Red Bull Lodges Complaint Against George Russell Jeopardizing Canadian GP win

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Red Bull Racing issued a protest against Mercedes' George Russell, who won the Canadian Grand Prix on Sunday.
The FIA announced the protest through a document, summoning both Russell and Red Bull driver Max Verstappen to the stewards.
According to Red Bull team boss Christian Horner, the team's complaint is due to erratic driving behind the safety car and not leaving an appropriate gap.
"Two protests that we've put to the stewards, that we've asked them to have a look at. Firstly, relating to the erratic driving behind the safety car, where George very heavily braked, obviously looking looking in his mirror for Max." Horner said after the race.
"The second one is very clearly the distance that was left behind the safety car that was well in excess - I think at least three times in excess - of the permitted distance. So it's within our right to obviously protest that. So we've lodged the protest."
1. Christian Horner: "Two protests that we've put to the stewards, that we've asked them to have a look at. Firstly, relating to the erratic driving behind the safety car, where George very heavily braked, obviously looking looking in his mirror for Max." — Adam Cooper (@adamcooperF1) June 15, 2025
At the end of the race, a safety car was sent out due to McLaren driver Lando Norris crashing out of the race, leaving a ton of debris on the track.
Russell was in the lead of the race, though during one of the laps under safety car conditions, he ended up braking, prompting Verstappen to go past him for a split second.
The rules state that there can be no overtaking under the safety car.
Some viewers interpreted the move as an attempt from Russell to get a penalty on Verstappen, braking randomly so the Red Bull goes past and gets an infringement.
Second placed Max Verstappen of the Netherlands and Oracle Red Bull Racing congratulates Race winner George Russell of Great Britain and Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team in parc ferme during the F1 Grand Prix of...
Second placed Max Verstappen of the Netherlands and Oracle Red Bull Racing congratulates Race winner George Russell of Great Britain and Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team in parc ferme during the F1 Grand Prix of Canada at Circuit Gilles-Villeneuve on June 15, 2025 in Montreal, Quebec More
Photo byThe theory stems from the fact that Verstappen is only one penalty point away from getting a race ban.
Verstappen played down the incident after the race.
"I think we were both trying to say to the safety car to speed up because he was only going 120km/h [75mph] but I think maybe the safety car is doing that to give a bit more time to maybe get a race lap in," Verstappen told reporters.
"Then I think George was trying to speed up to the safety car, I was trying to do the same.
"Once he tried to speed up the safety car he then backed out and it caused a bit of confusion."
What happened with: 'sportsmanship, fair racing, kids watching, good example for young drivers'?pic.twitter.com/3O8I7KYlU7 — Marc🏎 (@433_marc) June 15, 2025
Canadian Grand Prix Race Results

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

a day ago

• Yahoo

Red Bull's Canadian GP protest should spark F1 reform

Red Bull's decision to appeal the result of the Canadian Grand Prix drew widespread criticism, with Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff branding it 'petty' and 'embarrassing.' The ensuing delay in confirming the race result drew negative reactions from both fans and the media alike. It took more than five and a half hours for George Russell's victory to be officially confirmed by the FIA, after he was cleared of any wrongdoing by the stewards. Advertisement By that point, Max Verstappen had already left Canadian airspace – choosing not to wait and see if he might inherit the win from the Brit. Red Bull's protest centred on claims that Russell had driven 'erratically' behind the safety car and that his heavy braking amounted to 'unsportsmanlike behaviour.' Both arguments were dismissed by the stewards. However, it was the delay in reaching that decision that was the main problem, and also raises questions about the process of protesting a race result. Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing Wolff criticised the timing of the protest, telling Sky Sports at the New York premiere of the F1 movie: 'It was two hours before [Red Bull] launched the protest, so that was their doing. It's so petty and so small. They come up with some weird clauses – what they call clauses. I guess the FIA needs to look at that because it was so far-fetched, it got rejected.' Advertisement Unsurprisingly, Red Bull team principal Christian Horner defended the protest. Speaking to the same outlet, he said: 'It's a team's right to do so. You have the ability to put it in front of the stewards, and that's what we chose to do. Absolutely no regrets.' Who is at Fault? Teams are entitled to protest the outcome of a race if they believe a sporting regulation has been violated or that new evidence was missed by the stewards. Horner revealed that the appeal cost €2,000 (£1,700) and admitted he was surprised Russell's driving wasn't flagged by the stewards initially. This also wasn't Red Bull's first protest of the season. During May's Miami Grand Prix, Russell – who once again finished ahead of Verstappen – was accused of failing to slow under yellow flags. Red Bull were making a point and felt Russell had not slowed sufficiently, with Horner saying they were simply seeking clarity of the regulations. Advertisement That claim, too, was dismissed. Christian Horner, Red Bull Racing Christian Horner, Red Bull Racing While there's no suggestion that Red Bull is deliberately targeting Russell, who has had a series of tense exchanges with Verstappen in recent years, the repeated protests do raise questions about the current appeal process in general. The €2,000 cost of filing a protest is not a deterrent, should a team wish to make a point or seek clarification over a regulation. After all, there are other mechanisms for this to be raised that would not delay the outcome of a race result. But if that fee were increased and counted toward the cost cap – it could discourage teams from lodging speculative appeals without solid evidence. Advertisement A higher financial burden would likely ensure only well-founded protests are brought forward, potentially speeding up the process for the stewards and avoiding unnecessary delays. A problem of resources In the case of Canada, the situation was further complicated by the sheer volume of post-race investigations. According to the rules, incidents are reviewed in the order they are reported. Red Bull's protest, submitted two hours after the chequered flag, was placed last in the queue. Esteban Ocon, Haas F1 Team, Carlos Sainz, Williams, Gabriel Bortoleto, Sauber Esteban Ocon, Haas F1 Team, Carlos Sainz, Williams, Gabriel Bortoleto, Sauber Before reaching Russell's case, the stewards had to examine incidents involving Ollie Bearman, Lando Norris, and Esteban Ocon – followed by seven separate alleged infringements of the safety car procedure. Advertisement It was a frustrating experience for everyone. Fans at the circuit left without clarity, while many in Europe went to bed not knowing who had actually won the race. It was not a good look for a sport that is trying to grow its appeal around the world. Maybe there is scope for race stewards to delegate, meaning that the Remote Operations Centre in Geneva could cycle through the lesser offences using all the technology at its disposal. That would free up those stewards at the track to oversee Red Bull's protest and ultimately result in quicker decision-making. Another possibility would be to increase the number of stewards, something the FIA is already working on as it looks to increase its pool of qualified race officials. Interestingly, in Canada, officials at the race had more resources at their disposal as the FIA had four stewards adjudicating the race rather than the usual three. The increase in stewards is being trialled at six raced this year, including at Singapore and Brazil later this season. Advertisement Read Also: Christian Horner defends Red Bull Canadian GP protest: "Absolutely no regrets" Toto Wolff: Red Bull's Canadian GP protest was "so petty and so small" Whatever the solution, it is important that the lengthy delay in confirming the race result is addressed as a matter of urgency, for it would be bad news for everyone if this became common place. To read more articles visit our website.

