Christian Horner
Discussion
Gazzab said:
It’s about an executive overstepping and abusing his power.
This is the line that is getting the 'repeat it often enough and it becomes the truth' treatment.It is being alleged that an executive overstepped and abused their power based on an anonymised leak of alleged information.
The pitchfork mob want to believe that the leak is the entirety of things because it is the only way their argument holds water. Don't talk to them about everything else, because they don't want to hear it.
Everything else however points to the fact that the leaked messages are not the entirety of the situation - and once again a lack of a denial that the messages are fake is not an admission that they are genuine and present an accurate representation of events, and would compromise any effort to use them in future as evidence of bad faith action.
End of.
We don't need to keep going round the houses on this with the whataboutery from the Horner haters.
OnDaysLikeThese said:
It’s far more patronising to assume women have no agency or moral responsibility.
Amen to that.Edited by Evercross on Monday 1st April 13:59
tommyx1 said:
It is kind of like a soap opera unfolding with affairs, lies, betrayal, revenge, etc. If she is currently in or has recently been in a relationship with Jos then that can explain why some elements have been blown out of proportion. And it does look very odd if true. She does have some culpability in this saga. Basically everything Jos has said about CH can be just revenge or aggression about CH being so creepy and unprofessional towards the PA which he is rumored to be involved romantically with. I can't see anyone else at RB saying CH is tearing the team apart, most are in strong support for CH. Jos is the lone outsider.
The story is not going away because the PA is appealing, but CH's position looks even stronger now than before this saga began. He has more internal support, with the Thai majority shareholder reportedly having no issues with the evidence and the result of the investigation and is backing CH 100%. Moreover, other RB leadership also rumored to be accepting of the result and backing CH.
1 post tommy, why would you expect any employee of RBR to be anything but supportive in any public forum of CH? Their job and career depends on not pissing off the CEO and keeping their gob shut.The story is not going away because the PA is appealing, but CH's position looks even stronger now than before this saga began. He has more internal support, with the Thai majority shareholder reportedly having no issues with the evidence and the result of the investigation and is backing CH 100%. Moreover, other RB leadership also rumored to be accepting of the result and backing CH.
540TORQUES said:
1 post tommy, why would you expect any employee of RBR to be anything but supportive in any public forum of CH? Their job and career depends on not pissing off the CEO and keeping their gob shut.
Using your own argument, if Mintzlaff was winning the internal power struggle rather than Yoovidhya then it would be in the employees' interests to distance themselves from Horner, no?540TORQUES said:
Evercross said:
End of.
The often used comment in a situation where that clearly isn't the case, in an attempt to kill debate.Just as "drawing a line under it" is also used by those trying to shut down a subject they have no control over.
Neither works or has any value.
No one is disputing that there is anything more to be discussed other than the same old same old, so it is fair and accurate to say that in the absence of any new information my statement stands.
Evercross said:
Using your own argument, if Mintzlaff was winning the internal power struggle rather than Yoovidhya then it would be in the employees' interests to distance themselves from Horner, no?
Those at RBR work for RBR, there is no benefit to them getting involved and lots of risk if they do. Keep your head down or leave for another job elsewhere is the only option.And it's absolutely clear Mintzlaff has no power against the wishes of Yoovidhya.
Evercross said:
Except that this thread has been going round in circles with the same tired argument and baseless assertion (see the lie repeated often enough above) for the best part of a month now.
No one is disputing that there is anything more to be discussed other than the same old same old, so it is fair and accurate to say that in the absence of any new information my statement stands.
Your statement makes a statement many disagree with.No one is disputing that there is anything more to be discussed other than the same old same old, so it is fair and accurate to say that in the absence of any new information my statement stands.
If you stop making statements thats thats the end of your input. It wont be the end of the discussion.
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
All written in my armadillo-skinned posing pouch, just for you
OnDaysLikeThese said:
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.
PhilAsia said:
The affair is not really the problem. It is the alleged sexual predation after.
FTFY.tommyx1 said:
So, the fact that no one is speaking about against CH indicates that this is an isolated incident and more to the story than what we see publicly.
This is a key point that I made way back when the leaks appeared (just after certain journalists started briefing against Horner). Someone was clearly fishing for a Harvey Weinstein moment hoping that other allegations of "controlling behaviour" regarding Horner would appear.Instead, nothing!
