Christian Horner

Red Bull ‘suspends employee behind Horner allegations’

Formula 1

Posted on

| Written by

The Red Bull employee whose allegations against Christian Horner prompted an internal investigation has been suspended with pay, according to multiple reports.

The team has not commented on the outcome of the investigation since Horner was cleared eight days ago.

Soon after the complaint was dismissed, a series of documents purportedly containing information related to the investigation were leaked to a wide range of people involved in the sport.

Horner has consistently denied the allegations of inappropriate behaviour which were made against him. He attended the team’s launch and pre-season testing before the results of the investigation were announced. Horner and Red Bull have not commented on the contents of the leak, which are claimed to show messages exchanged between Horner and a female team member.

Red Bull’s rival teams have called on Formula 1 and the FIA to give assurances they are satisfied with how the team conducted its investigation. Red Bull said its investigation was “fair, rigorous and impartial” but its findings were “confidential”.

The episode has put Red Bull under scrutiny and triggered questions over whether Horner will be able to remain in charge of the team he has led since it enter F1 19 years ago. It has also led to speculation over whether reigning world champion Max Verstappen or the team’s star designer Adrian Newey might try to leave. Verstappen’s father Jos said last week the team would “explode” if Horner remained in charge.

The driver said this weekend the speculation around Horner was “not good for the team.” He is believed to have been urged to publicly back Horner by FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem.

Don’t miss anything new from RaceFans

Follow RaceFans on social media:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2024 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix

Browse all 2024 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

84 comments on “Red Bull ‘suspends employee behind Horner allegations’”

  1. Why suspend them?

    IF the accusations are false, then the liar should be sacked.
    And why isn’t Horner going after the accuser for defamation of character?
    If someone had attempted to destroy both your careerer and your marriage, then wouldn’t you want to expose that person for what they are?

    1. Given the course of actions, it would appear they suspect she is behind the leaks. It came from someone who had access to not only the screenshots of the reported discourse between them but also had access to the contact list used.

      The use of the email addresses is a clear GDPR breach on at least a couple of counts:
      The contact information used to send the email out constitutes a misuse of a data subject’s personal information. A company must ensure that all information is only used for purposes it has permission and that is not misused. Whoever had access to these emails, had access to them in order to allow them to do their job, it doesn’t allow them to use them as they wish.
      It was reported that the recipients could also see all of the other recipients it was sent to, that is a significant data breach that Red Bull is going to be in very deep doodoo for. Some of the email addresses may have been publicly available, but there is a good chance many of the recipients’ addresses were not.

    2. Not necessarily – we don’t know the full outcome of the investigation. If someone puts in a complaint in good faith and it’s decided in the end to not uphold their complaint, that doesn’t mean they have lied. We don’t know either way. I think the suspension is much more to do with the messages that got leaked.

    3. There’s a huge difference between “this makes me feel uneasy, please look into this privately within the company” and “I’m going to make stuff up and lie about it”. No need for such absolutes.

      There is basically nothing known about this, other than the curious contortions of the Red Bull group as a whole. There’s certainly no basis to accuse individuals of making stuff up, being a leaker, or such things.

    4. IF the accusations are false, then the liar should be sacked.

      Correct, but that can only happen after the bureaucratic and legal procedure are done.

    5. IF the accusations are false, then the liar should be sacked.

      Of course, you could equally say, “if the accusations are true, the liar should be sacked”

      We can sit on the fence and try to look, but apparently all the action is indoors and the curtains are closed

    6. Because the Father of his Star Driver tried to stage a coup via a employee he was friends with and you cant just kick the kid out

    7. @nullapax British employment law makes it difficult to summarily fire someone unless the charge is extremely serious and solidly evidenced at the point of firing (think “risk of significant injury, serious property damage or likely to end up in court with information already in the employer’s hands”), the person to be sacked is a known repeat offender who has been through a certain amount of disciplinary proceedings for similar categories of cause already – or there is a full investigation.

      Also, it’s illegal in the UK to penalise someone (let alone with a sacking) for making a good-faith accusation of wrongdoing, even if it turns out not to meet the criteria for disciplinary action to be taken against the accused – unless proof exists of the complaint being outright vexatious. British labour law recognises that the world is not divided into people who are 100% right about a given notion and people who lie (about any of it).

      Suspension with pay is the usual prelude towards the sort of full investigation that, in the absence of a history of such behaviour, could be used as the evidence for a sacking. This is why there was so much surprise that Horner was not suspended in the earlier investigation – seniority is not generally accepted as sufficient excuse for changing the procedure.

      It is not clear why, exactly, the suspension has occurred, nor are we supposed to know. Speculation on the point would not be advisable, because the longer this situation continues, the higher the likelihood of a court or tribunal becoming involved rises.

    8. What if the accusations were true, the facts as presented, but RB just felt – after consulting with their lawyers – that they were not actually that clearly in breach of the law or internal rules so cannot be reason enough to fire Horner?
      Then they will probably try and come to an agreement with the employee to leave the team for a negotiated amount of money and suspend them (the with pay part is what points in this direction, as yeah falsely accusing someone would most certainly be a reason for immediate dismissal) in the mean time because it would probably not work for either her, nor for Horner, nor really for the team dynamics to have them present at the races right now, since everyone knows who they are and it would influence the work.

  2. Something stinks here – Horner was not suspended while some pretty serious allegations were investigated and now she is suspended.

    Can’t help but wonder what the actual truth of the matter is.

    1. What stinks is the media.

      according to multiple reports.

      is hardly good journalism and at the very least too thin to bother your audience with.

    2. Check out Joe Saward’s blog.

      It won’t answer your questions, but it will present things in a totally new light.

  3. Maybe she is the one who leaded the screenshots. Red Bull knows how this would look and still did it, so they must feel they have enough in hand to make such action public.

    Sit back and watch this unfold

    1. Torpedo your entire life to get back at Horner and RBR? Maybe in a Tsunoda-like fit of pique. But she seems to me the second least likely leak suspect. I would be looking hard at the person now campaigning against Horner’s leadership.

      1. In the case of private messages the list of suspects who can leak them is not that long. It’s unlikely to be Horner himself, so her being the prime suspect would be pretty obvious.

        1. Only because those are the two individuals people on the outside can tell apart. There are many people involved in such an internal organisation, we just don’t know who they are (nor do we need to).

          1. Even if you count the people who are involved on behalf of the independent organisation that handled the investigation, she would still be the prime suspect.

      2. People burn down the house for a lot of reasons including feeling like you were taken advantage of by your boss and employer.

        1. I keep hearing this but I need a source besides the daily mail. Which is just above a Reddit comment in reliability.

          1. Ooo… that’s a tough comparison.

          2. I need a source besides the daily mail. Which is just above a Reddit comment in reliability.

            I feel you are doing Reddit an injustice.

        2. I’m pretty sure, posting a daily mail link is a hate crime

      3. If Jos did leak to the press (and the Dutch press being the first with the story is a very strong hint of that), someone had to supply Jos with all the screenshots. Unless he was included as part of the investigation (doubtful) then he would not have had access to them. The most likely person to supply them was the complainant, who knew that Jos has an axe to grind against Horner.

        That is my guess as to why they were suspended. They may not have leaked to the press, but they leaked to someone when I am sure they had agreed to be bound to confidentiality as part of the investigation until such time as they may file a lawsuit in open court.

        1. A leak in two stages sounds plausible to me.

          I don’t think the complainant was the actual “email leaker” – as an executive assistant I would have thought she’d be more IT savvy than using Google/Gmail. Google is so … basic …

          She is also likely to be well aware about GDPR mandates etc. and therefore not be very likely to copy everyone on that email list.

          Obviously I’m just guessing here (most people are), but it looks to me as if the leaker might be someone with a bit less IT experience than a pro exec assistant. Just my 2p.

          1. Gmail accounts are anonymous and can be created easily, it being basic is likely the reason it was used.

            And while you would expect someone to know GDPR mandates, I have worked with far too many people who still fail to comprehend they cannot just do as they wish.

        2. It had to be someone with knowledge of a number of confidential email addresses. Saward points out that many of the email addresses on the distribution list are *NOT* publicly known, and only someone with very high level of contact within F1 would have been able to send it in the first place.

          Also– who takes screenshots of a whatsapp conversation with their boss that early on in the relationship, unless they’re planning on using them later?

          1. Either someone that has access to them, or at the very least someone who knows a person that has access to them and willing to illegally share them.

      4. @dmw Which one? There are, by this point, quite a lot of people.

  4. I assume she hasn’t been to work since the story broke so basically it means they are taking an administrative action to continue her employment without her working. And to the extent she’s not been fired for cause it shows RBR do not have the will or legal ability to do that. I’m not UK qualified but I gather it is not easy to lay off someone without legal cause but it could be an interim step in a for-cause action.

    F1 is the only sport where you need legal qualification or engagement of local counsel to properly follow the action.

    1. In some places, you can only fire someone with immediate effect if they commit a very severe offense, where there is no doubt about the guilt. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t fire other people for cause, but then the procedure is more difficult and slow.

  5. Neither Max nor Newey will leave, the team is built around them.

    Horner will have to be dragged out of Milton Keynes, or he’ll stay and it will be a very awkward work place.

    Suspending the individual is pathetic.

    1. That’s the dilemma RBR is facing:

      – Rumors suggest a close link between Newey and Horner; if the latter departs, Newey may follow suit.
      – Max aligns with Marko, as indicated by his father, rather than with Horner.

      Newey is pivotal here; if he wasn’t aligned with Horner, Horner might have been dismissed already, just my two cents. Given the choice between Newey and Max, I’d opt for Newey every single day of the week and twice on a Sunday. Many drivers with a tenth of Max’s talent have won the WDC in a Newey-designed car. Perez finished second last year behind Max, but in front of everybody else…

      1. I agree, a great Newey car is a Championship winner in any drivers hands. Newey to Ferrari! Then they can finally end their WCC drought.

      2. at the same time, Newey has been hinting retirement since long ago, so they may very well lose both in case they side with Horner.

        He may decide it’s time and go home for good.

  6. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    7th March 2024, 15:32

    This is just getting out of hand and at this point, it’s no longer a Red Bull internal matter. The sport needs answers. If Red Bull wants privacy, they can just enter another sport or pull out.

    1. Except… it is a Red Bull internal matter. There was an internal investigation into a complaint and after a bunch of information was leaked to the press, the person who put the complaint in has been suspended. The sport doesn’t need answers in any way. People involved in the sport might want answers and journalists certainly do because it gives them more to write about in the absence of anything interesting happing with the sport itself but that doesn’t mean Red Bull have to say anything more than they have.

      If the sport genuinely needs answers, they can start an investigation into it. The FIA has the power to do so if they feel it’s necessary.

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        7th March 2024, 16:20

        This is not an internal matter at all because they compete in an international and very public sport.

        1. That’s irrelevant. They are bound by the same employment and privacy laws as any other business operating in the UK. If they released full details of the complaint, the very first thing the member of staff would do is sue Red Bull and they’d win because Red Bull would have broken the law.

          1. They are bound by the same employment and privacy laws as any other business operating in the UK

            You forget that if they were following those rules and laws then Horner would have been suspended.

          2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            7th March 2024, 17:50

            Well, does that not offer Red Bull a convenient way to hide the truth or potentially delay it until it’s resolved in court over many years by which time Red Bull could potentially operate with inappropriate behavior towards its employees and taint the sport irreparably.

            Aren’t there any employment agencies that could look into this? I thought the UK would be ahead of the US in these matters.

          3. @SteveP

            I doubt that UK law is going to make it mandatory to suspend an accused worker. If it is the case, can you cite the law?

          4. @Michael

            “Well, does that not offer Red Bull a convenient way to hide the truth”

            No, it really doesn’t. They have the right to remain silent, just like everyone else.

            “taint the sport irreparably”

            A sport already filled with controversy? Come on mate, stop stretching this into hater territory.

            “Aren’t there any employment agencies that could look into this?”

            You do know that the UK has a working justice system? It is not a third world country. She has the right to appeal, if needed.

          5. @Lugewig

            Under section 3 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the employee must be notified in a written statement (i.e. their contract of employment) what the business’ disciplinary procedures are.
            Not mandatory, but employers can, and normally do, include the disciplinary procedure in the contract.
            As per if they then fail to follow the procedures, to the letter, they can be sued.
            Guidance on how to run the disciplinary procedures is on the ACAS site

            However, I was pointing out that if they have a procedure, and are following now, then you have to question why they didn’t do the same for Horner.

            NB. I am most definitely not legally trained, qualified etc.

          6. @SteveP

            OK, so you cannot in fact show that it would be mandatory to suspend him.

            You seem to assume that because they suspended her, they must suspend Horner, but her suspension neither proves that the RB procedures have a mandatory suspension when an accusation is made or that the Horner situation and the reason why she was suspended are similar enough to make a suspension mandatory for both.

            What you are doing is similar in the potential mistake you make to noticing that an alleged murderer was thrown in prison awaiting a trial and that someone who double parked was not jailed, and then arguing that it must have been mandatory to imprison the double parker.

        2. It is an internal matter. They just happen to operate a racing team in an international sporting event, that has no effect on the internal confidential matters within Red Bull Racing Ltd or what laws apply to it.

          There are numerous laws that literally forbid them from releasing ANY information about it, because all parties involved have a legal right to privacy. It is not a matter of them choosing not to release any information. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO! If they did they would find themselves in court for it.

          You do not get to decide what laws apply to

      2. It’s only an internal matter in a strict legal sense. In reality, this has dominated the coverage of F1 from the specialist to the mainstream press. And it’s a bad look for F1, which as a whole seems to have completely missed the whole MeToo-saga play out and is handling this like it’s 2005.

        And if this were any other team boss it’d be one thing, but Horner is a man of whom it is well known that he cheated on his pregnant wife and left her while she was caring for a few months old baby. He’s exactly the wrong person to have in this situation from a PR-perspective.

        1. “It’s only an internal matter in a strict legal sense.”

          It is an internal matter in EVERY sense. Especially in a legal sense.

          The rest of your comment is just political extremist rambling that is of little relevance to this.

          Horner had an affair with a colleague, that’s it. It is you fools who desperately want this to more that are making it effect F1. Red Bull have been quietly dealing with it appropriately, it is the whiny cnuts in the media that keep it going.

      3. If it is an internal matter ,why is it in all the papers ,news programs and websites?

        1. Because they want clicks and website traffic, to earn them money.

      4. It stopped being a purely internal matter when the president of the FIA got involved. However, the core of this matter is internal, in the sense that it’s a work matter within a single company (that happened to capture the imagination).

        ludewig, there are a large raft of regulations covering corporate investigations of employee conduct. In particular, suspensions have to be issued if the company procedure specifies them regarding certain categories of issue. They must be kept as brief as necessary for the investigation to occur – but if in the procedure, have to be long enough for that investigation. It also cannot be used as a disciplinary measure in itself – the point of suspensions is to prevent accidental or deliberate derailing of the investigation. Suspension must be with full pay.

        In the UK it is standard practice for certain types of allegations to result in suspensions. The sort that Horner was claimed to have received by certain sections of the press are among them (alleged poor treatment of an employee as well as alleged violation of equality laws – typically, either would suffice). Hence the surprise with the lack of suspension. The fact Red Bull clearly uses suspensions under other circumstances means that consistency is almost certainly not the reason. The fact it’s the person who was doxxed following the Horner allegations doesn’t help people trust the process either. It is possible that the difference rests on a subtler distinction, obviously, since there’s a limit to how much we can know.

        1. @alianora-la-canta

          I somehow doubt that UK law says that privacy laws, employment laws or such can be ignored if the president of FIA says so. You just seem to be grasping at straws here.

          In the UK it is standard practice for certain types of allegations to result in suspensions. The sort that Horner was claimed to have received by certain sections of the press are among them

          Yes, the sections of the press that refuse to provide evidence for their claims and that carefully write in a way to insinuate things, rather than outright claim them, to avoid lawsuits.

          So you are judging the situation based on rumor, rather than fact.

          And your invocation of “standard practice” is an implicit admission that it is not legally required to act like you claim they should. I also do not automatically believe your claim of what is standard practice when you do not appear to me to be a reliable source of information.

          Hence the surprise with the lack of suspension.

          If you take gossip as fact, you are surely going to be surprised a lot, but often times, because the rumors are wrong.

          The fact Red Bull clearly uses suspensions under other circumstances means that consistency is almost certainly not the reason.