Fast Company

a day ago

• Fast Company

Is that brand's mission for real? Here's how to spot BS

In today's marketplace, 'authenticity' has become a buzzword that brands strive to embody. Consumers will tell you they are drawn to companies that appear genuine, transparent, and aligned with their personal values, and brands are certainly paying attention. However, the concept of corporate authenticity is complex and often misunderstood. While it seems easy enough to decide whether a person is authentic and honest (which does not imply we are good at it), it is rather more difficult to attempt to judge a corporation on whether it is 'true to itself' or 'lives up to its values.' Unlike individuals, corporations are open systems with diverse stakeholders, making the pursuit of authenticity a challenging endeavor. The impression or view a collective of individuals may hold on them represents less in the form of a tangible or concrete reality, and more in the form of an urban legend or story. As Yuval Harari notes, corporations are shared myths—'Peugeot is not a car, it is a story.' In line, research shows that we often anthropomorphize brands, attributing human characteristics to them. This tendency is encapsulated in Jennifer Aaker's seminal work on brand personality, which identifies five dimensions: sincerity (think Patagonia, known for its environmental activism and ethical sourcing), excitement (Red Bull, with its adrenaline-fueled branding and extreme sports sponsorships), competence (Toyota or Microsoft, projecting reliability and expertise), sophistication (Chanel or Rolex, evoking elegance and luxury), and ruggedness (Jeep or Harley-Davidson, built around toughness and adventure). These categories help marketers craft emotionally resonant narratives, but they can also mislead—creating the illusion of consistent, humanlike traits in organizations that are, in reality, anything but unified or coherent. The Pitfalls of Virtue Signaling Indeed, assigning brands personalities also sets them up for moral scrutiny. Once a company claims to be sincere, competent, or sophisticated, it invites consumers to hold it accountable—not just for performance, but for being honest in what it claims, and doing what it says. That's where things often fall apart. Take the example of punk beer brand BrewDog. In 2022, the company launched an aggressive advertising campaign to distance its beers from the human rights abuses associated with the World Cup, even promising to donate sales of its Lost Lager to fight human rights abuses. But the story became more inconvenient when it emerged the company had a partnership with a distributor in the Gulf, and would continue to show World Cup matches in its pubs. As it turned out, the road from punk rebel to self-serving hypocrite turned out to be rather short. On the other hand, Target's recent decision to double-down on its commitment to DEI despite the growing list of multinationals (including Meta, McDonald's, Ford, Walmart, Amazon, Harley-Davidson, and Disney) deemphasizing or halting their existing DEI programs, appeared to trigger a consumer backlash (at least according to its CEO). Then there's H&M, which promoted a 'Conscious Collection' to highlight its commitment to sustainability, only for watchdogs and NGOs to uncover greenwashing practices and ongoing exploitative labor issues in its supply chain. While consumer perceptions of insincerity may not always be fair or reliable (and there will never be a shortage of social media trolls praying on any corporate decision, including the decision to not say or do anything about anything), the fact remains that if you make a claim to be responsible or ethical, it is only a matter of time before consumers start looking under the hood to see whether your actions—and your political spending—are aligned with what your firm says it cares about. In the digital age, where every claim can be fact-checked and memed within minutes, performative values are not just ineffective—they're often self-handicapping. Is This Brand for Real? A Consumer's Guide to Authenticity If you're wondering whether a brand's values are more than just marketing spin, here are a few practical ways to find out: 1. Is the cause connected to what they actually do? Brands are most credible when they support issues tied to their core business— like a bank promoting financial literacy, or a food company addressing supply chain working conditions. If the cause feels random or like it's chasing headlines, that's worth questioning. 2. Is the message matched by meaningful action? Look beyond the ads. Are they investing in real change, or asking you to do all the work? If a brand promotes sustainability but spends more on ads than action—or emphasizes consumer behavior over their own—it might be more about optics than impact. 3. Are there big gaps between claims and criticism? Compare what a brand says with how it's covered in the press or watchdog reports. If they're celebrating progress on diversity or climate, but facing lawsuits or fines in the same areas, that's a red flag. No brand is perfect, but consistency matters. 