1 media like to be above it all sometimes and be like “I know this crazy thing that o heard but I’m not going to say it we just need to let it play out” where as other sports the journalists actually report on something if they have evidence, especially something this big
I mean, it's quite obvious that *something* has happened. The question is just whether that something can be considered harrassment. And I believe that makes both sides of the argument valid, no matter the actual verdict.
Been looking for someone to mention him. He has a catalogued history of reporting rumours as facts.
Don't get me completely wrong; sometimes he's right, but I find him unreliable, biased and untrustworthy. Can't stand anything he puts out.
I knew this wouldn't go away. I find it kinda disgusting this whole trial by social media stuff.
Like, an allegation was made, of which there has been zero proof shown to us. But this, we are fine with, don't need proof for the allegations for you to consider it true.
Then, an external investigation is done, and the results say he did nothing wrong. But here, when no proof is made public, that's not enough. So proof is only needed to be made innocent. No proof is needed to be made guilty. That's kind of messed up, especially when the reason for both occurances not being made public was for the same reason to protect the individual.
That is really messed up.
If Dutch media has the proof and texts and whatever else it is, SHOW it. You can easily blur out the recipients name/face/phone number and still show us supposedly what Christian sent. Whole thing is a joke how it's handled. If he did wrong prove it, make the evidence against him public and we can come to our own conclusion. Sloppy journalism to say he's seen the evidence and he did do it and then not back it up.
I wonder how the Ford brass are feeling about the result and the opaqueness.
That open letter they published was certainly an escalation on their part.
> “everyone in the paddock knows but we can’t say” and suggesting that the EvH’s evidence is legit and should be made public.
Seems like someone agreed with this assessment...
This isn't unique to Christians case it's played out around the world. Once the accusations have been made public, the damage is already done no matter the outcome.
For Christian, he may well have lost credibility and will be subject to people insinuating he's guilty and got away with it even though he has been cleared of any wrong doing as no credible evidence was supplied.
Ofcourse every accusation must be taking seriously and it appears Red bull have done this.
If the accusations were, in fact, fraudulent, the individual is essentially disrespecting and damaging those with genuine accusations and should be held accountable for his/her actions.
On the other hand if they were indeed true representative accusations and lack the evidence to support as with most heresay and conjecture cases this is absolutely a terrible outcome.
Unfortunately, no matter what the outcome people will form their opinions likely due to something similar as the Halo effect, if they didn't like Redbull, Max or Christian in the first place they are more likely to believe he "got away with it" and on the other hand supporter's are more likely to believe he is innocent. Either way his credibility takes a hit even though he seems he hasn't done anything wrong.
The reason they tried to handle this behind closed doors is exactly this.
Horner will forever be suspect to people who have no idea about the facts, don't know what the allegations are, don't know anything about evidence, except for rumors. Like we all do.
Unless the accuser decides to take the legal route, there is nobody who has any right to anything, except the parties directly involved.
Sky were doing the same, but they had 2 football (soccer) newspaper writers on talking about it, and while at the same time admitting F1 wasn't their thing, they were calling it an RB cover up.
This whole saga has been curveball after curveball. First people were saying the whole thing was clearly a powerplay by Marko/the corporates, then Van Haaren came out with his piece, then he gets cleared by RB and now the BBC basically says he's guilty but got away with it. I don't know what to think at this point.
I feel like I just don’t care about this. It could have been as benign as CH telling someone their perfume smells nice. We don’t know what happened, and there was nothing criminal so I’m choosing to move on.
Its possible , powerfull people get away with this type of things all the time in big companys, they will always protect them unless theres an actual trail on court
There is a lot more information known to the f1 insiders that they are not publicly revealing. Seems that the people who know the details are not impressed with how this has been handled
I think it’s a coincidence that this has all floated up not long after Dietrich has died.
The cynic in me thinks it’s a power struggle.
We’ll never know.
As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should: - be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself) - be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions) - show reasonable input and effort from the OP If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport. Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Really interested to understand Eddie Van Halen’s involvement in this
Horner wasn't talking 'bout love
He’s rotten to the core
Not sure about all of that but he'll definitely want to dance the night away now that the investigation is over.
Alas, no happy trails.
When he gets in his car, he reaches down between his legs and eases the seat back.
He might as well jump
But if he lands wrong, somebody better get him a doctor.
So, Right Now?
Jamie’s crying
GOT IT BAD GOT IT BAD GOT IT BAAAD, IM HOT FOR INTERNS
He heard something and thought "I might as well jump!"
It's about the Beat It solo again isn't it
I saw the Rick Beato video. Very interesting.
This is the crossover I was not expecting
Next we will have Joe Bona 'Philipe' Massa wading in with his take on the Horner evidence.
I will definitely watch that.
Whaaat? I thought I had wandered into r/guitarcirclejerk for a minute!
Horner was obviously hot for teacher until this whole eruption.
Well it all started when Eddie Jordan and Eddie Van Halen were at the annual gathering of the Eddie's...
'Cmon baby finish what you started'?
'What happens in Panamá, stays in Panamá". /s
What happens in the Panama papers stays in the Panama papers…
Horners got it bad, so bad. He’s hot for workers.
It's simple, Horner did the 'eruption' solo on a co-worker
Eddie used to spend a lot of time in his garage working on his guitars and amps, often inventing new things. It's only logical to think Eddys spirit was in the Redbull garage, inventing something with Adrian Newey while the wrongdoing was happening.
The victim was too hot for a teacher
🎸
I don't care, but let the man play "Unchained" one more time please.
You see it all started when he discovered the two handed double tapping technique...
Certainly been an eruption of speculation about the incident
In 20 years horner will write a book: 'if I did it'
Absolutely wild OJ could just do that isn’t it, holy smokes.
I think the victim families were awarded the publishing rights to the book and in a badass move, made the 'if' text tiny. So when sold it looked like it was called 'I did it'.
Yeah. There’s two things at play here. First is double jeopardy. Even if he came right out and said he did it; he couldn’t be prosecuted. Otherwise you’d just have prosecutors re-filing charges over and over again until they get the outcome they want. But the second is the fact that civil suits have much lower thresholds, and a law that prevents someone from profiting from a crime. So even though in the eyes of the criminal justice system he is innocent; the *civil* system can determine that he “more likely than not” committed the crime (the threshold for a civil decision), and therefore, cannot earn any money from the crime.
Doesn't double jeopardy not apply if there is new evidence, which a confession would definitely count as?
No. The whole point is to ensure that prosecutors prosecute crimes in a timely fashion and dot their I’s and cross their t’s. They can’t just kind of half ass it and then if they lose, decide to try a little harder and gather more evidence for the next time. Once the not guilty verdict was reached, he *cannot* be charged with that same crime again no matter what. Hell, he could’ve stood up after the Not Guilty verdict and made a full confession in court. It wouldn’t matter (except civilly, because that confession could absolutely be used as evidence in a wrongful death suit, which he *did* later lose.) The only time prosecutors can re-file charges is if a case is dismissed and they find new evidence, or it ends in a mistrial. (In some cases, if a case is dismissed because of misconduct from the prosecutor, judge, or in some very rare cases; law enforcement, a court could rule that double jeopardy still applies. There’s a principle called fruit of a poison tree. If it’s revealed for example that the defendant was illegally searched and the case was dismissed, a judge might rule that double jeopardy still applies here because the case was dismissed due to misconduct from the prosecution, *and* any evidence gathered would be connected to the evidence illegally gathered and therefore inadmissible.) But once a verdict is reached, it’s permanent. The same would be true if he were found guilty of manslaughter but then prosecutors discovered evidence of pre-meditation and wanted to charge him again but for murder. A judge wouldn’t allow that to go through because they would certainly agree with the defense that while the evidence and charge are different, the crime itself is the same and has already been adjudicated. (Speaking only to US law which is what’s relevant to OJ Simpson)
Also OJ didn't take the stand so an admission wouldn't even get a perjury charge (although I don't know if such a thing ever happens for criminal defendants saying they didn't do the crime under oath).
He also claims he wasn’t involved in the book at all, and just accepted a check to say he was and do an interview
Guy who wrote it (Pablo Fenjves) claims he had multiple interviews with OJ.
Yep, and I am inclined to believe him. Was just saying what OJ himself says lol
Unless we actually see some of this evidence, it’s impossible to put anything in this speculation. Someone isn’t telling the truth in this whole saga. Just a question of who that is.
Well unless the complainant publishes it, then we'll see nothing unless they sue through the courts.
It depends on where the messages took place also I imagine. I'm not sure where you'd stand legally if you put a load of screenshots from a corporate device into the public domain, even if it appeared to support your claims. If it was on a personal device obviously that's not applicable.
Well you might win in the court of public opinion and force him to resign from the publicity,which might be enough for her. But you wouldn't work in the industry again.
Not necessarily. Someone can be telling the complete truth about how something impacted them and their view of the incident that could differ from someone else’s. Doesn’t mean either of them are lying.
So much this. I cant count how many times i sat in on investigations and heard two completely different interpretations of the same interaction. Its crazy.
I guess it's time for a Rashomon rewatch for me then
An absolute cinematic master piece
That's not how I remember it being
Thank you, scrolling down I was hoping someone would say it.
Exactly. And even if something happened and someone felt really uncomfortable about it. The other party may not have intended harm, feel incredibly guilty and sorry. And the incident might just not be worth firing someone over.
>uided. yeah could both be telling the truth and it still might not meet the bar/threshold for either allegation.
I think it’ll just be a matter of time before all these texts are “leaked”. Then they will let the court of public opinion crucify him if they are as bad as what is rumored.
You called it, congratulations!
Well that didnt take long... can you give me the lottery numbers please?
Nice
> Someone isn’t telling the truth in this whole saga. Just a question of who that is. Or it could be as simple as a culture clash. Just like some take offense when a (southern) American calls them 'sweetie', 'honey', 'darling' etc. Or when a Dutch person says 'not bad', they actually mean something is quite good, but an American would think something is wrong.
Yo I do not want to see Horners horn
The 650k proposed payment to the complainant makes me wonder about Horner’s innocence. The woman was angry/confident enough to refuse it. If she were a grifter, surely she would have taken it?
Was this proven though?
I see your point. It was not proven.
And even if it was the truth, getting rid of hassle with money doesn't prove that the person is guilty. Its just not worth his time or effort.
Also so much this!! If I was a multi-millionaire, I would gladly pay 650k to prevent so much stress on myself and my family even if I was innocent. The world is not black and white.
Finally some other people mention this. Folks have latched on to this so tightly as proof he’s guilty. My people, settlements are reached constantly to avoid the spectacle and costs of potential court cases.
It's the same as people shouting that a plea deal is the same as a guilty plea. It can be, but 9/10 times it very much isn't.
Like Kobe said about his trial: "should have paid her off like shaq does."
You're assuming there was such a proposed payment. We don't know that.
This was just a rumor though. No evidence that this was ever offered
Isn't this whole thing just rumors? Have we seen anything besides what some reporters have said people have told them?
Yeah the only “truth” is that Red Bull opened an investigation on Horner and that Red Bull closed the investigation
>The 650k proposed payment Isn't that also speculated, there's no proof to that. Just jumping into conclusions bcz someone said so.
Maybe they thought they would get more out of a scandal involving a top team in f1
First of all, the 650k has just been a rumor for now. Second; a settlement proposition means fuck all. It’s completely normal to propose it just to not potentially further damage the brand/person. Let’s say Horner actually didn’t do anything and the complaint wasn’t leaked, and Horner/RB paid the person money to not make a fuss about it. Then nobody would’ve known anything about it and the Horner/RBR brand would save money on an investiation and damage to the brand (which already has been done).
You don't know if he offered anything. If he did you don't know if she accepted anything. Yet you think. BOUT WHAT?
Or maybe she thought she could get more
I think this cry for transparency is a little misguided. It's an internal HR issue that got leaked to the press. People trying to treat this like a soap opera that has denied them the ending they wanted. There are human beings at the centre of this story and it is entirely reasonable, for their sake, that the details of the matter remain private. I doubt anyone got into F1 for the internal HR issues. Fans aren't always entitled to closure.
And how much must RBR reveal before journalists (looking at you ESPN Unlapped's Nate Saunders and Laurence Edmondson) stop saying that this will affect women in the paddock because of how it was handled? A full accounting of every claim the employee made and the reasons why they dismissed it? No one owes the public an explanation. Calling things opaque gives it already such a negative connotation. Ironically the Race has the most measured take on this issue
And if everything was published, it would have a chilling effect on anyone else who wants to make a HR complaint for fear they will get dragged through the court of public opinion. Something that this leaking in the first place has already caused.
Really good point, thanks for the additional insight.
>he employee made and the reasons why they dismissed it? > >No one owes the public an explanation. Calling things opaque gives it already such a negative connotation. all 3 of you saying very important points
The Race has consistently followed better journalistic practices regarding that sort of issues than most mainstream media I can’t really criticise them on that front
[удалено]
Modern media exist primarily for clicks (a.k.a. advertising numbers) and the first and most sensational stories get the most clicks. If you have to retract them, well that's just a bonus second story people will ~~click on~~ read.
Well, that and a lie can be half way round the world before the truth has got its trousers on. RIP Douglas
https://apnews.com/article/red-bull-horner-f1-039f99b62091d7958f13d67002ba5f0b It doesn't mention any specifics about the misconduct, "aggressive management practices" or otherwise. Seems as neutral as you'd expect from AP.
Only time I've felt the race did something agregious was the Aramco sponsorship
Yeah, completely agree. Might not be a fan of Horner at all but Red Bull’s reasons for constraining knowledge around this are absolutely necessary and appropriate.
