Christian Horner under Investigation

[TeamKoolGreen]

The FIA, just like FIFA or the NFL or MLB or any other governing body can request information from a team under their jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into a matter that is a potential violation under said governing bodies rules.

If Red Bull is confident in their investigation then they should have no problem sharing the results with FIA, at which point you would expect the FIA to agree that the investigation was complete and sign off on it as well.

We recently saw this with the Susie Wolff/Toto Wolff thing, FIA open an investigation, reviewed the paperwork from Formula 1's investigation and then said all looks good carry on move along... I distinctly remember a lot of you saying that that's the FIA's right and duty; to verify that things were above board...

That comparison doesn't work. Suzie is a director for Academy.

A dispute between 2 office employees in Milton Keynes is not in the remit of the FIA.

Imagine the FIA called for Horner to be fired. Then the labor relations board could get involved on Horners side

[myurr]

The FIA, just like FIFA or the NFL or MLB or any other governing body can request information from a team under their jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into a matter that is a potential violation under said governing bodies rules.

If Red Bull is confident in their investigation then they should have no problem sharing the results with FIA, at which point you would expect the FIA to agree that the investigation was complete and sign off on it as well.

We recently saw this with the Susie Wolff/Toto Wolff thing, FIA open an investigation, reviewed the paperwork from Formula 1's investigation and then said all looks good carry on move along... I distinctly remember a lot of you saying that that's the FIA's right and duty; to verify that things were above board...

Articles 12.2.1c of the International Sporting Code includes the offence of "any act prejudicial to the interests... of motorsport generally"; 12.2.1.f "Any words, deeds or writings that have caused moral injury or loss to the FIA, its bodies, its members or its executive officers, and more generally on the interest of motor sport and on the values defended by the FIA."; 12.2.1.k "Any Misconduct".

12.2.1.g covers why Red Bull would have to comply with any investigation in full: "Any failure to cooperate in an investigation".

And Article 8.7 of the F1 Sporting Regulations states "If in the opinion of the F1 Commission, a Competitor fails to operate his team in a manner compatible with the standards of the Championship or in any way brings the Championship into disrepute, the FIA may exclude such Competitor from the Championship forthwith."

That's from a quick search and skim read of the regulations, there may well be other relevant points that I've missed.

So there are plenty of grounds under which the FIA should investigate, they now have a complaint (which removes the reason for inaction previously given), and Red Bull and Horner have to cooperate with the investigation. The FIA now find themselves in an interesting situation whereby should they clear Horner and Red Bull, effectively signing off on Red Bull's internal process, and then the UK courts find differently and award damages to the victim, that would be a big scandal for the FIA. If anything they have to be seen to maintain the highest of standards to ensure the heat remains on Horner and Red Bull rather than turning into Sulayem's next big scandal.

[denyall]

The FIA, just like FIFA or the NFL or MLB or any other governing body can request information from a team under their jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into a matter that is a potential violation under said governing bodies rules.

If Red Bull is confident in their investigation then they should have no problem sharing the results with FIA, at which point you would expect the FIA to agree that the investigation was complete and sign off on it as well.

We recently saw this with the Susie Wolff/Toto Wolff thing, FIA open an investigation, reviewed the paperwork from Formula 1's investigation and then said all looks good carry on move along... I distinctly remember a lot of you saying that that's the FIA's right and duty; to verify that things were above board...

That comparison doesn't work. Suzie is a director for Academy.

A dispute between 2 office employees in Milton Keynes is not in the remit of the FIA.

Susie doesn't work for for the FIA. The Academy is owned by Formula 1.

[TFSA]

It's a breach of privacy laws for her to share these personal messages with the press: https://harassmentlawyer.co.uk/online-b ... -in-the-uk.

Whistleblower protections are for reporting via the correct channels - i.e. taking through Red Bull's internal processes, to arbitration / tribunal, sharing with the regulator (FIA in this case), etc. They don't cover just taking the story to the media because you felt like it, when you haven't exhausted those channels.

The laws of the UK definitely differs from a few other countries there. There's a chance she may be guilty in that case.

