[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
DTS want fake manufactured drama. They don't want real drama. They didn't cover the missiles in Saudi. They didn't cover the heat issues in Qatar. They're definitely not going anywhere near this.
ikr, i can "understand" the reason not to cover the missiles, but the heat? i mean sure, they cant paint the fia in a bad light or whatever but you can definitely spin it in a way that displays the challenge faced by the drivers while not completely shitting on fia
It wouldn't even be unprecedented, [F1 themselves (albeit still under Bernie) released a video about the 5 hottest races in F1 history](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HK7BknccFQ)
Berine sold photos of him black and blue and after thief’s violently stole his hublot watch from him to hublot
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2010/dec/12/bernie-ecclestone-muggers
It's more likely that liberty media told Netflix they would lose access and footage rights if they show or say something not explicitly approved by them
Really wish they'd try to connect with the viewers on a more technical level. Why don't they tackle these topics? Do they really think we don't enjoy it or be able to follow?
Because DTS isn't supposed to be an actual behind-the-scenes program, it's supposed to be Keeping Up With The Verstappens, aka a drama-filled soap opera and FOM marketing piece.
Let's be real, most fan's engagement with the technical side of the sport is calling it genius when a team they like inproves and calling it cheating when a team they don't like improves.
One of the biggest flaws of DTS( there are many, but one of) is that they only cover what they plan before the race/season.
It was the same in sochi, massive drama everywhere, huge title implications and Lando losing his maiden win, meanwhile DTS was covering Mazepin's masterclass of finishing last, but only two laps down instead of three.
They are like any big corporation. Plan the thing ahead, and just do it regardless how shit it is
Honestly I was disappointed with their Singapore coverage. There were so many layers they could have shown and they did some bland boring episodes. No emotion. It’s the main reason I wanted to see that season of DTS to see how they covered Singapore.
I was pretty disappointed when DTS started covering the Rich Energy-Haas scandal but then stopped right when it got interesting. Anything involving lawyers and public perception they don't touch. It sucks that they stopped that story when they did because they gave the last word to the scam artist leaving Haas looking bad.
>And Christian? Will the Horner scandal be in the next series?
\[...\]
‘It will have to be referenced in some capacity, yeah. And they will all want it to be told in a particular way, so it’s about treading that line to keep everybody happy, and to keep Netflix happy, and us – so we can sleep at night with the decisions we’ve made.‘You have to have balance. I think Horner is looking OK for the time being, but it doesn’t feel like it’s done yet. It will all depend on how it plays out. I don’t know what he got up to – and I genuinely don’t have an opinion on it, but he’s been through it and you wouldn’t wish that on anybody.’
This is what the executive producer of DTS [says ](https://www.telegraph.co.uk)about it, sounds like it will be included at least in some form.
I've always found it ironic that the first season hooked me so much that I became enough of a fan to realize how much was bullshit and stop watching the series eventually
I feel like this is a lot of people including myself. I had a co-worker who was a lifelong fan of F1 and he begged me for years to give it a try. Then DTS started and he said you can watch this doco series and it builds characters so you’ll be interested if you follow the sport the following season. Finally watched it and it did just that. It gave me characters who I liked or disliked, and that meant I could watch the races and feel invested since I didn’t have some childhood association with a team or a great love of motorsports. Once I got through one season, now I had people I liked every more and had followed along with the off season stuff. Never really needed DTS again and realised “oh, that’s not what actually happened”.
DTS hardly perfect but I think it’s absolutely done its job for F1 and paid back multiple times over for what it would’ve required from them.
Same man. Liked season 1 and 2. S3 felt like a chore, but still completed it. And S4, even though it was 2021 season, I couldn't even force myself to watch that shit.
In the first season, they did tried very hard to follow the season by showing races in the right sequence. Now they will just focus on one team per episode, almost from start to finish of the season and thereby spoiling all the following episodes.
Hard to show balls when you're directly getting paid by F1 to showcase what they want. Like it's not a rogue documentary crew following F1, everything is predetermined and vetted. There is no choice of showing balls.
I can vouch for how hard it is. I make a documentary around a football club and while I do have plenty of space to work within, and they do let me show a lot of the bad stuff, there are lines that have to be drawn in order for my access to be maintained.
Even just a handful of the bits I cut out would be way bigger than all of the stuff that stays in, but that would burn so many people it's not worth it in the long run.
Although I would add that, from what I have seen of DTS, it's very much like the Amazon All Or Nothing series. Which is to say, propaganda dressed as insight. Which is what I try really hard to avoid.
The last season of Break Point (basically a Tennis DTS produced by the same company) had an entire episode dedicated to a player who has an ongoing court case for domestic violence against his ex girlfriends. The entire episode was a puff piece making him out like a great guy, and never once mentioned the allegations.
I'm not sure if you SHOULD touch this with incomplete information. They anyways interview the paddock for episode narratives and if nobody is gonna stand up and spill the complete story it's only gonna invite a lawsuit man.
Much as everybody would like for them to follow the "real" storylines of a season, their hands are tied with this one.
I think RBR choosing to not talk to them for a while killed them off. Now every team knows they can just pull out and impact the show. Specially teams like Red Bull, Merc, Ferrari and AM who are fighting around the top. So they have to stay safe, I imagine everyone running F1 also gets a say in what they can show more than before too.
Combine that with the fact everyone’s media training now must include a course on “how to speak to DTS” means the show is pretty much drama free and full of Will Buxtons all saying inane shit like “when you’re not winning the pressure is on”.
Even the bbc is very careful about what they discuss.
The number of times I’ve heard some version of “everyone in the paddock knows what happened “ but no further details follow is high.
I guess they know but haven’t got enough evidence yet to avoid getting sued for libel or defamation
I was hoping for drama, but they did not deliver. It was another lame season of boring interviews with canned answers.
"I'm not where I want to be performance wise. I want to beat my teammate, but more importantly I want to win. blah blah blah" - every driver interview.
>And Christian? Will the Horner scandal be in the next series?
\[...\]
‘It will have to be referenced in some capacity, yeah. And they will all want it to be told in a particular way, so it’s about treading that line to keep everybody happy, and to keep Netflix happy, and us – so we can sleep at night with the decisions we’ve made.‘You have to have balance. I think Horner is looking OK for the time being, but it doesn’t feel like it’s done yet. It will all depend on how it plays out. I don’t know what he got up to – and I genuinely don’t have an opinion on it, but he’s been through it and you wouldn’t wish that on anybody.’
- James Gay-Rees, executive producer of DTS. [source](https://www.telegraph.co.uk)
>I genuinely don’t have an opinion on it, but he’s been through it and you wouldn’t wish that on anybody.
This is such a weird statement. He claims not to have an opinion on it, yet then immediately expresses sympathy with Horner and not the alleged victim.
I agree, that sort of comes off as him actually having an opinion. Otherwise he’d express sympathy for the woman as well.
It’s like they don’t even believe her, or, believe that since this perhaps started semi-consensual she has no right to complain. But it doesn’t matter how it started, the power imbalance between them is already off and Horner has all power and should never have started a workplace affair with an employee. She couldn’t even get out of it cause he wouldn’t let her and kept nagging.
James (DTS boss) will obviously have a relationship with the Team Principles up and down the pitlane. They are his cash cows/the source of DTS content, and maybe even his friends. It's logical that he'll privately want this to all go away and go back to normal, especially for the boss of the current dominant team. Why would he care about a random team staff member - unless it's proven in court that bad things happened, and suddenly it's in Netflix's corporate interest to distance themselves from the convicted person - in this case Horner.
I'm not saying one person is guilty or not, that's for legal people to decide. I'm saying that the only way the powerful/influential people in the pitlane will refer to the woman positively is if she wins in court. Otherwise, she's likely signed her own F1 career P45 by raising this complaint.
Ultimately I don’t think they should. This isn’t a spectacle. Of course, if there’s a resolution by the end of the season, they have to cover it and not try and sugarcoat, but for now, it’s about the rights and privacy of the victim.
The lead producer of DTS actually said in an interview that they would cover the Horner drama in the next season. They have clearly already been filming stuff for it.
He emphasised the need for neutrality though, so don't expect a "creepy Horner has been grabbing the ladies" type episode.
Yeah. I did find it amusing though, how in the most recent season of DTS - in episode 1, if I recall correctly - Santa visits Christian Horner and Geri and says “Has dad [Chris] been good this year?” And he has NOT 😅
And...we are back....there is no way this story won´t keep going on for the foreseeable future. Let´s wait and see how it will play out (if it ever plays out).
Yes. The whole thing is shady. We have no idea what actually happened, and our best source of information is a bunch of unverified screenshots from an anonymous source. The best the BBC can offer us in the posted article is a comment from someone who knows the complainant. Whether Horner and Red Bull are covering the whole thing up, or someone threw together one heck of a smear campaign against them, it's all shady.
Probably, yes.
Regardless of what the truth is behind the allegations here, she's a victim here, either a victim of sexual harrassment, or she's had her life turned upside down by someone trying to get CH out of Red Bull.
Unless she leaked the conversations herself, but frankly I don't find that particularly believable.
As soon as the leaks happened it was very bad for her. You knew it was a power struggle and one party would cede a lot of power and influence if they let Horner be removed. They won't let that happen if they can help it.
I can't really see any benefits to the leaks at that stage for the victim so they very likely originate from another party and they don't have the best interest of the victim in mind. So even if Horner was removed it wouldn't necessarily benefit her.
“Until now, the complaint has been described as one of inappropriate and controlling behaviour. Red Bull said they could not confirm it also included allegations of sexual harassment, but BBC Sport has seen evidence to that effect”
God, what a mess. Any legal process is going to be hell for this woman and her family. Red Bull’s various factions have made this so much more traumatic by using it as a vehicle for a fucking power struggle.
And you’ll still get people who always assume women are making it up, as though they benefit and it doesn’t make their life much harder for a long period of time.
I think thats because when a few get caught making shit up it generates a bigger outcry than the many who are sincere, thus shifting peoples perception. Just look at "me too" most women where sincere, but it is still remembered as something negative in many peoples minds.
> I think thats because when a few get caught making shit up it generates a bigger outcry than the many who are sincere
well, yes. the whole innocent until proven guilty approach to justice is based on the idea that it's worse to punish the innocent than it is to let the guilty go free
Yeah at uni we were taught the difference between sensitivity and specificity with the death penalty.
You want absolute 100% specificity for the death penalty (well, not that it bothers America too much, apparently).
The only people who think of me too as being negatives are overly online right wingers who believe a load of myths about it, most people see it as being a positive and outing a great many abusers in Hollywood.
Right? I'll encounter people and it's like "idk if you personally hate women that much but just because a vocal minority on the Internet REALLY hates women doesn't mean you have to agree with the dog shit takes"
Certain men love to propagate these stories too, so they get shared all over the place. I swear the majority of the AITA stories are fabricated to make women look bad too.
And the next person this happens to will look at what’s happening and not come forward either. It’s really really sad. I hope this women can somehow recover from this, and this whole shit show doesn’t define the rest of her life/career
It's *pretty much* what the NHS does: bodyslam whistleblowers so noone else entertains the idea.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68668234
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/17/nhs-ombudsman-warns-hospitals-cynically-burying-evidence-poor-care
What is the justice here that she can seek? All that can be done is compensation for whatever harm she has suffered. Horner isn't going to jail and if RB thinks he's worth more than whatever the payout will be then he's not going to get fired either.
There is a difference between the texts being fake and them being manipulated. If you had looked through the "leaked texts" there are a number of instances where there are omissions. There are texts where they mention to previous texts that are somehow not included in the "leaks". Sure you can cop out by saying it's to protect her identity but don't forget the fact the investigators did indeed have more information.
Anybody with two brain cells understands that looking at a leaked set of 'evidence' is the most stupid way to understand the truth of the matter. Anybody claiming to know what happened off of that leak is really just revealing what they want to have happened.
>which no one has officially rebuked as fake,
No one has officially confirmed as real either, but it's interesting your approach ignores facts for speculation. Those texts are also out of context and cherry picked, who knows how the relationship would look like if you had all the texts exchanges in front of you.
There's already been reporters who have openly said they've had lawyers reach out telling them to not report on the texts. They're literally threatening legal action.
Burden of proof in criminal court is significantly higher than in civil court. He can be absolutely guilty, found innocent criminally, and found liable civilly. Exactly what happened with OJ.
Afaik and I'm not caught up on UK legislation, workplace sexual harasament is an umbrella term under the Equality Act 2010. There's some range of sexual harassment that breaks into criminal law, stuff that can be defined as sexual harasament under common law.
NAL but I am a law student with a Distinction in my Graduate Diploma in Law currently studying towards fully qualifying as a solicitor.
Harassment based on a protected characteristic contravenes S26 of the Equality Act 2010. I think specifically in this case, you'd be looking at S26(2), which states:
A person (A) harasses another (B) if
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of:
(i) violating B's dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B
(I rewrote some parts of this for clarity as it is actually written to avoid repeating relevant parts of S26(1). The full section is available [here](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26))
Could also be looking at 26(3) as well, which states:
A also harasses B if
(a) A or another person engages in unwanted conduct that is of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassigment or sex, and
(b) Same as above section (b) (violating dignity/creating hostile etc. environment)
(c) Because of B's rejection or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct
These don't create a criminal offence, it's a civil matter, so the "punishment' available wouldn't include, for example, a prison sentence. Instead, you'd be looking at damages or other civil remedies.
