Christian Horner
Discussion
Byker28i said:
It's not going away, it will be prominent in the next Drive to survive series
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula-1/christian...
That will please a large chunk of the PH F1 "fans", yourself included! https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula-1/christian...
Muzzer79 said:
I’m genuinely curious.
If the idea that Horner has sexually harassed his PA is so “ridiculous” and “presumptive” what is your impression of what’s happened?
When you read those messages, what did you think of Horner’s conduct?
IMO he's been very silly to get himself into this position. Without seeing the unedited, entire conversation history, it looks like a consensual relationship in its death throes (whether or not that was engineered in the hope of gathering "evidence") I've certainly been there, being strung along by a hot/cold "partner", the difference being that our message history would only be embarrassing for the 2 of us, and not capable of influencing global politics (or a rabid forum)If the idea that Horner has sexually harassed his PA is so “ridiculous” and “presumptive” what is your impression of what’s happened?
When you read those messages, what did you think of Horner’s conduct?
The person I aimed my comment at claims to be a professional in this arena, his comments are anything but!
Now you be honest, what do you think the poster's employer, or indeed the SRA would think of his comments?
Edited by Tim the pool man on Monday 1st April 07:14
Tim the pool man said:
IMO he's been very silly to get himself into this position. Without seeing the unedited, entire conversation history, it looks like a consensual relationship in its death throes (whether or not that was engineered in the hope of gathering "evidence") I've certainly been there, being strung along by a hot/cold "partner", the difference being that our message history would only be embarrassing for the 2 of us, and not capable of influencing global politics (or a rabid forum)
The person I aimed my comment at claims to be a professional in this arena, his comments are anything but!
Now you be honest, what do you think the poster's employer, or indeed the SRA would think of his comments?
I’d hazard a guess they know more about the law in this area than you. They’ve also made a lot of comments about it being based on the stuff so far.The person I aimed my comment at claims to be a professional in this arena, his comments are anything but!
Now you be honest, what do you think the poster's employer, or indeed the SRA would think of his comments?
Edited by Tim the pool man on Monday 1st April 07:14
As for the consensual relationship stuff - how can you even know it is properly consensual when it is the boss of your company? There’s always the issue that someone might have gone along with it because they feared for their job, not because they were into the other person. It’s a bad idea because of the power imbalance no matter what happens.
In the latest Missed Apex podcast Joe Saward was firmly on Horner's side.
He wouldn't even agree with Spanner's assertion that the messages were genuine. He didn't disagree, instead he said that 'no one knew for certain'.
Saward also contended that if we knew all of the story we too would have a different take on things.
Spanners let it go. But, I made up that he was a bit exasperated at Uncle Joe's position on this.
He wouldn't even agree with Spanner's assertion that the messages were genuine. He didn't disagree, instead he said that 'no one knew for certain'.
Saward also contended that if we knew all of the story we too would have a different take on things.
Spanners let it go. But, I made up that he was a bit exasperated at Uncle Joe's position on this.
Blib said:
In the latest Missed Apex podcast Joe Saward was firmly on Horner's side.
He wouldn't even agree with Spanner's assertion that the messages were genuine. He didn't disagree, instead he said that 'no one knew for certain'.
Saward also contended that if we knew all of the story we too would have a different take on things.
Spanners let it go. But, I made up that he was a bit exasperated at Uncle Joe's position on this.
Saward’s position on this has stopped me from passing any particular judgement. He’s well connected and level-headed, so if he says there’s more than meets the eye - rightly or wrongly - I believe him.He wouldn't even agree with Spanner's assertion that the messages were genuine. He didn't disagree, instead he said that 'no one knew for certain'.
Saward also contended that if we knew all of the story we too would have a different take on things.
Spanners let it go. But, I made up that he was a bit exasperated at Uncle Joe's position on this.
Not particularly keen on Saward's failure to call out the kind of behaviour alleged, even if he doesn't want to commit to one position or another. In a position of influence, he should still say words to the affect that the alleged behaviour would have no place in the sport if found to be true.
Unfortunately he's no different to other journalists too attached to one small arena (similar in the Westminster lobby); the price of honesty can be access (or lack of it). Not to mention the one thing that unites the whole modern F1 circus- the worship of financial gain and avoidance of discussing anything that might risk it.
You only have to look at the articles by journalists not reliant on F1 for a living to see the difference.
Unfortunately he's no different to other journalists too attached to one small arena (similar in the Westminster lobby); the price of honesty can be access (or lack of it). Not to mention the one thing that unites the whole modern F1 circus- the worship of financial gain and avoidance of discussing anything that might risk it.
You only have to look at the articles by journalists not reliant on F1 for a living to see the difference.
OnDaysLikeThese said:
Blib said:
In the latest Missed Apex podcast Joe Saward was firmly on Horner's side.