I'd still argue that it would be a tough sell in court. The link you provided lay out the scenarios as a third party disclosing information. The part which she may be guilty of, if she leaked the messages as a party to the conversation, is this....

English law also recognises a cause of action under the tort of breach of confidence. Breach of confidence relates to information, which was intimated to another person on a private basis.

...which i would say, is still gonna be a hard sell for Horner in court. Remember that The Sun called Johnny Depp a wifebeater on their front page, and won the following lawsuit from Johnny Depp.

But it's definitely not as black and white as i laid it out. So for now, I stand corrected.

[Wouter]

It's a breach of privacy laws for her to share these personal messages with the press: https://harassmentlawyer.co.uk/online-b ... -in-the-uk.

Whistleblower protections are for reporting via the correct channels - i.e. taking through Red Bull's internal processes, to arbitration / tribunal, sharing with the regulator (FIA in this case), etc. They don't cover just taking the story to the media because you felt like it, when you haven't exhausted those channels.

.
The laws of the UK definitely differs from a few other countries there. There's a chance she may be guilty in that case.

I'd still argue that it would be a tough sell in court. The link you provided lay out the scenarios as a third party disclosing information. The part which she may be guilty of, if she leaked the messages as a party to the conversation, is this....

English law also recognises a cause of action under the tort of breach of confidence. Breach of confidence relates to information, which was intimated to another person on a private basis.

...which i would say, is still gonna be a hard sell for Horner in court.

But it's definitely not as black and white as i laid it out. So for now, I stand corrected.

.
Two weeks ago a family member of the lady said the lady did not send the emails with the Google Drive to the F1 people.
I posted the article here somewhere in the 170! pages.

[TFSA]

The FIA, just like FIFA or the NFL or MLB or any other governing body can request information from a team under their jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into a matter that is a potential violation under said governing bodies rules.

If Red Bull is confident in their investigation then they should have no problem sharing the results with FIA, at which point you would expect the FIA to agree that the investigation was complete and sign off on it as well.

Not if they are not privy to said information by law.

We recently saw this with the Susie Wolff/Toto Wolff thing, FIA open an investigation, reviewed the paperwork from Formula 1's investigation and then said all looks good carry on move along... I distinctly remember a lot of you saying that that's the FIA's right and duty; to verify that things were above board...

Two vastly different cases:

1. Susie Wolffs role directly relates to the running of the motorsport, which made it a potential conflict of interest for the sport. As someone else said, an internal office dispute in a team doesn't satisfy that criteria. It may qualify as a potential conflict of interest within the team - but that's a team issue. Not a motorsport issue.
2. The FIA never requested any private information in that investigation. They simply requested that F1 provided them with their procedures for preventing sensitive information from leaking. This case would require Red Bull to disclose private information between two individuals to the FIA.
   Now, I've been proven wrong recently in this thread, so don't confuse me for a lawyer who 100% knows everything. But as mentioned in the last paragraph, I'm pretty sure that the law prevents the FIA to be entitled to that information in the first place. Red Bull has a legal obligation to deny them access, no matter what the rules of the FIA says about "coorporating with investigations".
3. Since this is essentially a private issue, it's hard to see how it satisfies the criteria for bringing the sport into disrepute. That generally requires there to be a public action.

Also, there may be some legal jurisdictional problems here. Remember, the original complaint was filed with the parent company Red Bull (Austria, drinks company), not Red Bull Racing (British, motorsports team). The FIA does not have jurisdiction over Red Bull, and Red Bull Racing (the british company) themselves may not even be entitled to the information contained in the investigation. So if the FIA asked RBR for it, they might actually have to reply "We don't have access."

It's in no way as simple as you're making it out to be here.

[TFSA]

Two weeks ago a family member of the lady said the lady did not send the emails with the Google Drive to the F1 people.
I posted the article here somewhere in the 170! pages.

And as with almost everything else in this case, it's hard to take anything for granted. We can't confirm that statement anymore than we can confirm most other things in this case.

And at any rate, what we were discussing was whether or not she had the right to publicize the chats in first place if she wanted to, and whether that could bring her legal trouble.

[denyall]

The FIA, just like FIFA or the NFL or MLB or any other governing body can request information from a team under their jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into a matter that is a potential violation under said governing bodies rules.

If Red Bull is confident in their investigation then they should have no problem sharing the results with FIA, at which point you would expect the FIA to agree that the investigation was complete and sign off on it as well.

Not if they are not privy to said information by law.

We recently saw this with the Susie Wolff/Toto Wolff thing, FIA open an investigation, reviewed the paperwork from Formula 1's investigation and then said all looks good carry on move along... I distinctly remember a lot of you saying that that's the FIA's right and duty; to verify that things were above board...

Two vastly different cases:

1. Susie Wolffs role directly relates to the running of the motorsport, which made it a potential conflict of interest for the sport. As someone else said, an internal office dispute in a team doesn't satisfy that criteria. It may qualify as a potential conflict of interest within the team - but that's a team issue. Not a motorsport issue.
2. The FIA never requested any private information in that investigation. They simply requested that F1 provided them with their procedures for preventing sensitive information from leaking. This case would require Red Bull to disclose private information between two individuals to the FIA.
   Now, I've been proven wrong recently in this thread, so don't confuse me for a lawyer who 100% knows everything. But as mentioned in the last paragraph, I'm pretty sure that the law prevents the FIA to be entitled to that information in the first place. Red Bull has a legal obligation to deny them access, no matter what the rules of the FIA says about "coorporating with investigations".
3. Since this is essentially a private issue, it's hard to see how it satisfies the criteria for bringing the sport into disrepute. That generally requires there to be a public action.

Also, there may be some legal jurisdictional problems here. Remember, the original complaint was filed with the parent company Red Bull (Austria, drinks company), not Red Bull Racing (British, motorsports team). The FIA does not have jurisdiction over Red Bull, and Red Bull Racing (the british company) themselves may not even be entitled to the information contained in the investigation. So if the FIA asked RBR for it, they might actually have to reply "We don't have access."

It's in no way as simple as you're making it out to be here.

This whole situation is complicated, and as you correctly state in multiple different jurisdictions, different corporate entities, different people... It's a mess..

If Red Bull the team has a report that they are relying on to dismiss a complaint, It isn't outside the FIAs purview to request to view it. That doesn't preclude Red Bull from redacting personal information or outright refusing if they believe that this matter doesn't fall under the governing bodies jurisdiction.

I'm not trying to compare the Susie investigation with the Red Bull investigation. More drawing out that the FIA requested information about an internal investigation from a entity not directly under their control but subject to regulation as the governing body.

As someone helpfully mentioned above the FIA does have a catch all card in the "bringing the sport into disrespute" regulation that so many governing bodies use whenever they want to clamp down on something they don't like.

[chrisc90]

Strictly speaking though....is it bringing the sport/Formula 1 into disrepute? If anything its more damaging to the team, that dragging F1 name down. Its the journalists that drag the whole thing down.

[TFSA]

This whole situation is complicated, and as you correctly state in multiple different jurisdictions, different corporate entities, different people... It's a mess..

If Red Bull the team has a report that they are relying on to dismiss a complaint, It isn't outside the FIAs purview to request to view it. That doesn't preclude Red Bull from redacting personal information or outright refusing if they believe that this matter doesn't fall under the governing bodies jurisdiction.

Redacting isn't an option here. Personal information is personal, even if anonymized. If i had access to your private chats, and i disclosed them, but with your name and other revealing details anonymized/redacted, you would still be able to sue me for breach of privacy. Generally, the only exceptions you'll find in the law for that (outside of criminal law of course), is that the law sometimes permits the use of peoples anonymized information for research and statistical purposes. Beyond that, it's not touchable.

In addition, redacting information also has to serve a purpose. The purpose of redacting any information here would be to protect the identity or integrity of the individuals involved. But since the identity of the individuals has already been revealed, redactions would not fullfill the purpose for which it is intended, and as such cannot be considered a valid tool in the first place.