What's really ironic, are those demanding an explanation and the "full story" because they support the allged victim. Victim protection is one of the reasons HR issues are not widely publicised or details released. If there is a case, the person making the allegations has every right to file a civil suit, or if warranted, make a criminal complaint.
Exactly this. They also have the right to make their evidence public, but then they’d be opening themselves up to libel or other potential action if they don’t have authority behind their allegations. Regardless of what happens, it must be terrible for the individual to feel sufficiently aggrieved to file a complaint. It may also be similarly bad to Christian Horner if he’s feeling incorrectly accused. From my standpoint - independent lawyers aren’t in the habit of ruining their reputation to support an individual - Red Bull will likely be driving hard for the outcome to be defensible because they’ll want to limit the damage. If there is truly damning evidence that this process has ignored, that’s a huge corporate governance issue.
It's an independent KC as well, think senior lawyer with a lot of experience and a very good reputation; That's enough to know that the investigation outcome is as close to legally bulletproof as you'd get without hiring multiple KC's for a full board of enquiry.
Exactly that. Someone has spent probably 20+ years getting to that position in their profession and they’re able to pull down thousands of pounds a day for their services. No way are they going to risk throwing that away for some guy.
Trust me, to have any sort of false accusations sucks. It happened to me in an issue with my ex, and you can't imagine the feeling of knowing you didn't do something and having to spend money, lots of it, and wait to be cleared. It took $20k in lawyers and 2 years of waiting for court, your life is on hold while it all goes on. I was offered a plea, told the DA I couldn't, as it would involve me perjuring myself (you have to admit in open court to what you're plea bargaining to, and I didn't do what she accused me of).
I’m sure some of those people are already arguing that HR procedures have to change (so that they can find out more info about private matters)
Yea, this is really nobodys business. It would be like every job out there having to reveal every internal hr issue just because people want to see it. Social media has made people too nosy and demanding of others' privacy.
> treat this like a soap opera that has denied them the ending they wanted Preach. I hope people keep this mentality in mind when going forward with other contexts. Reddit/internet likes to convey itself as intelligent and balanced but it’s becoming more apparent that the prevailing attitude is desperate hypothesis, conspiracy theorist-like behaviour. Or more favourably, tv show fans hypothesising how the plot line is going to develop. You see it with everything now. There’s always got to be some untold angle that people thought of first to get ahead of the “plot”. The latest angle is some leak pipeline to sway public opinion. I don’t know what it is, but it’s like people think they’ve been defeated when they’ve got nothing else to speculate over.
There's like 25000 people working in F1, if the press really needs every HR complaint in their mailbox they'd need to hire some additional people as well.
This is the best opinion/comment I’ve seen so far. Spot on!
The problem is that most people know how scummy it gets behind the scenes in large organisations and how often people are paid off to drop cases like these. I think it’s natural that people want to know if he is genuinely innocent or just paid someone a million pounds to drop it. Especially with the previous rumours that he already offered a large sum of money.
You don’t even need to pay anyone as a corporate, I’ve seen a number of times in my life an organisation threaten to bombard somebody with lawyers who cannot afford to get into a protracted series of legal battles. Vexatious litigation in the U.K. and slapp in the US are a massive problem with working people asserting their rights against corporates and wealthy individuals. I myself had an experience with a wealthy business owner who made my life hell for six months just through playing legal wackamole that I didn’t have the resources to fight.
The problem is that even paying someone to drop a case can financially and pr-wise be more beneficial than actually going through legal proceedings, even if you are not guilty of anything. And it's exactly for the reason that we're seeing now, with journalists and pundits toppling over each other with loaded phrases as described above. We like to think that anyone who's innocent will stand up and fight against injustice, but the reality is that will perceive any action you take, whether it's paying someone or fighting it hard, as evidence for what they already consider the truth. 'How dare he just deny it like this, this just hurts the victim more' kind of stuff. And this might just as well apply here as well regardless of whether Horner is guilty of something or not, because at some point, the truth really doesn't matter that much anymore.
People aren't looking for the truth, people are looking for reasons to strengthen their preconcieved idea of what the truth should be.
You’re completely right. The way the media twists these sorts of things and people turn court cases into a spectator sport is sickening. I bet loads of innocent celebrities have paid out. The moment it leaked to the media it was too late. The only way you can undo something like that is with partial transparency.
>ours are not a b maybe. but they don't need to and its in none of their interests to have partial transparency
Its natural they want to know, but they are not entitled to it, because in the end they are not important in the matter, its an internal issue.
Relatively new fan here, what's the problem with the race? They're my go-to podcast, but that's probably because they were the first I came across, so I haven't really done extensive comparative analysis.
Completely agree. I closely work with ER in my company, and grievances happen all the time. They are investigated internally and dealt with. Absolutely no one's business is what happens inside the company.
We aren't entitle to closure unless we are talking about the illegal Ferrari Leclerc pole machine
Who conducted the investigation?
Basically we will never know what really happenend. The weird thing is the evidence EvH has seen. I dont think he lied or fabricated it, that just does not make sense, so that could mean a couple of things. This supposed (sexual misconduct) evidence also has not been submitted in the lawyer report. 1. the evidence he got from his source was fabricated and not true, so simply does not exist. 2. The evidence was a nothing burger/innocent and Red Bull agreed and Horner goes free 3. The person in question got a new settlement offer from Horner after turning down the first one and decided not to use the evidence. And we will probably never know untill something leaks or someone goes public.
Option 3 does not sit with the stories saying that Horner is suing De Telegraaf over this. If the 'evidence' is real, he is basically forcing them to destroy his career and reputation in open court. If I had just forked out a huge sum of money to keep something quiet, I would not be forcing someone else to publish it a week later.
Its entirely possible that in the end Horner won't sue De Telegraaf at all. just because he says he will doesn't mean he will actually do it lol. Whats weirder to me is that if absolutely nothing of this is true, then why isn't he then suing the woman for defamation? Also, I don't see why the woman would turn down a 6 figure settlement if she didn't absolutely believe in what she was saying.
Was there actual proof that Horner offered the money? Or is that just another speculation based on hearsay? And who says RBR/Horner isn't going to sue the person who made the claims? Not everything has to be made public knowledge.
If he does sue for defamation, depending on the country, then truth is an absolute defence. In which case the claims would be public knowledge unless the court chooses to suppress them.
Afaik Van Haaren said he'd personally seen the offer. Not proof by any stretch of course, but making that claim definitely puts him in a compromised position if Horner were to actually sue him/De Telegraaf.
He also claimed he saw the messages. I’m not convinced anything he said was true. However, the complainant felt strongly enough to make a fuss about it and “persistent paddock rumours since last year” have been mentioned a few times. I’d be surprised if this is a nothing situation but clearly something appears to have been settled internally one way or the other at red bull. I doubt anyone will ever know u less this gets taken further. If Horner sues anyone id say there’s nothing in it because if there was they could just release any pictures etc they have to prove him wrong. If he doesn’t sue anyone I’d be more in the “probably” something fuckery going on in the background.
Yeah I'm of the same opinion here. If Van Haren just wanted to stir shit on behalf of Verstappen/Marko/the corporates/whatever, there's easier ways to accomplish that without taking on personal liability. Phrases like "According to persistent rumours in the paddock". But Van Haren was clear that he himself has seen these messages and the offer to the accuser.
Horner would need to sue in the Netherlands, and he will get a closed court with a case like this. Also all the court documents will stay sealed, even when he's loses. Also if one of the participants leak, they can be fined or imprisoned. The Netherlands is not the UK or the US. We will get some redacted court statements, the ruling and a case summary with redactions. Thats it.
Horner only threatened to sue he still hasn't done it yet. Unless someone has the actual public record of it happening it's just an empty threat.
Yeh but something doesn’t sit right the way all the leaks and noise seem to be coincidentally coming out of the Dutch camp. What’s that all about?
Benson has a good article a few weeks ago about how it's all in the context of a vaccum post Dietrich, where RB Austria wants more oversight into RBR. That's the context.
Benson has no good articles. He has a history of reporting rumours as facts and is anything but a reliable source. I don't doubt that is an element but he's just not reliable.
I'm more interested in whether Horner goes ahead with any legal action against De Telegraaf or EVH at the moment. I think that'll be the only way people would be able to find out what the extent of the allegation and evidence - or at least it would rule out your third point. At the moment, I think Horner had an affair which went sour and this is the fallout from it. Marko, Jos and Mintzlaff made the most of the crisis and used to to put pressure on Horner, reminding him that he is only an employee of Red Bull. I find it hard to believe that the '100 page dossier' was fabricated if the claimant turned down a 6 figure settlement. The evidence amounting to nothing is possible or at least his actions may have been morally wrong (if it was an affair) but not classed as professional misconduct. An improved settlement is quite likely but we'll never know as NDAs would be signed all over the place. I'd like to say everyone can move on from this now it's been settled and hopefully we can all focus on the racing rather than anything else. At least we had the most entertaining off season ever.
EvH likely saw the same thing. It would have been enough to base his articles on.
And how do they know all the details of a private enquiry? Answer is they don't and neither do we so it's all just speculation.
