[Team] Red Bull: Unbullievable

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

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?

The FIA are involved now...

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has again denied allegations of inappropriate behaviour after a series of alleged messages were leaked.

'An anonymous email with a link to messages purporting to involve Horner was sent to Formula 1 personnel and media on Thursday.
[...]
A drive of messages was on a link in the email, which was sent to 149 people involved in the sport. [...] The messages have been brought to the attention of governing body the FIA and it is discussing the matter with F1 management.'

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The FIA are involved now...

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has again denied allegations of inappropriate behaviour after a series of alleged messages were leaked.

'An anonymous email with a link to messages purporting to involve Horner was sent to Formula 1 personnel and media on Thursday.
[...]
A drive of messages was on a link in the email, which was sent to 149 people involved in the sport. [...] The messages have been brought to the attention of governing body the FIA and it is discussing the matter with F1 management.'

Is this the FIA where there has been wholesale resignations over the past few months?

[Skam85]

I've seen the text screenshots via the leaked Google Drive link.

I got such second-hand embarrassment for "CH" (if they are real).
Don't think it's sackable, but it's marriage ending

[Teretonga]

This whole matter is a nonsense.
It has become a 'trial by media' or a 'trial by social media' as if what people think in their own minds is all pure and unbiased.


Having Toto and Zak interviewed and a discussion about whether the FIA should be involved is just trying to create a storm for Horner.
There is no 'moral high ground' in any of this.

Look at the sequence.
A female employee has a concern about something Horner said or did.

She goes to make a complaint to the owner of the subsidiary company.
It begins an investigation.
A Dutch newspaper gets a hold of some speculative talk and publishes that speculative talk.
At about the same time rumors of a rift between the accused and the father of the teams Dutch driver become public.
Dutch media publishes speculation about the nature of the alleged offences.

There is no confirmation of anything except for the acknowledgement of an investigation by Red Bull, the owner of RBR.
An independent barrister has been hired to interview Horner and head the investigation.
Horner is allowed to carry on working AND the person who brought the complaint continues to work at RBR.
The Dutch paper's speculative talk about the nature of the incident s is never confirmed and there is mention of legal suits against the paper being brought.

Then the parent company says the complaint has been dismissed.

So there was never enough confirmation, or the complainant never brought enough to the investigation, to show that Horner did in fact show 'controlling' or 'abusive behaviors'.
This investigation included questioning third parties who worked in the RBR environment.

Both Horner and the complainant have legal protections over privacy and information concerning the investigation and findings that should protect them from public scrutiny, particularly the complainant should she desire to continue working at RBR.

RBR issued a statement saying the allegations had been investigated and the complaint dismissed.
It is nobody else's business. The complainant holds the right to take it further if she wishes to do so.
She may prefer to continue her career at RBR.
No one has the right to violate her privacy.
Whatever speculation has been made it is just that, speculation.

If there was merit in the allegation or the nature of it then the rights to expose anything Horner did that was really wrong, is in her hands. If it was anything that was worthy of Horner's dismissal, then the power to do so is with her.
She is not powerless.

She does not need Toto or Zak to champion her cause nor that of the FIA's cause to investigate for the sake of the sports reputation.
That power is actually in her hands if the offence was really worthy of such action.


If you look at this article by Chris Medland on Racer magazine and read the comments of those who read it the arguments are quite interesting.

https://racer.com/2024/02/29/brown-a...investigation/

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

This whole matter is a nonsense.
It has become a 'trial by media' or a 'trial by social media' as if what people think in their own minds is all pure and unbiased.


Having Toto and Zak interviewed and a discussion about whether the FIA should be involved is just trying to create a storm for Horner.
There is no 'moral high ground' in any of this.

Look at the sequence.
A female employee has a concern about something Horner said or did.

She goes to make a complaint to the owner of the subsidiary company.
It begins an investigation.
A Dutch newspaper gets a hold of some speculative talk and publishes that speculative talk.
At about the same time rumors of a rift between the accused and the father of the teams Dutch driver become public.
Dutch media publishes speculation about the nature of the alleged offences.

There is no confirmation of anything except for the acknowledgement of an investigation by Red Bull, the owner of RBR.
An independent barrister has been hired to interview Horner and head the investigation.
Horner is allowed to carry on working AND the person who brought the complaint continues to work at RBR.
The Dutch paper's speculative talk about the nature of the incident s is never confirmed and there is mention of legal suits against the paper being brought.

Then the parent company says the complaint has been dismissed.

So there was never enough confirmation, or the complainant never brought enough to the investigation, to show that Horner did in fact show 'controlling' or 'abusive behaviors'.
This investigation included questioning third parties who worked in the RBR environment.

Both Horner and the complainant have legal protections over privacy and information concerning the investigation and findings that should protect them from public scrutiny, particularly the complainant should she desire to continue working at RBR.

RBR issued a statement saying the allegations had been investigated and the complaint dismissed.
It is nobody else's business. The complainant holds the right to take it further if she wishes to do so.
She may prefer to continue her career at RBR.
No one has the right to violate her privacy.
Whatever speculation has been made it is just that, speculation.

If there was merit in the allegation or the nature of it then the rights to expose anything Horner did that was really wrong, is in her hands. If it was anything that was worthy of Horner's dismissal, then the power to do so is with her.
She is not powerless.

She does not need Toto or Zak to champion her cause nor that of the FIA's cause to investigate for the sake of the sports reputation.
That power is actually in her hands if the offence was really worthy of such action.


If you look at this article by Chris Medland on Racer magazine and read the comments of those who read it the arguments are quite interesting.

https://racer.com/2024/02/29/brown-a...investigation/

Ironic of Toto to weigh in too considering what he and Susie went through recently.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

She does not need Toto or Zak to champion her cause nor that of the FIA's cause to investigate for the sake of the sports reputation.

I tend to think others jumping in is maybe a situation in which if you have some enemies or people who think your downfall will benefit them (such as a negative competitive impact to RBR) that they will take the opportunity to stick a knife in you.

Regarding the authenticity of the leak. It appears that some of the initial leak images posted on Twitter had been altered AFTER they were leaked and then shown that they were images from elsewhere (not CH). But given the number of people with access to the leak and can call out the post leak alterations, it seems like some of those initial accusations of "fake" or "AI generated" are dropping off. It could still be fake, but if fake, it seems to be a VERY good fake. It's looking more and more real IMHO.

It is looking like he and his PA were in a relationship and then she tried to take it back more professional, but he was continuing to keep the status quo? If true, and if RB had this information as part of the investigation, then IMHO it is a mess and will be black eye for RB as it makes it look like they were trying to sweep it under the rug.

While it may not be talked about much if at all during broadcasts, I am sure this is dominating F1 paddock gossip. What do the paddock insiders here have to say?

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I tend to think others jumping in is maybe a situation in which if you have some enemies or people who think your downfall will benefit them (such as a negative competitive impact to RBR) that they will take the opportunity to stick a knife in you.

Regarding the authenticity of the leak. It appears that some of the initial leak images posted on Twitter had been altered AFTER they were leaked and then shown that they were images from elsewhere (not CH). But given the number of people with access to the leak and can call out the post leak alterations, it seems like some of those initial accusations of "fake" or "AI generated" are dropping off. It could still be fake, but if fake, it seems to be a VERY good fake. It's looking more and more real IMHO.

It is looking like he and his PA were in a relationship and then she tried to take it back more professional, but he was continuing to keep the status quo? If true, and if RB had this information as part of the investigation, then IMHO it is a mess and will be black eye for RB as it makes it look like they were trying to sweep it under the rug.

While it may not be talked about much if at all during broadcasts, I am sure this is dominating F1 paddock gossip. What do the paddock insiders here have to say?

Richard

Are you suggesting that CH was having an affair with his PA while Married to Geri? And that when the PA wanted to withdraw CH persisted? And that the images from a third-party source that look altered may in fact be real?

Really Richard?
Are you the editor of 'News of the World'.
Even if this was actually true it is their business, no one else's.

Even then it is not the business of the FIA, nor Toto, nor Zac, nor the FIA, nor Dutch newspapers nor anyone else.

Personally, I think the images are from a third party, and that makes them irrelevant.
In an earlier post on the subject, I felt the whole issue was an attempt to slur Horner, and I still think that.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Even if this was actually true it is their business, no one else's.

Listen I sort of get your point, but don't agree that this is 100% personal. If someone hypothetically has an affair and that created marital issues, then yes that is their personal business. That is because the scope of that is within just their marriage.

But, this is alleged to have taken place inside of Red Bull Racing, between employees that have a significant power differential, of which one is the team principle, with reported internal political battles on how to handle the entire thing. Because of that, and the potential ramifications to an F1 team and key personnel, it is clearly within the scope of the larger F1 world which is a public topic. Is it very unfortunate for CH and anyone else involved? Absolutely. Is the entire thing a bit distasteful all around for both the sport and the fans? Absolutely. But this is absolutely fair game to be discussed.

I also think I am being relatively fair and even in my comments. I still am leaving the door open that all of this new "evidence" is fake. However I personally am doubtful. I think if it IS fake, that will be exposed. No doubt some here will disagree and say that my comments have been anti CH or anti-Red Bull. What I have mostly called out is the discrepancies and oddities in how things have transpired over the past few day. Including that many things have been carefully worded, have taken an oddly long time to resolve and that there is likely more to what is going on than "nothing to see here". The entire thing just "smells off" so I called it out. Just yesterday people where claiming that he had been fully exonerated and they were happy to talk about that. We can't have it both ways. If it is going to be talked about, then talk about it regardless of which way it goes. Good, bad or ugly.

This thing is a huge mess. It is embarrassing regardless how it turns out. I don't relish in what is going on. I don't wish this upon CH or anyone. I am just observing what I am seeing and making comments here on this forum as it is newsworthy and on topic. I hope people don't have sanctimonious attitude towards me and I will do the same in return.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

In an earlier post on the subject, I felt the whole issue was an attempt to slur Horner, and I still think that.

And as I say above. I think people are taking this opportunity to swing at CH. Could it all be manufactured? If so, then it must be a deep, deep and complicated game. So deep that I don't think it is real. I think he got into a situation (how compromised is still up for debate) and then people took advantage of that. So IMHO, no the entire thing is not created just to slur Horner. It just became an opportunity to do so.

Richard

[Skam85]

Respectfully, it's fairly naive to think that in this day and age, the doctoring of screenshots of text messages from someone with an agenda is a deep, deep, complicated game.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's very very easy to do.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Respectfully, it's fairly naive to think that in this day and age, the doctoring of screenshots of text messages from someone with an agenda is a deep, deep, complicated game.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's very very easy to do.

Sorry, to be clear, my comment about a "deep and/or complicated game" is just me commenting on the position that ALL of this is a manufactured effort to slander CH. So is there a secret cabal of CH enemies working together to manufacture this from top to bottom including having a mole working at Red Bull Racing to issue the complaint and kick all of this off? I say "no". That the complaint situation (regardless of it being valid or not) happened of it's own accord and then others opportunistically jumped on the bandwagon. Just a bit of Occam's razor style of logic.

As to the ease of creating fake content. With enough time, money and resources it all could be faked. It is exceeding easy to create decently good fakes these days (there are websites to create fake Whatsapp screenshots, you just provide the text... and AI for images). Especially those that pass for real with casual inspection. I think the interesting aspects of this is that there is a lot of eyeballs on this right now. While easier these days to do, it would not be trivial to pass the high level of current scrutiny these are getting. Beyond the pure digital side it would be a well crafted fiction. But in the end, this new content is just hours old. Conclusive evidence that it is fake could appear at any time. Or not. If it is fake, then the next item is to figure out who would invest that much effort to create such good fakes.

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard C

And as I say above. I think people are taking this opportunity to swing at CH. Could it all be manufactured? If so, then it must be a deep, deep and complicated game. So deep that I don't think it is real. I think he got into a situation (how compromised is still up for debate) and then people took advantage of that. So IMHO, no the entire thing is not created just to slur Horner. It just became an opportunity to do so.

Richard

I never meant the actual initial situation was a set up to embarrass CH.
I simply meant that the way the narrative was being played out in mainstream media and social media was bordering on salacious, deliberate intent to smear someone.

The 'whole issue' refers to the way it was being played out in various media and blogs, etc.

So Im not on the page you inferred but more likely in agreement with your conclusions.

However, I have noted this.
It was Dutch media that first broke the questions open and started the speculative inferences.
It was a strong stream of speculative information from Dutch media, including quotes from a Dutch team manager that Horner was definitely gone or would have to resign.

Coupled with that was an inference that CH's relationship with Max's father was in a difficult phase, also via Dutch media, would leave me wanting to eliminate any possibility of a constructive slur coming from Dutch sources, before I started chasing similar leaks from somewhere else.

Just to be clear, I am not a detective, and have no interest in pursuing this matter at all.
However, when I see smoke signals rising from behind a hill, a mountain range or a beach, I know that's the first place to start looking if I want to find the source.

[steve_r]

I don't have much to say on this. If the British press are anything to go by, then I don't put much stock in a Dutch Tabloid paper as being the main source of any information. It is understandable that CH and RB will not say anything publicly about what seems to be uncorroborated info (which I have not seen myself).

So where does that leave us?

Will this all go away and be forgotten about when the racing starts and we have something different to focus on in F1 land?

Is this the end of it, or will there be an appeal by the person involved? Or will that person or someone else sell their story to the grubby tabloids, who would love to run an exclusive that brings someone into disrepute?

[S griffin]

The fact there are still a lot of unanswered questions means this is unlikely to go away anytime soon.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by S griffin

The fact there are still a lot of unanswered questions means this is unlikely to go away anytime soon.

That's a shame..... Bored of it already......

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I never meant the actual initial situation was a set up to embarrass CH.
I simply meant that the way the narrative was being played out in mainstream media and social media was bordering on salacious, deliberate intent to smear someone.

The 'whole issue' refers to the way it was being played out in various media and blogs, etc.

Understand. I agree there are agendas at play here. Sorry I misunderstood your point.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

I mean the images are public now, right? so we don't need to trust what dutch media said - there's actual screenshots of him in WhatsApp sending photos of his man parts.

If im understanding this correctly, the dutch media said there was inappropriate photos. RB found him innocent. CH said he'd take legal action against the dutch media. Someone leaked the data. Turns out dutch media were right. CH goes quiet.

I mean, it hardly looks good does it? In any job I've worked in, sending photos of my crotch would be a sackable offence.

[Mike Harte]

Referring to Akrapovic's post above, I haven't seen the images that are supposed to have been posted on the Web, and to be totally honest, I couldn't care or less.

However, with the tools available to the world, images can so easily be "photoshopped" and be extremely difficult to determine whether they are fake or not. Is it possible that this is what the barrister saw, and experts consulted had determine were not a true representation?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Referring to Akrapovic's post above, I haven't seen the images that are supposed to have been posted on the Web, and to be totally honest, I couldn't care or less.

However, with the tools available to the world, images can so easily be "photoshopped" and be extremely difficult to determine whether they are fake or not. Is it possible that this is what the barrister saw, and experts consulted had determine were not a true representation?

I have seen the images. I would be very surprised if these are fake. I'm not sure an HR hearing would include digital forensic analysts.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I have seen the images. I would be very surprised if these are fake. I'm not sure an HR hearing would include digital forensic analysts.

And isn't that the exact point The UK went berserk about comments the Mayor of London made verbally and on screen Turned out they were AI generated. I am sure as World leaders in the Port Industry someone in Holland could mock up a convincing Gentleman's vegetable!

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I have seen the images. I would be very surprised if these are fake. I'm not sure an HR hearing would include digital forensic analysts.

This wasn't an HR exercise, this was an external barrister who could have, or maybe did, consult expert analysts. As far as I am aware, what you suggest to have seen could or would be a criminal offence, so I cannot believe that a barrister would advice an employer, Red Bull, that there was nothing to see, figuratively speaking.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I have seen the images. I would be very surprised if these are fake. I'm not sure an HR hearing would include digital forensic analysts.

It's quite easy to fake images. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Photoshop would be capable.

[Akrapovic]

I'm a software developer who uses AI and image manipulation tools on the daily. I'm well aware of how "easy" it is to fake images. It's also easy to spot fakes and AI.

There's a rather impressive amount of screenshots which match up, as well as photos and decently long phone recorded videos of CH out drinking in a pub.

We also appear to be down an odd road here where someone has made complaints, and backed it up with evidence, and the internet is saying they're probably fake and its all lies. Not entirely sure i'm comfortable with that tbh.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I'm a software developer who uses AI and image manipulation tools on the daily. I'm well aware of how "easy" it is to fake images. It's also easy to spot fakes and AI.

There's a rather impressive amount of screenshots which match up, as well as photos and decently long phone recorded videos of CH out drinking in a pub.

We also appear to be down an odd road here where someone has made complaints, and backed it up with evidence, and the internet is saying they're probably fake and its all lies. Not entirely sure i'm comfortable with that tbh.

Not saying they are fakes , saying they could be and there is the issue

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I'm a software developer who uses AI and image manipulation tools on the daily. I'm well aware of how "easy" it is to fake images. It's also easy to spot fakes and AI.

There's a rather impressive amount of screenshots which match up, as well as photos and decently long phone recorded videos of CH out drinking in a pub.

We also appear to be down an odd road here where someone has made complaints, and backed it up with evidence, and the internet is saying they're probably fake and its all lies. Not entirely sure i'm comfortable with that tbh.

It can be easy to spot fake images if you use use AI and image manipulation tools, but most people don't.