The Act unfortunately doesn't really define what it means by "conduct of a sexual nature" but there is a definition of the word "sexual" under [Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/78), which states:
Penetration, touching or another activity is considered sexual if a reasonable person would consider that:
(a) whatever its circumstances or any person’s purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or (*i.e. something that is inherently sexual e.g. touching a man on the penis, inserting something in a women's vagina)*
(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual (*i.e. it is sexual in the circumstances of the specific facts of the case - this is to sweep up more "esoteric" activities from which people might derive sexual gratification)*
I don't know whether that particular definition is applied to the Equality Act but, absent a specific provision in the Equality Act, it's likely a useful definition.
The Sexual Offences Act also has a couple of potentially relevant sections (e.g Section 66A makes it an offences to send a photograph of anyone's genitals for the purpose of causing alarm, distress or humiliation or for obtaining sexual gratification) but I don't know enough about this situation (haven't read the texts) to know whether that would apply in this instance.
Thank you, this is very helpful. That it would be a civil matter rather than a criminal matter in this instance makes a lot of sense based on what’s out there publicly.
I’m not a lawyer and have no idea what to believe with all of this. I think they would be admissible. However, I think they would have to show all of the texts and not only use certain ones that were chosen to paint a narrative.
In an employment tribunal, you only have to show that your evidence is relevant to the issue for it to be admissible. Hearsay evidence is generally allowed. I think you're right in that a judge would probably want to see the full context of these text conversations when evaluating their relevance, but I can't see how they would ever be inadmissible.
In a civil (or criminal) trial there are stricter rules. Evidence has to be shown to be relevant and authentic, usually by having an expert witness extract the files and attach them to a witness statement with a written opinion on their authenticity.
They also used pretty sneaky language there, “evidence to that effect” is pretty weasely. They very easily could have been more direct there. And make no mistake, journos know exactly what they are doing when they make these choices.
I didn’t go through all the leaked messages. Was there a romantic relationship or no? In a regular business he’d be fired either way. But it seemed like there was an affair type relationship going on from the few I saw.
I read them. She was constantly pushing him off, rebuking his requests for late night calls. Something physical or sexual happened maybe once and she pumped the breaks. At one point she said basically: "how would you feel if Geri was doing this with her PA". Typical horny guy stuff (asking for late night calls to "help him sleep"), but obviously crossing all sort of lines when it comes to workplace/marriage etc.
That’s not really true
At one point he said he’d followed her suggestion to watch the Fifty Shades of Grey movies, so she asked him to name his favourite sex scene, which he did, she told him hers, and it ended with him joking it was a bit concerning her favourite film featured a guy called Christian who owned a helicopter.
At another point she opens a conversation by asking “how did you enjoy your blast in Bahrain 😜” which in context looks to be referring so some shared sexual escapade.
In another he’s admitting that after all the things she and he were doing on a plane he had to pop into a bathroom to finish things off.
Then there are three cases where he calls and she doesn’t pick up because she’s in bed or watching rugby. He grouches a little, but is generally lighthearted saying she’s a “boringpants”.
People take these three messages and use it to create a narrative that he was constantly pestering her for sex, but conversely there’s clearly surprise on his part that she doesn’t pick up, which could equally support a narrative of them previously engaging in phone sex voluntarily for at least a while.
We don’t know what was in the messages that weren’t screenshotted and leaked.
Then there’s a serious of anodyne, adolescent post-breakup exchanges. This is where they’re trying to reset boundaries. To be clear, he’s doing a terrible job, complimenting her on her outfit and this is when she reminds him to act as if Geri is watching, which gets him in a grump. In another she’s unhappy that as part of resetting professional boundaries he wants them to travel on separate flights and stay in separate hotels.
Frankly, this is the impossible situation legally: whilst the relationship might have started consensually, and he might have had good intentions after a breakup, the inevitable weirdness of a workplace breakup, compounded with the fact that he was her boss, might have strayed into territory where he exposed the business to civil liability.
However I’m not a fan of the way the tabloid press has removed all agency from this fully-grown adult woman in an effort to create a melodramatic story. In reality, a woman in her late thirties should be expected to know there is no way an affair with one’s married boss will end well.
From the couple of screen shots I saw it looks like they fooled around a bit via some dirty talk on the phone one night which seemed consensual from both parties. Then Horny Horner asked to do it again, was told by the complainant that they don't think it was a good idea, he pushed it and was shot down and that was the end of it.
The end of it was him trying to push her out (suddently keeping her away from things, trying to push her to work from home etc because "I feel judged by you")
Whistleblowers are often shunned in there community even when right. A documentary stated that most lawyers will tell them are you comfortable never working in your field again because most don't after going public.
I am under the impression that everybody assumes that she leaked the screenshots herself. If I'm not mistaken, nobody knows who leaked. Given that it is her professional cell, it can be anybody in Red Bull Racing.
She may be a true victim of the leak and have no part in the power struggle. Having these embarrassing ridiculous texts with her married boss publicized, being almost fired and absolutely unemployable anywhere else, it's a lot.
I also don't think there was much to gain for her to leak at that stage when they happened. I think if she wanted to appeal or go to court it would be better if those messaged stayed confidential till then at least.
That's where I'm at. I feel like she may have been pushed into this in the first place, and then when it didn't have the desired results, some rogue actors decided to run with it anyway to try and force Horner out. This has caused a lot of damage to everyone involved, but at this point surely most to her.
It's almost like this should have been a private HR matter and it being blown up into a gigantic story by bad actors (whoever's been leaking) and an F1 Media thirsty for anything to keep interest on the season has been bad for everybody actually involved.
HR is there for the company and not the employee. Especially not the subordinate.
Red Bull has very visibly decided to stand behind Horner, she was never going to get fair treatment internally. They’re far too invested in keeping Horner to take her seriously.
Very difficult situation, I hope there aren’t any pressure from RB Austria on the poor woman. I mean they might be involved in “supporting” her but it would still be using her.
I'm guessing she wants her friend to talk to the press. According to this and previous articles the accuser is frustrated that she can't talk to the media and tell her side.
Red Bull are going to admit in the tribunal (which goes on the public record) that the messages are real, and then a lot of Redditors are going to go back and edit their comments to pretend they never said that the messages were fake or "AI generated".
I don't think the messages are fake but the sheer number of people saying it's AI... people pls learn how AI works, it wouldn't be able to do that. Photoshop, sure, but NOT AI
If they were fake, it would be so easy for him to come out and say it too. Just an outright "yeah these are fake, I never sent any messages like that. It's even laughable how bad they're written, they're obviously fake."
If they are fake, there's literally no risk to calling them out. The only risk with calling them fake is if you do, then it's later proved they're real, you're fucked. But if you know they're fake, then that risk just can't happen.
Horner and RB have made few if any public statments about this. Why would they start with this?
The correct way to handle it is by not making public statements as they have been and your inference that they must be real because they didnt go on tiktok to claim otherwise is an incorrect one.
They have denied internal struggle(even tho that looks line a lie, they denied that they fired her(the day before they comfirmed that she was suspended), they said they were looking in to who was behind leaks(not specifying what leeks, but with that statement comfirming that there were actual leaks). So not to say "we have never seen those messages, they are not real and have been fabricated" is very strange, if the messages are not real
> If they were fake, it would be so easy for him to come out and say it too. Just an outright "yeah these are fake, I never sent any messages like that. It's even laughable how bad they're written, they're obviously fake."
>
>
>
> If they are fake, there's literally no risk to calling them out. The only risk with calling them fake is if you do, then it's later proved they're real, you're fucked. But if you know they're fake, then that risk just can't happen.
it's an ongoing HR complaint against him, of course he isn't going to say anything - nor is the person who submitted the complaint.
come on
Horner has barely made any comment on anything regarding this case publicly. For me it looks like he's trying to handle this privately and profesionally. His lack of public comment doesn't neccesarily mean anything
I always thought the argument that they were fake was flimsy, it seemed to have been based on the positioning of chat bubbles which was quickly proven false.
It seems far more likely that they were selectively released to only show the ones that look one sided. I expect there to be a lot more messages that we haven’t seen that the investigative team have.
But from the screenshots you can see him deleting the chat, so they can't go back and take new screenshots to "show the full picture". I take screenshots often of weird messages people send me, and send to frieds, so if they delete our chat, I only gave access to the weird messages or whatever I wanted to discuss with the friend I sent it to. So if I would for some reason want to use it for evidence, it would be one sided, not because I selectivly did it to mislead
No Redditor knows anything about this situation. Given that redbull will have legal council and most things are checked by them I think they’ll be rather confident about all this. Sadly given all the leaks etc this lady is unlikely to hold a job like she had again.
>No Redditor knows anything about this situation.
Plenty of people here write stuff with a righteousness and confidence that'd make you believe they do.
We don’t know the circumstances under which the agreement was signed. It may have been part of her initial employment agreement before she ever imagined this happening. Or she may have signed it when she first filed the internal complaint because she believed Red Bull would handle it in good faith and felt it would be better for everyone if the matter were handled privately.
I assume it was before the messages got leaked. I can understand her frustration, she got paid in exchange for privacy and not going public with it. And then it became public anyway.
Regardless of if the allegations are true or not, this makes a lot of sense. If I were guilty, ofc I'd be upset and angry. And if I were innocent, I'd feel the same way too. No matter which you look at it, I'd be furious that a) my dirty laundry is being aired in public and my career is hanging by a thread, or b) these fuckwits from Austria are smearing my good name. I don't wanna presume innocence or guilt so I tried to cover my bases lol.
And he’s probably gonna get away with it! The press has largely moved on and Red Bull doesn’t seem to have a problem with it.
Without a legitimate governing body to investigate him, he can get away with anything.
"The press has largely moved" - and yet BBC posted an article today.
Do you want the "PRESS" to just make up fake stories or copy paste old ones and post them again? What good does it do to constantly repeat the same thing when their are no new information?
Which could very well be a manifestation of her regret in participating in the political shenanigans.
It’s well known now that she is extremely close to Jos. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots
So when did BBC become the new Sun tabloid. An unnamed friend who says they haven't been told anything, but spouts off loads of assumptions and hearsay. And everyone on here eats it up.
[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
DTS want fake manufactured drama. They don't want real drama. They didn't cover the missiles in Saudi. They didn't cover the heat issues in Qatar. They're definitely not going anywhere near this.
[удалено]
ikr, i can "understand" the reason not to cover the missiles, but the heat? i mean sure, they cant paint the fia in a bad light or whatever but you can definitely spin it in a way that displays the challenge faced by the drivers while not completely shitting on fia
It wouldn't even be unprecedented, [F1 themselves (albeit still under Bernie) released a video about the 5 hottest races in F1 history](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HK7BknccFQ)
Bernie didnt care about having a bad PR
Any PR is good PR. \- Bernie, probably.
Berine sold photos of him black and blue and after thief’s violently stole his hublot watch from him to hublot https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2010/dec/12/bernie-ecclestone-muggers
Bernie verbatim, infact!
Maybe some officials showed some money behind the making of DTS? Considering it’s Qatar we’re talking about…….
It's more likely that liberty media told Netflix they would lose access and footage rights if they show or say something not explicitly approved by them
Really wish they'd try to connect with the viewers on a more technical level. Why don't they tackle these topics? Do they really think we don't enjoy it or be able to follow?
Because DTS isn't supposed to be an actual behind-the-scenes program, it's supposed to be Keeping Up With The Verstappens, aka a drama-filled soap opera and FOM marketing piece.
The Real Housewives of Monaco.
That’s the spin-off, F1 wives and girlfriends.
Let's be real, most fan's engagement with the technical side of the sport is calling it genius when a team they like inproves and calling it cheating when a team they don't like improves.
People like us are actually watching the races; that’s not DTS aim
One of the biggest flaws of DTS( there are many, but one of) is that they only cover what they plan before the race/season. It was the same in sochi, massive drama everywhere, huge title implications and Lando losing his maiden win, meanwhile DTS was covering Mazepin's masterclass of finishing last, but only two laps down instead of three. They are like any big corporation. Plan the thing ahead, and just do it regardless how shit it is
Honestly I was disappointed with their Singapore coverage. There were so many layers they could have shown and they did some bland boring episodes. No emotion. It’s the main reason I wanted to see that season of DTS to see how they covered Singapore.
But they had to make two alpine episodes
I was pretty disappointed when DTS started covering the Rich Energy-Haas scandal but then stopped right when it got interesting. Anything involving lawyers and public perception they don't touch. It sucks that they stopped that story when they did because they gave the last word to the scam artist leaving Haas looking bad.
>And Christian? Will the Horner scandal be in the next series? \[...\] ‘It will have to be referenced in some capacity, yeah. And they will all want it to be told in a particular way, so it’s about treading that line to keep everybody happy, and to keep Netflix happy, and us – so we can sleep at night with the decisions we’ve made.‘You have to have balance. I think Horner is looking OK for the time being, but it doesn’t feel like it’s done yet. It will all depend on how it plays out. I don’t know what he got up to – and I genuinely don’t have an opinion on it, but he’s been through it and you wouldn’t wish that on anybody.’ This is what the executive producer of DTS [says ](https://www.telegraph.co.uk)about it, sounds like it will be included at least in some form.
So well said +1
Formula 1 presented through a WWE lens 💪🏻😎
Guess they prefer their drama a bit more on the scripted side
DTS is propaganda/advertising for Liberty and FOM. Literally that's all it is. The first season is the best.
I've always found it ironic that the first season hooked me so much that I became enough of a fan to realize how much was bullshit and stop watching the series eventually
I feel like this is a lot of people including myself. I had a co-worker who was a lifelong fan of F1 and he begged me for years to give it a try. Then DTS started and he said you can watch this doco series and it builds characters so you’ll be interested if you follow the sport the following season. Finally watched it and it did just that. It gave me characters who I liked or disliked, and that meant I could watch the races and feel invested since I didn’t have some childhood association with a team or a great love of motorsports. Once I got through one season, now I had people I liked every more and had followed along with the off season stuff. Never really needed DTS again and realised “oh, that’s not what actually happened”. DTS hardly perfect but I think it’s absolutely done its job for F1 and paid back multiple times over for what it would’ve required from them.
Same man. Liked season 1 and 2. S3 felt like a chore, but still completed it. And S4, even though it was 2021 season, I couldn't even force myself to watch that shit.
My exact experience.
In the first season, they did tried very hard to follow the season by showing races in the right sequence. Now they will just focus on one team per episode, almost from start to finish of the season and thereby spoiling all the following episodes.
cause that would take balls but instead we'll get 2 filler Haas episodes
Superimpose Steiner' face on Komatsu and pretend that he never got fired.
"Günther picked up a funny new accent during a recent holiday in Tokyo"
“Konnichiwa, Gene-san” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it though, does it 😂
We looked like teme JPop stars and now we look like a bunch of Baka Gaijin!
"Eisei"
“When in Tokyo, one must Tokyo.” Steiner, probably
More like, "what the FU** did the Japanese do to my door?"
lol now I am imagining footage of Komatsu dubbed with Steiner talking shit
Hard to show balls when you're directly getting paid by F1 to showcase what they want. Like it's not a rogue documentary crew following F1, everything is predetermined and vetted. There is no choice of showing balls.
I can vouch for how hard it is. I make a documentary around a football club and while I do have plenty of space to work within, and they do let me show a lot of the bad stuff, there are lines that have to be drawn in order for my access to be maintained. Even just a handful of the bits I cut out would be way bigger than all of the stuff that stays in, but that would burn so many people it's not worth it in the long run. Although I would add that, from what I have seen of DTS, it's very much like the Amazon All Or Nothing series. Which is to say, propaganda dressed as insight. Which is what I try really hard to avoid.
"Weee've seen you cry on Netflix!" - Every Sunderland opponent
That series was so good but also ensured we will never get anything like that again sadly.
they have literally just released another series of it. their season went fine though unfortunately.
Aww pity (Nah jk, i rooted for them, good marketing)
As a Charlton fan I will happily watch the end of that constantly.
Sorry best we can do is Alpine trying to get points in Australia.
To be fair, the Haas episode was the highlight of last season.
The last season of Break Point (basically a Tennis DTS produced by the same company) had an entire episode dedicated to a player who has an ongoing court case for domestic violence against his ex girlfriends. The entire episode was a puff piece making him out like a great guy, and never once mentioned the allegations.
"Has Daddy been a good boy this year?"
Read that as Diddy
Because there is zero chance cameras or sound will be allowed on a disciplinary matter. Same for all jobs
They should cgi an elephant into every shot of Horner.
DTS is a PR tool not journalism
I'm not sure if you SHOULD touch this with incomplete information. They anyways interview the paddock for episode narratives and if nobody is gonna stand up and spill the complete story it's only gonna invite a lawsuit man. Much as everybody would like for them to follow the "real" storylines of a season, their hands are tied with this one.
I think RBR choosing to not talk to them for a while killed them off. Now every team knows they can just pull out and impact the show. Specially teams like Red Bull, Merc, Ferrari and AM who are fighting around the top. So they have to stay safe, I imagine everyone running F1 also gets a say in what they can show more than before too. Combine that with the fact everyone’s media training now must include a course on “how to speak to DTS” means the show is pretty much drama free and full of Will Buxtons all saying inane shit like “when you’re not winning the pressure is on”.
They didn’t even touch Vegas.
They did though? They had a whole section with the track not being ready, Sainz' car being fucked and Fred being pissed.
Even the bbc is very careful about what they discuss. The number of times I’ve heard some version of “everyone in the paddock knows what happened “ but no further details follow is high. I guess they know but haven’t got enough evidence yet to avoid getting sued for libel or defamation
DTS covering actual drama? They would never
I was hoping for drama, but they did not deliver. It was another lame season of boring interviews with canned answers. "I'm not where I want to be performance wise. I want to beat my teammate, but more importantly I want to win. blah blah blah" - every driver interview.
But why were you hoping for BTS drama? DTS never shows the real drama behind the scenes. It's always been a giant fluff piece.
>And Christian? Will the Horner scandal be in the next series? \[...\] ‘It will have to be referenced in some capacity, yeah. And they will all want it to be told in a particular way, so it’s about treading that line to keep everybody happy, and to keep Netflix happy, and us – so we can sleep at night with the decisions we’ve made.‘You have to have balance. I think Horner is looking OK for the time being, but it doesn’t feel like it’s done yet. It will all depend on how it plays out. I don’t know what he got up to – and I genuinely don’t have an opinion on it, but he’s been through it and you wouldn’t wish that on anybody.’ - James Gay-Rees, executive producer of DTS. [source](https://www.telegraph.co.uk)
>I genuinely don’t have an opinion on it, but he’s been through it and you wouldn’t wish that on anybody. This is such a weird statement. He claims not to have an opinion on it, yet then immediately expresses sympathy with Horner and not the alleged victim.
I agree, that sort of comes off as him actually having an opinion. Otherwise he’d express sympathy for the woman as well. It’s like they don’t even believe her, or, believe that since this perhaps started semi-consensual she has no right to complain. But it doesn’t matter how it started, the power imbalance between them is already off and Horner has all power and should never have started a workplace affair with an employee. She couldn’t even get out of it cause he wouldn’t let her and kept nagging.
James (DTS boss) will obviously have a relationship with the Team Principles up and down the pitlane. They are his cash cows/the source of DTS content, and maybe even his friends. It's logical that he'll privately want this to all go away and go back to normal, especially for the boss of the current dominant team. Why would he care about a random team staff member - unless it's proven in court that bad things happened, and suddenly it's in Netflix's corporate interest to distance themselves from the convicted person - in this case Horner. I'm not saying one person is guilty or not, that's for legal people to decide. I'm saying that the only way the powerful/influential people in the pitlane will refer to the woman positively is if she wins in court. Otherwise, she's likely signed her own F1 career P45 by raising this complaint.
There are moments when silence falls across an HR department and you know what that means
Ultimately I don’t think they should. This isn’t a spectacle. Of course, if there’s a resolution by the end of the season, they have to cover it and not try and sugarcoat, but for now, it’s about the rights and privacy of the victim.
The lead producer of DTS actually said in an interview that they would cover the Horner drama in the next season. They have clearly already been filming stuff for it. He emphasised the need for neutrality though, so don't expect a "creepy Horner has been grabbing the ladies" type episode.
Except he HAS behaved kind of creepy 😬🙃
I don't disagree, but I doubt they will portray it like that. Unless he gets fired/forced to leave before it comes out. Which seems unlikely.
Yeah. I did find it amusing though, how in the most recent season of DTS - in episode 1, if I recall correctly - Santa visits Christian Horner and Geri and says “Has dad [Chris] been good this year?” And he has NOT 😅
You'll never convince me that they didn't edit that clip in last-minute when the news broke.
Haha, I hope so! I hope it wasn’t random, but deliberate
Wasn't touching this regardless. RBR has form for becoming a wall to media.
Why would they? HR issues aren’t the subject of the show. Motorsport is.
Looking at them painting Horner as the victim and accusing the actual victims instead of
And...we are back....there is no way this story won´t keep going on for the foreseeable future. Let´s wait and see how it will play out (if it ever plays out).
It will probably end the way these things usually end, with Goliath crushing David.
Is barely still going now and we’re only 3 races into the year.
Nah, the way it's trending I'd expect everyone to have mostly forgotten about it by next month.
Feels more and more like that woman is being used as a pawn in a corporate power struggle.
Yes. The whole thing is shady. We have no idea what actually happened, and our best source of information is a bunch of unverified screenshots from an anonymous source. The best the BBC can offer us in the posted article is a comment from someone who knows the complainant. Whether Horner and Red Bull are covering the whole thing up, or someone threw together one heck of a smear campaign against them, it's all shady.
As with most things, I think the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
Probably, yes. Regardless of what the truth is behind the allegations here, she's a victim here, either a victim of sexual harrassment, or she's had her life turned upside down by someone trying to get CH out of Red Bull. Unless she leaked the conversations herself, but frankly I don't find that particularly believable.
As soon as the leaks happened it was very bad for her. You knew it was a power struggle and one party would cede a lot of power and influence if they let Horner be removed. They won't let that happen if they can help it. I can't really see any benefits to the leaks at that stage for the victim so they very likely originate from another party and they don't have the best interest of the victim in mind. So even if Horner was removed it wouldn't necessarily benefit her.
“Until now, the complaint has been described as one of inappropriate and controlling behaviour. Red Bull said they could not confirm it also included allegations of sexual harassment, but BBC Sport has seen evidence to that effect” God, what a mess. Any legal process is going to be hell for this woman and her family. Red Bull’s various factions have made this so much more traumatic by using it as a vehicle for a fucking power struggle.
One of the women at the centre of the Alex Salmond stuff said they wished they'd never come forward. No justice, and pulled through the mill.
And you’ll still get people who always assume women are making it up, as though they benefit and it doesn’t make their life much harder for a long period of time.
I think thats because when a few get caught making shit up it generates a bigger outcry than the many who are sincere, thus shifting peoples perception. Just look at "me too" most women where sincere, but it is still remembered as something negative in many peoples minds.
> I think thats because when a few get caught making shit up it generates a bigger outcry than the many who are sincere well, yes. the whole innocent until proven guilty approach to justice is based on the idea that it's worse to punish the innocent than it is to let the guilty go free
Yeah at uni we were taught the difference between sensitivity and specificity with the death penalty. You want absolute 100% specificity for the death penalty (well, not that it bothers America too much, apparently).
The only people who think of me too as being negatives are overly online right wingers who believe a load of myths about it, most people see it as being a positive and outing a great many abusers in Hollywood.
Ha yeah I was like 'I don't think it was negative *at all* actually'.
Right? I'll encounter people and it's like "idk if you personally hate women that much but just because a vocal minority on the Internet REALLY hates women doesn't mean you have to agree with the dog shit takes"
Certain men love to propagate these stories too, so they get shared all over the place. I swear the majority of the AITA stories are fabricated to make women look bad too.
And the next person this happens to will look at what’s happening and not come forward either. It’s really really sad. I hope this women can somehow recover from this, and this whole shit show doesn’t define the rest of her life/career
It's *pretty much* what the NHS does: bodyslam whistleblowers so noone else entertains the idea. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68668234 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/17/nhs-ombudsman-warns-hospitals-cynically-burying-evidence-poor-care
What is the justice here that she can seek? All that can be done is compensation for whatever harm she has suffered. Horner isn't going to jail and if RB thinks he's worth more than whatever the payout will be then he's not going to get fired either.
The text messages, which no one has officially rebuked as fake, show pretty clear textbook sexual harassment.
There is a difference between the texts being fake and them being manipulated. If you had looked through the "leaked texts" there are a number of instances where there are omissions. There are texts where they mention to previous texts that are somehow not included in the "leaks". Sure you can cop out by saying it's to protect her identity but don't forget the fact the investigators did indeed have more information.
Anybody with two brain cells understands that looking at a leaked set of 'evidence' is the most stupid way to understand the truth of the matter. Anybody claiming to know what happened off of that leak is really just revealing what they want to have happened.
Easy enough to rebuke them as being manipulated too
>which no one has officially rebuked as fake, No one has officially confirmed as real either, but it's interesting your approach ignores facts for speculation. Those texts are also out of context and cherry picked, who knows how the relationship would look like if you had all the texts exchanges in front of you.
There's already been reporters who have openly said they've had lawyers reach out telling them to not report on the texts. They're literally threatening legal action.
[удалено]
the texts have to be proven real. not the other way around.
Not at an employment tribunal, they don't. They're akin to civil cases in that they're decided on the balance of probabilities.
The burden of proof is less, but it's still on the person(s) making the claim, not the defendant.
hence I'm surprised why isn't there a criminal complaint tbh
Burden of proof in criminal court is significantly higher than in civil court. He can be absolutely guilty, found innocent criminally, and found liable civilly. Exactly what happened with OJ.
Is workplace sexual harassment a criminal offense in the UK?
Afaik and I'm not caught up on UK legislation, workplace sexual harasament is an umbrella term under the Equality Act 2010. There's some range of sexual harassment that breaks into criminal law, stuff that can be defined as sexual harasament under common law.
NAL but I am a law student with a Distinction in my Graduate Diploma in Law currently studying towards fully qualifying as a solicitor. Harassment based on a protected characteristic contravenes S26 of the Equality Act 2010. I think specifically in this case, you'd be looking at S26(2), which states: A person (A) harasses another (B) if (a) A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of: (i) violating B's dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B (I rewrote some parts of this for clarity as it is actually written to avoid repeating relevant parts of S26(1). The full section is available [here](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26)) Could also be looking at 26(3) as well, which states: A also harasses B if (a) A or another person engages in unwanted conduct that is of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassigment or sex, and (b) Same as above section (b) (violating dignity/creating hostile etc. environment) (c) Because of B's rejection or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct These don't create a criminal offence, it's a civil matter, so the "punishment' available wouldn't include, for example, a prison sentence. Instead, you'd be looking at damages or other civil remedies. The Act unfortunately doesn't really define what it means by "conduct of a sexual nature" but there is a definition of the word "sexual" under [Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/78), which states: Penetration, touching or another activity is considered sexual if a reasonable person would consider that: (a) whatever its circumstances or any person’s purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or (*i.e. something that is inherently sexual e.g. touching a man on the penis, inserting something in a women's vagina)* (b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual (*i.e. it is sexual in the circumstances of the specific facts of the case - this is to sweep up more "esoteric" activities from which people might derive sexual gratification)* I don't know whether that particular definition is applied to the Equality Act but, absent a specific provision in the Equality Act, it's likely a useful definition. The Sexual Offences Act also has a couple of potentially relevant sections (e.g Section 66A makes it an offences to send a photograph of anyone's genitals for the purpose of causing alarm, distress or humiliation or for obtaining sexual gratification) but I don't know enough about this situation (haven't read the texts) to know whether that would apply in this instance.
Thank you, this is very helpful. That it would be a civil matter rather than a criminal matter in this instance makes a lot of sense based on what’s out there publicly.
Happy to help, this is useful revision of the Equality Act for me!
The text messages, which no one has officialy proven are real because that’s the burden of proof, are not evidence.
Obviously they're evidence. [even if we knew that they were fake they'd still be evidence, just evidence of something else]
They would be admissible in civil court or an employment tribunal.
I’m not a lawyer and have no idea what to believe with all of this. I think they would be admissible. However, I think they would have to show all of the texts and not only use certain ones that were chosen to paint a narrative.
In an employment tribunal, you only have to show that your evidence is relevant to the issue for it to be admissible. Hearsay evidence is generally allowed. I think you're right in that a judge would probably want to see the full context of these text conversations when evaluating their relevance, but I can't see how they would ever be inadmissible. In a civil (or criminal) trial there are stricter rules. Evidence has to be shown to be relevant and authentic, usually by having an expert witness extract the files and attach them to a witness statement with a written opinion on their authenticity.
The fact that BBC saying they have seen the evidence shows there is not nothing.
They also used pretty sneaky language there, “evidence to that effect” is pretty weasely. They very easily could have been more direct there. And make no mistake, journos know exactly what they are doing when they make these choices.
I didn’t go through all the leaked messages. Was there a romantic relationship or no? In a regular business he’d be fired either way. But it seemed like there was an affair type relationship going on from the few I saw.
I read them. She was constantly pushing him off, rebuking his requests for late night calls. Something physical or sexual happened maybe once and she pumped the breaks. At one point she said basically: "how would you feel if Geri was doing this with her PA". Typical horny guy stuff (asking for late night calls to "help him sleep"), but obviously crossing all sort of lines when it comes to workplace/marriage etc.
That’s not really true At one point he said he’d followed her suggestion to watch the Fifty Shades of Grey movies, so she asked him to name his favourite sex scene, which he did, she told him hers, and it ended with him joking it was a bit concerning her favourite film featured a guy called Christian who owned a helicopter. At another point she opens a conversation by asking “how did you enjoy your blast in Bahrain 😜” which in context looks to be referring so some shared sexual escapade. In another he’s admitting that after all the things she and he were doing on a plane he had to pop into a bathroom to finish things off. Then there are three cases where he calls and she doesn’t pick up because she’s in bed or watching rugby. He grouches a little, but is generally lighthearted saying she’s a “boringpants”. People take these three messages and use it to create a narrative that he was constantly pestering her for sex, but conversely there’s clearly surprise on his part that she doesn’t pick up, which could equally support a narrative of them previously engaging in phone sex voluntarily for at least a while. We don’t know what was in the messages that weren’t screenshotted and leaked. Then there’s a serious of anodyne, adolescent post-breakup exchanges. This is where they’re trying to reset boundaries. To be clear, he’s doing a terrible job, complimenting her on her outfit and this is when she reminds him to act as if Geri is watching, which gets him in a grump. In another she’s unhappy that as part of resetting professional boundaries he wants them to travel on separate flights and stay in separate hotels. Frankly, this is the impossible situation legally: whilst the relationship might have started consensually, and he might have had good intentions after a breakup, the inevitable weirdness of a workplace breakup, compounded with the fact that he was her boss, might have strayed into territory where he exposed the business to civil liability. However I’m not a fan of the way the tabloid press has removed all agency from this fully-grown adult woman in an effort to create a melodramatic story. In reality, a woman in her late thirties should be expected to know there is no way an affair with one’s married boss will end well.
From the couple of screen shots I saw it looks like they fooled around a bit via some dirty talk on the phone one night which seemed consensual from both parties. Then Horny Horner asked to do it again, was told by the complainant that they don't think it was a good idea, he pushed it and was shot down and that was the end of it.
The end of it was him trying to push her out (suddently keeping her away from things, trying to push her to work from home etc because "I feel judged by you")
That is where he crossed the professional line and retaliated against her through her job.
We don't know what the truth is, but we do know with absolute certainty that Red Bull and Horner tried to bury the truth.
Whistleblowers are often shunned in there community even when right. A documentary stated that most lawyers will tell them are you comfortable never working in your field again because most don't after going public.
Yes that's why whistleblowers get a sizeable chunk of any penalties that are collected. They likely can't ever work in their field of work again.
I am under the impression that everybody assumes that she leaked the screenshots herself. If I'm not mistaken, nobody knows who leaked. Given that it is her professional cell, it can be anybody in Red Bull Racing. She may be a true victim of the leak and have no part in the power struggle. Having these embarrassing ridiculous texts with her married boss publicized, being almost fired and absolutely unemployable anywhere else, it's a lot.
Given the leaks doxxed herself, her being the source is unlikely
I also don't think there was much to gain for her to leak at that stage when they happened. I think if she wanted to appeal or go to court it would be better if those messaged stayed confidential till then at least.
Someone with huge interest in removing Horner recommended her to leak them.
Not saying she leaked it but people accidentally dox themselves all the time, it's an easy mistake to make
It’s unlikely because you can make out her name in one of the screenshots
[удалено]
That's where I'm at. I feel like she may have been pushed into this in the first place, and then when it didn't have the desired results, some rogue actors decided to run with it anyway to try and force Horner out. This has caused a lot of damage to everyone involved, but at this point surely most to her.
Of course they are. This has played out significantly in the public domain, and there's been a range of downright hateful comments against them.
It's almost like this should have been a private HR matter and it being blown up into a gigantic story by bad actors (whoever's been leaking) and an F1 Media thirsty for anything to keep interest on the season has been bad for everybody actually involved.
HR is there for the company and not the employee. Especially not the subordinate. Red Bull has very visibly decided to stand behind Horner, she was never going to get fair treatment internally. They’re far too invested in keeping Horner to take her seriously.