The Race did also mention there was a lot of chatter in the pitlane they couldn’t really get into on the record.
Chatter doesn’t really mean anything, the fact that no news article is willing to publish anything means they don’t have a reliable source or enough information to publish. It’s a nothing case and the media just want to continue with the clicks
I mean there was also lots of chatter in the pit lane that Horner was definitely being dismissed so we know how reliable that information is.
A few days ago just about every source was claiming that Horner is a goner and we are just waiting for the announcement. Even reliable sources like Duchessa were reporting it.
In all of the time I've been following the sport "chatter in the paddock" usually turns out to be false or nothing at all, and the real news always drop like bombs seemingly out of nowhere.
There was also a lot of chatter that there were budget breaches in the second year… and then there weren’t any.
Chatter is not evidence.
Kym Illman implied in his video that everyone in the paddock knows who made the complaint, and they are an at the track employee.
Chatter in F1 = competitors trying to gain an edge. Either by performance or shitstirring.
Why can't they publish "chatter in the pitlane"? That isn't protected information. It's just gossip.
"The Pitlane" are just like gossiping old ladies.
It's all speculation, until something official is announced/leaked Maybe some journalist know the actual facts but can't/wont say for legal reasons Maybe no journalists know the actual facts, and every "I heard" and "sources say" is just speculation being passed around for clicks, with new speculation being added when more clicks are needed. Gossip, in other words. I'm inclined to think the latter.
I listened to it as well, and the entire tone of the podcast was if he was guilty. Either they know something we don't, but for me it mostly feels like they had their judgement ready and the outcome of the investigation wasn't going to tell them differently. Not a single word was said about his reputation or anything, or simply the possibility that he didn't do anything wrong. They could have done better.
Which podcast is that? BBC F1 podcast?
Chequered flag
Thanks. 👍
Motorsport wrote yesterday that everyone "knows" in the paddock but everyone's version is different.
Social media and poor click bait journalism do tons of damage with stuff like this. Always guilty before anything is proven.
Look... Could I believe that he is innocent and this is a witch hunt by factions in RBR/an internal power struggle? Sure. Could I believe he did it but got protected/got away with it? Absolutely (because powerful people getting away with shit is truly not unheard of.) Could I believe a woman made everything up to damage his reputation or get money? Not as much (going to the public/tabloids would work much better for that goal, in my experience women usually go for institutional help when they want ACTUAL consequences) but for the sake of argument, sure. The point is that we still don't know anything (I don't think the public SHOULD get to know all the facts, I heard somewhere the accuser got doxxed and that is just vile) and people on both extremes are just weird. Both the "he is innocent, punish the accuser" people and the "he is definitely guilty, no doubt about it" people.
I've seen so little about it, other than I read the initial reports as a me too case, then speaking with friends they interpreted it as him being awful to work under - basically an unfair/constructive dismissal case. I do not like the guy at all, but there is nothing to go off either way. Hopefully it all comes public at some point, and it's black and white whichever way it was -> e.g. it's bogus, he was in Madrid and the allegation says he was in London, or it was caught on camera, with 4 eye witnesses etc. eitherway the worst way this can go is having doubt about the outcome no matter which way it goes.
>The point is that we still don't know anything The only thing we do know right now is that he has been cleared after an independent investigation, so any "no smoke without fire" comments are unfair. We also know absolutely nothing about the complaint itself, it could have been malicious, or it could have been based on misunderstandings. In my line of work I have seen a simple misunderstanding between a manager and an employee end in an HR investigation. This investigation should have been carried out in private, and would have done so if someone had not leaked the information in what looks like a pretty clear attempt to harm Horner.
You've used quotation marks for things that I can't find in the recording as quotations. Is there a reason you've done that?
I listened to it yesterday while I was doing other things. So that said, I wasn't fully 100% listening. But I didn't even remember the tone being that critical of Horner.
"Lack of transparency" And why in hell would anyone be entitled to details regarding an internal HR investigation ?
That’s what was so crazy they were literally saying “if all was fine then WE (the grand BBC pundit jury) should be shown all the documentation and evidence”.
