Round-up: Antonelli, rFactor 2 Formula E update, Jerez flooded and more

25 comments on “Round-up: Antonelli, rFactor 2 Formula E update, Jerez flooded and more”

1. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   5th March 2025, 6:23

   I’ve collected the Autocourse annual series since the 2014 edition & someday I might start collecting some older ones, although this only option is also worth considering for the purpose.

   Come on, when will the allegation matter regarding Horner go away for good?
   It started a little over twelve months ago, which feels like forever ago in motorsport terms.

   Pretty bad flooding on the Jerez circuit, which I hope will go away soon for the circuit’s sake.
   1. 

      MacLeod (@macleod)
      5th March 2025, 7:51

      @jerejj As I don’t know how the justice system works in England we can say we don’t know when this ends. I thought it was over when a court clerk (I forgot how that is called) said not enough prove it seems the women is trying a different way as part of a civil lawsuit ?? I wonder if it’s like the US where you can get cleared but sued by the victims and lose anyway.

      Jerez flooding is due heavy rain overflooding a nearby river? It looks bad and hope damage will be small indeed.
      1. 

         Adrian Hancox (@ahxshades)
         5th March 2025, 8:39

         The Horner case is ongoing as the employee accusing him has opened a civil case (I believe), there is also an injunction in place stopping British news media from reporting on it. Its been Reported by racingnews365, and GPBlog and De Telegraaf, although the racingnews365 post has been removed since.

         I am sure that Keith knows all about this, but as there is an injunction in place he cannot report it.
      2. 

         Red Andy (@red-andy)
         5th March 2025, 8:49

         The tribunal case will be against Red Bull as an employer, not against Horner directly, although his conduct will presumably be part of the case (and the tribunal *may* make findings of fact about his conduct and/or Red Bull’s internal investigation, if it is relevant to the claim).

         There are various layers to the employment tribunal system, including the possibility for either side to appeal – although factual findings are usually only made at the first stage and cannot generally be appealed. As with all courts in England, there are large backlogs and delays, so it could drag on for some time.
      3. 

         anon
         5th March 2025, 13:35

         What happened was that Red Bull asked an independent lawyer to review their internal disciplinary review into the allegations raised against Horner.

         Their brief was to determine whether Red Bull had handed the case in an appropriate manner, and that individual, reported that, based on the information given to them, they believed that Red Bull had handed the case in an even handed manner.

         However, their brief did not include an independent review of the final decision itself, just whether Red Bull’s internal proceedings up to that point were appropriate (ie they only reviewed the procedures and not the results).

         The person involved therefore does still have the legal right to challenge the final decision itself through an independent organisation, and they are apparently continuing proceedings down that route.
      4. 

         MurasamaRA300 (@murasamara300)
         5th March 2025, 21:09

         And yet, a mere three hours ago (about 6pm UK time on 5th March), the BBC Sport website published an article stating that “Netflix series shows moment Horner learns of alleged messages“.

         So, despite the injunction, it appears perfectly OK for Netflix and for the BBC to display parts of the case – in a sensationalist way – with the obvious purpose of selling more Netflix subscriptions. The injunction looks a wee bit Two-Tier to me…

         Pardon my slight cynicism. It’s got worse with age. :)
         1. 

            Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
            7th March 2025, 0:29

            @murasamara300 A breach of an RRO is itself newsworthy, which is likely to be the justification if challenged (even if the BBC made no direct statement to that effect in the article). Also, the BBC isn’t allowed to do anything with the purpose of selling Netflix subscriptions, not only because it’s a public body, but because it has a semi-rival product (the iPlayer).
      5. 

         Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
         7th March 2025, 0:28

         @macleod The case hasn’t been before a court clerk yet, except to establish that there is a case to answer (i.e. the evidence is not so far tilted towards either party that it would be impossible for the other to defend it, which is the very high standard of evidence required for summary dismissal). You may have mistaken it for the Red Bull internal inquiries with independent legal support, of which two have occurred. Neither involved a formal legal court.

         It’s not possible for the prosecution to sue the defendent if a UK court finds the defendent not guilty, though it is certainly possible for the prosecution to appeal.
   2. 

      Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
      7th March 2025, 0:23

      @jerejj The case against Christian Horner isn’t due to go before a judge until early 2026, so there is no possibility of the rumours ending before then. The Reporting Restriction Order sharply limits what the more sober elements of the press can do to calm the rumours (because the *less* sober elements of the press would stir things up too much about it).
2. 

   Craig
   5th March 2025, 8:31

   I disagree with COTD that “2 silly accidents will be forgotten in years to come” as those years have come and gone and they’re still known. If you re-write his career to remove those accidents then you’re not discussing his career anymore.
   1. 

      Jonathan Parkin
      5th March 2025, 9:05

      And also whilst an example of his ultra competitiveness, it could be argued that they also cost him two world championships, if you also include 2006

      Jacques Villeneuve admitted later he probably wouldn’t have made the corner at Jerez, so he could have been stuck in the gravel, so that’s one potential title lost

      At Monaco in 2006, he finished 5th from a pit lane start. How much further up the order could he have finished if he had started 2nd or 3rd. He could have won that race, and then momentum could have swung his way. Another championship lost
   2. 

      Webbo (@webbo82)
      5th March 2025, 9:08

      Well said, they weren’t silly, they were calculated professional fouls… And not confined to his early career either. See Barrichello in Hungary, his own brother emerging from the pits and Monaco qualifying for Mercedes.
      I must add I hope he and his family find health and happiness.
   3. 

      Dane
      6th March 2025, 1:27

      I do agree with COTD that Schumacher probably watched Senna and Prost crashing into each other in the late 80s and thought you get away with that in F1. It worked in ‘94 for him. It’s like Max now in that he pushed the rules to the limit, but it wasn’t until Jerez 97 that he got punished.
      1. 

         El Pollo Loco
         6th March 2025, 5:20

         It’s also an interesting and useful analogy for looking at how 2007 unfolded between Alonso and McLaren in terms of what he expected and how he approached it w/what he likely thought were broken expectations based on prior precedents. He’d no doubt be basing his expectations and MO on the treatment he’d seen other previous WDCs given by their teams as well as the ruthless lengths to which they’d go to win (and celebrated for it too).
3. 

   kuvemar
   5th March 2025, 9:10

   very few will remember 2 silly accidents in years to come

   It’s been 30 years since Adelaide 1994 and we’re still talking about it. This is never going to get forgotten. Neither will the traction control, the modified fuel system, the Silverstone formation lap and the black flag, the parking job in Monaco, the attempt on Barrichello’s life …
   1. 

      An Sionnach
      5th March 2025, 16:18

      A lot of the things that will seemingly never be forgotten have never been proven to have existed in the first place…
4. 

   Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
   5th March 2025, 13:15

   Its not 2 incidents ( lol ) but Damon Hill did say on a recent rerun of the Spa Grand Prix where MS’ antics vs Hill got him a 1 race ban, that it was totally unjustified and looking back MS was totally fair in his defending of his position.

   But the 2 mentioned plus the much worse and indefensible pushing of Barrichello towards the wall in Hungary in 2010 mean his achievements are tainted. But not as much, IMHO, by his failed comeback that even his manager Willie Webber warned against and resigned as a result.

   Its just an infinite shame that he isn’t able to talk candidly now, looking back with some more perspective, about what he did right and wrong and what he would have done differently.
   1. 

      Red Andy (@red-andy)
      5th March 2025, 13:44

      It would be interesting to know what he would have made of the recent controversies involving Verstappen’s driving “to the limit,” too.
   2. 

      MichaelN
      5th March 2025, 21:40

      the much worse and indefensible pushing of Barrichello towards the wall in Hungary in 2010

      Schumacher started moving right straight as they came out of the final corner. Before Barrichello alongside. It was Barrichello’s choice to go into that closing gap, rather than straight line it on the left to take the outside line into Turn One. And, in fact, the gap never closed at all as Barrichello got passed.

      Was it on the edge? Sure. But somehow that is “indefensible” and pretty much every GP we see today has half a dozen people barging competitors straight off the track, from which predicament they then escape by going flat out across the tarmac run off only to do the same two corners later. And this is said to be great racing.

      Schumacher himself said he was wrong at Jerez, and he was right. He didn’t say anything of the sort about other controversial incidents, and he was right not to.
      1. 

         An Sionnach
         5th March 2025, 23:20

         Jerez was such a shame. That was an incredible season from Michael, but it was rightfully scrubbed from the record books. It would have been one of the most valiant championship challenges in a sub-par car. I won’t engage in what-ifs about Spa, either…
5. 

   An Sionnach
   5th March 2025, 16:14

   Senna’s 1990 crash was premeditated and deliberate. It deserved a lifetime ban. It didn’t affect his legacy and people still make a false equivalent between it and 1989 (where he was also to blame).
   1. 

      MichaelN
      5th March 2025, 21:43

      Senna’s 1990 crash was premeditated and deliberate. It deserved a lifetime ban.

      Indeed, that’s what makes it incomparably worse than anything pretty much every other driver ever did in F1. Senna’s attack on Prost in Japan 1990 ranks up there along with the Alonso/Piquet cheating in Singapore 2008 as one of the worst sporting moments in F1 history.
      1. 

         An Sionnach
         5th March 2025, 23:15

         Except that it could have been tried in a court of law as it was beyond more than just sporting rules. One (Prost) or both of them could have been killed.

         If you recall Schumacher’s early run-ins with Senna – he could not understand why a three-time champion would resort to brake testing and all sorts of aggressive behaviour pretty much all the time.

         Schumacher’s 1994 incident happened in seconds. It could be anything from rejoining the track in panic before realising he had a terminal problem to the deliberate move so many deem it to be. The 1997 move got what it deserved.
   2. 

      El Pollo Loco
      6th March 2025, 5:36

      Never been a big fan of Senna, but lifetime ban? I’d reserve a punishment of that severity for a move that had noteworthy odds of producing a crash with potential for serious injuries or worse. What Senna did was basically cheat. Something, I wouldn’t consider worthy of a lifetime ban for a driver. And, like everything, it needs to be considered in the context. And the context was that Balestre had basically cheated Senna out of a title the year before.

      In isolation, a more appropriate penalty would have either seen him DQ’ed for 1990 or suspended for half of 1991 (basically, the same as DQ’ing him from the ‘91 WDC). I’ve also never been a fan of one strike and you’re out in most scenarios (not just F1). Of course, this is an issue that is incredibly subjective and based on each person’s individual views on equity, fair play, balancing justice and business, etc., etc. So, there’s no “right answer” per se.
   3. 

      Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
      7th March 2025, 0:31

      It is highly unlikely that a lifetime ban would have stuck, for the same reason as the lifetime ban of Flavio Briatore didn’t stick.

Comments are closed.