Christian Horner under Investigation

[dans79]

This to me indicates that it's an experienced leaker (or experienced faker). I don't think the woman in question herself would have thought of that if she leaked it. The conversations doesn't strike me as someone who is technically adept.

Personally I wouldn't expect "her" to have done this. I'd expect this to have been done by someone with plausible deniability who wants Horner gone for one reason or another.

[Watto]

Exactly, it has no relevance at all. Both a real leaker and a faker would remove the metadata. You can't infer anything from this.

Actually, you can. If the data has been stripped, and you can conclude that it "should" be there (as in, the phone or service used doesn't strip it itself, and it's a conscious decision), then you can infer that the leaker has technical know-how.

This to me indicates that it's an experienced leaker (or experienced faker). I don't think the woman in question herself would have thought of that if she leaked it. The conversations doesn't strike me as someone who is technically adept.

Yes meant to imply this in my original comment. If it was the . If it was the woman at the centre of this leaking because she wasn't happy with how it was handled i'd say its less likely they would strip it to add to any authenticity though oblivious there are reasons they may strip it all too .


But any experienced leaker fake or real would do it to cover their tracks.

ATM though all I really see is its all too much open to interpretation no real concrete proof either from from either side.

[dans79]

as an aside if you want to dig deep into meta data of photos or video this is the tool you want.
https://exiftool.org/

I've used it in a few applications to automate the construction of multi camera timelines in conjunction with SMPTE timecode.

[stonehenge]

Exactly, it has no relevance at all. Both a real leaker and a faker would remove the metadata. You can't infer anything from this.

Actually, you can. If the data has been stripped, and you can conclude that it "should" be there (as in, the phone or service used doesn't strip it itself, and it's a conscious decision), then you can infer that the leaker has technical know-how.

This to me indicates that it's an experienced leaker (or experienced faker). I don't think the woman in question herself would have thought of that if she leaked it. The conversations doesn't strike me as someone who is technically adept.

I don't think anyone seriously thought the woman would be the leaker? It was reported that evidence was submitted during the course of the investigation, including screenshots of texts and pictures. A number of people would have had access to these screenshots (again, if this is indeed the evidence that was reported earlier).

[denyall]

There could be a technical confidant that she asked to aid her in sharing the evidence. Perhaps she was trusting the process and when it didn't go her way she allowed the data to be sent.

I think it would be very hard for a RB insider to take or copy the data without leaving a digital fingerprint that would cost them their job.

It's also possible that this repository has previously been shared less widely (how media and F1 insiders knew about it and had seen some of the messages) and was then re-uploaded and reshared by unknown.

Metadata can be altered just like any digital file.

[mendis]

Lol what? If this is an actual leak then the leaker will be much more concerned with covering their tracks and not leaving traceable metadata than whether people in online forums believe it's real. If you're leaking any pictures you will definitely remove all metadata. If anything, it would be suspicious if they *didn't* remove the metadata!!!

If you want to run around with evidence that doesn't have the authenticity, claiming it's authentic, then good luck. If it's not authentic, it's rubbish.

There is nothing in standard image meta data that would let you validate the images authenticity.

https://cognitech.com/forensic-image-au ... tal-truth/

Simple Images and screenshots are not admissable in a court of law without a thorough forensic analysis. In this particular case, the device that is used for chat communication is also required by Forensics to authenticate the exchange and establish the evidence. All of these are possible if a court directs the police or investigating agencies to do so. To engage a court, obviously somone has to file a criminal case against Red Bull GmbH that they have conspired to evade justice from the accuser and the accuser has to agree for this case.

[mendis]

This to me indicates that it's an experienced leaker (or experienced faker). I don't think the woman in question herself would have thought of that if she leaked it. The conversations doesn't strike me as someone who is technically adept.

Personally I wouldn't expect "her" to have done this. I'd expect this to have been done by someone with plausible deniability who wants Horner gone for one reason or another.

Except for nuisance, it's not going to yield anything. Whoever has done it, has done with an intention to damage the reputation. He or she would be naive to think it would get rid of Horner. This act has should also have infuriated Red Bull GmbH now, who have cleared Horner of any wrong doing.

[stonehenge]

This to me indicates that it's an experienced leaker (or experienced faker). I don't think the woman in question herself would have thought of that if she leaked it. The conversations doesn't strike me as someone who is technically adept.

Personally I wouldn't expect "her" to have done this. I'd expect this to have been done by someone with plausible deniability who wants Horner gone for one reason or another.

Except for nuisance, it's not going to yield anything. Whoever has done it, has done with an intention to damage the reputation. He or she would be naive to think it would get rid of Horner. This act has should also have infuriated Red Bull GmbH now, who have cleared Horner of any wrong doing.

Horner was not "cleared of any wrong doing." That's simply not accurate. Red Bull GmbH merely issued a statement saying the complaint had been dismissed. It did not offer any explanation as to why it was dismissed, or any other details for that matter. There are a number of reasons why the complaint would have been dismissed despite some wrong doing by Horner. We simply don't have more information at this time.

And why would this act have "infuriated" Red Bull GmbH? By all accounts, they are not on Horner's side in this matter. The Thai majority shareholder backs Horner, at least this has been reported by multiple credible sources, including Michael Schmidt from AMuS, and that means Red Bull GmbH's hands are effectively tied. If the Thai owner decided Horner stays and the complaint is dismissed, that's the end of it. It's not a legal proceeding, they can do whatever they want. We have no reason to believe Red Bull GmbH wanted Horner to survive this matter. All reporting so far has suggested otherwise.

[CHT]

This email leak is terrible RB and CH reputation as TP. What is seen cannot be unseen and this may also affect the popularity of F1.

This reminds me of the case involving Max Mosley and the hookers. It was shocking and now no one is talking about LH moving to Ferrari.

[mendis]

Personally I wouldn't expect "her" to have done this. I'd expect this to have been done by someone with plausible deniability who wants Horner gone for one reason or another.

Except for nuisance, it's not going to yield anything. Whoever has done it, has done with an intention to damage the reputation. He or she would be naive to think it would get rid of Horner. This act has should also have infuriated Red Bull GmbH now, who have cleared Horner of any wrong doing.

Horner was not "cleared of any wrong doing." That's simply not accurate. Red Bull GmbH merely issued a statement saying the complaint had been dismissed. It did not offer any explanation as to why it was dismissed, or any other details for that matter. There are a number of reasons why the complaint would have been dismissed despite some wrong doing by Horner. We simply don't have more information at this time.

And why would this act have "infuriated" Red Bull GmbH? By all accounts, they are not on Horner's side in this matter. The Thai majority shareholder backs Horner, at least this has been reported by multiple credible sources, including Michael Schmidt from AMuS, and that means Red Bull GmbH's hands are effectively tied. If the Thai owner decided Horner stays and the complaint is dismissed, that's the end of it. It's not a legal proceeding, they can do whatever they want. We have no reason to believe Red Bull GmbH wanted Horner to survive this matter. All reporting so far has suggested otherwise.

You can dissect it however you want, shredding pieces further. Thai owner decided to do this and that, is all figment of imagination. Red Bull GmbH gave a statement of closure and they are required to maintain confidentiality of the investigation as required by law. An investigation conducted as required by law for any firm. A nobody sitting on Internet can take it any which way he wants, but for Red Bull, it's a matter closed professionally. Raising questions on their investigation is questioning their integrity towards the laws of their homeland that requires them to operate in good faith and provide safe and just working environment for it's people. To that extent, they have a reason to feel inconvenienced with it when unverified subjects create nuisance.

[TeamKoolGreen]

This email leak is terrible RB and CH reputation as TP. What is seen cannot be unseen and this may also affect the popularity of F1.

This reminds me of the case involving Max Mosley and the hookers. It was shocking and now no one is talking about LH moving to Ferrari.

The email leak is not authentic. There are a lot of people online who are very good at forensically verifying online content. And they exposed this as a fabrication in a few hours.

Red Bull and CH have already stated that they will bring lawsuits to any of the major publishers if they report it as legit.

If there was anything more to this, the complainant could launch a civil case against Horner.

[stonehenge]

Except for nuisance, it's not going to yield anything. Whoever has done it, has done with an intention to damage the reputation. He or she would be naive to think it would get rid of Horner. This act has should also have infuriated Red Bull GmbH now, who have cleared Horner of any wrong doing.

Horner was not "cleared of any wrong doing." That's simply not accurate. Red Bull GmbH merely issued a statement saying the complaint had been dismissed. It did not offer any explanation as to why it was dismissed, or any other details for that matter. There are a number of reasons why the complaint would have been dismissed despite some wrong doing by Horner. We simply don't have more information at this time.