Then, an accusation of dishonesty directed at one person....
Edited by Evercross on Monday 1st April 14:27
540TORQUES said:
Evercross said:
OK, so present us with the new information that no-one else outside of Red Bull appears to have.
That's not my job. Neither is it my or your job to try and close down debate.A forum is for discussion, nothing you or I post changes anything.
tommyx1 said:
Imagine if you are an employee and see your boss do something horrible that should get him fired, or know from someone else this to be true. Would you just keep your gob shut and allow a sex pest, a womanizer, an abusive, sexually coercive boss to keep his position and continue to abuse others in the company? To abuse people that you know, people that you care about? All just to keep your job in this F1 team? How could you sleep at night knowing you let a sexual deviant continue to abuse your co-workers/friends just so you keep your job? Most of these people are very highly skilled that they would not have much difficulty joining another F1 or motorsport team if they were fired by CH for speaking out. And then they could sue for wrongful termination. So, the fact that no one is speaking about against CH indicates that this is an isolated incident and more to the story than what we see publicly.
Can CH get rid of Mark Mateschitz, Oliver Mintzlaff, Helmut Marko, Jos Verstappen (yes, not an employee but obviously key figure for Max), or his accuser? Can CH get rid of anyone that says anything negative about him? IS RBR a dictatorship? MM and OM have seemed to show support for CH going forward now. HM has toned things down. JV toned down but still clear in his beliefs CH needs to go or the team will be torn apart.
What i would do, and have done is not relevant. The reality of such a closed community as a circus like F1 alters peoples behaviour, as does the realities of financing a family via your job and taking a risk that could harm that.Can CH get rid of Mark Mateschitz, Oliver Mintzlaff, Helmut Marko, Jos Verstappen (yes, not an employee but obviously key figure for Max), or his accuser? Can CH get rid of anyone that says anything negative about him? IS RBR a dictatorship? MM and OM have seemed to show support for CH going forward now. HM has toned things down. JV toned down but still clear in his beliefs CH needs to go or the team will be torn apart.
The reality in that environment is keep your head down or leave.
CH is untouchable by anyone in the company whilst he has the support of the Thai majority owner of RB.
540TORQUES said:
Evercross said:
OK, so present us with the new information that no-one else outside of Red Bull appears to have.
That's not my job. Neither is it my or your job to try and close down debate.A forum is for discussion, nothing you or I post changes anything.
I was so hopeful you had something new and original to bring to the discussion as well.
Maybe you can trot out the trope that the messages must be real and are evidence of Horner's misdemeanours. One more repeat might just make it true, but then again probably not.
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?
[…]
king idiot Masi. Even when questioned respectfully, Joe would repeatedly trot out some rule or clause that seemed to magically override all others, which conveniently absolved said fkwit from any blame.I can understand not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you, but defending the indefensible didn’t do his credibility any favours imo.
Evercross said:
Gazzab said:
It’s about an executive overstepping and abusing his power.
This is the line that is getting the 'repeat it often enough and it becomes the truth' treatment.It is being alleged that an executive overstepped and abused their power based on an anonymised leak of alleged information.
The pitchfork mob want to believe that the leak is the entirety of things because it is the only way their argument holds water. Don't talk to them about everything else, because they don't want to hear it.
Everything else however points to the fact that the leaked messages are not the entirety of the situation - and once again a lack of a denial that the messages are fake is not an admission that they are genuine and present an accurate representation of events, and would compromise any effort to use them in future as evidence of bad faith action.
End of.
We don't need to keep going round the houses on this with the whataboutery from the Horner haters.
OnDaysLikeThese said:
It’s far more patronising to assume women have no agency or moral responsibility.
Amen to that.Edited by Evercross on Monday 1st April 13:59
The truth may not be known but we do know is that a grievance was raised, a KC reviewed it, RB rejected it, some WhatsApp messages were leaked (yet to be denied), RB suspended the PA, she remains on full pay, she has raised a complaint (?) re the handling of her grievance which might bring things back to a head, this may end up at an ET.
The basis of her grievance is alleged to be about her inappropriate treatment.
Anything else re power plays, Austria, Jos, Geri, completeness of messages etc is probably irrelevant to the central issue ie the grievance.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff