Christian Horner under Investigation

[Quantum]

Highly unlikely this was all a figment of a collective mind hive imagination. Unless I'm under some illusory spell, Red Bull had to publicly state there was an investigation into Horner.

No you're right, because we're back to talking about what actually happened, which is great: Redbull investigated an internal complaint against Horner.

Which brings us back to my original question, which you kindly engaged: Since learning of that, what other facts have been credibly established that let us make a better moral judgement on the matter? Any?

And since we decided to make so much noise about it in the meantime, has anyone checked in with how the complainant wanted this whole thing handled? Because we're making all this noise for their benefit, right?

Nobody is forcing you to post or read these posts.
I don't assert to making any moral judgments either, perhaps there is more specifics required for "us" in the sentence you wrote?
I want to know why Red Bull have not been transparent when it's literally the one thing they could do to shut this thing down.
Among many things I'd like to know:
Why the Lawyer went AWOL for 2weeks. Were they instructed to or employed with that in mind?
Who employed him and paid them?
When was the arbitration clause actioned?
Was the KC known to Horner?
What were the findings from the 150 pages Red Bull have sat on. Surely could be verified in private by the FIA and LM without the need for public scrutiny?
Which faction within RB issued the statement of vindication. Was it Horner himself by way of majority owner Yoovidhya who could force the board to make such a statement?

Answers to the machinations of the investigation itself, that do not require moral judgements. Nobody is perfect, but fans can ask the question of transparency without needing to be submitted to some made up rule of inquisition.

[gshevlin]

If there is one applicable saying for this mess. It has to be "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up".
Money, power and sex. The world's most combustible recipe.

[vorticism]

Heresay referencing heresay; 100 pages edition. The tail is wagging the dog.

[Mattchu]

Highly unlikely this was all a figment of a collective mind hive imagination. Unless I'm under some illusory spell, Red Bull had to publicly state there was an investigation into Horner.

No you're right, because we're back to talking about what actually happened, which is great: Redbull investigated an internal complaint against Horner.

Which brings us back to my original question, which you kindly engaged: Since learning of that, what other facts have been credibly established that let us make a better moral judgement on the matter? Any?

And since we decided to make so much noise about it in the meantime, has anyone checked in with how the complainant wanted this whole thing handled? Because we're making all this noise for their benefit, right?

Nobody is forcing you to post or read these posts.
I don't assert to making any moral judgments either, perhaps there is more specifics required for "us" in the sentence you wrote?
I want to know why Red Bull have not been transparent when it's literally the one thing they could do to shut this thing down.
Among many things I'd like to know:
Why the Lawyer went AWOL for 2weeks. Were they instructed to or employed with that in mind?
Who employed him and paid them?
When was the arbitration clause actioned?
Was the KC known to Horner?
What were the findings from the 150 pages Red Bull have sat on. Surely could be verified in private by the FIA and LM without the need for public scrutiny?
Which faction within RB issued the statement of vindication. Was it Horner himself by way of majority owner Yoovidhya who could force the board to make such a statement?

Answers to the machinations of the investigation itself, that do not require moral judgements. Nobody is perfect, but fans can ask the question of transparency without needing to be submitted to some made up rule of inquisition.

Sorry, couldn`t help myself good post though, totally agree...

[Stu]

In Formula 1, I think the old saying still fits to Make money you have to have money.

The old saying was “if you want to make a small fortune in F1, you’d better start with a large one”

[balex]

Nobody is forcing you to post or read these posts.

Of course. I've lurked on this site for 13(?) years with hardly ever engaging, so I have my own reasons for being vocal

I don't assert to making any moral judgments either, perhaps there is more specifics required for "us" in the sentence you wrote?

The moral judgments (and associated lack of empathy) are implicit in the behaviour around the issue (see: completely unimportance of the complainants desires). I'm not meaning to implicate you there.

I want to know why Red Bull have not been transparent when it's literally the one thing they could do to shut this thing down.
Among many things I'd like to know:
...snip...
Answers to the machinations of the investigation itself, that do not require moral judgements.

Not unreasonable questions, but at the same time all things that only concern the parties involved so I'd keep your hopes in check!

Nobody is perfect, but fans can ask the question of transparency without needing to be submitted to some made up rule of inquisition.

Sure, I'm not just speaking to you personally - you sound super reasonable!

I'm only using this platform to call out that when concern for issues erupts out of scandal, it has all the sincerity and effect of a flag over a social media picture. I strongly dislike public or powerful figures hiding cynically under the banner of a progressive cause to influence opinion for their own gain - in a way that has real effects on real people. Click-baiting F1 journalists are already knee-deep in doing that, and every instinct tells me that's exactly what is happening behind the scenes too.

[Watto]

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

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

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

Of course and I would argue its probably the more likely option.

