Last Updated on March 8 2024, 7:49 am
The Red Bull saga now drags on into the second round of the 2024 Formula One season. Unlike most kiss and tells the drama surrounding Christian Horner has been remarkably lacking in revelations behind the accusations.
The Red Bull boss was initially accused of “controlling and inappropriate behaviour” towards a female employee of the Formula One team, yet from the off the substance of the complaint seemed at best insipid.
Calls for transparency disingenuous
Horner was cleared as the claim was dismissed by the Red Bull investigation process based on UK employment law. The claimant was declared to have the right of appeal whilst the company stated they believed they process had been “rigorous” and “fair.”
As far as Red Bull are concerned, no appeal has yet been lodged and further the complainant could have launched a petition to have Christian Horner’s alleged behaviour tried in a court of law. The female employee of Red Bull has retained experienced legal advisors who for the moment believe this is not an appropriate course of action which will benefit their client.
While there have been calls from F1 bosses such as Toto Wolff and Zak Brown for transparency, Red Bull have refused to fuel the scandal by divulging information of what is an internal matter and until such a time as the complainant seeks external legal recourse will remain so.
Today came the announcement that the complainant had been suspended from her role within the Red Bull F1 team. It appears this has been with full remuneration but initial reports failed to reveal why this course of action had taken place.
Las Vegas track should not have been FIA certified
Female accuser “dishonest”
It is expected that Red Bull Racing will confirm to there letter of the law with their HR policies based upon UK employment law, but late in the day it became apparent why the female employee had been suspended. Having continued for there eight week investigation in her role with the team, the complainant was said to be in regular contact over day to day matters with Christian Horner.
Certain UK publications claimed that the Red Bull boss’s wife Geri Horner had put her foot down and demanded she be removed from contact with her husband, but this is mere rumour and speculation.
When asked for comment on the alleged victim’s suspension Red Bull issued a “could not comment” statement which is standard for this kind of matter. Yet BBC Sport have revealed they have information as to why the claimant has now been suspended.
They reportedly claim ‘the reason given by Red Bull to the employee was that she had been dishonest’, which is a remarkable turn of events. Until know the impression was that there had been contact which may be inappropriate for a married man, but nothing other than consensual encounters had taken place.
Austrian RBR shareholders set to drop a bombshell
Red Bull process now validated
Whilst the F1 and global media are hungry for salacious details of what went on, calling for transparency, Red Bull have followed the letter of the law and remained resistant to calls for disclosure of what is in fact a personal matter.
The fact this has entered the public domain in no way means either Horner or Red Bull Racing have brought F1 into disrepute despite suggestions from the official media that this is in fact the case.
We can but read between the lines for now and it appears as can happen in any organisation, an employee makes an unsubstantiated claim for personal reasons against their boss. Until her suspension the waters were muddied given such an accusation results in a judgement one way or the other.
Having cleared Horner the obvious conclusion is that unsubstantiated claims were made against him which need redress. Now that Red Bull have suspended his accuser for “dishonesty” this for now provides a certain level of validity to the conclusion that Horner was in now way culpable.
Ferrari confirms Sainz shock illness
Appeal time is running out
Other reports suggest the suspension is to protect the employee from potential abuse from others within the Red Bull team whilst she decides on whether to appeal the decision made by an independent barrister.
It is believed her right to appeal is limited and the letter of suspension explains the full legal timescale in which she can dispute the findings of the eight week investigation.
Varying outlets have reported this timeline has just two more days to run and so by the end of the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, we should know whether the matter is concluded or will drag on into the first third of the F1 season.
Clearly there is now a resolution in sight given the details of the complaint and the subsequent investigation have not concluded there should be a no fault conclusion. Had the complainant been bought off this would not have resulted in her suspension.
Hamilton tells Verstappen to ditch his father
Entire saga a Horner “sting” attempt
The ball is now in her court to decide if she wishes to proceed further with the allegations against Horner and it appears Red Bull are confident by suspending her that the matter is in fact closed.
There will now be another report required to substantiate the Red Bull reasons for suspension, claimed to be dishonesty, and whether this becomes a matter of public domain will be based on the decision of the female employee.
As TJ13 has ascertained for several weeks, this entire saga appears to be a sting effort against Christian Horner. And it may be the fact that the price paid for the political wrangling over control of the Red Bull F1 team, is the sacking of the Horner accuser who was used by the powers that be in Salzburg HQ.
Marko breaks silence on Red Bull saga
Back story will run and run
What is evident is the demeanour of Christian Horner in the paddock and team principal FIA press event was infinitely more relaxed than last week in Bahrain. Clearly he believes its now business as usual and the matter will fade from the media obsession which has seen calls for his removal from the position he has held for now 20 years.
Yet the real story of the corporate manoeuvres between the Red Bull founder’s son Mark Mateswchitz and his cronies in their grasp for control of the F1 team, may yet have more twists and turns to come.
READ MORE: Perez says Max’s father is wrong
With over 30 years of experience in Formula 1 as an insider journalist, I have built trusted connections across the paddock, from race engineers and mechanics to senior team figures. At The Judge 13, I and a handful of trusted colleagues share exclusive Formula 1 news, expert analysis and behind-the-scenes stories you will not find in mainstream motorsport media.
Note to editors – a few times you’ve used “there” instead of “their”
TJ13 don’t seem to proof read any of their stories, there are often grammatical errors, spelling mistakes and missing words. You get just used to it 🤔
The website runs on WordPress and there are plenty of free plug-ins available that check grammar and spelling, so there’s no excuse.
That seems like a pretty accurate summary of what probably happened. We will never know for sure, but Red Bull would not risk sacking someone that had raised a grievance unless there was a smoking gun.
Interesting use of the word “dishonest” of which the dictionary definition is behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy, deceitful, or insincere way.
Hypocritical is first word that comes to my mind if those released Whatsapp texts are proven to be genuine.
My guess would be that the investigation established that some of the ‘leaked transcripts’ were faked or doctored, presumably by whoever the employee was persuaded to hand them to. I actually feel that RB and the Horners are probably sympathetic the the position that the employee is now in and that a beneficial deal will be done if the employee is prepared to cooperate and sign an NDA.
Will all those a-holes that have nothing better to do then nag about spelling, go read somewhere else. If that is the pinnacle of your contribution than save it for another platform. Thank you.
Pls check grammar and spelling
Anyone who did the slightest bit of research on the HR law surrounding this kind of case would know that you absolutely should not suspend an employee as a punishment. So the suggestion that her suspension is because of dishonesty is at worst ill informed and at worst a malicious attempt to discredit the woman. Suspension should only EVER be used while an investigation is in progress, it is NEVER appropriate to suspend the accuser in a situation where there is an investigation into an employees conduct and so the only person who could have potentially been suitable to suspend during the investigation was Horner. They chose not to which given his public facing role and the potential for damage to the company’s reputation by leaving him in post was an odd choice, it’s common for senior management to be suspended with pay while inappropriate conduct is investigated, but RBR were entitled to do that, it just made them look a little biased and makes the investigation seem less credible if you don’t follow common HR practice in a situation lile that. The only reason to suspend the woman would be if there was now a second investigation into her being dishonest, but no one has mentioned that is the case and really there should be no need to, as if the investigation into the allegations against Horner was suitably thorough it would have provided all the information and evidence they needed of her dishonesty. If she was dishonest then the appropriate response would be dismissal if it was serious enough dishonesty to be considered gross misconduct or if not and it was considered unintended dishonesty then a written warning or and potentially requirement for appropriate training to mitigate it happening again.
So this narrative of her being suspended because of her dishonesty is nonsense. You simply aren’t allowed to use suspension as a punishment under UK law. Most likely the reason is because they do not feel she can reasonably be expected to do her job in the environment that has now been created at work due to the toxicity this becoming public will almost certainly have caused, and so they are putting her on gardening leave while she decides how she wants to respond and what she wants to do. Any media outlet pushing any narrative around her dishonesty is either bad, poorly researched journalism operating only off here say, or is pushing an agenda of discrediting her to support Horner and RBR
Oh deat Simon B. Quite a mouthful. Fact is the findings of the King’s Council indicated that the complainant’s allegations were not truthful. She has been suspended because of her unpopularity within RBR owing to her ‘dishonesty’. What remains to be done is to identify who put her up to making her allegations.
*Counsel barrister, but never mind, accuracy and detail in this kind of discussion is never important right…? That’s why you’d prefer a short and poorly informed comment over a long and professionally informed one.
Show me the EVIDENCE that she’s been suspended due to “her unpopularity within RBR owing to her ‘dishonesty’”, I’ll wait…
If she had been dishonest in the official investigation (that has already completed) then she wouldn’t be suspended, she’d be fired. There would be no need for a second investigation as you would have to get to the bottom of whether she were being dishonest before you could dismiss the allegations against Horner.
The FACT is that suspension is not permitted as a punishment by UK employment law, and the media reporting her dishonesty is as much a rumour and as the original allegations against Horner that have been subsequently dismissed. The fact that they were dismissed in no way indicates that she was dishonest, it is just as plausible if not more so given she has not been fired and the subsequent leak of evidence, that she didn’t lie, but that on investigation the evidence suggested that although he might have acted inappropriately for a married man and acted in a controlling or coercive manner in their relationship outside of work, nothing that he did could be classed as professional misconduct and therefore not a matter for HR to take disciplinary action over.
The only vaguely plausible reason linked to potential dishonesty to suspend her would be if they felt the manner in which she was dishonest provided “reasonable grounds to believe that the employee might seek to tamper with or destroy evidence, influence witnesses or sway an investigation”. However, even ignoring the fact that the investigation is already over and they should have all the evidence they need to draw conclusions on her conduct, it’s a bit of a stretch given the relative seniority, power and support Horner benefits from compared to her that she would be able to do that even if she wanted to. That justification would have been a far, far stronger justification to suspend Horner previously during the investigation as he definitely has the power, influence and allies in the business to get the investigation or evidence tampered with, and a lot more to lose if he had been found guilty. RBR decided not to do that which is fair enough, it’s their decision, as an HR professional who’s dealt with these kinds of complaints before it wouldn’t have been my decision unless the RBR legal counsel had advised me not to.
Oh dear Simon B. What a
Amazing dissection and I fully agree. Something doesn’t smell right and it’s an interesting one for sure.
It is impossible to really form an opinion as we do not have access to the messages allegedly sent and also we don’t have a transcript of the accusations and Horner’s response in his 9 hour interview.
Could it be that she was to be suspended before the allegations broke?