Christian Horner under Investigation

[myurr]

I see this one as similar to the KC report and Horner without knowing what their advice is I don't think you can argue how confident she could really be was it find a lawyer who would take on your cause because their advice was your case wasn't strong? I doubt thats the reason for a lawyer switch more likely would be the original lawyer was on call if she felt she was being sidelined, call them advice if that was possible if it wasn't then they'll deal with RBR on her behalf. Tje switch likely related to someone who is more adapt at dealing maybe presenting a case to the FIA, maybe dealing with the accusations RBR leveled at her in their letter.

My guess is she's switched to a lawyer more specialised in this kind of case. That could be because she's paying for that advice, or it could be that she's presented them with the case details and they're taking it on with a view to recovering their fee from subsequent damages. If the latter then that would be indicative of a strong case.

We can only speculate here though until more information comes to light.

[Watto]

I see this one as similar to the KC report and Horner without knowing what their advice is I don't think you can argue how confident she could really be was it find a lawyer who would take on your cause because their advice was your case wasn't strong? I doubt thats the reason for a lawyer switch more likely would be the original lawyer was on call if she felt she was being sidelined, call them advice if that was possible if it wasn't then they'll deal with RBR on her behalf. Tje switch likely related to someone who is more adapt at dealing maybe presenting a case to the FIA, maybe dealing with the accusations RBR leveled at her in their letter.

My guess is she's switched to a lawyer more specialised in this kind of case. That could be because she's paying for that advice, or it could be that she's presented them with the case details and they're taking it on with a view to recovering their fee from subsequent damages. If the latter then that would be indicative of a strong case.

We can only speculate here though until more information comes to light.

That would be logical and agree - was the point I was trying to make too but have heard from lawyers who advised against taking action client still wanted to go ahead. Perhaps the one I’ve seen where they can explain in detail more (especially if its an area of their expertise) is after the full findings have been released break it al down into how a judge/jury came up with their result sometimes referring to caselaw to back things up or argue weak points too (similar cases, different result). Can be the lawyer didn't agree with the verdict - and can back it with similar cases. But say the grounds of appeal are very very thin sometimes people still roll the dice and lose. I found it perhaps surprising sometimes just how different a lawyer who knows that area's advice can be compared to even semi educated on the law can be. The client (like RB with the KC report) makes the call the lawyer can only advise. We don't know what advise is given nor what info they have in either case but can obviously speculate.

[myurr]

That would be logical and agree - was the point I was trying to make too but have heard from lawyers who advised against taking action client still wanted to go ahead. Perhaps the one I’ve seen where they can explain in detail more (especially if its an area of their expertise) is after the full findings have been released break it al down into how a judge/jury came up with their result sometimes referring to caselaw to back things up or argue weak points too (similar cases, different result). Can be the lawyer didn't agree with the verdict - and can back it with similar cases. But say the grounds of appeal are very very thin sometimes people still roll the dice and lose. I found it perhaps surprising sometimes just how different a lawyer who knows that area's advice can be compared to even semi educated on the law can be. The client (like RB with the KC report) makes the call the lawyer can only advise. We don't know what advise is given nor what info they have in either case but can obviously speculate.

It really depends if she's paying the lawyers by the hour, or if they've taken her case on with their costs coming from the damages. In the latter case they'd only do so if they felt there was a strong case.

If she's paying by the hour then as you say it's entirely her choice and she can go against their advice.

[izzy]

Just been watching The Horndog Files on yt. Lol. Also again that I can't stop giggling to.

So then, I'm wondering what the people in the team are thinking? He's a complete idiot in the chats, but also human. I'm really surprised that I like him now, when before I didn't. But less in awe, if you see what I mean.

The Verstappens and Helmut and whoever have latched onto her, which side is the garage on? And can he still lead them? What will it look like in Oz?

[Watto]

That would be logical and agree - was the point I was trying to make too but have heard from lawyers who advised against taking action client still wanted to go ahead. Perhaps the one I’ve seen where they can explain in detail more (especially if its an area of their expertise) is after the full findings have been released break it al down into how a judge/jury came up with their result sometimes referring to caselaw to back things up or argue weak points too (similar cases, different result). Can be the lawyer didn't agree with the verdict - and can back it with similar cases. But say the grounds of appeal are very very thin sometimes people still roll the dice and lose. I found it perhaps surprising sometimes just how different a lawyer who knows that area's advice can be compared to even semi educated on the law can be. The client (like RB with the KC report) makes the call the lawyer can only advise. We don't know what advise is given nor what info they have in either case but can obviously speculate.

It really depends if she's paying the lawyers by the hour, or if they've taken her case on with their costs coming from the damages. In the latter case they'd only do so if they felt there was a strong case.

If she's paying by the hour then as you say it's entirely her choice and she can go against their advice.

i am feeling she is paying for then based on a few articles that made a little comment on it something like ‘it’s unknown who is paying for her lawyer’ feels like a reference that someone is funding it for her.

Even shared costs I don’t entirely disagree with it a sign they think it’s strong, have a potential case sure but been in the past woman’s rights firms that have taken in cases with a profile for the PR exposure - I’d agree that they wouldn’t completely throw money at it if there was no chance if a win. But if a firm got their name out there as standing up for her rights over a huge company they may be willing to take the risk. Plenty seem to enjoy the exposure of public comments on things like this.

[Espresso]

i am feeling she is paying for then based on a few articles that made a little comment on it something like ‘it’s unknown who is paying for her lawyer’ feels like a reference that someone is funding it for her.

Even shared costs I don’t entirely disagree with it a sign they think it’s strong, have a potential case sure but been in the past woman’s rights firms that have taken in cases with a profile for the PR exposure - I’d agree that they wouldn’t completely throw money at it if there was no chance if a win. But if a firm got their name out there as standing up for her rights over a huge company they may be willing to take the risk. Plenty seem to enjoy the exposure of public comments on things like this.

Well she is from a quite wealthy family and a PA does earn quite well.
Between the lines I read she wanted more/all from Christian, didn't get it and went on a rampage...
But all in all it seems to be a grudge between two parties not willing to leave the company and both share a part of the blame.

And more and more it turns into a grudge attack á la Amber Heard where one not so happy party wants to destroy the other in public. And she does a good job.
Because public judgement focus on Christian as to culprit based on assumptions and ´prepared´ proof, exactly the same script as Johnny Depp got burned. And in that same view this saga will continue for a long time...

What collateral damage she causes doesn't matter.
Whether wrong or right she also doesn't realise/see she burned not only her ship (RBR) in the process but also her future. What employer is willing to burn their hands with her as employee?

[Watto]

i am feeling she is paying for then based on a few articles that made a little comment on it something like ‘it’s unknown who is paying for her lawyer’ feels like a reference that someone is funding it for her.

Even shared costs I don’t entirely disagree with it a sign they think it’s strong, have a potential case sure but been in the past woman’s rights firms that have taken in cases with a profile for the PR exposure - I’d agree that they wouldn’t completely throw money at it if there was no chance if a win. But if a firm got their name out there as standing up for her rights over a huge company they may be willing to take the risk. Plenty seem to enjoy the exposure of public comments on things like this.

Well she is from a quite wealthy family and a PA does earn quite well.
Between the lines I read she wanted more/all from Christian, didn't get it and went on a rampage...
But all in all it seems to be a grudge between two parties not willing to leave the company and both share a part of the blame.

And more and more it turns into a grudge attack á la Amber Heard where one not so happy party wants to destroy the other in public. And she does a good job.
Because public judgement focus on Christian as to culprit based on assumptions and ´prepared´ proof, exactly the same script as Johnny Depp got burned. And in that same view this saga will continue for a long time...

What collateral damage she causes doesn't matter.
Whether wrong or right she also doesn't realise/see she burned not only her ship (RBR) in the process but also her future. What employer is willing to burn their hands with her as employee?

Depends a little on her level of representation if this a KC involved if she was looking at court, if she is then asked to cover Horners costs if she loses(don’t know if you can with these cases) you can quickly rack up a 6 figure costs I. Your own lawyer add maybe Horner’s

From the various articles the Austrian side of RB are supporting her if Horner goes id think she stays. I think if she wanted a role at another team she’d fine one unless she has been found to be doing something very wrong

[Wouter]

'Suspending Horner temporarily is best for him and Red Bull'

According to Van den Wall Bake, (who has coached Ajax, the Dutch national team and the Volvo Ocean Race, among others}
Red Bull and Red Bull Racing are largely to blame for the fact that the matter continues to occupy minds.
"This kind of thing happens everywhere. If you act immediately and decisively, the damage is limited.
But if it keeps simmering on, the damage only gets worse. Of course, hardly anyone knows the exact situation.
The longer it all takes, the more the situation of, 'Where there's smoke, there's fire'."

.
Interesting point of view!

https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/265268/s ... -bull.html

[Wouter]

Column: F1 needs to take control of the Red Bull drama as Horner accuser files FIA complaint

A communications team has now been hired by the employee, The Associated Press has learned. The employee has both exercised the right to appeal Red Bull’s clearance of Horner, and as of “end of last week,” had filed a formal complaint with F1 governing body FIA, the communications firm confirmed Monday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This topic has sucked all the air out of the room for F1. Nothing else matters right now, from Lewis Hamilton’s final season at Mercedes and the leadership changes at Haas to Michael Andretti’s failed bid to join F1 and the FIA’s other investigations. All of that is secondary to Red Bull telling everyone to mind their own business.

Someone has to show what kind of business F1 really is by demanding something more out of Red Bull. Be it F1, or the FIA, or every sponsor tied to Red Bull right now, someone needs to clean this up.

Or is everyone just going to take Red Bull’s word for it?

.
https://apnews.com/article/f1-red-bull- ... 15bc04d359

[izzy]

Column: F1 needs to take control of the Red Bull drama as Horner accuser files FIA complaint

A communications team has now been hired by the employee, The Associated Press has learned. The employee has both exercised the right to appeal Red Bull’s clearance of Horner, and as of “end of last week,” had filed a formal complaint with F1 governing body FIA, the communications firm confirmed Monday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This topic has sucked all the air out of the room for F1. Nothing else matters right now, from Lewis Hamilton’s final season at Mercedes and the leadership changes at Haas to Michael Andretti’s failed bid to join F1 and the FIA’s other investigations. All of that is secondary to Red Bull telling everyone to mind their own business.

Someone has to show what kind of business F1 really is by demanding something more out of Red Bull. Be it F1, or the FIA, or every sponsor tied to Red Bull right now, someone needs to clean this up.

Or is everyone just going to take Red Bull’s word for it?

.
https://apnews.com/article/f1-red-bull- ... 15bc04d359

a communications team? Well it's obviously not just her is it, it's the Dark Side she's gone over to

I don't think it'll really get to court, the idea is to create pressure, for as long as possible, in the media. In court her own participation would be brought out, after all. In fact this column you quote is probably an example of the communication team in action, I mean "sucked all the air out of the room for F1" is emoting isn't it, and nonsense anyway, it's miles more interesting than Andretti!

What's the body language going to be around Christian Horndog? This is the Big Issue this weekend, much more than Max winning.

[dans79]

In court her own participation would be brought out, after all.

Imo, It's already obvious that she willingly participated at some point. However that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. If she ended her voluntary participation at some point, but Horner persisted, or started treating her badly as an employee that's about all it would take

[PapayaFan481]

She's not a victim, in these chats. She has plenty of power, and a lot of the chat is about where she sets the limits for him, with the boundaries having been moving apparently. Horner is testing them, but she participates. She doesn't have to tell him she's in the shower does she? She sets him up to react to the idea. Just like she doesn't have to stay chatting while he gets off, which can be very sexy if she fancies him, and very flattering too.

The striking thing about these chats is how human they are, how equal, intimate, trusting, and sexy. The opposition lawyer, if it gets to that, is going to have a fun time with it.

So for you no doesn't mean no...

If you honestly believe that, then why would the victim's lawyers be advising her to pursue the case? Why is Horner upset about these messages, that in your view clear his name, being leaked? Do you think it possible Horner leaked the messages himself in order to clear his name? Why do you think it hasn't worked and the pressure on him is growing?

I feel very, very strongly about men victimising women, don't try and win by getting personal. That is a disgusting thing to post.

I only post what I honestly believe, thanks very much. Obviously these are terrible for Horner, his marriage, kids, what people think of him being so ridiculous. I just like him not treating her as junior. And her for standing up for herself and caring for him at the same time.

As someone who's profession includes training on how to spot various different kinds of abuse, I can tell you now, IF the texts are real, then Horner was demonstrating textbook controlling behaviour.

It is scary that people on here still can't see that.

[Cs98]

At the end of the day this woman can blow up Horner any time she likes by going public and bringing the receipts. The messages are enough in and of themselves, they only need to be confirmed. He'll be hoping she is angling for a settlement and not just exhausting the "proper" routes before the eventual media coming out party. If that comes to pass the irony of Horner putting himself above the team for absolutely no gain will be... palpable.

[izzy]

At the end of the day this woman can blow up Horner any time she likes by going public and bringing the receipts. The messages are enough in and of themselves, they only need to be confirmed. He'll be hoping she is angling for a settlement and not just exhausting the "proper" routes before the eventual media coming out party. If that comes to pass the irony of Horner putting himself above the team for absolutely no gain will be... palpable.

well don't forget going public means her doing message sex with him and all the rest, with a married man who has kids, fooling around in planes... not everyone would be onside with it. I mean she could, but there are reasons she hasn't, apart from imo not winning.

[BMMR61]

So for you no doesn't mean no...

If you honestly believe that, then why would the victim's lawyers be advising her to pursue the case? Why is Horner upset about these messages, that in your view clear his name, being leaked? Do you think it possible Horner leaked the messages himself in order to clear his name? Why do you think it hasn't worked and the pressure on him is growing?

I feel very, very strongly about men victimising women, don't try and win by getting personal. That is a disgusting thing to post.

I only post what I honestly believe, thanks very much. Obviously these are terrible for Horner, his marriage, kids, what people think of him being so ridiculous. I just like him not treating her as junior. And her for standing up for herself and caring for him at the same time.

As someone who's profession includes training on how to spot various different kinds of abuse, I can tell you now, IF the texts are real, then Horner was demonstrating textbook controlling behaviour.

It is scary that people on here still can't see that.

I don't discount your experience (HR?) but have my own perspective of following the long term trends in human behaviour. Increasingly there has been a generational shift to lower acceptance of risk, and an underlying ethos of self-entitlement. This does not disregard the right to expect fair treatment by an employer or "superior" in the workplace (sorry poor word choice). The culture change has caught many out in the intergenerational ebb and flow and what was accepted as just part of the game turned into a "micro-aggression" years ago. Some of us who started in the workplace 30 or more years ago struggle to come to terms with what we may see as hypersensitivity in reaction to communications. Is it brought on by communication style, taken in it's most expansive forms?

I know so little about this case - what I've read in the mainstream media - that judging Horner's part in this would be stupid, futile and to a degree unfair. The other party is certainly aggrieved and in answer to considerable effort to get redress, been granted process. The process so far has not gone her way and she has become so aggrieved as going into scorched earth mode, at least that's how it appears. By this I refer to the leaks which I contend are coming from the party or parties attacking Horner. Revenge is never a good look and the employee still has further process to call on without failing to keep wise and quiet counsel and throwing the toys out of the cot.

This may sound naive but I have through many past disputes believed that full attack mode usually results in unintended and unfortunate consequences escalating on both sides. Neither side comes out looking squeaky clean.