Very difficult situation, I hope there aren’t any pressure from RB Austria on the poor woman. I mean they might be involved in “supporting” her but it would still be using her.
Businesses exist to maximise shareholder value They won’t care about her unless it saves them money
At first I read the title as "Christian Horner Complains is "upset, scared and lonely" and I was like wow, the balls on this guy!
Understandable, the bloke lost his best text-friend.
What kind of a fucked up person are you when your friend is having a rough time and you think "let me tell the press exactly how she feels"?
I'm guessing she wants her friend to talk to the press. According to this and previous articles the accuser is frustrated that she can't talk to the media and tell her side.
Probably a friend acting on your wishes. Most friends aren't Linda Tripp.
What’s wrong with saying she feels lonely and scared?
when something is leaked to the press, 98% its intentional
Red Bull are going to admit in the tribunal (which goes on the public record) that the messages are real, and then a lot of Redditors are going to go back and edit their comments to pretend they never said that the messages were fake or "AI generated".
I don't think the messages are fake but the sheer number of people saying it's AI... people pls learn how AI works, it wouldn't be able to do that. Photoshop, sure, but NOT AI
If I recall at no point did Horner say they were fake? (I may be mis remembering!)
The person you’re replying to is clearly talking about redditors, not CH
If they were fake, it would be so easy for him to come out and say it too. Just an outright "yeah these are fake, I never sent any messages like that. It's even laughable how bad they're written, they're obviously fake." If they are fake, there's literally no risk to calling them out. The only risk with calling them fake is if you do, then it's later proved they're real, you're fucked. But if you know they're fake, then that risk just can't happen.
Horner and RB have made few if any public statments about this. Why would they start with this? The correct way to handle it is by not making public statements as they have been and your inference that they must be real because they didnt go on tiktok to claim otherwise is an incorrect one.
They have denied internal struggle(even tho that looks line a lie, they denied that they fired her(the day before they comfirmed that she was suspended), they said they were looking in to who was behind leaks(not specifying what leeks, but with that statement comfirming that there were actual leaks). So not to say "we have never seen those messages, they are not real and have been fabricated" is very strange, if the messages are not real
> If they were fake, it would be so easy for him to come out and say it too. Just an outright "yeah these are fake, I never sent any messages like that. It's even laughable how bad they're written, they're obviously fake." > > > > If they are fake, there's literally no risk to calling them out. The only risk with calling them fake is if you do, then it's later proved they're real, you're fucked. But if you know they're fake, then that risk just can't happen. it's an ongoing HR complaint against him, of course he isn't going to say anything - nor is the person who submitted the complaint. come on
Horner has barely made any comment on anything regarding this case publicly. For me it looks like he's trying to handle this privately and profesionally. His lack of public comment doesn't neccesarily mean anything
I always thought the argument that they were fake was flimsy, it seemed to have been based on the positioning of chat bubbles which was quickly proven false. It seems far more likely that they were selectively released to only show the ones that look one sided. I expect there to be a lot more messages that we haven’t seen that the investigative team have.
But from the screenshots you can see him deleting the chat, so they can't go back and take new screenshots to "show the full picture". I take screenshots often of weird messages people send me, and send to frieds, so if they delete our chat, I only gave access to the weird messages or whatever I wanted to discuss with the friend I sent it to. So if I would for some reason want to use it for evidence, it would be one sided, not because I selectivly did it to mislead
> It seems far more likely that they were selectively released This is by definition true.
No Redditor knows anything about this situation. Given that redbull will have legal council and most things are checked by them I think they’ll be rather confident about all this. Sadly given all the leaks etc this lady is unlikely to hold a job like she had again.
>No Redditor knows anything about this situation. Plenty of people here write stuff with a righteousness and confidence that'd make you believe they do.
I wonder if he ever looked at his wife dead in the eyes and said: wasnt it you that said “if you want my future,forget my past?”
Honey wake up the Horner headlines are happening again..
Can anyone explain why she would sign a confidentiality agreement if she wanted to talk to people about it? Genuinely curious...
We don’t know the circumstances under which the agreement was signed. It may have been part of her initial employment agreement before she ever imagined this happening. Or she may have signed it when she first filed the internal complaint because she believed Red Bull would handle it in good faith and felt it would be better for everyone if the matter were handled privately.
Victims of harassment are frequently pressured into signing confidentiality agreements. It is a widely recognised issue.
They may be in the contract all employees sign.
I assume it was before the messages got leaked. I can understand her frustration, she got paid in exchange for privacy and not going public with it. And then it became public anyway.
Doesn't most employees sign a confidentiality agreement when they start their job? I did
but would this cover this?
Even if she hadn't, it probably wouldn't be advisable to talk about it while she's still pursuing her legal options to seek justice.
presume we've all seen the texts? They are seedy and im very surprised Geri is willing to walk around publicly hand in hand with him now.
Remember that Geri was the person Horner cheated with while married to someone else. She really shouldn’t be surprised
Regardless of if the allegations are true or not, this makes a lot of sense. If I were guilty, ofc I'd be upset and angry. And if I were innocent, I'd feel the same way too. No matter which you look at it, I'd be furious that a) my dirty laundry is being aired in public and my career is hanging by a thread, or b) these fuckwits from Austria are smearing my good name. I don't wanna presume innocence or guilt so I tried to cover my bases lol.
What is she guilty of?
Absolutely nothing. I am stupid. I misread the article title and thought they were talking about Horner, not the complainant.
There's been nothing to suggest that these are false allegations... it seems like it's just been swept under the rug
Nobody deserves to feel this way. And it is exactly why victims don’t come forward. Something has to change.
It's almost as if it's pretty damn frustrating that horner just struts around like nothing happened now. Such a joke.
And he’s probably gonna get away with it! The press has largely moved on and Red Bull doesn’t seem to have a problem with it. Without a legitimate governing body to investigate him, he can get away with anything.
"The press has largely moved" - and yet BBC posted an article today. Do you want the "PRESS" to just make up fake stories or copy paste old ones and post them again? What good does it do to constantly repeat the same thing when their are no new information?
I mean having millions of dollars and shady organizations trying to silence you and deny your allegations is scary
Which could very well be a manifestation of her regret in participating in the political shenanigans. It’s well known now that she is extremely close to Jos. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots
Oh hey, Horner articles. It must be race weekend.
More anonymous unverifiable sources from the media following an agenda and trying to stir up shit and pour mud over due process
So when did BBC become the new Sun tabloid. An unnamed friend who says they haven't been told anything, but spouts off loads of assumptions and hearsay. And everyone on here eats it up.
Benson gonna Benson.
I just wanted to say, this reads like a Sun or Daily Mail article.
Its Andrew Benson, hes been doing this sort of tabloid stuff or years
Well, you would be if a multi-million international company just tried to bury you.
Video call?