          Except that you yourself have argued that suspensions are dependent on the allegations and there is no hard evidence for the allegations being as you insinuate they are.

          Again, the barrister who did the investigation would know the actual allegations, and would presumably have access to all the evidence.

    2. This is a legal matter. The sport (like drivers from other teams, T. Wolff or whoever) don’t need a thing.

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        7th March 2024, 17:53

        This is a legal matter.

        However, if it’s taken to court won’t it take years to be resolved? During that time Red Bull could potentially operate with inappropriate behavior towards an employee and taint the sport irreparably.

      2. Dex, the sport does need to know certain things, if only to avoid breaking the law themselves on the matter.

    3. It is an internal matter.

      It doesn’t matter how many people jump up and down throwing massive temper tantrums demanding they be given information about what happened, Red Bull aren’t going to break the law and disclose information they are not legally permitted to share.

      They are legally bound to protect the privacy of all involved and would find themselves in a lot of trouble if they disclosed confidential information about it’s employees publicly.

  7. I cannot believe how poorly Red Bull PR team have handled this. Unbelievable!.
    Suspending this lady now just generates a massive storm of wrong news. Horner was never suspended and he was somehow exonerated without much detail. Now this lady has been suspended without much detail as well. How does Red Bull expect the media to sell this??
    I cannot even believe Ford would be keen on working with a team that has spectacularly scored in their own net

    1. Ford have this morning announced a deal seeing their logo being on the F1 Academy car of the driver supported by Red Bull.

      Horner was never suspended because whatever he was accused of didn’t justify suspension. Given the timing of this suspension it is unlikely her suspension relates to the initial investigation, but rather actions taken outside of it. Like the significant data breach that occurred last week. If they have reason to believe she was involved in it, she would be suspended for it.

      1. Why was she suspended and not allowed to continue work pending confirmation of the allegations?? Why was this also not clearly stated by Red Bull as their reason if it actually is?? This are very reasonable questions any person would want to ask and there are even more.

      2. amped, we cannot assume anything in the second paragraph on the basis of the information so far provided.

  8. Do we know the whistle blower is the alleged victim? I was under the impression they were two different people.

    1. We don’t who the leaker was. We do know whoever it was, was in a position to have access to confidential contact information or was provided it by someone that was.

      While everybody was focussing on the contents of the email leaks, the email leak itself is a significant problem for Red Bull.

    2. Steve K, it’s possible there could be two different whistleblowers. The victim was a whistleblower in relation to their own situation (accurately or not). The leaker could be someone completely different; we have no idea at present.

  9. It looks like Redbull waited till the last day of window to appeal was closed to suspend the employee..

  10. One of them HAS to go. And not suspended. This is all dirty now.

    1. Under UK law, if there’s no slam-dunk case against either, and neither has previous relevant infractions, investigation would be the only route to anyone going. Suspension is commonly used to prevent the investigation being disrupted (accidentally or on purpose).

  11. Well, that now confirms the screenshots and everything is true. I feel bad for this person that was obviously textbook sexually harassed after a “private internal investigation” absolved the person doing the harassing. Imagine having that happen to you and then you’re just brushed under the rug.

    1. @AJ

      I really wonder about your relationships if you think that mutual sexual comments are sexual harassment.

      Do you think that only platonic relationships do not involve sexual harassment?

      1. How is telling your boss clearly what they’re doing multiple times isn’t appropriate, that if they wouldnt want their wife to know about they shouldn’t do it, eventuating in the need to simply write “STOP”, mutual at all?

        1. The person said themselves that she participated in it before willingly, until they didn’t want to anymore. It’s very common in relationships to have different expectations and that things can end a bit messy, with people not necessarily always behaving perfectly all the time. I mean, you are referring to a threat made by the lady in question to tell on him to the wife, which itself is an attempt at coercion.

          I see no evidence that things got bad enough for it to be beyond basic human flawedness, and I don’t think that we should start firing people, throwing them in prison, or calling them abusers for this level of behavior, for all of our sakes.

          And note that this is a leak from one side, so it is perfectly possible for bad behavior on her side to have been removed from the leaked images, or her acting in a way that could explain him persisting. Like her reaching out to him after telling him off before. I’ve heard many a time that people go back to the ex for sex or stuff like that, so lots of people appear unable to make a clean break, which definitely complicates manners.

          Presumably, only the barrister who did the investigation would actually have a full picture.

          1. The person said themselves that she participated in it before willingly, until they didn’t want to anymore.

            The important part of your own words, which you seem to fail to understand, is the “they didn’t want to anymore”
            It is the right of every person, male or female, to say, “stop”, “cease”, ” no more”, “end”, or whatever termination comment seems suitable.
            Failing to take notice of that termination comment is the start of the slippery slope to abuse.

          2. @SteveP

            You are completely ignoring my point that people can sent mixed signals. If someone tells you “no” and then later says “yes,” the logical conclusion is that they changed their mind.

            You can then frame that person as a harasser by leaking evidence of the “no” and that the person then did it again, leaving out the “yes” in between.

            But this just adds to the evidence that you are completely unwilling to see even consider other possibilities than the one you seem to have convinced yourself must be true.

    2. Not necessarily. We don’t know if the suspension is anything to do with the emails, meaning we have no more information on the emails than we did before the news.

  12. I luv chicken
    7th March 2024, 17:15

    None of this would have happened if, they had brought back grid girls, and race car models.

    1. It would.

  13. Am not a fan of Horner, but I admire what he has achieved. The allegations were never proven and we still do not know if the messages were real. However the leak is not on his side, and by doing this has brought the team and Red Bull into disrepute and that means the sack for the employee.

    1. If it’s a leak, then it’s real information. If it’s a fabrication, then it can’t be a leak.

  14. I reckon this trial by media simply will have to end with Horner’s metaphorical head. The story has outgrown Max and Red Bull now and whatever politics is at play there.

    The twitterverse and social justice virtue brigade have all been waking up to it over the last few weeks and the lack of transparency (which has been crucially called for yet ignored) is the biggest indicator of guilt of all.

    There are certainly more details Red Bull or Horner could provide to explain that the leaks we have seen are not true which would not breach privacy.

    That they’re not willing to come out and say that, makes it hard to doubt the leaks content, and that they are supporting the action within them.

    1. If the chats had been false, they could have said so. In as many words. They haven’t, tellingly. And they’re too smart to know how that looks, so there aren’t many options left as to how to interpret this.

  15. If this is true, then RB need to be very sure that they have good evidence she has done something wrong. Most countries have strong protections for whistle blowers and people who make allegations in good faith. Even suspending her with pay could well be seen as a punishment, and if it causes her to resign it could well be seen as constructive dismissal. If they miss dotting one I or crossing one T, they could easily been in deep doodoo!

    And even then, they’re taking a big risk. It would be very easy for the media to make this look like retaliation against her, whether it is or not.

    1. The email leak was a GDPR breach, that alone is reason for them to suspend her if they have reason to suspect she was involved or responsible for it.

      Her grievance was dismissed, Horner was exonerated. While she can appeal, that matter is resolved.

      They obviously have adequate reason to suspect she was involved, given the implications of suspending her following a grievance process. The act of breaching GDPR is a severe matter. Whoever leaked the messages to the email addresses are in a lot of trouble.

      I know some people really want this to be one massive conspiracy, with Red Bull GmbH, Red Bull Racing, Horner, the external legal processional brought in to handle the matter & the shareholders all conspiring to cover it up, but that is an outlandish conspiracy theory not backed up by anything factual.

      1. amped, at this point we have no reason to believe the leak and the complaint were even by the same person.

        By definition, a matter that can be appealed is not resolved. For that matter, there’s 3 months to go to tribunal – and the continuing situation means the countdown for that arguably might not have started yet.

        Suspension as a disciplinary measure is illegal in the UK. It can only be done if the purpose is to enable an investigatory process to occur without accidental or deliberate disruption. If your third paragraph is true, that would seriously compromise Red Bull’s credibility on any other element of the matter because it would prove the investigation was mishandled.

  16. Lewisham Milton
    7th March 2024, 21:55

    Let’s see how Max and the team get on without her contributing this weekend. Midweek. Definitely not Sunday. Whatever.

  17. This was an internal matter, yet the public found out that it was being investigated, the public was informed of the outcome, and now the public has been told that the complainant has been suspended. Someone inside Red Bull wants this out in the public.

Comments are closed.