Christian Horner under Investigation

[izzy]

well yes we don't know what happened later do we, except she made the formal complaint and these messages got leaked, after she finally agreed to delete them then didn't. So there was some kind of falling out, after this.

It is a messed up relationship isn't it, and I think she knows it's not really going anywhere, but she likes him, likes him fancying her, and he's really oversexed. And perhaps Geri understands that even, and with him being away half the time.

And then there's the bit with her saying he's jealous and doesn't trust her, and he's denying it and apologising. And sure jealousy can be a control thing, but she's suggesting he gets 'someone professional to talk to' and he openly says he's tried it. I mean, as a conversation it's pretty 50/50 really, especially considering the actual power between them.

Have you tried counting how many times she has to ask Horner to stop or tells him his behaviour is inappropriate? In the eyes of the law if it's more than once then there is a case that it's harassment. Bear in mind that these messages take place over months - this isn't a bad weekend after a messy split, it's a consistent pattern of behaviour over an extended period of time that is utterly inappropriate for an employer.

And the actual power dynamic between them is evident in her treatment since raising the grievance.

well did you notice in #24 he's asking about her in her red trousers and she asks him "are you still playing, thought you would have finished by now" )

I mean yes he does overdo it, but she's no victim, she sets limits and he apologises. And in the whole lot of chats he doesn't give her orders, he talks to her as a person. They both flirt. And he says "there didn't used to be boundaries and now there are" or something.

and after she raised the grievance, well this is the actual power balance isn't it. The actual situation is he's the multimillionaire boss and she's a personal assistant. But in the chats we see, it's not like that, it's two people relating.

And the offer of a way out, is another job surely, just not being his travelling pa on the same private plane, that had become an issue like the hotel. And it's a job she loves. But, Geri is always there in the background isn't she.

[izzy]

@Wouter @izzy

I suspect they texted back and forth a lot more than what the google drive images show. After all she worked for him.

What I meant by what happened after, is what happened after the texting stopped.

yes there was so much more wasn't there, that we don't see. Most of it is this year, after the Christmas talk and her being lonely with family issues.

After the texting stopped, then it's a different thing, she's gone to war, for whatever reason.

[myurr]

well did you notice in #24 he's asking about her in her red trousers and she asks him "are you still playing, thought you would have finished by now" )

Yes, and that's potentially inappropriate depending on the specific order of messages. I haven't sat down to work out the correct order of the messages, but it seems like they're somewhat out of order. If it's consensual then it's not a problem.

I mean yes he does overdo it, but she's no victim, she sets limits and he apologises. And in the whole lot of chats he doesn't give her orders, he talks to her as a person. They both flirt. And he says "there didn't used to be boundaries and now there are" or something.

and after she raised the grievance, well this is the actual power balance isn't it. The actual situation is he's the multimillionaire boss and she's a personal assistant. But in the chats we see, it's not like that, it's two people relating.

I counted six messages where she explicitly told him no and to stop, 8 times she told him his behaviour was inappropriate. There were 20 instances where I believe he behaved inappropriately.

And yes he does say there didn't used to be boundaries and now there are, and that he's struggling to work out where they are. She's then explicit in that he has to behave appropriately and gives the example with Geri. There are instances before and after of Horner not respecting those boundaries. Those instances are the problem.

The power dynamic is between boss and employee from an employment point of view - not of withholding sex or whatever. He holds the ability to fire her, or offer and take away additional benefits (see the example of him graciously allowing her to work from home, a perk she says he doesn't give to others). And the law is explicit that as her employer he has certain additional responsibilities.

And how is her employment status and job going at the moment? That's where the power dynamic lies.

And the offer of a way out, is another job surely, just not being his travelling pa on the same private plane, that had become an issue like the hotel. And it's a job she loves. But, Geri is always there in the background isn't she.

It doesn't matter if it's another job in the company, or to leave the company - it's not permitted within the law.

[Wouter]

I counted six messages where she explicitly told him no and to stop, 8 times she told him his behaviour was inappropriate.
There were 20 instances where I believe he behaved inappropriately.

.
Those numbers aren't correct. Some the same apps have been shown multiple times.
20 instances where he behaved inappropriately?! No way!!
.

It doesn't matter if it's another job in the company, or to leave the company - it's not permitted within the law.

.
Yes it is permitted by law if they both agree that she will take another job in the same company or anywhere else.

[myurr]

I counted six messages where she explicitly told him no and to stop, 8 times she told him his behaviour was inappropriate.
There were 20 instances where I believe he behaved inappropriately.

.
Those numbers aren't correct. Some the same apps have been shown multiple times.
20 instances where he behaved inappropriately?! No way!!
.

It doesn't matter if it's another job in the company, or to leave the company - it's not permitted within the law.

.
Yes it is permitted by law if they both agree that she will take another job in the same company or anywhere else.

I believe I accounted for messages being shown multiple times, but it doesn't matter if it's 5 times, 10 times, 20 times, or 30 times. The important point is that he acted inappropriately after being explicitly told not to by her.

It is not permitted by law to suggest the way to escape his behaviour is to take another job.

[izzy]

well did you notice in #24 he's asking about her in her red trousers and she asks him "are you still playing, thought you would have finished by now" )

Yes, and that's potentially inappropriate depending on the specific order of messages. I haven't sat down to work out the correct order of the messages, but it seems like they're somewhat out of order. If it's consensual then it's not a problem.

I mean yes he does overdo it, but she's no victim, she sets limits and he apologises. And in the whole lot of chats he doesn't give her orders, he talks to her as a person. They both flirt. And he says "there didn't used to be boundaries and now there are" or something.

and after she raised the grievance, well this is the actual power balance isn't it. The actual situation is he's the multimillionaire boss and she's a personal assistant. But in the chats we see, it's not like that, it's two people relating.

I counted six messages where she explicitly told him no and to stop, 8 times she told him his behaviour was inappropriate. There were 20 instances where I believe he behaved inappropriately.

And yes he does say there didn't used to be boundaries and now there are, and that he's struggling to work out where they are. She's then explicit in that he has to behave appropriately and gives the example with Geri. There are instances before and after of Horner not respecting those boundaries. Those instances are the problem.

The power dynamic is between boss and employee from an employment point of view - not of withholding sex or whatever. He holds the ability to fire her, or offer and take away additional benefits (see the example of him graciously allowing her to work from home, a perk she says he doesn't give to others). And the law is explicit that as her employer he has certain additional responsibilities.

And how is her employment status and job going at the moment? That's where the power dynamic lies.

And the offer of a way out, is another job surely, just not being his travelling pa on the same private plane, that had become an issue like the hotel. And it's a job she loves. But, Geri is always there in the background isn't she.

It doesn't matter if it's another job in the company, or to leave the company - it's not permitted within the law.

yes I do see your point. I can see that legally there can be a case, but if we're talking criminal law then it's a scale with a threshold and I can't see it getting up there. And the same with civil law really. He doesn't use his power over her in these chats does he? He's just a person. He doesn't order her to do things, he asks. He doesn't patronise or act superior, he's just a man who's completely oversexed and he can't help it or change it, he more or less says. He likes her, respects her and fancies her, and she responds to that. She can be setting limits but at the same time enjoying it, and there's no sign of any fear is there? She doesn't have to defend herself against him.

So i can just see how the KC and the people he reported to looked at these chats and thought it was okay. A lot of super successful people are oversexed I think. And personally I've ended up liking both of them.

So now I think he's likely to survive. If Helmut did leak them then he's going at the end of the year, and Jos has shown his hand and is toast.

[myurr]

yes I do see your point. I can see that legally there can be a case, but if we're talking criminal law then it's a scale with a threshold and I can't see it getting up there. And the same with civil law really. He doesn't use his power over her in these chats does he? He's just a person. He doesn't order her to do things, he asks. He doesn't patronise or act superior, he's just a man who's completely oversexed and he can't help it or change it, he more or less says. He likes her, respects her and fancies her, and she responds to that. She can be setting limits but at the same time enjoying it, and there's no sign of any fear is there? She doesn't have to defend herself against him.

So i can just see how the KC and the people he reported to looked at these chats and thought it was okay. A lot of super successful people are oversexed I think. And personally I've ended up liking both of them.

I've not made any suggestion of criminal law, it's a civil case likely on sexual harassment grounds, plus we can speculate about other breaches of employment law.

I'll repeat what I've said before but under civil law Horner and Red Bull have an explicit responsibility to take every reasonable step to provide a workplace free from sexual harassment. He, and Red Bull, have demonstrably failed in that duty as demonstrated by the 6 occasions in those leaked texts where the lady asked Horner to stop his behaviour and other messages showing that he failed to do so. All those messages about her in spanx, for example, are after one of the times she told him to stop his inappropriate behaviour. Unless there's another missing message from her telling him "oh actually it's all okay now, please flirt with me some more" then that is a clear example of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Abusing his power as employer is not a requirement for him to be guilty of sexual harassment. He just needs to behave inappropriately after having been told to stop. There is no way to take those texts at face value and conclude that Horner did not behave inappropriately after having been told to stop. It would take quite something to reframe the messages in a way where that were not true.

There is also a sign of fear, when she sent a screenshot of the messages to a friend, presumably not knowing how to react or respond to her employer, with the friend saying it's "sexual assault" and the victim replying to say "I can't tell him that".

You can interpret that exchange in several ways. For me it opens the possibility that she has felt she's had to play along with his advances to a certain degree, and fears having to tell him no. The "sexual assault" is also suggestive of wider context (like him grabbing her bottom at work or something like that), unless her friend meant sexual harassment and got the terms mixed up. The victim may well feel trapped by Horner, unable to carry on with her dream job if she doesn't play along with him to some degree, feeling unable to properly confront him about his behaviour.

So now I think he's likely to survive. If Helmut did leak them then he's going at the end of the year, and Jos has shown his hand and is toast.

I see it as quite the opposite. Horner has played his hand and lost. Marko and Verstappen Snr are still in place, despite Horner's wishes. And now it looks like he'll face a court case and FIA investigation. This is going to drag on for months, and as details inevitably leak he's going to face harder and harder questions, the team's sponsors are going to face questions, the drinks company are going to face questions, etc. Pressure is going to build on him from here. Perhaps slowly at first, but it'll keep building.

[izzy]

Oh is that what that weird extra message was, a friend? Anyway let's see, she stayed online with him while he got off to it, so I'm seeing it as mutual for now. She loved her job, and it was being with him. Pity it went sour.

Anyway, check out

[Watto]

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.

I think there is some tie up here and I think some of this has been somewhat ben answered later in this thread.


Its pretty hard to get a real understanding of the make up on the RB Board. Previously Dietrich Mateschitz was the CEO of the company and seemed to run everything. I'd guess he and Yoovigghia just had a mutual understanding and culd work things out Mateschtz had the place of CEO, Yoovidhia had the 51% controlling stake.

If Mintzalaff is just a CEO I'd accept that he may not know the terms of the report or their findings if hes a board member I think he would almost certainly know, particularly when it effects the area of the business he controls. It certainly gets merky if hes just a CEO. Could see that he may need to know as he needs to be able make decisions and prepare for fallout should it happen, say the report shows signs of Horners wrong doing he's likely need to know how much he has to prepare someone to replace Horner but I certainly accept it may be above his grade.

The leaks of the messages related to HR, thats a pretty fair points its certainly makes sense there are lots of opportunities for leaks there.
.
If the KC report had findings against Horner, what purpose would leaks have if they could hurt RBGmbH, I think there is pretty simple and one that is perhaps coming a little more obvious. That this goes beyond an area RB can control. The news that she has now lodged a complaint with the FIA.

That this could still very very easily make it to court. What could be discovered in disclosure you also likely get this even more into non F1 media. If its discovered the company covered up the wrongdoing and meekly tried to stop if once Yoovidhia put his foot down to support Horner I doubt it looks good and it becomes a far tougher sell to say you tried to stop if after the fact, try and get out in front of it. Show that you tried to do what was right on your own without a court forcing it, especially when its shown there are some there that want him out.

A leak, whether it refereed to non-confidential elements of the report with findings against Horner and Yoovidia overruled. Could easily enough leak at an early sign that the decision wasn't universal decision but the majority won. There are a lot of ways to frame that one I think and no one has really touched it.

I'm confident enough in my read that most of the leaks are from the Austrian side of RB, nothing is every certain in all these things but perhaps without going over every single article again and its timing in all this. Most of the damaging leaks seemed to come from German sources that have had long been a source of Marko (F1 insider, Formula Uno?, and there were a few others) and Eric van Haren and a Dutch F1 reported that has had long lings to the Vesthapphens as in the past had direct interviews with them and follows Jos a little in his rallying career. IF you want a leak you want someone with a sympathy to your cause who you can trust to write an article framed how you want it,.

The F1 insider article(s) for example that first reported the woman had been sacked though not entirely accurate I will accept it was close enough in light she had been suspended and was the first that tackled that angle. so clearly knew something was up. But in article they referred to the Business F1 magazine article on Horner, Gerri had kicked him out of the house among other things. When they refereed to Horner threatening to sue the magazine they mentioned he firm being used was used to defend Price Andrew (was another reference in there too to paint them in a bad light) , Pit of a pitty they didn't mention the author of the Business F1 magazine is one of the most sued libel journos inn the history of the UK. Its far from an attempt to be impartial and present facts.


I'd say Saward is an obvious Horner sided leak. I could see that he might not know everything and hasn't been told something that sheds a very very different light on all this. But I don't see it as simply 'KC report cleared Horner and from there using information to back that claim. A very big concern is that Joe does seem very dismissive of her complaint. If it was a poster on these forums posting like that it would be a red flag. But I think between his article, his history as an F1 journo, and various comments he clearly knows plenty of behinds the scenes details he probably can't go into details without burning a contact(s) or possible revealing confidential data etc. The big question for are key facts hes missing/is unaware of. I read his article as he considered the terms of RB statement but there wasn't enough given what he knows from contacts to go down the baseless internet conspiracy. Its certainly very possible hes missing something though.


I do think perhaps here though you've fallen into the trap of what you've accused Saward of read leaked messages and assumed guilt from there on a lens of Horner in control of everything. I think there was a sign of it with your comments on Marko being potentially suspended a week or so ago and being Horners decision and hes digging himself a grave (I don't think those were your words but think they were of a similar effect, When challenged on it being a Horner call you refereed to Horner being his boss as the RBR CEO and TP he had that authority no arguments on that front. But I think anyone that has ever followed RBR, Marko, Horner etc knows Markos never been under the control of RBR he was always been, pretty clearly, Dietrich Mateschitz right hand man the point of contact between Dietrich and RBR don't think that was even remotely questioned by anyone that knew the makeup of the team even remotely. 'Ferrari tried to poach Horner cost us a lot of money from Marko etc is speaking from above RBR that he, via RBGmbH had the ability not to extend Horners contract - he may be technically on RBR books. But hes always been a RBGmbH point of contact making the calls. Its I think that you've fallen into the trap hes guilty = and and times here I accept with very valid reason I don't see how as you've said there is any reason to read the messages at face value as anything other than harassment and in break of UK employment law. I think Saward has attempted to stick to facts and try be impartial

I don't mean this as a complain I'm just as guilty of the same thing just from a different angle. From an investigation I followed some years ago that got very very messy, was sports related so there was a lot very heated supporter bias that were very blinding.

There were a lot of elements at play with this too, an investigation with the sporting league where they held a join investigation with a federal gov authority (league reps, gov authority investigators, players/staff being interviewed) the gov organization as you'd imagine has some pretty strict confidentiality rules they have to follow, sporting league sadly doesn't so much)

The whole thing was kicked off by Fed gov PR exercise polls were bad need some good PR , look over there at these bad bad sports people doing very bad things we caught. But the into that had was very very early into the process .

Had the league that tried to force the so called chief arthitect to stand down pending the investigation. he refused was never someone to stand down to things like that - bit like Horner here -

It became a PR war via leaks almost daily at times. Didn't toe the leagues line your creds were revoked no access to games,staff etc etc, and they did use this at least once. To this say as he was never charged with anything under the fed body so there was no breach of law (nothing criminal was ever part it it as per this far more civil) he did take a hit under the league kinda make it up as we go guidelines.

To this day you have one side that things hes as guilty as can be and for 'reasons' he was never charged the other think he was scape goated because he refused to pander to the league, who have a far bit of power - they for much of the media landscape here one of their profitable elements. Where I feel - along with quite a few others think the truth sits far more in the middle hes not 'innocent' perse. But hes not what the leaks portrayed either. He did some very silly things in Iink in hindsight he would wish he did differently. 2 of the people targeted by the league one became suicidal one of the others has some huge mental health issues years later from ir and had to receive treatment for it. In saying that too I get why we can argue if Horner did breach harassment laws there is a very clear mental health angle tha we have to be aware of)


Thats a very brief rundown there are many elements to something that lasted some 18 months or maybe more I forget now. So much so there are entire books written about all that went on. I see so many over lapping elements between the two that its probably running my judgment a little on this all and quite possible for the worse.


With her appeal and the FIA complain i'm thinking its more a sign Horners days a numbered but then again honestly who knows.

Hes certainly losing the PR war by a fair margin.

[Wouter]

The complainant has now appealed against the outcome of the extensive investigation against Horner and her complaint against him.
The KC has submitted its findings (which no one else knows) to the board of RB GmbH, which consists of
Mark Mateschitz, Chalerm Yoovidhya, Oliver Mintzlaff, Frank Watzlawick and Alexander Kirchmayr.
These gentlemen have rejected the accusation. Unanimous?

If this appeal is rejected by these gentlemen, Miss H will initiate legal civil proceedings and that could take months,
while Horner will probably continue working. Helmut Marko, Max and Jos have said that the team must first find peace.
I don't see that happening as long as Horner continues to work.

[maxxer]

The complainant has now appealed against the outcome of the extensive investigation against Horner and her complaint against him.
The KC has submitted its findings (which no one else knows) to the board of RB GmbH, which consists of
Mark Mateschitz, Chalerm Yoovidhya, Oliver Mintzlaff, Frank Watzlawick and Alexander Kirchmayr.
These gentlemen have rejected the accusation. Unanimous?

If this appeal is rejected by these gentlemen, Miss H will initiate legal civil proceedings and that could take months,
while Horner will probably continue working. Helmut Marko, Max and Jos have said that the team must first find peace.
I don't see that happening as long as Horner continues to work.

We still dont know if David Beckham cheated or not and that was 20 years ago ?

[Watto]

The complainant has now appealed against the outcome of the extensive investigation against Horner and her complaint against him.
The KC has submitted its findings (which no one else knows) to the board of RB GmbH, which consists of
Mark Mateschitz, Chalerm Yoovidhya, Oliver Mintzlaff, Frank Watzlawick and Alexander Kirchmayr.
These gentlemen have rejected the accusation. Unanimous?

If this appeal is rejected by these gentlemen, Miss H will initiate legal civil proceedings and that could take months,
while Horner will probably continue working. Helmut Marko, Max and Jos have said that the team must first find peace.
I don't see that happening as long as Horner continues to work.

Is this reported somewhere or your opinion

that board group makes sense though

[izzy]

The complainant has now appealed against the outcome of the extensive investigation against Horner and her complaint against him.
The KC has submitted its findings (which no one else knows) to the board of RB GmbH, which consists of
Mark Mateschitz, Chalerm Yoovidhya, Oliver Mintzlaff, Frank Watzlawick and Alexander Kirchmayr.
These gentlemen have rejected the accusation. Unanimous?

If this appeal is rejected by these gentlemen, Miss H will initiate legal civil proceedings and that could take months,
while Horner will probably continue working. Helmut Marko, Max and Jos have said that the team must first find peace.
I don't see that happening as long as Horner continues to work.

They're going to dismiss the appeal aren't they, unless there's some new evidence we don't know about. She's said she's going to sue, but she hasn't actually done it yet, and it probably depends if someone is backing her.

If she gets objective legal advice they're going to point out she encouraged him to get to sleep by playing with himself, told him she was in the shower or in pyjamas, wound him up on the plane, offered to wear something he liked, and stayed online with him while he got off thinking about her. They'll bring up the lack of coercion or use of authority in the conversations, and the fairly intimate, caring discussion about mental health care. The 'controlling' argument isn't going to fly at all.

And then, the board have the huge question - who do they replace him with? He is quite weird, I mean the spax lol, but at the same time he's a very rare, special person to have got that team to where it is in every single department. So do they really want to swap him for someone normal? Who?

[Wouter]

The complainant has now appealed against the outcome of the extensive investigation against Horner and her complaint against him.
The KC has submitted its findings (which no one else knows) to the board of RB GmbH, which consists of
Mark Mateschitz, Chalerm Yoovidhya, Oliver Mintzlaff, Frank Watzlawick and Alexander Kirchmayr.
These gentlemen have rejected the accusation. Unanimous?

If this appeal is rejected by these gentlemen, Miss H will initiate legal civil proceedings and that could take months,
while Horner will probably continue working. Helmut Marko, Max and Jos have said that the team must first find peace.
I don't see that happening as long as Horner continues to work.

.
Is this reported somewhere or your opinion

that board group makes sense though

.
This is not my opinion. I've read it on several F1 newssites.

[myurr]

They're going to dismiss the appeal aren't they, unless there's some new evidence we don't know about. She's said she's going to sue, but she hasn't actually done it yet, and it probably depends if someone is backing her.

If she gets objective legal advice they're going to point out she encouraged him to get to sleep by playing with himself, told him she was in the shower or in pyjamas, wound him up on the plane, offered to wear something he liked, and stayed online with him while he got off thinking about her. They'll bring up the lack of coercion or use of authority in the conversations, and the fairly intimate, caring discussion about mental health care. The 'controlling' argument isn't going to fly at all.

And then, the board have the huge question - who do they replace him with? He is quite weird, I mean the spax lol, but at the same time he's a very rare, special person to have got that team to where it is in every single department. So do they really want to swap him for someone normal? Who?

The process is to appeal the internal Red Bull decision, then if that is unsuccessful to take the case to tribunal, possibly offering mediation as an alternative.

She will have objective legal advice - indeed it's reported that a switch in lawyers was the reason given for taking longer than 5 days to notify Red Bull of her decision to appeal. That objective legal advice has given her confidence to proceed with the claim. None of what you said is relevant to the case and comes across as excusing Horner's sexual harassment. You're also ignoring that he repeatedly turned up at her hotel room uninvited to check up on what she was doing - that was in the discussion about controlling behaviour, and is also unacceptable behaviour for an employer.

I really do not understand why people keep trying to excuse harassment because consent was given at some point. Consent can be taken away and it is upon others to modify their behaviour to match. Surely that is understood by all?