The person whose allegations against Christian Horner were investigated and dismissed by Red Bull has reportedly complained to the FIA.
The individual has lodged a formal complaint about Horner with the FIA’s Ethics Committee, the BBC claims.Two other reports concerning Horner were also made to the FIA’s ethics and compliance hotline. The first occured in early February, days before Red Bull confirmed its independent investigation into Horner’s conduct, and the second a month later.
In a statement to RaceFans, the FIA said all complaints to their Ethics Committee are handled with “strict confidentiality” and independently.
“At the FIA, enquiries and complaints are received and managed by the compliance officer, and the Ethics Committee where appropriate,” said the FIA in their statement.
“Both bodies operate autonomously, guaranteeing strict confidentiality throughout the process. As a consequence, and in general, we are unable to confirm the receipt of any specific complaint and it is unlikely that we will be able to provide further comment on the complaints that we may receive from any parties.”
Horner has consistently denied any wrongdoing since the independent investigation was first confirmed by the F1 team’s owner, Red Bull Austria. Horner was not suspended during the internal investigation, which ultimately dismissed the complaint against him. He attended the pre-season test in Bahrain and the opening two rounds of the season, which the team won.
Before the investigation concluded, the FIA issued a statement saying it remained “committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, fairness and inclusivity within the sport,” but that it would not comment further. During the Bahrain Grand Prix weekend, FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem said the situation was “damaging the sport”.
The staff member behind the allegations is reported to have brought an appeal against the investigation and been suspended by Red Bull.
Red Bull stated that its investigation was “fair, rigorous and impartial” but stressed that its findings were “confidential”. However some material which allegedly emerged during the investigation was widely leaked during the Bahrain Grand Prix weekend.
Despite the complaint against Horner being dismissed, some of Horner’s rival team principals called for greater transparency from Red Bull about the investigation.
“It’s the responsibility, ultimately, of the organisers of Formula 1, the owners of Formula 1, to make sure that all the racing teams and the personnel and the drivers and everyone involved in this sport are operating in a manner which we all live by,” said McLaren CEO Zak Brown.
“I don’t think it’s the teams’ roles and responsibilities. It’s up to FIA and Formula 1 to ultimately decide, and to ask what they feel gives them the level of transparency that they need to ultimately come to their conclusion and we just have to count on them that they fulfil that obligation to all of us.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Formula 1
- “You need to be more on it”: 12 unheard radio exchanges from the Chinese GP
- F1 CEO Domenicali wants more than six sprint races per year
- Hulkenberg named Audi’s first F1 driver for 2026
- Ricciardo needs to show “head-turning form” for 2025 chance – Horner
- F1 Commission defers decision on points change and approves new rear cameras
ludewig
16th March 2024, 17:53
This decision is itself an admission that she believes that Horner didn’t break the law, or she would have gone to the police.
Is the FIA ethics committee really going to judge what fully legal behavior during intimate relationships is permissive? American universities do the same thing, and it is a horror show of completely amateur investigations & judgements, and very conservative sexual mores. For example, people being denied a right to hear the evidence against them, being denied counsel and people being banned from the university for engaging in S&M (where the ‘victim’ aka fully willing sex partner spoke in favor of the accused, but he was convicted anyway).
I remember when progressives would make fun of conservative sexual mores, but now progressives are rebuilding the conservative sexual moral system, but in a less fair and less honest way.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
16th March 2024, 18:17
In theory the FIA could take action against Horner if they deem he has brought the sport into disrepute by his actions, regardless of their legality.
AMPED
16th March 2024, 18:26
It would be hard to argue he (or Red Bull) has brought the sport into disrepute when they didn’t claim sporting infractions within the sport did, and when this is the media & one disgruntled employee not following the correct procresses that are causing the issues.
Red Bull (both the team & the parent company) & Horner have been following the expected processes involved in a grievance situation.
The claimed ‘victim’ acting maliciously because she is not happy with the outcome of a non-sporting issue is not a reason for the GIA to get involved.
SteveP
16th March 2024, 19:05
They have been playing lip service to the standard grievance procedure.
Everyone should note that the statement from the board was that they had received the report from the investigating KC and after discussion by the board they had dismissed the claims.
At no point have they stated that Horner is innocent, at no point have they said he is cleared and had done no wrong.
They merely said they had dismissed the claims. They have been careful to make a statement they could defend.
Tristan
17th March 2024, 0:11
There’s nothing there about receiving a report and a discussion by the board. Investigation complete, grievance dismissed.
Well yes they have, dismissing the complaint is saying that. That’s how the world read and reported the outcome. Just about every publication (including this one) ran with the headline that Horner is cleared following Red Bull’s statement, and Red Bull issued no clarification regarding that.
Obviously if they did not believe the complaint had merit, they would not have dismissed it. I’ve seen this a bit but it’s a really weird take to muddy the waters when Red Bull’s position is incredibly clear.
SteveP
17th March 2024, 9:32
Implication, and then wait for people to follow the misdirection (plus the extra “I’m innocent” or two from Horner.)
Which just shows you how easy it is to misdirect people.
There’s just a group of us pointing at the lump under the carpet and asking how that came to be there and what it is.
David (@nvherman)
17th March 2024, 12:58
@stevep
And you are party to Red Bull Racing’s standard grievance procedures are you? An employee or former employee are you?
It is pretty clear that you have an agenda against either Red Bull, or Horner, or both, and are looking for anything to grasp onto to back your opinion up.
Despite what the media are trying to stir up, this is actually still an internal Red Bull matter, that happens to have been made public by those who have an axe to grind.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
16th March 2024, 18:53
shes actually the one bringing the sport in to disrepute if there was no wrongdoing found. Shes also extorting the FIA. and the FIA don’t need to claim jurisdiction. Let the courts settle it.
roger norman
16th March 2024, 19:31
The investigation was paid for by RBR’s parent company. The fact they found no wrong doing isn’t a surprise, but it also doesn’t improve the likelihood that the investigation was fair and impartial. There’s no proof that the female employee is extorting anyone. The only person bringing the sport into disrepute is the person sending the text.
Josh
16th March 2024, 20:17
And who else to you suggest pay for their own internal investigation? Should they have a whip-round? Maybe a GoFundMe?
Some people come up with some real nonsense when they speculate on things they know nothing about.
roger norman
16th March 2024, 21:13
Replying to Josh: How about someone who doesn’t have a dog in the fight and who is more likely to be unbiased like maybe FOM or the FIA?
F1 Fan
16th March 2024, 22:10
She filed an internal complaint. Red Bull hired an “External Independent Investigator” — a King’s Counsel according to many reports. According to Wikipedia,
One of them had access to all the evidence and provided recommendation based on which the RB board took a decision. Now, unless the RB board consisting of three senior people is willing to completely ignore the recommendation and put their reputations and the company under jeopardy for whatever reason, they would have acted upon the recommendation of the KC.
The sport was brought to disrepute because an internal matter firstly spilled out (which it shouldn’t have), and then documents that were part of a confidential process leaked (which it shouldn’t have) although quite surprising that their veracity hasn’t been established thus far.
Nick T.
16th March 2024, 23:06
No one else is going to pay for an internal investigation. And it is an internal matter or they would be going to the actual police.
roger norman
17th March 2024, 8:57
It became external the minute the texts were leaked. It was internal because Red Bull’s parent company was trying to cover Christian Horner and to dissuade FOM or the FIA from launching their own investigations. That’s why Red Bull paid for the investigation. Thank goodness it didn’t work because the suspended employee has filed an appeal with the FIA. She deserves a fair and unbiased investigation.
amped
17th March 2024, 18:00
Roger, of course it was paid for by RBR’s parent company. Somebody had to pay for it, and it is not as if a 3rd party completely independent of all parties were going to pay for it…
Red Bull Racing, Red Bull GmbH & Christian Horner have done nothing to bring the sport into disrepute. They have been quietly dealing with the matter. It is the media and whoever was responsible for the leak that have done anything remotely close to bringing the sport in to disrepute.
At no point did it become an external matter. FOM & FIA have no business investigating the matter. They are not involved in the day-to-day operational matters of Red Bull Racing. It isn’t a commercial matter relevant to FOM nor is it a sporting matter relevant to the FIA.
She had a fair and unbiased investigation, there is no evidence otherwise. I am not going to question the KC’s integrity just because the result of their work was not what I wanted it to be like you are. I have no reason to accuse him/her of being corrupt or dishonest.
As for getting a fair and unbiased investigation, that requires people to involve the relevant bodies to do so. Neither the FIA or FOM are relevant. They have no control over how Red Bull Racing operate as a business.
BasCB (@bascb)
17th March 2024, 17:19
That doesn’t make sense. One can very much be found to have done something that is unethical etc. but is NOT a fireable offence under british law and the contract RB has with Horner and at the same time be of ill repute and hurt the standing of both Red Bull and of the sport. There was no mention of anything CRIMINALLY going on in the whole story (although Horner would probably like to see the person who put those messages out to the media on trial), so there is no ground to go to the police.
It’s hard to know what exactly happened and what that internal procedure showed, investigated or not, since we don’t know the full story. And the person affected also did file their appeal to the RB internal process too.
Coventry Climax
17th March 2024, 9:37
By that same theory, they could just as easily award a big trophy to Horner, for doing F1 the favour of bringing it under massive media attention, making the ‘sport’ even ‘bigger’ and even more netflixyflimsy.
Just a matter of perspective, nothing ‘indepent’ about it.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 11:43
@red-andy
Sure, but a lot of bad things are possible in theory and plenty have been put in practice, like when the FBI tried to push MLK out of politics and perhaps even tried to make him commit suicide, using MLK’s sexual exploits as a weapon. That doesn’t make it right.
Dale
20th March 2024, 22:09
They could do nothing of the sort.
This is an internal Red Bull matter & the FIA has zero authority of their business and HR practices.
None of the events took place in the realm of FIA competition at a circuit under their control, & none of the events would be in the public if not for her very obvious media campaigning – which would make her the one guilty of bringing the sport into disrepute.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
16th March 2024, 18:50
shes extorting the FIA, the problem is, now its questionable as to whether or not someone (like Toto) is behind her, prodding her to get the FIA entangled in this PR disaster. If the FIA has no jurisdiction, they need to say NO, firmly. If they have any culpability, they should audit the RBR investigation and have someone sign off on it.
Then, CH or Red Bull need to sue her in to submission. Put her in court till she is bankrupted and cannot get a job anywhere near F1. Yeah, sounds horrible, but the controlling one is the one trying to extort the FIA currently.
SteveP
16th March 2024, 18:57
It is what is known as an escalation process, which is supposed to deal with the alleged offences at the lowest level that satisfies both parties or solidly refutes the statements of one party.
The perception from outside is that they have dual standards, suspending the minor player on a nothing charge while allowing the major player to spout off to the press and trash the complainant’s reputation.
notagrumpyfan
17th March 2024, 8:24
That’s not an escalation process!
An escalation would go to the police if there was possibly a criminal offence or go to court to challenge the outcome of the internal investigation (better do that after the appeal).