He wouldn't even agree with Spanner's assertion that the messages were genuine. He didn't disagree, instead he said that 'no one knew for certain'.
Saward also contended that if we knew all of the story we too would have a different take on things.
Spanners let it go. But, I made up that he was a bit exasperated at Uncle Joe's position on this.
Saward’s position on this has stopped me from passing any particular judgement. He’s well connected and level-headed, so if he says there’s more than meets the eye - rightly or wrongly - I believe him.He wouldn't even agree with Spanner's assertion that the messages were genuine. He didn't disagree, instead he said that 'no one knew for certain'.
Saward also contended that if we knew all of the story we too would have a different take on things.
Spanners let it go. But, I made up that he was a bit exasperated at Uncle Joe's position on this.
OnDaysLikeThese said:
Blib said:
In the latest Missed Apex podcast Joe Saward was firmly on Horner's side.
He wouldn't even agree with Spanner's assertion that the messages were genuine. He didn't disagree, instead he said that 'no one knew for certain'.
Saward also contended that if we knew all of the story we too would have a different take on things.
Spanners let it go. But, I made up that he was a bit exasperated at Uncle Joe's position on this.
Saward’s position on this has stopped me from passing any particular judgement. He’s well connected and level-headed, so if he says there’s more than meets the eye - rightly or wrongly - I believe him.He wouldn't even agree with Spanner's assertion that the messages were genuine. He didn't disagree, instead he said that 'no one knew for certain'.
Saward also contended that if we knew all of the story we too would have a different take on things.
Spanners let it go. But, I made up that he was a bit exasperated at Uncle Joe's position on this.
I’m pretty certain his sources in this case are Horner and a few high up RB people deliberately pushing their own story against the bad behaviour one, ‘leaking’ stuff in the same way the texts were - to try and push the discussion in a way they want.
jm doc said:
OnDaysLikeThese said:
Blib said:
In the latest Missed Apex podcast Joe Saward was firmly on Horner's side.
He wouldn't even agree with Spanner's assertion that the messages were genuine. He didn't disagree, instead he said that 'no one knew for certain'.
Saward also contended that if we knew all of the story we too would have a different take on things.
Spanners let it go. But, I made up that he was a bit exasperated at Uncle Joe's position on this.
Saward’s position on this has stopped me from passing any particular judgement. He’s well connected and level-headed, so if he says there’s more than meets the eye - rightly or wrongly - I believe him.He wouldn't even agree with Spanner's assertion that the messages were genuine. He didn't disagree, instead he said that 'no one knew for certain'.
Saward also contended that if we knew all of the story we too would have a different take on things.
Spanners let it go. But, I made up that he was a bit exasperated at Uncle Joe's position on this.
Joe got as close as alluding to the close friendship between the alleged victim and somebody else who presumably wants Horny out of the team. As much has been said on this thread and in many online reports, but not by any mainstream European press. I think that’s what he means when he says there’s two sides to the story, but he does go about it in a roundabout way, that sometimes comes across as defending Horny because of what he’s not allowed to talk about - whereas most of us the rest of us can see the messages in isolation, and agree that he’s toast if they’re genuine.
jm doc said:
He's well-connected, but I doubt that you really understand the way he is connected. He's a disgrace, defending what happened in AD21 "nothing to see, move on" attitude and he's defending the indefensible again. Perhaps you (and several others on here) should be asking why he has to defend Horner so vigourously and in the face of all the evidence?
I’m new to the sport and wasn’t reading his blog at the time of AD21, but a quick google has him publicly stating that it resulted in a “patently unfair” result as “Hamilton did not deserve to lose the race and thus the title” - even if he thought the decision should stand.Doesn’t sound to me like an extreme position? If he was dyed in the wool Red Bull would he state that Hamilton did not deserve to lose the title?
For what it’s worth, I think that Horner has likely disgraced himself by having an affair (and worse yet by being caught doing so), but the rumour that the PA also had/has a relationship with the ghastly Jos would change things for me if it were true (even if it wouldn’t absolve Horner).
To sleep with one married senior executive in your company is careless, to sleep with two is quite something else.
Even if not, I do struggle to imagine any entirely innocent party in this given the way it seems to be used in an internal power struggle.
OnDaysLikeThese said:
jm doc said:
He's well-connected, but I doubt that you really understand the way he is connected. He's a disgrace, defending what happened in AD21 "nothing to see, move on" attitude and he's defending the indefensible again. Perhaps you (and several others on here) should be asking why he has to defend Horner so vigourously and in the face of all the evidence?
I’m new to the sport and wasn’t reading his blog at the time of AD21, but a quick google has him publicly stating that it resulted in a “patently unfair” result as “Hamilton did not deserve to lose the race and thus the title” - even if he thought the decision should stand.Doesn’t sound to me like an extreme position? If he was dyed in the wool Red Bull would he state that Hamilton did not deserve to lose the title?
For what it’s worth, I think that Horner has likely disgraced himself by having an affair (and worse yet by being caught doing so), but the rumour that the PA also had/has a relationship with the ghastly Jos would change things for me if it were true (even if it wouldn’t absolve Horner).
To sleep with one married senior executive in your company is careless, to sleep with two is quite something else.
Even if not, I do struggle to imagine any entirely innocent party in this given the way it seems to be used in an internal power struggle.
PhilAsia said:
Probably wore a short skirt too...
It’s far more patronising to assume women have no agency or moral responsibility.As there has been no accusation of rape, we can conclude that she likely decided to sleep with a married man. Even if she felt to do so might be beneficial for her career, or to not do so detrimental, I don’t think that completely absolves her?
ETA: In my previous comment I didn’t make it clear that if all the texts are accurate then he was at points being creepy and inappropriate given their respective roles in the team. However, they could well be cherry picked and further context might put things in a (slightly) different light.
Would be completely different were it non-consensual, of course.
If she is now also sleeping with another married man with influence in her company, who is in a power struggle with the former one, does that really strike you as not possibly being dodgy?
If it were gay men in this situation, would you be as snarky? Women aren’t dainty little things incapable of wrong.
Please note the big ‘if’ re: the Jos rumour, I have no idea of its credibility beyond it being repeatedly mentioned.
Edited by OnDaysLikeThese on Monday 1st April 12:47
OnDaysLikeThese said:
PhilAsia said:
Probably wore a short skirt too...
It’s far more patronising to assume women have no agency or moral responsibility.As there has been no accusation of rape, we can conclude that she likely decided to sleep with a married man. Even if she felt to do so might be beneficial for her career, or to not do so detrimental, I don’t think that completely absolves her?
ETA: In my previous comment I didn’t make it clear that if all the texts are accurate then he was at points being creepy and inappropriate given their respective roles in the team. However, they could well be cherry picked and further context might put things in a (slightly) different light.
Would be completely different were it non-consensual, of course.
If she is now also sleeping with another married man with influence in her company, who is in a power struggle with the former one, does that really strike you as not possibly being dodgy?
If it were gay men in this situation, would you be as snarky? Women aren’t dainty little things incapable of wrong.
Please note the big ‘if’ re: the Jos rumour, I have no idea of its credibility beyond it being repeatedly mentioned.
Edited by OnDaysLikeThese on Monday 1st April 12:47
What does sexuality have to do with this? It’s about an executive overstepping and abusing his power.
How do you know she is sleeping with Jos?
It isn’t about creepiness it’s probably about power and not taking no for an answer.
Gazzab said:
What exactly is Jos’ position at red bull racing?
^ He’s clearly a man of some influence within the team
What does sexuality have to do with this? It’s about an executive overstepping and abusing his power.
^ Because the ‘short skirt’ remark suggested that my opinion was misogynistic which I think is unfair. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
How do you know she is sleeping with Jos?
^ I made it beyond clear that I take it to be nothing more than a rumour, that it might be the case but might not be
It isn’t about creepiness it’s probably about power and not taking no for an answer.
^ I think Christian was being creepy, actually more sad/desperate for a man with an attractive and seemingly loving wife.
But if the PA had consensual sex with him, even under a certain influence, she’s not without guilt in this. And if she is now with Jos then the whole thing starts to look very odd. For one thing, what could Jos’ appeal be? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but he’s widely seen to be a charmless bully and isn’t conventionally attractive.^ He’s clearly a man of some influence within the team
What does sexuality have to do with this? It’s about an executive overstepping and abusing his power.
^ Because the ‘short skirt’ remark suggested that my opinion was misogynistic which I think is unfair. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
How do you know she is sleeping with Jos?
^ I made it beyond clear that I take it to be nothing more than a rumour, that it might be the case but might not be
It isn’t about creepiness it’s probably about power and not taking no for an answer.
^ I think Christian was being creepy, actually more sad/desperate for a man with an attractive and seemingly loving wife.
OnDaysLikeThese said:
But if the PA had consensual sex with him, even under a certain influence, she’s not without guilt in this. And if she is now with Jos then the whole thing starts to look very odd. For one thing, what could Jos’ appeal be? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but he’s widely seen to be a charmless bully and isn’t conventionally attractive.
I don't make the connection? Jos Verstappen isn't her boss, isn't a fellow employee. What business is it of ours if she has a relationship with someone on those circumstances? What possible bearing would it have on Horner's behaviour?It feels like some people are straying close to suggesting this whole thing has been a honey trap for Horner.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff