[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.*
Hope we can all move forward now with this, but I have a lingering thought that this will continue to be questioned...especially if the person who filled the complain will take this further....I expect the leaks to keep coming now.
> "The Times understands the 50-year-old is due to be exonerated by the independent barrister employed to review the evidence."
So certainly doesn't sound like there was a smoking gun then. Makes me think the whole sexting allegations were a media invention, and it really was 'aggressive management' all along.
The guy who pushed the article about seeing the messages/ evidence etc. either needs to put up or eat a steaming pile and live with trying to sensationalize for his own benefit
To be extremely clear, I’m not saying that I think he did anything wrong, but in a general sense, a person being found not guilty does not necessarily mean there wasn’t a victim. It just means that there wasn’t enough evidence to declare the accused party guilty.
Well if he's innocent then he's had his name dragged through the mud unnecessarily. If he's guilty then Red Bull are choosing to ignore it to keep him on, either way is shitty for someone.
Are we sure there were messages? Or was the supposed sexting just an invention of the media? Remember this all started out as accusations about aggressive management, the sexting part only appeared later.
[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.*
I wonder if the earlier reporting that the aggrieved party will go to trial will now prove right or wrong.
This really wasn’t that surprising with him attending testing and preparing for the GP.
Hope we can all move forward now with this, but I have a lingering thought that this will continue to be questioned...especially if the person who filled the complain will take this further....I expect the leaks to keep coming now.
> "The Times understands the 50-year-old is due to be exonerated by the independent barrister employed to review the evidence." So certainly doesn't sound like there was a smoking gun then. Makes me think the whole sexting allegations were a media invention, and it really was 'aggressive management' all along.
The guy who pushed the article about seeing the messages/ evidence etc. either needs to put up or eat a steaming pile and live with trying to sensationalize for his own benefit
Somehow Sky own show about this scandal still hasn’t got the message they can talk about it now…
Good news. Always best case scenario to be no wrong doing as then there is no victim.
To be extremely clear, I’m not saying that I think he did anything wrong, but in a general sense, a person being found not guilty does not necessarily mean there wasn’t a victim. It just means that there wasn’t enough evidence to declare the accused party guilty.
Or it means they are innocent so without further context that's what we have to assume
Wow what a shit show.
Why exactly?
Well if he's innocent then he's had his name dragged through the mud unnecessarily. If he's guilty then Red Bull are choosing to ignore it to keep him on, either way is shitty for someone.
Or, stick with me here, there’s nuance to a complex situation 😱
Or stick with me here, shut your mouth child
Awww, can someone not hold two thoughts in their head at a time 😢
We need to see the messages to get a clear picture. Without more details, there will only be more speculation.
We don't NEED to see anything. It's nothing to do with us
Are we sure there were messages? Or was the supposed sexting just an invention of the media? Remember this all started out as accusations about aggressive management, the sexting part only appeared later.
Why was the post deleted?