And why would this act have "infuriated" Red Bull GmbH? By all accounts, they are not on Horner's side in this matter. The Thai majority shareholder backs Horner, at least this has been reported by multiple credible sources, including Michael Schmidt from AMuS, and that means Red Bull GmbH's hands are effectively tied. If the Thai owner decided Horner stays and the complaint is dismissed, that's the end of it. It's not a legal proceeding, they can do whatever they want. We have no reason to believe Red Bull GmbH wanted Horner to survive this matter. All reporting so far has suggested otherwise.

You can dissect it however you want, shredding pieces further. Thai owner decided to do this and that, is all figment of imagination. Red Bull GmbH gave a statement of closure and they are required to maintain confidentiality of the investigation as required by law. An investigation conducted as required by law for any firm. A nobody sitting on Internet can take it any which way he wants, but for Red Bull, it's a matter closed professionally. Raising questions on their investigation is questioning their integrity towards the laws of their homeland that requires them to operate in good faith and provide safe and just working environment for it's people. To that extent, they have a reason to feel inconvenienced with it when unverified subjects create nuisance.

Well, according to Austrian law, it's only considered workplace sexual harassment if one of the following is true:

1. If the trangressive behavior creates or is intended to create an intimidating, hostile or humiliating working environment for the person concerned.
2. If the fact that the person concerned rejects or tolerates conduct that is sexual in nature on the part of the employer or superiors or colleagues is expressly or tacitly made the basis of a decision affecting that person's access to vocational training, employment, continued employment, promotion or remuneration or the basis of another decision in the world of work.

Further: Stephan Nitzl, head of the employment law practice at DLA Piper in Austria says: "In Austria, there are no such strict regulations governing amorous and flirtatious behavior." For a dismissal, "something more serious must occur". A reason for dismissal could be if someone abuses their authority, for example by sexually abusing employees.

Beyond that, it is up to the company to determine whether Horner violated their policies and whether they consider his conduct to be appropriate. So it really does matter whether Red Bull GmbH or the Thai owner has the final say. It's not as black and white as you are suggesting. Not at all.

[TeamKoolGreen]

The fact that this case with the complainant came up and that there is reportedly a power struggle going on at the very top of the Red Bull hierarchy at the exact same time shows that the complainants case was made in bad faith. It was launched as part of the power struggle. Or by some fluke, are they both happening at the exact same time ? I think not. If there was no power struggle, there would be no complainant.

The complainant is a victim in the sense that she is being used as a pawn in a coup by far more powerful ppl from above. And Christian Horner wasn't one of them. He is just another victim. For some reason, one side wants to fire Horner, the other doesn't. So they tried this coup.

[Watto]

The fact that this case with the complainant came up and that there is reportedly a power struggle going on at the very top of the Red Bull hierarchy at the exact same time shows that the complainants case was made in bad faith. It was launched as part of the power struggle. Or by some fluke, are they both happening at the exact same time ? I think not. If there was no power struggle, there would be no complainant.

The complainant is a victim in the sense that she is being used as a pawn in a coup by far more powerful ppl from above. And Christian Horner wasn't one of them. He is just another victim. For some reason, one side wants to fire Horner, the other doesn't. So they tried this coup.

Yep have said/though the same things. I have no doubt there is a complaint of some kind is legit. If Dietrich Mateschitz was still alive/in charge then we wouldn't have seen anything about this but was a legit complaint used or blown out of proportion in such a power struggle.

Horner was not "cleared of any wrong doing." That's simply not accurate. Red Bull GmbH merely issued a statement saying the complaint had been dismissed. It did not offer any explanation as to why it was dismissed, or any other details for that matter. There are a number of reasons why the complaint would have been dismissed despite some wrong doing by Horner. We simply don't have more information at this time.

And why would this act have "infuriated" Red Bull GmbH? By all accounts, they are not on Horner's side in this matter. The Thai majority shareholder backs Horner, at least this has been reported by multiple credible sources, including Michael Schmidt from AMuS, and that means Red Bull GmbH's hands are effectively tied. If the Thai owner decided Horner stays and the complaint is dismissed, that's the end of it. It's not a legal proceeding, they can do whatever they want. We have no reason to believe Red Bull GmbH wanted Horner to survive this matter. All reporting so far has suggested otherwise.

You can dissect it however you want, shredding pieces further. Thai owner decided to do this and that, is all figment of imagination. Red Bull GmbH gave a statement of closure and they are required to maintain confidentiality of the investigation as required by law. An investigation conducted as required by law for any firm. A nobody sitting on Internet can take it any which way he wants, but for Red Bull, it's a matter closed professionally. Raising questions on their investigation is questioning their integrity towards the laws of their homeland that requires them to operate in good faith and provide safe and just working environment for it's people. To that extent, they have a reason to feel inconvenienced with it when unverified subjects create nuisance.

Well, according to Austrian law, it's only considered workplace sexual harassment if one of the following is true:

1. If the trangressive behavior creates or is intended to create an intimidating, hostile or humiliating working environment for the person concerned.
2. If the fact that the person concerned rejects or tolerates conduct that is sexual in nature on the part of the employer or superiors or colleagues is expressly or tacitly made the basis of a decision affecting that person's access to vocational training, employment, continued employment, promotion or remuneration or the basis of another decision in the world of work.

Further: Stephan Nitzl, head of the employment law practice at DLA Piper in Austria says: "In Austria, there are no such strict regulations governing amorous and flirtatious behavior." For a dismissal, "something more serious must occur". A reason for dismissal could be if someone abuses their authority, for example by sexually abusing employees.

Beyond that, it is up to the company to determine whether Horner violated their policies and whether they consider his conduct to be appropriate. So it really does matter whether Red Bull GmbH or the Thai owner has the final say. It's not as black and white as you are suggesting. Not at all.

Would this be under UK or Austrian law? RB GmbH are obviously Austrian law, Red Bull Technology is a UK registered company mostly operating out of the UK?

[mendis]

Horner was not "cleared of any wrong doing." That's simply not accurate. Red Bull GmbH merely issued a statement saying the complaint had been dismissed. It did not offer any explanation as to why it was dismissed, or any other details for that matter. There are a number of reasons why the complaint would have been dismissed despite some wrong doing by Horner. We simply don't have more information at this time.

And why would this act have "infuriated" Red Bull GmbH? By all accounts, they are not on Horner's side in this matter. The Thai majority shareholder backs Horner, at least this has been reported by multiple credible sources, including Michael Schmidt from AMuS, and that means Red Bull GmbH's hands are effectively tied. If the Thai owner decided Horner stays and the complaint is dismissed, that's the end of it. It's not a legal proceeding, they can do whatever they want. We have no reason to believe Red Bull GmbH wanted Horner to survive this matter. All reporting so far has suggested otherwise.

You can dissect it however you want, shredding pieces further. Thai owner decided to do this and that, is all figment of imagination. Red Bull GmbH gave a statement of closure and they are required to maintain confidentiality of the investigation as required by law. An investigation conducted as required by law for any firm. A nobody sitting on Internet can take it any which way he wants, but for Red Bull, it's a matter closed professionally. Raising questions on their investigation is questioning their integrity towards the laws of their homeland that requires them to operate in good faith and provide safe and just working environment for it's people. To that extent, they have a reason to feel inconvenienced with it when unverified subjects create nuisance.

Well, according to Austrian law, it's only considered workplace sexual harassment if one of the following is true:

1. If the trangressive behavior creates or is intended to create an intimidating, hostile or humiliating working environment for the person concerned.
2. If the fact that the person concerned rejects or tolerates conduct that is sexual in nature on the part of the employer or superiors or colleagues is expressly or tacitly made the basis of a decision affecting that person's access to vocational training, employment, continued employment, promotion or remuneration or the basis of another decision in the world of work.

Further: Stephan Nitzl, head of the employment law practice at DLA Piper in Austria says: "In Austria, there are no such strict regulations governing amorous and flirtatious behavior." For a dismissal, "something more serious must occur". A reason for dismissal could be if someone abuses their authority, for example by sexually abusing employees.

Beyond that, it is up to the company to determine whether Horner violated their policies and whether they consider his conduct to be appropriate. So it really does matter whether Red Bull GmbH or the Thai owner has the final say. It's not as black and white as you are suggesting. Not at all.

You are forgetting the fact that, Red Bull racing is situated in UK and the law of the land of UK also applies in this case, not just of Austria. A few pages back I had posted the legal requirements for an investigation of workplace harassment that involves a subsidiary and it's parent that are situated in different countries. Read that.