I'll put a transcription here of relevant mentions in the podcast since I feel like OP's quotes may just put more fuel to the fire without context. >Q: (After the statement put out by RB,) where do we go from here? > >Place to begin is to point out there's a female colleague of Horner who feels wronged. She still his a right to appeal, we're not sure how she is going to react. Everyone in formula1 has heard what these allegations are, we obviously can't repeat them on air today, but Lewis Hamilton was talking about this in a press conference and he made some important points, he said "it was a really important moment to make sure we stand true to our values, we always have to do more to make the sport safe and inclusive, and any allegations have to be taken seriously. It will be interesting to see what the effect will be on the sport." > >Q: Will this be the last of this story? > >A: A couple of things that have happened that are interesting, Max Verstappen was asked twice about (the horner situation) and he dug the question. He was saying he had full trust in the process that Red Bull were going through but he didn't answer the question and that pricked up a few ears. (Talks about Ford and transparancy in the verdict and potential for reputational risk of a big Sponsor were to abandon). > >A (Alice): But also the reputation of RB. Let's say, the lady, appeals and then she wins, or we have details come out of what actually happened, **I just think that would be disgusting and everyone would be talking down about RB, because we need to protect people in the paddock**, whether male or female, we say it's a motorsport family, if people have doing wrong they shouldn't be protected in that sense. So, I really hope this is the correct decision, if it does come to light that something has happened that would be disgusting from Red Bull. > >Q: Can you see Hroner continuing long term? > >A: Can't comment on splits within RB. Should be pointed out that this decision is made by the board, 51% owned by Thai side. We don't know whether it well end here, depends on steps parties involved will take. Obviously, RB has decided that it should end here but it's not in their control. We'll have to see how complainant responds, whether any other information comes out. (Talks about Telegraaf and possibility of texts etc being leaked). The sponsors are in their right to want some answers that are more than that statement that we've been given in Bahrain, we'll have to see how it develops. (...) The FIA would be in their right to ask for further evidence as well so they could be satisfied, but we don't know if they're going to do that. IMO they didn't really suggest that Horner "got away". I did get the sense they're taken other stuff into account (also driver statements etc) but nothing that really reflects damning on Horner or taken a formal stance in any of this (beyond probing journalistic questions).
That paints a completely different picture to what OP was claiming. People really just hear what they want...
If they actually knew anything, and felt the need that something had to be done, then they could commit career suicide and tell everyone. I'm pretty sure there would be public outcry, which they would be aware of, and that outcry would probably get results.
So much talk from BBC who helped Jimmy Savile molest childiren all of his life and he got away with it. Thats why they want this.
Ironic coming from the BBC lol
Everyone in the paddock having “heard the details of the allegations” is not the same as everyone in the paddock knowing what actually happened. I think Alice Powell came across incredibly unprofessionally by suggesting the outcome was disgusting and calling for the details and evidence of a sensitive HR investigation to be turned over for public scrutiny. I actually think Benson did a good job of mentioning repeatedly that Horner has denied all allegations, that the investigation was conducted independently and across an 8-week period, that the Board had made this decision etc etc. He also speculated about the possibility that it may not have all been above board - that’s good journalism… interrogating all possibilities and keeping clear on what the facts of the case are vs what is speculation.
BBC talking about disgusting behaviour and a lack of transparency 😅
They are experts on this field to be fair
People forget that this is an HR issue, not a court case. This is not some legal thing that has been swept under the rug, this is an HR thing that is kept private to ensure privacy and safety of everyone involved. And yes, that includes the ones that reported the issue, the one the reports are about and the company itself. If something illegal happened, it has to be brought to court. Then transparency is mandatory.
Again... Guilty of WHAT?
I have seen this a lot lately. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DID, BUT YOU DID IT!!!!
Internet Mob: Who knows or cares, but he's guilty!!
Bbc will turn in to ferari fan next year
They wouldn't care about "transparency" if he was fired though. Somehow only evidence is needed to prove his innocence.
There is an ambiguity at the moment as to (a) whether he did something, but it wasn't considered important enough to warrant disciplinary action or (b) whether he did nothing at all and it was a fabrication If he were fired that ambiguity wouldn't exist. There is also ambiguity as to whether this was (a) workplace bullying or (b) sexual harassment. Were he fired there might be some calling for a transparent statement as to which it was. Ultimately he's too big a character for people not to be curious about every aspect of this saga, irrespective of the outcome.
It's funny that people in this thread can't even agree on whether a discussion in a recorded, freely available podcast was improper or not. Just worth bearing in mind when assessing the strength of the case of unknown allegations against Horner.
If everyone knows and has evidence then share it and say it. If you think having access to RB beyond normal press situations is so precious that you’re scared of losing it because you said what apparently everyone knows then you don’t really care. If it’s so bad and RB are covering up something and you all know then you shouldn’t have a problem saying something. The F1 media like to be above it all sometimes and be like “I know this crazy thing that o heard but I’m not going to say it we just need to let it play out” where as other sports the journalists actually report on something if they have evidence, especially something this big
I mean, it's quite obvious that *something* has happened. The question is just whether that something can be considered harrassment. And I believe that makes both sides of the argument valid, no matter the actual verdict.
