[Team] Red Bull: Unbullievable

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I might be being pedantic on this, but I don't think that is correct. The barrister wasn't hired to question Horner, he was hired to lead the investigation and present this to Red Bull. Of which questioning Horner was part of it.

When I said he was hired to question Horner, I didn't mean that was all he was hired to do, otherwise I wouldn't have posted The Guardian link, which says he will be questioned on Friday as part of an independent investigation.

Originally Posted by Richard C

My point I am making above is that while Red Bull is using the word "independent" as part of the investigation. On it's face that is to imply "impartiality" in people's minds. But one doesn't mean the other. I haven't read their press releases, but I don't know if they said they brought someone into to perform an "impartial" investigation or not. I suspect not. They clearly knew that if they were using internal resources (which the may have already) that it wouldn't play well from a press perspective.

Red Bull GmbH issued a press release saying they were bringing in this external specialist barrister.

“After being made aware of certain recent allegations, the company launched an independent investigation,” the organisation says in a statement. “This process, which is already under way, is being carried out by an external specialist barrister. The company takes these matters extremely seriously and the investigation will be completed as soon as practically possible.''

Though it doesn't specifically say it was to conduct an "impartial" investigation, I think one can conclude that this was the intention, otherwise why announce they are hiring an external specialist barrister?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Autosport story here - comments on the story are interesting, particularly as there are regularly anti-Horner comments made on stories on that site.

As I mentioned above. You will find no shortage of news story saying he was cleared, but the statement doesn't (but could) have said as much. Scenarios including parties taking payment and agreeing to closure of the issue are still quite possible.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Yes, he has been cleared. The wording that the "grievance has been dismissed" is unequivocal and is both definite and strong in regard to statements made about legal matters.

I would say that "unequivocal" is an opinion. Why not say he was cleared? You call out the use in legal matters. You can have a something such as civil suit that is dismissed if parties come to an agreement and ask for dismissal. This includes monetary compensation. And that dismissal says nothing one way or another about the claims. Sometimes the side agreements CAN make statements as to validity of claims or not.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Quite simply, someone made a complaint, it was investigated thoroughly (including interviews with 3rd parties) and dismissed - meaning that the investigation has found no evidence to support the complaint.

I would argue, this is speculation and opinion. Just as my comments are. As you point out the details are private.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Red Bull's statement in full here.

Actually a part I missed is that they do call out that they feel it was impartial. So that is good. Quote from above...

Red Bull is confident that the investigation has been fair, rigorous and impartial.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Details HAVE to be closed - Red Bull is not entitled to release information that might identify the complainant, unless of course the complainant identifies themselves or agrees for the information to be released. There are strong legal protections in place in most countries for complainants to prevent their public identification, unless they agree to be identified.

You are dodging my actual comments and responding to points I didn't make. I called out that complainant details can/should be kept private. Details of how the investigation operates does not have to be private. Explaining your process and building trust in that process is what I am talking about. Having trust in the process helps build trust in any outcome.

What I find funny is that I really don't have strong feelings on this. I think there is smoke, but how much fire I don't know. My biggest comments is how poorly IMHO Red Bull has handled this. Not a total trainwreck, but not great. And because it has been a slow burn, it feeds my fears as to the amount of actual fire.

In the end there clearly are two large camps in social media... The first is that he is totally innocent, fully cleared and the press should be burnt at the stake and the second that he is completely guilty and it's a big whitewash.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

When I said he was hired to question Horner, I didn't mean that was all he was hired to do, otherwise I wouldn't have posted The Guardian link, which says he will be questioned on Friday as part of an independent investigation.

Sorry I thought that was common knowledge. I am not sure what I said that was at odds with that? What point you were/are making here? I called out that he was hired by Red Bull to provide a report to Red Bull.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Though it doesn't specifically say it was to conduct an "impartial" investigation, I think one can conclude that this was the intention, otherwise why announce they are hiring an external specialist barrister?

Granted it is a cynical view, but as I call out. it is meant to "imply" impartiality, but does not "guarantee" impartiality.

Richard

[Richard C]

I can see one problem with the point I am trying to make regarding "independent" or "impartial" investigation. So here is an example that is not exactly apple to apple, but is where I am coming from.

When the space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986, NASA didn't create and run their own "independent" commission as to the cause. Because even if NASA itself ran the investigation and used external investigators, there would always be the concern that those investigators would be beholden to NASA. Maybe they would want future work for NASA or maybe NASA would pick people that they felt were in their pocket already. What was done was a commission (Rogers Commission) was setup that was run fully outside of NASA (reported to the president). So that group didn't have just the "appearance" of impartiality, they actually a significant level of impartiality. They didn't report to NASA.

Now this Horner mess is not the Challenger disaster. And it wouldn't rise to the level of needing a fully external and independent investigation. That might happen if it were a criminal and not a civil issue. But... my point is that if you are going to "run your own independent investigation" then the onus is on you to provide the clarity and openness that builds trust in the results. Because at the end of the day all of this is really about Red Bull, Red Bull Racing and by extension partners such as Ford to maintain a positive opinion in the public view. And I am mostly calling out that Red Bull could have done a better job to head off cynical criticism such as I am offering up. I mostly am just pointing out the holes and potential for abuse, not so much that I believe abuse of the process happened.

I feel I have already commented more on this topic than I feel is appropriate given how actually little I care about it.

Richard

[chillibowl]

maybe a weird question, but the releases mentions that the complainant has the right of appeal.

but to whom would they make that appeal to i wonder?

surely not to the investigators themselves because that doesn't sound right.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

maybe a weird question, but the releases mentions that the complainant has the right of appeal.

but to whom would they make that appeal to i wonder?

surely not to the investigators themselves because that doesn't sound right.

I think that is an open question. I have seen someone make the comment elsewhere that there might be governmental agency processes that would be the next step, but before that process can be initiated you are expected/required to exhaust internal processes first? I guess there is also a potential for an internal appeal? I assume Red Bull/RBR has their own internal HR processes defined for this. Most companies do.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Sorry I thought that was common knowledge. I am not sure what I said that was at odds with that? What point you were/are making here? I called out that he was hired by Red Bull to provide a report to Red Bull.

Granted it is a cynical view, but as I call out. it is meant to "imply" impartiality, but does not "guarantee" impartiality.

Richard

I think we are talking at cross purposes here.


Anyway, as I said earlier I would like to see what the barrister's findings are but Red Bull say in their statement: "The investigation report is confidential and contains the private information of the parties and third parties who assisted in the investigation, and therefore we will not be commenting further out of respect for all concerned.''

[broadrun96]

Some of y'all are exposing a lack of knowledge of the use of words on legal decisions and why it's NEVER a statement as simple as cleared. That leaves no room for legal maneuvering and intentional vagueness. Especially as the barrister was likely hired to investigate and NOT to clear. Anything impartial or independent would NEVER say cleared someone as that is not the task at hand. The task was to determine available information and provide a report on such things

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I think we are talking at cross purposes here.

Agree. We can move on.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Anyway, as I said earlier I would like to see what the barrister's findings are but Red Bull say in their statement: "The investigation report is confidential and contains the private information of the parties and third parties who assisted in the investigation, and therefore we will not be commenting further out of respect for all concerned.''

Agree. But I understand why it can't be made public. I can imagine a version that is sanitized of private, sensitive and/or identifying information could be created, but it could just aggravate vs help from Red Bull's perspective. I can imagine they just hold tight and let this die down.

I think the open questions are if Horner will pursue action against media or if the complainant will push in other directions (i.e. take complaint to appropriate governmental agency). It all may just die a slow death.

Richard

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

maybe a weird question, but the releases mentions that the complainant has the right of appeal.

but to whom would they make that appeal to i wonder?

Michael Masi

[GTRMagic]

Meantime, has there been a press statement from Ford?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Some of y'all are exposing a lack of knowledge of the use of words on legal decisions and why it's NEVER a statement as simple as cleared. That leaves no room for legal maneuvering and intentional vagueness. Especially as the barrister was likely hired to investigate and NOT to clear. Anything impartial or independent would NEVER say cleared someone as that is not the task at hand. The task was to determine available information and provide a report on such things

Agree with you completely - in this instance, the legal terminology of the claim being dismissed is much stronger than saying that Horner has been cleared.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Meantime, has there been a press statement from Ford?

Punch something into ChatGPT and it will be pretty close to what Ford end up releasing I reckon

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Meantime, has there been a press statement from Ford?

Well, it's early days of course, with the RB statement only coming out a few hours ago but there may not be a statement from Ford, given that Ford's initial thoughts on this were leaked, rather than put out in a statement.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Michael Masi

Hahaha brilliant!

[Tourer]

So…..not wearing a tin foil hat here but it’s been an “interesting” winter for unfounded accusations against leading figures in both of F1’s leading teams.

Throwing mud is always a low act but hopefully that’ll be the end of it, now that both lots of accusations have been dismissed in one way or another.

[Tourer]

Mr Wolff (& to a lesser extent Mr Brown) weighing in and wanting more information.

Interesting that Mr Wolff thinks that more transparency is needed in this case (an internal employment matter at Red Bull) but didn't think that more transparency was needed on the question of collusion between himself and his wife, which had much wider implications in the sport than this case does.

Personally, IMHO both situations have been resolved sufficiently but if Mr Wolff REALLY believes more should come out about these allegations and the investigation into them, then in the interest of good governance, so should more come out about the allegations and investigation against himself and his wife.

F1 really can be a messy stew of piranhas thrashing about and trying to attack each other on any subject at times.

[Richard C]

And it continues.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/a...oing/10581392/

So the report are that someone has leaked documents related to the investigation to a large number of F1 and media people. Is it real? Hard to say. You can fake anything. But could also be real. You can find photos of it on Twitter if you look. Nothing particularly earth shattering such as full on smoking gun, but also not "nothing" either as many speculated. All just more fuel for the fire.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

In the Motorsport article Zac Brown gives his 2¢s worth:


McLaren CEO Zak Brown said: “I've read this statement. I think, from what I've seen, there continues to be a lot of rumours, speculation, and questions.
"I think the sanctioning body has a responsibility and authority to our sport, to our fans, and I think to all of us in Formula 1… I think they need to make sure that things have been fully transparent with them."


As the article says, the veracity of the documents is unclear. This is an internal matter for Red Bull and I don't think the FIA should get involved, certainly not at this juncture.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

In the Motorsport article Zac Brown gives his 2¢s worth:


McLaren CEO Zak Brown said: “I've read this statement. I think, from what I've seen, there continues to be a lot of rumours, speculation, and questions.
"I think the sanctioning body has a responsibility and authority to our sport, to our fans, and I think to all of us in Formula 1… I think they need to make sure that things have been fully transparent with them."


As the article says, the veracity of the documents is unclear. This is an internal matter for Red Bull and I don't think the FIA should get involved, certainly not at this juncture.

It's not entirely clear about the timing of the Brown comment. I read it as him responding to the original Red Bull statement and not a response to the leak? I expect team principals, etc. for the most part are to be very selective and careful about any comments on the leak.

Apparently Horner has commented about the leak. He just says he is not going to comment on it and to reiterate the he denied the original allegations, cooperated with the investigation and that the complaint was dismissed.

Along with my earlier posts about strategic wordsmithing. Nowhere does he say he was cleared of anything (he parrots the original vague language). And he doesn't say the leaked documents are fake. If the documents were fake it would have been a perfect opportunity to say so.

No doubt more to come.

Richard

[billy bleach]

Bearing in mind the World wide panic about election interference and AI this year some tittle tattle about a two bit F1 Team Principal would be a 5 minuet job for someone who knows what they are doing. Redbull have spoken - nothing to see here - so why cannot that be it ? Full disclosure I am not much of a Horner fan but it’s all getting a bit tiresome now….

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

It's not entirely clear about the timing of the Brown comment. I read it as him responding to the original Red Bull statement and not a response to the leak? I expect team principals, etc. for the most part are to be very selective and careful about any comments on the leak.

Richard

I didn't think it was a response to the leak either. What I found interesting about his comment was his mentioning of the sanctioning body, i.e the FIA. Prior to Zac Brown's comment, has anyone else mentioned any potential involvement by the FIA?

[Greem]

The most annoying thing about this whole issue is...


Every time I see some headline about it, the tune to "Spice Up Your Life" turns up in my head!

I hate F1 sometimes, just not for the reasons most people do

[chillibowl]

lol

sounds about right...i'll be seeing a different kind of Spice World movie this weekend!

the spice must flow!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

lol

sounds about right...i'll be seeing a different kind of Spice World movie this weekend!

the spice must flow!

He who controls the spice controls the universe.