"There is a competitive advantage that has been gained by that." "It's still a mystery to me how a team can publicly say they submitted comfortably within the cap and what is in contention is some $200k, when in fact they were $1.8 million over, which is not an insignificant number," said Brown. Horner was incensed by Brown's letter, which Horner said was just another baseless allegation that had led to Red Bull employees' children being bullied at school. Most teams believed that if Red Bull only received a monetary penalty it would encourage others to deliberately overspend and simply pay the fine as punishment. The cost cap was put in place as a competition equalizer to prevent the larger, heavily-funded teams from outspending the smaller organizations struggling to keep up. McLaren head Zak Brown had accused Red Bull of cheating by breaching the spending cap in a letter Brown sent to the FIA. Red Bull has already wrapped up both a second F1 title with Verstappen and the constructors' championship with three races remaining this season. Horner said the team paid sick leave to an employee as an excludable cost, but "had the person died, and thankfully they didn't, the cost would have been excluded."Įither way, the penalties in no way satisfied Red Bull rivals, many of whom called for harsh penalties ranging from stripping Verstappen of last year's title and a reduction in future Red Bull spending. He spent a great deal of time defending high-end catering services, and included a reference to Red Bull's sick pay policy. To hear Horner's nearly 50-minute long defence of Red Bull's spending, the saga seems trite. Verstappen denies Hamilton 1st win of season to capture U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |