Christian Horner under Investigation

[chrisc90]

Pointless going round in circles. Those who have investigated, have investigated. Sure all the correct legal procedures have been followed.

Not really gaining anything in here now. Might be time to lock the thread unless new happenings come to light in future.?

[Vanja #66]

When the first article about an investigation into him appeared, he did indeed respond by saying that he was just continuing to do his job because he felt he had done nothing wrong, but when the results of the investigation came out and the complaint was rejected, those text messages and photos quickly came out and went around the world. He did not respond to that.

When someone lies and you want to respond, it's like that person threw a massive stack of papers from a 20-storey building and you trying to pick them all up afterwards. The "leak" was ridiculous and from any legal advisor they would tell you not to make any comment in the media after the first step of the process started - which is how it was

Let's not forget the same mailing list later received a similar "complaint" from an "anonymous" Mercedes employee about Mercedes neglecting Hamilton, favouring Russell and what no

[Dunlay]

When the first article about an investigation into him appeared, he did indeed respond by saying that he was just continuing to do his job because he felt he had done nothing wrong, but when the results of the investigation came out and the complaint was rejected, those text messages and photos quickly came out and went around the world. He did not respond to that.

When someone lies and you want to respond, it's like that person threw a massive stack of papers from a 20-storey building and you trying to pick them all up afterwards. The "leak" was ridiculous and from any legal advisor they would tell you not to make any comment in the media after the first step of the process started - which is how it was

Let's not forget the same mailing list later received a similar "complaint" from an "anonymous" Mercedes employee about Mercedes neglecting Hamilton, favouring Russell and what no

I didn't undertand this stand by people that, if someone gets accused of wrongdoing, they have to react strongly and deny it out loud in public. Otherwise, he is guilty! I have seen many that denied it out loud, but then found guilty.

[PapayaFan481]

Do we have the KC report made public? Can you please share the link? If no link, then this is a lie to boost an argument. The only media reports I have read so far, simply say the KC has dismissed the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

This entire thread of around 200 hundred pages is an argument of imaginations without any verified and proven, actual proof of the matter. The only official truth, was Horner was accused by "someone" and subsequently two KCs have looked into the matter and dismissed the complaint. Everything else is cooked up.

Let's be clear, the KC did not dismiss the case, they made a report to RB who then dismissed the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/artic ... ormula-one

This week, the finding, that the appeal was not upheld, was presented to the board of Red Bull’s parent company, Red Bull GmbH, which accepted the decision.
.
.

"That complaint was dealt with through the company’s grievance procedure by the appointment of an independent KC who dismissed the grievance.

“The complainant exercised the right to appeal, and the appeal was carried out by another independent KC. All stages of the appeal process have now been concluded, with the final outcome that the appeal is not upheld. The KC’s conclusions have been accepted and adopted by Red Bull. The internal process has concluded.”

Talk about double standards. I am asked to provide proof of a negative, but apparently an article in a newspaper which provides no named sources is good enough for you?

I'm done with this thread now anyway. Clearly both sides are entrenched and have our opinions and interpretation of facts. Nothing is going to change that.

[Dunlay]

Let's be clear, the KC did not dismiss the case, they made a report to RB who then dismissed the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/artic ... ormula-one

This week, the finding, that the appeal was not upheld, was presented to the board of Red Bull’s parent company, Red Bull GmbH, which accepted the decision.
.
.

"That complaint was dealt with through the company’s grievance procedure by the appointment of an independent KC who dismissed the grievance.

“The complainant exercised the right to appeal, and the appeal was carried out by another independent KC. All stages of the appeal process have now been concluded, with the final outcome that the appeal is not upheld. The KC’s conclusions have been accepted and adopted by Red Bull. The internal process has concluded.”

Talk about double standards. I am asked to provide proof of a negative, but apparently an article in a newspaper which provides no named sources is good enough for you?

I'm done with this thread now anyway. Clearly both sides are entrenched and have our opinions and interpretation of facts. Nothing is going to change that.

Do you have a source for the claim you made that it wasn't KC, but Red Bull that dismissed the case? Atleast I am quoting a news report, not cooking something out. Even the Forensic report that I asked, would be made public by the same media and you would have to quote the same to prove your point, if that ever happens. Not that Red Bull or Forensic team is going to send a personal email to you.

[Wouter]

Do you have a source for the claim you made that it wasn't KC, but Red Bull that dismissed the case?

.
According to this statement from RB it were not the KC's who dismissed the case. They gave there conclusions and RB
accepted and adopted them by dismissing the case.
.

08 Aug 2024
“Earlier this year a complaint raised against Christian Horner was investigated. That complaint was dealt with through the company’s grievance procedure by the appointment of an independent KC who dismissed the grievance.

“The complainant exercised the right to appeal, and the appeal was carried out by another independent KC. All stages of the appeal process have now been concluded, with the final outcome that the appeal is not being upheld.

“The KC’s conclusions have been accepted and adopted by Red Bull. The internal process has concluded.

“The company respects the privacy of all its employees and will not be making further public comment on this matter at this time.

“Red Bull is committed to continuing to meet the highest workplace standards.”

[FW17]

I am sure the Miami investigation of Red Bull brakes were instigated after a Red Bull employees who wants Horner out for loss of Championships leaked the highly secretive info.

[Dunlay]

Do you have a source for the claim you made that it wasn't KC, but Red Bull that dismissed the case?

.
According to this statement from RB it were not the KC's who dismissed the case. They gave there conclusions and RB
accepted and adopted them by dismissing the case.
.

08 Aug 2024
“Earlier this year a complaint raised against Christian Horner was investigated. That complaint was dealt with through the company’s grievance procedure by the appointment of an independent KC who dismissed the grievance.

“The complainant exercised the right to appeal, and the appeal was carried out by another independent KC. All stages of the appeal process have now been concluded, with the final outcome that the appeal is not being upheld.

“The KC’s conclusions have been accepted and adopted by Red Bull. The internal process has concluded.

“The company respects the privacy of all its employees and will not be making further public comment on this matter at this time.

“Red Bull is committed to continuing to meet the highest workplace standards.”

How do you read the above line? I read it as, KC didn't find any evidence to declare CH guilty and that was the basis for Red Bull to dismiss the case.

Or are you suggesting, KC said Horner is guilty, but Red Bull anyway decided to dismiss the case? Because that would be conjecture to suggest and a criminal offense on Red Bull's part.

What would you do if the KC that you appointed says, "I didn't find any evidence to incriminate the accused"? Do you not dismiss the case on the basis of KC's findings? If I come and say, hey you dismissed the case, not KC. How would that sound?

[Waz]

Do you have a source for the claim you made that it wasn't KC, but Red Bull that dismissed the case?

.
According to this statement from RB it were not the KC's who dismissed the case. They gave there conclusions and RB
accepted and adopted them by dismissing the case.
.

08 Aug 2024
“Earlier this year a complaint raised against Christian Horner was investigated. That complaint was dealt with through the company’s grievance procedure by the appointment of an independent KC who dismissed the grievance.

“The complainant exercised the right to appeal, and the appeal was carried out by another independent KC. All stages of the appeal process have now been concluded, with the final outcome that the appeal is not being upheld.

“The KC’s conclusions have been accepted and adopted by Red Bull. The internal process has concluded.

“The company respects the privacy of all its employees and will not be making further public comment on this matter at this time.

“Red Bull is committed to continuing to meet the highest workplace standards.”

It says very specifically at the end of the first paragraph that it was the KC who dismissed the grievance.

Internally, Red Bull adopted the same conclusion, which had dismissed the complaint, with reasons, I would assume.

Inserting two commas as such :
"That complaint was dealt with through the company’s grievance procedure, by the appointment of an independent KC, who dismissed the grievance." would change the meaning to Red Bull dismissing the case.

In the original text, it is meant the KC is the party dismissing the complaint.

[Wouter]

@Waz and @Dunlay:

RB and Horner's PA have hired a KC. They have given their opinion, but it is NOT up to them to reject the complaint or to uphold it.
They are only allowed to state their findings. The client [=RB who pays the KC] has to indicate whether they agree with this
and THEY then bring their opinion to the outside world. In this case they have adopted the recommendations of the KCs.

[SiLo]

I'm guessing the KC found enough evidence that it was a reciprocal relationship so couldn't impart any wrongdoing on either party.

[PapayaFan481]

I'm guessing the KC found enough evidence that it was a reciprocal relationship so couldn't impart any wrongdoing on either party.

So the same thing that happens in so many DV cases. It becomes he says/she says and so the abuser gets away with it.

[SiLo]

I'm guessing the KC found enough evidence that it was a reciprocal relationship so couldn't impart any wrongdoing on either party.

So the same thing that happens in so many DV cases. It becomes he says/she says and so the abuser gets away with it.

Maybe, it wouldn't surprise me if from the evidence, it's just not clear that the accuser wasn't an active and consenting participant in some ways, and at a certain point felt violated so reported it. I'd imagine it's quite nuanced, hence the KCs not being able to make a decision either way.

I think the biggest takeaway is more that Horner is happy to cheat on his wife. I thought he was a tool before, but after that he's definitely one.

[PapayaFan481]

I'm guessing the KC found enough evidence that it was a reciprocal relationship so couldn't impart any wrongdoing on either party.

So the same thing that happens in so many DV cases. It becomes he says/she says and so the abuser gets away with it.

Maybe, it wouldn't surprise me if from the evidence, it's just not clear that the accuser wasn't an active and consenting participant in some ways, and at a certain point felt violated so reported it. I'd imagine it's quite nuanced, hence the KCs not being able to make a decision either way.

I think the biggest takeaway is more that Horner is happy to cheat on his wife. I thought he was a tool before, but after that he's definitely one.

Yeah. Plus he seems to have become more annoying than ever in interviews lol

[Wouter]

Employee who accused Brit of inappropriate behavior takes further action

Case involving Red Bull team boss Christian Horner before the court; English media have been forced to remain silent for months

Red Bull team boss Christian Horner was acquitted of inappropriate behavior twice last year after internal investigations. The case has not yet been closed behind the scenes. The employee who made the allegations has taken further steps and has gone to the British employment tribunal. In the meantime, English media have been banned from reporting on the saga for months.

The case came to light in early February 2024, after Red Bull's head office confirmed to De Telegraaf that it had hired an external lawyer to investigate the allegations against Horner. The team boss and CEO of the racing team of four-time world champion Max Verstappen has always denied the accusations. On February 28 last year, the day before the start of the Formula 1 season, he was acquitted in the internal investigation.

"English media have not been allowed to report on the saga for months"

The employee was suspended shortly afterwards. British media reported that this had happened because she had allegedly been 'not honest'. She appealed against the first ruling and in August Horner (51) was acquitted again. This concluded the internal process. The woman in question is not letting it rest. For months there has been speculation about a possible court case. Various sources in the paddock confirmed to De Telegraaf in the past period that the employee's case against Horner and Red Bull will come before the employment tribunal in January 2026. These are the courts where disputes between employers and employees are dealt with.

Despite the commotion of last season, English media have not reported on the case for some time. This has to do with a so-called Reporting Restriction Order (RRO) from the court, which was issued in the United Kingdom at the request of the Horner camp and has determined that all British media are no longer allowed to report on the developments. This will remain the case until the restrictions are lifted. Various media are opposing the ban, which has been in place since April last year. In sensitive cases involving celebrities, these RROs are often issued in England.

"Hearing at 'employment tribunal' in January 2026"

In January 2026, the saga surrounding the employee and the team boss will be revived at the employment tribunal. Unless both parties reach a settlement this year, in order to avoid a lawsuit in this way. So far, this has not happened and the case has been scheduled for trial.


The whole Dutch article: https://archive.is/ZOnpr