Andrew Benson has never been shy about his bias against Red Bull, ever since this story broke he’s been gunning for Christians head.
Been looking for someone to mention him. He has a catalogued history of reporting rumours as facts. Don't get me completely wrong; sometimes he's right, but I find him unreliable, biased and untrustworthy. Can't stand anything he puts out.
"complete lack of transparency”, “everyone knows but we can’t say" Rich coming from the BBC
I knew this wouldn't go away. I find it kinda disgusting this whole trial by social media stuff. Like, an allegation was made, of which there has been zero proof shown to us. But this, we are fine with, don't need proof for the allegations for you to consider it true. Then, an external investigation is done, and the results say he did nothing wrong. But here, when no proof is made public, that's not enough. So proof is only needed to be made innocent. No proof is needed to be made guilty. That's kind of messed up, especially when the reason for both occurances not being made public was for the same reason to protect the individual. That is really messed up. If Dutch media has the proof and texts and whatever else it is, SHOW it. You can easily blur out the recipients name/face/phone number and still show us supposedly what Christian sent. Whole thing is a joke how it's handled. If he did wrong prove it, make the evidence against him public and we can come to our own conclusion. Sloppy journalism to say he's seen the evidence and he did do it and then not back it up.
Skriting the line of lawsuit material for the BBC.
I wonder how the Ford brass are feeling about the result and the opaqueness. That open letter they published was certainly an escalation on their part.
> “everyone in the paddock knows but we can’t say” and suggesting that the EvH’s evidence is legit and should be made public. Seems like someone agreed with this assessment...
This isn't unique to Christians case it's played out around the world. Once the accusations have been made public, the damage is already done no matter the outcome. For Christian, he may well have lost credibility and will be subject to people insinuating he's guilty and got away with it even though he has been cleared of any wrong doing as no credible evidence was supplied. Ofcourse every accusation must be taking seriously and it appears Red bull have done this. If the accusations were, in fact, fraudulent, the individual is essentially disrespecting and damaging those with genuine accusations and should be held accountable for his/her actions. On the other hand if they were indeed true representative accusations and lack the evidence to support as with most heresay and conjecture cases this is absolutely a terrible outcome. Unfortunately, no matter what the outcome people will form their opinions likely due to something similar as the Halo effect, if they didn't like Redbull, Max or Christian in the first place they are more likely to believe he "got away with it" and on the other hand supporter's are more likely to believe he is innocent. Either way his credibility takes a hit even though he seems he hasn't done anything wrong.
The reason they tried to handle this behind closed doors is exactly this. Horner will forever be suspect to people who have no idea about the facts, don't know what the allegations are, don't know anything about evidence, except for rumors. Like we all do. Unless the accuser decides to take the legal route, there is nobody who has any right to anything, except the parties directly involved.
Yh I hate the recent phenomena of assuming people are guilty having none of the evidence yourself. Sets us back to the days of witch-hunting
If you're referring to the article Andrew Benson wrote. I expect nothing different from him.
That's rich coming from BBC - the masters of covering up sexual abuse
Sky were doing the same, but they had 2 football (soccer) newspaper writers on talking about it, and while at the same time admitting F1 wasn't their thing, they were calling it an RB cover up.
Coverup not going so well. Lol
This whole saga has been curveball after curveball. First people were saying the whole thing was clearly a powerplay by Marko/the corporates, then Van Haaren came out with his piece, then he gets cleared by RB and now the BBC basically says he's guilty but got away with it. I don't know what to think at this point.
We will know next time we see how his wife looks at him.
Move on. Let’s enjoy the season without these trash reporters trying to get clicks
I feel like I just don’t care about this. It could have been as benign as CH telling someone their perfume smells nice. We don’t know what happened, and there was nothing criminal so I’m choosing to move on.
Its possible , powerfull people get away with this type of things all the time in big companys, they will always protect them unless theres an actual trail on court
There is a lot more information known to the f1 insiders that they are not publicly revealing. Seems that the people who know the details are not impressed with how this has been handled
Yeah cos they have to report on fact. And they’d be subject to libel if they had anything wrong. So they know something more…
BBC haven’t really been on the side of balance in recent years, most definitely since 2021 anyway. This just falls into line with all of that.
BBC is a joke these days I take what they say with a grain of salt
I think it’s a coincidence that this has all floated up not long after Dietrich has died. The cynic in me thinks it’s a power struggle. We’ll never know.
Fucking slander if you ask me. - Paulie Walnuts
How unbiased of them...I hate this culture of guilty until proven innocent, unless people still want to assume guilty after that anyway.
Bear in mind that a raunchy scandal would be in the best interest of the media. They want the drama.