Your explanation is like your partner reporting this comment because you failed to do the dishes when reading this :P
amped
17th March 2024, 18:05
Neither party was suspended, either pending the investigation or during the investigation, it was conducted and concluded with both in post.
Her being suspended is the result of actions taken subsequently that have provided them grounds for suspension.
Tommy C (@tommy-c)
16th March 2024, 22:31
There’s plenty of legal stuff you can do that will get you fired from a job. Legality isn’t really the issue.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 11:44
Your comment doesn’t make much sense, since Red Bull employ both Horner and the woman, not FIA.
Tristan
16th March 2024, 22:38
Confidently incorrect. The legal process in cases of workplace behaviour matters is to exhaust all internal avenues before going to the UK’s employment tribunal.
Police has nothing to do with it.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 11:46
@Tristan
The FIA ethics committee is not part of Red Bull, so you also seem confused about what what is internal to Red Bull and what is not.
Tristan
17th March 2024, 11:49
Mate you are… They are working as a team principles assistant, if that’s not within the FIA purview you’re kidding yourself. You’re saying they should go to the police. Take the L for being the one who is confused, you’re just embarrassing yourself.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 13:15
You said ‘internal.’ FIA is not internal to Red Bull, end of.
I guess you can’t admit to having made a mistake…
anon
16th March 2024, 23:27
ludewig, no, there is nothing in the statement that supports the notion that “This decision is itself an admission that she believes that Horner didn’t break the law, or she would have gone to the police.” There are multiple mistakes in that assertion which indicates a lack of knowledge, and perhaps intentional ignorance, on your part.
As SteveP notes, the complainant has been following what is often considered to be normal legal procedure, where the official advice recommends that individuals should engage in arbitration and attempt to resolve their differences in an amicable matter first. Your “sue everyone” attitude is not how the legal system works, and it is only once those initial processes have been completed that it might then be escalated through the legal system.
Added to that, the woman who raised the complaint in this case would not “go to the police” because the allegations that have been raised against Horner are not breaches of criminal law (the police are normally only being involved in breaches of criminal law).
In this case, the allegations against Horner revolve around a claimed breach of civil law – i.e. in this case, it is about whether an individual or an organisation failed in their duties of care towards someone and should therefore provide redress on a personal level, rather than whether the state should be acting against somebody who has negatively affected society as a whole. Therefore, even if there was a court case at the end of this and Horner were to be deemed liable, as it’d be a breach of civil law, it’s not something that the police would be involved in and it does not require the state to be taking action against Horner.
As for the question of why she would raise a complaint to the FIA Ethics Committee – as the Team Principal of Red Bull Racing, Horner is required to sing up to the FIA’s Code of Ethics and the allegations that have been raised against Horner would involve actions that are prohibited under the FIA’s Code of Ethics.
The FIA’s own regulations state that individuals who have information on potential breaches of the FIA’s Code of Ethics are expected to notify the FIA at the earliest opportunity. In this situation, therefore, the person who has raised the complaints against Horner would also be expected to notify the FIA’s Ethics Committee about a potential breach of the Code of Ethics by Horner.
notagrumpyfan
17th March 2024, 8:37
You don’t know the allegations (I presume)!
Even assuming that Horner has signed a code of ethics, you cannot claim that the original internal claim, or even the rumoured FIA claim, contains any allegation contravening such code.
‘Spinning the rumour mill’ with such statements doesn’t really help the discussion.
anon
17th March 2024, 14:42
notagrumpyfan, from the information that Red Bull themselves have released, whilst being rather cautious about revealing much, the information that was revealed indicated that thy were investigating a claim of harassment by Horner towards that employee.
Whilst the exact nature of that may be disputed, the FIA’s Code of Ethics rather explicitly states that “physical, mental, professional or sexual” harassment is prohibited behaviour.
notagrumpyfan
17th March 2024, 18:43
Nice try anon, but no sigar.
AFAIK Red Bull didn’t mention ‘harassment’; their statement merely referred to ‘allegations made against Mr Horner’.
And even if you can dig up a statement from RBR referring to ‘harassment’ then I doubt it will be automatically covered by the the FIA’s code of conduct. Those codes are never universal, especially as neither RBR nor CH are employed by FIA. Typically such codes are limited to actions and activities linked to the ‘issuer’ of such code.
But feel to share a copy of the code (rather than just a few words) so we can determine for ourselves what is and what isn’t covered.
You just jumped on the bandwagon spinning the rumour mill, and continue to do so.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 11:50
@anon
What a weird comment, where you fully agree with me that she had no legal case, but somehow also claim that I should not have concluded that she has no legal case.
And I believe that the FIA ethics committee should stick to things that actually involve the sport, not get involved in what is permitted in intimate relations between people and the like.
anon
17th March 2024, 15:00
ludewig, I am disagreeing because you don’t understand some rather basic principles of law.
Again – civil law, which is what we would be dealing with here, recommends individuals first attempt to resolve a case through means that do not involve court hearings. Legal action is meant to be used as the last course of action, not the first course of action, and would also not involve the police either, since they are involved in matters of criminal law, not civil law.
Do you understand the basic difference between civil law and criminal law? If you cannot answer that initial question then, from the very start, you are fundamentally working from the wrong point of view.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 15:57
This assumes that the court would conclude that FIA has the power to decide how Red Bull should treat its employees, which is very unlikely.
AMPED
16th March 2024, 17:58
So not internally seeking to appeal the grievance or a legal case? But an illegal email sent to F1, media & FIA and a complaint to the FIA, neither of which are relevant to seeking a suitable outcome to the supposed complaint.
This is increasingly looking like a vengeful attempt to cost Horner his job…
If the FIA do anything, it will be a disgrace.
SteveP
16th March 2024, 19:12
Nothing illegal about making a complaint to the FIA ethics and compliance
It’s set up to provide a route to submit complaints.
Do make sure you read all the words in item 1 on this page: https://www.fia.com/fia-ethics-and-compliance-hotline
grat
16th March 2024, 21:53
No, but dumping confidential internal information to the public (ie, journalists) could be construed as illegal.
Conor Sheehan
16th March 2024, 22:04
Your making the point so go ahead. Explain what law this would break.
I will wait patiently while you read up…
notagrumpyfan
17th March 2024, 11:16
Any privacy law in almost any country!
grat clearly refers to ‘confidential’ information.
Rather than waiting patiently, you better enlighten yourself about the laws of the country you live in. :P
In most countries there are these laws and all residents are deemed to know the law and are bound by it.
Pete
17th March 2024, 11:25
No need to read up, anyone of working age in the UK will have likely been told about GDPR. The Red Bull team fall under the GDPR laws and part of that means you can only use data you collect (like emails) for their intended purpose. That means a team member can’t take those addresses and send out a private email to them. Similarly, she left all the email addresses visible to all she sent the email to which is a further GDPR breach because it’s considered sharing data with others who should not have it.
I work for a company where we have the majority of names and addresses of people in the country I live in. If I sent them all a letter advertising a product I was selling, I would be breaking the law because that’s not the stated purpose for holding that data.
Hope that helped to answer your query. Feel free to Google GDPR Regulations if you would like further details.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 11:52
@Conor Sheehan
I love the sheer arrogance of thinking that you made an unassailable point only for people to immediately point out how wrong you are!
AMPED
17th March 2024, 14:51
GDPR.
For the misuse of the email addresses used to send it, for purposes outside of permitted use, for the disclosure of email addresses via use of CC instead of BCC as all recipuents could see who it was sent to, and for sharing information without the permission of all of those involved.
The former two are the most serious. The ICO will likely be in touch with RBR about it.
F1 Fan
16th March 2024, 22:15
Okay, what is an internal RB matter doing at the FIA? Unless someone wants to bring up ethics to kick Horner out from FIA affiliated events, this doesn’t make any logical sense; And even then, unless there’s evidence that the misconduct happened during an FIA event, how does it fall under FIA jurisdiction? (It could be possible, but unclear). Which begs the question, what is the play here? Is it to kick Horner out, or is it to get justice, or is there a way to get the latter by doing the former? The last option seems most unlikely given the power struggle theory in mainstream media. Clearly, the justice angle should have come out as a court case, with all evidence becoming public. For some reason that hasn’t happened yet.
amped
17th March 2024, 18:13
Steve, I was referring to the leaking of the email, which was illegal as it breached numerous data privacy laws.
It breached the privacy of quite a lot of people, and the sender failed to adhere to the expectations on them to use information for permitted purpose only.
Tristan
16th March 2024, 22:40
Have you not seen the news BBC reported that they’re doing that.
Mayrton
17th March 2024, 12:54
Well, they won’t. It is old yesterdays news. It starting to get as boring as the season so far.
anon
18th March 2024, 10:12
If it is supposed to be so boring, why are you so obsessed with following the story and constantly commenting about it?
Mayrton
18th March 2024, 12:24
Hi anon, I dont think I have responded constantly. I would rather call it occasionally vs the far larger amount of comments I give on race related matters. In order to have an opinion I do check this tabloid topic from time to time, yes and I notice little to none is based on facts, it is largely a ‘the media kept it alive’ kind of thing.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
16th March 2024, 18:25
Gotta love those types of people who go around the office swinging their thing trying to climb the ladder who get gross and vindictive after someone says no. Oh, ‘you’ are the controlling type, by asking someone to be decent, but then, when they don’t get their way, the reflection is clearly in the mirror.
Its clear this person is that kind of toxic type, whether or not Jos has anything to do with her, thats another story, but they should have fired her along time ago.
The FIA has no jurisdiction, this is clearly a smear attempt, if she had a legitimate complaint she would be in civil/criminal court. To say that CH didn’t cross the line is probably wrong, but its clear this lady is was always planning to, because ‘abuse’/impropriety is how some people climb the ladder, and the dirt that keeps their gears running smoothly.
Jere (@jerejj)
16th March 2024, 20:06
I wonder if this matter will still be ongoing a year from now or even better, five years afterwards or whatever.
An Sionnach
16th March 2024, 20:27
Perhaps in a few hundred years from now someone will be looking to exhume Horner? They can dig up a dead horse and flog that, too.
MichaelN
16th March 2024, 21:28
Not sure that this is a great idea.
From the way the story has played out, Horner was a sleazy boss sending unwanted messages, or no longer wanted messages if you prefer that – either way at some point he failed to respect her clear no’s. And repeatedly so.
But if Red Bull is okay with that, and that would be no surprise given their previous antics, then that leaves few other options than a harassment claim. However you don’t pursue that at the FIA, but at an English court.
The FIA can’t really do much about this. Heck, not that long ago Alpine WEC team was backed/run by a man who straight up… you know, let’s say he didn’t become a widower by accident.
chimaera2003 (@chimaera2003)
16th March 2024, 21:46
All comes down to what the appellant considers winning to be.
If winning is simply destroying Christian’s career as vengeance for how they feel they have been wronged then getting the FIA to bring a disrepute charge and making it stick will probably do the job.
If winning requires compensation to be paid then an English court is the way to go as they would surely have more power to enforce that. The appellant may still go this route anyway, especially if the FIA find against Horner. It could be a two stage strategy.
notagrumpyfan
17th March 2024, 8:54
That’s the fishy part about a possible complaint through FIA.
It now appears more of a vengeance crusade (likely encouraged, or even funded, by others) than a possible genuine issue of inappropriate behaviour.
grat
16th March 2024, 21:58
From people who’ve actually seen the leaked information (Joe Saward’s blog), first, the information leaked was heavily one-sided, and secondly, the timing is suspicious– the gathered information contained screenshots of the whatsapp conversation(s) in real time, long before any complaints were made, or any “clear no’s” were given.
Further, it appears that the progression was mutual, up until it wasn’t– and one of the things that Horner requested was that the conversations be deleted (which isn’t exactly what you expect from someone who’s refusing to take “no” for an answer) and it was the supposed victim who refused to delete them because “they’d done nothing wrong”.
So the rumor mill, which you’re happily contributing to, doesn’t seem to match up with the reality, even of the highly selective dump of evidence that was sent to a very closely guarded list of journalists.
This is not nearly as open and shut a case of “sleazy boss” as you, or whoever is behind this smear campaign, would like us to believe.
F1 Fan
16th March 2024, 22:16
+1
Tristan
16th March 2024, 22:56
You can’t say that he’s not a sleazy boss just as much as they can.
You can either be neutral or take a side. Your comment takes a side while pretending to be neutral.
Pete
17th March 2024, 11:31
Nowhere in the comment you responded to was it even vaguely suggested that he was “not a sleazy boss.” It doesn’t pick a side.
Tristan
17th March 2024, 12:49
It definitely does, you say there was a mutual relationship, which there is no proof of, you defend Horner asking for the conversation to be deleted, and say the rumours don’t match up to the reality as if you somehow know the reality which you are arguing of Horner not being sleazy.
If my boss told me they’d jacked off to photos of me in the bathroom you better believe I’m going to start taking screenshots of that conversation. Saward can see it how he likes, but you’re placing a lot of faith in his interpretation of the screenshots.
amped
17th March 2024, 18:15
Tristan, the chats we have seen, if we assume them to be genuine, do show it was a mutual relationship.
Nick T.
16th March 2024, 23:09
There are many places the leaked info is present. I agree with your analysis, but I have to warn you that Saward is a bitter psychotic. Not someone I’d recommend paying close attention to. He is widely hated in the paddock (not that that is proof of anything).
SteveR (@stever)
17th March 2024, 0:03
Really? One of the few actual remaining F1 journalists. And you know this how?
ludewig
17th March 2024, 11:58
This would explain why he is hated.
anon
17th March 2024, 15:51
@stever I don’t know if hated is quite the right word, but it does seem that some of his reporting in the past, and whether that was motivated by financial conflicts of interest, did make Joe Saward unpopular in some quarters of the paddock.
One of those issues was his acceptance of a non-executive position at Caterham Cars from Tony Fernandes whilst the Caterham F1 team was still active. Whilst he did note on a section of his blog that he had accepted that position, but claimed it did not impact his reporting, there were questions about whether his reporting was quite as neutral as he claimed.
There were some who questioned if the noted hostility in his reporting towards Mallya and Force India was motivated, in part, by Force India’s successful lawsuit of Aerolab, where Aerolab and Caterham were found guilty of violating copyright laws when Aerolab transferred test data from their wind tunnel tests on Force India’s car to Caterham. There were also disputes between Force India and Caterham about Caterham trying to poach some staff from Force India that didn’t help relations, and might have had an influence on Joe’s subsequent attitude towards that team.
Similarly, some questioned if some of his antipathy towards Lotus was motivated by the dispute over the right to use the Lotus marque in Formula 1 at the time. It also raised questions about the way that he subsequently reported on some individuals within the sport that were connected with the Caterham F1 team, such as Colin Kolles, and whether that was impacted by the commercial relationship he had with Kolles.
grat
17th March 2024, 18:27
Curiously, the one or two journalists who have commented on Saward’s blog feel that while he can be highly opinionated, he can also be objective, and his analysis of the highly selective snippets from the media leak has been considered fair.
I admit– while I know, with a little bit of work, I could find said message dump, I have no interest in reading it myself. It’s dumpster-diving of the worst kind, and it’s an invasion of Horner’s privacy (yes, I said it). So I would rather leave that odious task to others.
MichaelN
16th March 2024, 23:37
It’s not a smear campaign, it’s just commentary. Not everyone who has seen these messages has to come to the same conclusion. And I might be biased because of Horner’s prior antics, but… so be it.
Anyway, there’s not really anything suspicious about taking screenshots of inappropriate behaviour before making a complaint. People don’t rush to HR every time they have a bad experience, and that doesn’t mean that experience wasn’t a bad one. But when they do, there’s bound to be a body of material collected over time. This is to be expected.
It also doesn’t matter that the person involved was initially going along with some of Horner’s antics. This is a person younger than he is, and he is her boss. It’s like the whole world of F1 has never heard of the MeToo-saga. There is an inherent inequality here that influences people’s decisions. That this was eventually brought up as a complaint shows the person involved eventually came to the conclusion that this was not okay.
Most of these workplace cases end in a settlement. That some commentators want to make it a binary ‘it’s okay he can stay’ or ‘it’s bad and he has to go’ is not really how this tends to work. It can be bad and he can still stay. Red Bull might decide it’s worth keeping him on and take the PR-hit they will hope is temporary. And they’d probably be right.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 12:05
Yes, it definitely matters a lot whether Horner was sending unsollicited messages to an employee or whether they were in a relationship.
And in all but the most toxic relationships will you have the people involved do things that the other person does not like and the other person then trying to set boundaries. Framing an inability by people to read the minds of others, to know these boundaries without running into them, is absurd. It allows you to frame even the most healthy relationship as abusive.
Indeed. Horner is a man, and there is widespread sexism against men.
That this didn’t happen here is actually evidence that Red Bull is confident that she doesn’t have a legal case, or even one that would not be dismissed right away by the courts.
Tristan
17th March 2024, 12:57
You’ve got to be kidding me… At least you’ve revealed your agenda which hopefully allows anyone to read the rest of your comments here with the appropriate lenses.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 13:19
@Tristan
Have you ever questioned why anything where women do worse, like getting less pay on average, is treated like something that is a gender equality issue and a major problem to be solved, but the opposite, like 90+% of workplace fatalities being men, gets treated completely differently?
That is just one of many examples of sexism against men.
And yes, it is my ‘agenda’ to demand equal treatment and also to not consider it acceptable for bad things to happen to men.
amped
17th March 2024, 22:30
Tristan, if you think acknowledging the widespread against men in most societies these days is revealing an agenda, then it is you who is showing you have an agenda.
It is not only seen as acceptable to discriminate against men, especially if they’re white, it is a widespread belief that it is required. Feminists continue to complain about supposed sexism against women and girls meanwhile education is failing boys, companies are discriminating against men to favour women, only in cushy easy jobs though.
F1 Academy is a prime example of this, you have a bunch of privileged drivers from affluent backgrounds being subsidised by F1, given a series of their own with guaranteed progression despite being far weaker than real F4, drivers that finish in the lower quarter of standings who get far more attention and opportunities than their male peers who get similar results.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 11:57
@MichaelN
No. She doesn’t say that he should stop messaging her.
What she really seems to want is for him to be more like a real boyfriend, while he wanted less than that. It’s the classic story of an affair where the married person wants something on the side, while the person he is cheating with wants more than that.
Tristan
16th March 2024, 22:52
Oh wow, people seem to be missing the big news here. It’s not the Horner part, but rather the FIA’s lack of investigation.
This is not a good look at all for them to entirely ignore the complaints without so much as a dismissal of them.
Each time they complain and no action is taken it strengthens the argument that a cover up has taken place.
Tristan
17th March 2024, 0:17
PS, BBC leading this story multiple times now makes me think they’re in contact with the source and this is going to get a whole lot worse for Horner if that’s the case. There’s no way they’d be risking reporting this if it had no merit, they’d have to have the among the greatest legal council in the English speaking world.
Sandwhichands
17th March 2024, 5:45
Agreed. Also without visibility in the terms of the Concorde agreement or any other agreement we can’t say if there has been a breach. Lots of high level positions have contract clauses for this exact situation to manage damage to the company.
The thing that is disgusting in these responses is the expectation that Horner and the complainant are held to the same standard and clauses. We never saw the terms of reference for the investigation so we don’t know what it means for the original verdict. It was probably related to compliance with existing policy and procedure and if they did not envisage a situation such as this (unlikely but possible) then no surprise it went the way it did.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 12:08
I think that it is a bad idea to bow to conspiracy theorists like you, since there is no limit to the conspiracy theories that get made up. Bowing to them just leads you to violate all your norms and values, which is way worse than letting some conspiracy theorists spread their nonsense on the internet.
Tristan
17th March 2024, 12:41
what conspiracy are you talking about? did you read the article? This is the 3rd time they’ve submitted a complain and the FIA have not launched an investigation. It makes a very strong legal case that FIA have tried to cover it up. If the complainant had not gone to the BBC we would still not know about it.
There’s no conspiracy about anything I just said.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 13:23
Assuming that there is not a completely legimitate reason to not launch an investigation, but that there is a cover-up, is exactly what makes you into a conspiracy theorist.
If I complain to the FIA that the weather is too cold, and they refuse to launch an investigation, then surely that must mean that they are covering up a conspiracy to make the weather cold. Right?
That is the same logic that you are using.
AMPED
17th March 2024, 14:56
The FIA is the sporting regulatory body, this is not a sporting matter. Therefore there is nothing for the FIA to investigate.
The FIA has no control over the business aspects of the team, their power is purely on the sporting side.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
17th March 2024, 16:24
pretty much. The plantif has no case and is just trying to stir the pot. There are guys like Toto whom I am sure don’t mind heat on the FIA. There is a lot of stuff getting settled right now, If I were Horner I would sue the plantif in to submission and when faced with harsh financial realities, offer the opportunity to make a public apology, and be done with it. Having dealt with these manipulative types in the past, who believe they have an ounce of standing/basis, its interesting how far they will extend themselves/reach to keep the narrative in their favor.
Le Jimster (@lejimster82)
17th March 2024, 0:47
I have a problem with this woman hurling accusations but remaining anonymous. Horner gets all the negative press and scrutiny and nobody is investigating this woman. There are certain rumours of who this person is and their relationship with Jos Verstappen. It would be nice to find some actual facts out. If Jos is using her as a weapon against Horner in some rediculous power play it would be good to know for sure.
I’m struggling to believe this woman is acting on her own, what with the “leak” when the decision didn’t go their way and now this complaint to the FIA. I’m also confused as to how the BBC know about the complaint. Either somebody in the FIA is leaking information *or* more likely the accuser and whoever is behind these attacks on Horner is leaking information because they haven’t given up on dethroning Horner.
Tristan
17th March 2024, 1:04
Why should they? So they can open themselves up to abuse and being discredited? You’re happy to do that without knowing who they are. Why would them having any sort of relationship with Jos matter with regards to their complaint? Or is it only tabloid gossip to be ignored when Horner is the recipient?
The only people who should be require to perform sexual acts in the course of their employment are sex workers. If that’s what Horner wanted, that’s what Horner should have hired.
Crawliin-from-the-wreckage (@davedai)
17th March 2024, 11:10
So objectification of women (in this instance) is fine. As would be trafficking, abusing, drugging, virtually imprisoning and exploiting people (sorry I mean employing a person) for one’s own physical gratification is fine. In fact recommended for members of F1 teams is the way to go?!
What a disgraceful and disrespectful idea.
Tristan
17th March 2024, 11:32
What? I said none of that, but you sure did. Disgraceful indeed.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 12:11
@Tristan
There is absolutely no evidence that this person did not willingly engage in whatever she engaged in.
You’ve been really going full conspiracy theorist on this topic, going to a low that I’m not used to from you.
Tristan
17th March 2024, 12:42
Only going as low as what I’m reading from the comments here defending Horner. It’s pathetic.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 13:25
I’m actually defending basic human decency and to not devolve into a oppressive society where people get fired over having an affair.
Doesn’t really matter if it is Horner or anyone else.
notagrumpyfan
17th March 2024, 14:17
That sounds like ‘whataboutism’ to me.
I don’t see many people ‘defending Horner’ here; I am certainly not.
I do see many people though reacting to unsubstantiated rumours and accusations towards the man.
We don’t know a lot about the accusations, other than that there was in fact a complaint and that it was investigated by a KC and subsequently dismissed.
All the rest is speculation and/or reacting to leaks which we don’t even know if the proof therein is genuine.
Like or dislike Horner, but stick to the facts, and remember the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
RR
18th March 2024, 9:24
@ Le Jimster
Thanks, you put it all in a neat nutshell.
It may be a while before Jos V reveals himself as the dastardly deedster behind all this….
Robert
17th March 2024, 2:58
In the real world, outside of sensationalistic news headlines, does anyone actually care about stories like this when watching a sport? I mean, has anyone actually stopped following F1 because of this specifically? I would personally find that really hard to believe. People getting bored of the same guy winning all the time I can at least understand, even if I don’t fully agree.
I have no idea if Horner is guilty of anything in this case or not. There seem to be plenty of speculation and very little proof. I don’t even know how serious the allegations are because I’m simply not bothered to try and decipher all that mess the media has created around it. At this point it doesn’t really seem to matter anyway. But, if what he supposedly have done is a legal matter then it should be treated as such, in court. But since it hasn’t been, as far as I know, I can only assume that it isn’t. So if no crime has been committed, it would be completely normal for any company to conduct an internal HR investigation instead, the outcome of which would be entirely up to whatever internal guidelines that company enforces. Why would anyone else get involved and question that? If RedBull want’s to fire Horner, they can do that. But as far as I know he’s not employed by the FIA, so why should they care? The more they get themselves involved, the worse it will be for them. Although saying that, that does sound like typical FIA doesn’t it?
Horner is clearly a powerful man with many enemies, both from within and from the competition. Personally I don’t care much either way for him. I don’t know him. He sometimes seem like a nice dude, and sometimes like a corporate devil. But I do hope whatever this ends with, that it is for the right reasons. That it is because of him and what he deserve, not because of what people simply say about him.
Witan
17th March 2024, 11:46
Corporations need to guard their reputation carefully. A good reputation is valuable, a poor one leads to lost hard cash.
Half the world are women large numbers of whom are either F1 fans or related to fans. From one perspective this is a man getting away with mistreating a woman helped out by other men. The lack of transparency leaves space for all sorts of conspiracy theories (like that one) and such daft, wild speculation can poison a reputation in a blink.
Confidentiality and transparency can go hand in hand if managed carefully. A detailed description of the complaint process, a clear statement on why the complainant has been suspended, a map of the next steps. The discussion in this thread about whether Horner has been exonerated or not amply demonstrates the fogginess of the process and its outcome.
The troubling element here is certainly the implied behaviour by Horner, but also the fact the complainant who has acted properly and used the company procedure, is now suspended at the time of her requesting an appeal. That information seemed to coincide with the second notification to the FIA.
Somewhere in the middle is the widely available transcripts purporting to be between Horner and the complainant. Was this someone trying to help the complainant or that complainant showing frustration at the RedBull process?
My take on this is that the complainant is determined to get justice as she sees it. It is not a competitor’s vendetta. Perhaps this is generated by pressure from others or from her own determination and sense of injustice or betrayal. A lot of effort has gone into all this already but the level of transparency, something often touted as essential in these sorts of cases involving powerful figures, has been zero. The way RedBull dismissed the case in such imprecise terms rouses memes about the process, corporate blindness or blustering cover-up. I can’t lose the image of the RedBull giant swatting away the annoying fly. That is unjustified but the way this is being handled doesn’t quell such fevered imaginations.
Fresh air, as they say, is the best disinfectant. There is none in this case. And the more it festers the more corporations like Ford and Liberty and organisations like the FIA are going to be concerned about reputational damage which for commercial companies can be counted in hard cash. The much vaunted value of an F1 team is by no means invulnerable either.
If they don’t get their acts together then the next stage may well be a group pile on of other complainants who have an axe to grind about Horner, but even without that this is a weeping sore which might last for far too long. We have seen that before in other cases and it has never had a fairy tale ending.
RedBull can help end this by:
Detailing the appeal procedure to be taken and the timetable
Explicitly exonerating Horner at the end of it – or not
Detailing the employment position of the complainant as a result.
The FIA can help end this by:
Detailing the number of complaints from one person
Detailing the investigation process and timetable
Delivering a clear and unequivocal decision at the end of the process
List action to be taken as a result.
None of that breaches confidentiality. What neither must do is try to obfuscate or finesse the whole or any part of this.
ludewig
17th March 2024, 12:17
@Witan
If you look at surveys among women, then only a fairly small percentage identify as feminists and thus are the type of people that have these extremist beliefs about how evil men are, believe in the conspiracy theory about men doing everything they can to take advantage of women, etc. Most women are much more sensible than that.
Many a time I’ve seen claims from feminists about what women as a group would do and they are typically wrong, since these people extrapolate their own extremist beliefs to all women, even though they are actually a small minority.
SteveP
17th March 2024, 12:58
@Ludwig, for your education, please look up the dictionary definition of “Non-sequitur”
I think we might be able to slot your comment in as an excellent example.
notagrumpyfan
17th March 2024, 14:31
SteveP,
Interestingly, the quote you included cannot be considered ‘non-sequitur’. The next part (the part not surprisingly starting with ‘thus‘) is different though, but that still depends on what ludewig considers ‘extremist beliefs’.
Keep throwing in the Latin (website allowing), but make sure you know what it means, or you might need some of that education yourself ;)
ludewig
17th March 2024, 16:00
@notagrumpyfan
It’s interesting how often people call out supposed fallacies, when the call out is itself a fallacy.
I typically just ignore them.
AMPED
17th March 2024, 14:59
There is no “lack of transparency”, there is Red Bull adhering to strict data privacy laws which restricts what they can say.
Everyone claiming there is a lack of transparency is just lighting a hude beacon on their head that says ‘I don’t understand basic privacy rules’.
DB-C90 (@dbradock)
17th March 2024, 3:41
Not so long ago, when F1 was the ultimate boys club, this whole thing would have been a non story.
However, times have very much changed, an it remains to be seen whether or not Horner (and others) have indeed changed with the times, or whether they’re still clinging to the idea that the boys club will ultimately protect them.
I suspect that there’s a large number of teams and team managements that are sincerely hoping that Horner will resign and leave F1, not because of what he’s been accused of, but because it’s probably the one thing that might break up the RBR machine, something that Horner has been largely responsible for building over a sustained period.
I doubt that this will go away any time soon, and probably won’t ever until Horner, whether guilty of the behaviour alleged or not, chooses to call time and exit the team, because too many are demanding that happens both within and external to RBR.
Aly
17th March 2024, 9:11
This certain individual is hell bent on making sure that CH is shown the door.
Its not surprising that he was lured into this well thought out set up.
Some people (women) have discovered a novel way to make easy money, claim victimhood and gain exposure.
But then, if you have a great job, a terrific family, why feel the need to text any one. (asking for a friend who is single and unemployed and has never felt the need to indulge in sexting or harassing anyone, irrespective of their gender)
MadMax (@madmax)
17th March 2024, 9:37
bully fanclub spamming the chat for Horner here… lol
PlosslF1
17th March 2024, 15:43
It shows what a sorry state F1 is in when the headlines are mainly about whether Horner is a wrong’un…
RR
17th March 2024, 17:24
The basis of all this crisis is the feud between Marko/Jos/Max in one corner, and Horner in the other. This is now a fight to the death and will not be resolved till one party or the other vacates RB.
It’s funny, but as a racing team they were absolutely invincible, assured of continued success for at least another 2 seasons and probably a lot longer. No external factor could have stood in the way of their success. Only an explosion from within the team, and that is what happened.
Paul2013
17th March 2024, 21:31
It is public knowledge Who she is and her relationship/link with the Verstapens.
Her name was all over the news.
Why they just don”t name her?
Paul2013
17th March 2024, 21:36
She complain to the team, there was an independent hearing but she did not get what she wanted.
Documents were leaked to the media.
And now she complain again.
If she does not get what she wants what Will happen? Is she going to complain again and again?
To be honest RB must dismiss Verstapen and all his “troupe” ASAP.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
18th March 2024, 13:05
I don’t know the facts but it does appear as if she has a valid case. Ultimately, Horner was the boss so if even if it was a case of mutual consent he’s still technically in the wrong and god forbid she tried to end it or asked him to stop harassing her and he didn’t immediately respect her wishes.
The issue now is that whatever Horner did is secondary to Red Bull’s actions and the FIA’s dismissal or disregard of the initial complaint.
At first Horner was the driver, then Red Bull asked him to drive, and now the FIA is in the passenger seat next to Red Bull with Horner in the back row. Eventually Horner may no longer even be in the car the way things are headed.
MacLeod (@macleod)
18th March 2024, 8:20
Lets all just wait for the appeal with the KC before we conclude anything …. this is the internet never believe anything what is posted by random people.
So when we see anything from the KC legally we should ignore everything.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
18th March 2024, 12:59
Ultimately this will be judged in the court of public opinion and without the facts, we’ll always assume Red Bull, FIA, and Horner are guilty. It’s interesting how Horner is no longer the accused here – the collaborators are. Based on what I read, the FIA received a complaint prior to this one and didn’t act upon it or make it known. We all know how Red Bull handled this and the fact that are now guilty or innocent – no in-betweens.
A month ago, there were no moves on the chessboard. Now there are no moves left and the next move is either a checkmate for Red Bull, FIA, and Horner or for the accuser. How these 3 pinned themselves in a corner like that is absolutely remarkable. There’s still the option of withdrawing from the board but the clock is ticking and they will always be guilty at this point in the public’s eyes if they withdraw.
Remarkable stupidity!