Just very selective leaks from both sides I tend to take with a great deal of skepticism. Seem the game played all too often to see how misleading they can be.

My feeling is the messages are real and Horner should be removed. But I'm just highly skeptical of all the elements going on behind the scenes here you really don't know what is at play.

[vorticism]

I'm only using this platform to call out that when concern for issues erupts out of scandal, it has all the sincerity and effect of a flag over a social media picture. I strongly dislike public or powerful figures hiding cynically under the banner of a progressive cause to influence opinion for their own gain - in a way that has real effects on real people. Click-baiting F1 journalists are already knee-deep in doing that, and every instinct tells me that's exactly what is happening behind the scenes too.

It's all predictable phenoms playing out for those of us used to paying attention. Psychopaths are sometimes in positions of power, same as twenty years ago; only their attire has changed. New virtues, same signals.

[myurr]

Not sure if you guys believe in this, and why James Bond always have an Aston Martin and beautiful women as partner (sometime co-worker)
https://bakadesuyo.com/2012/08/do-fast- ... -women-on/

Did any of those women say "please stop" and yet Bond persisted? Were any directly reliant on Bond for their employment?

This is just another spurious and off topic attempt to normalise (or even idolise) sexual harassment and abuse of power. The behaviour exhibited in the leaked messages is illegal and morally wrong on multiple levels. If Horner did send them and there isn't somehow additional evidence that changes the context, then Horner broke the law and is morally repugnant.

[CHT]

My take on this is that CH and the women were close colleagues at RBR who frequently travel around the world for races. Over the years they have become like "soulmates" while overseas and eventually developed close relationships.
As the relationship progresses, it then reaches a point where it becomes uncomfortable as the women know this is an impossible relationship.

I also believe this woman does have a partner and how this saga came to light could be due to her's partner discovery of the communication.

Due to their close relationship and attachement, Honer and the women continue to keep silent despite all the rumors floating around.

As to who leak the WA? It is very likely the partner of the woman.

disclaimer: This is just my story to tell. nothing factual here.

[galus]

As to who leak the WA? It is very likely the partner of the woman.

disclaimer: This is just my story to tell. nothing factual here.

Imagine the partner is JV...

[myurr]

I also believe this woman does have a partner and how this saga came to light could be due to her's partner discovery of the communication.

As to who leak the WA? It is very likely the partner of the woman.

In the messages she explicitly states that she needs to find herself a partner, indicating she is single. Have you read the messages when forming your opinion? If you have you'll see the magic word "stop" that means the two parties feelings for each other are no longer relevant and subsequent unwanted actions are explicitly sexual harassment.

[CHT]

When the women say she needs to find herself a partner, it could mean she is telling CH she is feeling lonely, while CH is married.
If the woman was indeed offended or disgusted by CH, I think the first reaction must be to shut down the chat and block CH.
I think the intention of Stop could mean the relationship is going too far and she is worried she is falling too deep into a relationship with a married man.
This explains why till today the women are not saying nasty things about Honer in public and remain silent.

During RB's internal investigation, they may have sat both CH and the woman together, perhaps both sides must have admitted to their follies and affection for one another.
And there was no force or intimidation.

And when the case was dismissed, the lover (or ex-lover) of the woman decided to leak the chat.

Disclaimer: nothing above is factual,

[Watto]

When the women say she needs to find herself a partner, it could mean she is telling CH she is feeling lonely, while CH is married.
If the woman was indeed offended or disgusted by CH, I think the first reaction must be to shut down the chat and block CH.
I think the intention of Stop could mean the relationship is going too far and she is worried she is falling too deep into a relationship with a married man.
This explains why till today the women are not saying nasty things about Honer in public and remain silent.

During RB's internal investigation, they may have sat both CH and the woman together, perhaps both sides must have admitted to their follies and affection for one another.
And there was no force or intimidation.

And when the case was dismissed, the lover (or ex-lover) of the woman decided to leak the chat.

Disclaimer: nothing above is factual,

Her job as his PA means she really can't block him if its used for company communication when F1 travels as much as it does I would imagine thats pretty critical to her role. Which is why laws/rules these kinds of things.

Her silence can be debated either way pretty well, she may not have an issue with CH. Likewise making a comment public probably doesn't acheive much, makes her role harder dealing with a media backlash including I am sure internet nobodies attacking her socials etc.

I think the ex/partner theory is a fair way off base really. The timing was far too strategic for that.


Do I think its possible she doesn't really have an issue with him? Probably the only thing in here that really works. I think it has some merit but gain all this is guess work too.

[skwdenyer]

Apologies if I’ve missed the link, but Joe Saward’s written an interesting piece on the whole affair: https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2024/03 ... y-weekend/

Worth reading the comments, too.