Red Bull would have no choice but to refuse to hand over the information in this case.

I'm not trying to compare the Susie investigation with the Red Bull investigation. More drawing out that the FIA requested information about an internal investigation from a entity not directly under their control but subject to regulation as the governing body.

I get the argument. I'm just saying it's not a valid comparison.

The reason is that the FIA regulates the fairness of the sport, but they do not regulate HR matters unless they somehow fall into that scope. As such, they can request non-private information to ensure that fairness. They can not interfere in team HR matters unless they have a direct sporting interest (which is NOT the same as PR interest), and even them it would be in a limited fashion at best.

As someone helpfully mentioned above the FIA does have a catch all card in the "bringing the sport into disrespute" regulation that so many governing bodies use whenever they want to clamp down on something they don't like.

Problem is that this isn't as "catch-all" as people like to think it is. It's not a wildcard for doing whatever they like.

The FIA has to a duty to act and regulate fairly. This means that any investigation they carry out, where the outcome is that someone is getting sanctioned, has to be carried out properly and thoroughly, and also in accordance with the law.

I just don't see this being possible in this case, because the FIA can't investigate this properly or thoroughly in the first place. If they can't investigate, they can't sanction. Any attempt at sanctions without a proper investigation, would be able to be challenged in court.

-

I'm open to being proved wrong, but i suspect that this FIA complaint is gonna be dead in the water. A civil lawsuit is the proper way forward here for this woman.

[myurr]

Strictly speaking though....is it bringing the sport/Formula 1 into disrepute? If anything its more damaging to the team, that dragging F1 name down. Its the journalists that drag the whole thing down.

Red Bull are required to operate their team in a manner compatible with the standards of the FIA and championship. If their report into Horner should have been interpreted as him being guilty, punished appropriately, and the women working for the team protected from his behaviour (as is required under UK law) then Red Bull's subsequent actions can be argued as bringing the sport into disrepute.

They dismissed the grievance, in contradiction to the standards of the FIA and championship. They held a press conference at an FIA sanctioned event proclaiming Horner's innocence and stating the matter was closed. Geri was paraded around an FIA event in front of the press and as a guest of the team. They would have prevented a victim of sexual harassment from attending an FIA event (including on International Women's day). They would have dragged the president of the FIA into the matter, with Horner meeting him directly and (one presumes) asking, or at least allowing, him to intervene and garner public support from Max. They will have lied to sponsors about the state of the investigation and its findings, sponsors who may opt to leave the world of F1 entirely. You would presume that their actions will generate a lot of column inches with negative stories that have association with formula one.

I'm sure i've missed other examples, but I hope you get the idea that Red Bull's actions if they have orchestrated a cover up would certainly expose them to a charge of bringing the sport into disrepute.

[bluechris]

Strictly speaking though....is it bringing the sport/Formula 1 into disrepute? If anything its more damaging to the team, that dragging F1 name down. Its the journalists that drag the whole thing down.

Correct, lets put it under the carpet , exactly if what they said is true that they gave money to the woman.

[myurr]

Red Bull would have no choice but to refuse to hand over the information in this case.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Red Bull could ask each participant in the investigation for permission to hand over the portion of the report relating to their case to the FIA. As a data controller they can enter into agreement with the FIA (if one isn't already in place, which it likely would be given the existing data sharing) to ensure that the information is treated appropriately and suitably protected. Potentially they only need permission from each of the data subjects.

You would presume that the complainant would be happy to enter into that agreement. I do not believe Horner could refuse as a signatory to the sporting regulations and ISC. He has to comply with any investigation.

You could argue that they don't even need that - under the GDPR RBR need to demonstrate a lawful basis for sharing the information, which can include sharing private information with a regulator for the purposes of oversight. Article 6 sets out a couple of scenarios that can apply, including the data controller (Red Bull) needing to comply with a legal obligation (e.g. investigation under the ISC).

About the only thing I think could block the sharing of the report is if the report is owned entirely by Red Bull GmbH, where the legal entity that is signed up to the FIA's oversight is Red Bull Racing / Red Bull Technology. That latter entity is, however, ultimately Horner's employer and responsible for the decision to retain him. If they defer that decision directly to the parent company then they need to be able to justify that decision. Non-compliance / obstruction of an FIA investigation wouldn't be a good look for continuing to justify that decision.

Whatever the actual path that is taken I wouldn't say anything is clear cut at this stage, and none of us can definitively rule out any of those paths. The only thing that would be certain, should the FIA act, is that a lot of lawyers are going to earn some very big fees arguing over all the applicable legal agreements, rules, regulations, and laws that need to be complied with and taken into account.

[Wouter]

BBC is confirming the appeal, and also confirms that it's the board who made the decision not the independent investigator.

This is currently on the front page of BBC news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68576295

.
The board of RB GmbH consists of:
Yoovidhya (51%) who does not want to lose Horner and
Mark Mateschitz (49%) who wants to get rid of Horner.

The article also says:
Chalerm Yoovidhya, the 51% shareholder has backed Horner and forced 49% shareholders Red Bull Gmbh in Austria
to back down in wanting to force him out.

.
That's the shareholdings not the board of directors - they can be the same, they can be very different.

This article https://www.meiningers-international.co ... s-red-bull, as well as this article https://english.elpais.com/economy-and- ... nder.html#, suggest it's Frank Watzlawick, Alexander Kirchmayr, and Oliver Mintzlaff. So I'm now curious as to whether they made the decision, and how Yoovidhya / Mateschitz are able to project their influence onto the board. I would presume that Yoovidhya can fire the board members (although maybe cannot appoint alternatives without Mateschitz's approval, or something like that) and is keeping them in line in that way. I'd like to properly understand the power dynamic, so will try and find more information later today.

.
Before Dietrich Mateschitz died he and Chalerm Yoovidhya were on the board and no one else. That changed when he died.
So now Mark and Chalerm are on the board with the two CEO's and the FEO. So they decided what was in the investigation statement.
.

The hidden story of the Horner bid to buy Red Bull F1 Racing
March 5, 2024 · by thejudge13

Bla, bla, bla, ....................
When it became clear the godfather of Red Bull was terminally ill, Horner was rightly concerned about what would happen in the future. While he had the undying loyalty of the Austrian billionaire, it was not immediately clear who would control the destiny of the F1 team into the future.

Mateschitz son Mark inherited his 49% stake in the energy drinks empire and the right to appoint a certain number of board members to the Austrian registered Red Bull GmbH parent company. Yet the family of the creator of the magic energy drinks formula from the hinterlands of Thailand held the controlling 51% interest that had been agreed back in 1984 when the global drinks brand was founded.

With the passing of Mateschitz senior it was unclear how the F1 team would be controlled and managed.
Christian Horner was duly concerned that someone lacking the paternalistic interests of his former boss would gain control of the team which could jeopardise his position in the organisation he had built almost from the ground up.

Mark Mateschitz assumed his place on the board and promoted his friend Oliver Mintzlaff to CEO of the group’s sporting activities. Horner now had his answer as Mintzlaff sought to take control of the F1 team’s direction.

[AMG.Tzan]

So there was an official complaint made to the FIA about Horner's allegations! But oh the FIA cannot confirm this…

But I guess it would have been “bad for image of the sport” if the FIA really went ahead and found out that Horner (the leader of the champion team right now) really is guilty!

It’s pretty clear now that there is an “official” effort by the FIA in cooperation with Red Bull to cover up the whole story…

This is embarrassing for formula 1! And the only one responsible for this is Ben! The guy is a clear Red Bull employee and only cares about the fake image of the sport…

I really hope this team implodes at last! It has only damaged the sport throughout the years with its crying and lobbying for rules to be changed to suit them!

Even a whole budget cap scandal wasn’t dealt with accordingly just because it was Red Bull! Any other team would have got away way worse than them! Just look at McLaren! They got a 100M fine and got DSQed from a pretty certain 2007 championship for never using Ferrari’s technical data…