4. Who owns the topic inside the company? Real commitment goes beyond marketing. If sustainability or DEI is led by senior leadership and tied to company performance, that suggests seriousness. If it's buried under PR, it may be more about image than impact. 5. Are they transparent about what's not working? No company gets it right all the time. But the best ones admit mistakes, revise targets, and explain why. Honesty is often more powerful than perfection—and it's a key sign that the values are real, not just rehearsed. 6. Do they walk the talk politically? Some brands say one thing in public and back different things behind closed doors. If you care, tools like let you see whether a company's donations and lobbying match their stated values. The Role of Leadership Brand authenticity must be cultivated from the top down. Leaders set the tone for organizational culture and values. When executives embody the principles they espouse, it reinforces authenticity throughout the organization. Conversely, a disconnect between leadership behavior and corporate messaging can undermine credibility. That said, we should also acknowledge a sobering truth: we will never truly know whether a leader is 'authentic' in the sense of being true to their internal values. Self-knowledge is hard enough for individuals —let alone for those interpreting others from a distance. But, as one of us (Tomas) argues in a forthcoming book, Don't Be Yourself: Why Authenticity is Overrated and What to Do Instead, that kind of inner authenticity may not be what matters most anyway. What matters is whether leadership behavior—regardless of motive—results in positive, prosocial outcomes. Are decisions advancing the well-being of employees, customers, society, or the environment? If so, perhaps we shouldn't care whether the driver is conscience or capitalism. To put it bluntly: we don't need leaders to be saints—we need them to behave decently, even if they're doing it to protect the brand, preserve investor confidence, or attract talent. In fact, many of the best corporate decisions are made precisely because they're strategically ethical —not because the CEO had a moral epiphany during their morning meditation. Sure, there are rare and admirable cases where executives have chosen the harder, more ethical path even when it hurts profits (Target, as mentioned above)—pulling out of exploitative markets, paying fair wages despite pressure to cut costs, or refusing to greenwash in favor of slower, more meaningful change. But those leaders are exceptions. We should appreciate them, not expect them as standard. Disregard of decency Still, even in a world where profit is king, some companies stand out not for their lack of idealism, but for their flagrant disregard of decency. These are the firms that exploit labor, abuse data privacy, pollute freely, or thrive on addictive products—not incidentally, but as a matter of business model. Whether or not their leaders are being 'true to themselves' is beside the point. What matters is that they're consistently making the world worse—authentically or otherwise. In this light, corporate authenticity should be judged not by introspection but by impact. Not by consistency with internal values (which are often opaque), but by observable behaviors, externalities, and the lived experiences of stakeholders. Or to put it differently: if your 'authentic self' is toxic, exploitative, or unethical— we'd rather you fake it. And here's the punchline. The most responsible organizations today are often the ones that don't fetishize authenticity, but instead institutionalize accountability. They build feedback loops, audit their culture, measure ethical risks, and reward good behavior even when it's not performative. In other words, they focus less on being 'real' and more on doing right—whatever the motive may be. Pretend Responsibly: Why Corporate Authenticity Is About Impact, Not Essence Kurt Vonnegut famously noted that 'We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be.' The same warning applies to companies. In today's hyper-transparent, hyper-skeptical world, brands are in a constant state of performance—telling stories, signaling values, curating identities. But here's the rub: those performances shape reality. The way a company chooses to present itself—sincere or performative, strategic or self-expressive—will influence how it treats people, how it allocates resources, and how it responds when the spotlight moves on. So yes, corporations must be careful what they pretend to be. Because the story becomes the strategy. The persona becomes policy. And even if the motive is opportunistic, the consequences are real. Corporate authenticity is not about soul-searching or storytelling—it's about alignment and accountability. If a company's public commitments match its operational decisions, if it treats people decently even when no one's watching, if it chooses to mitigate harm instead of maximizing plausible deniability—then it's doing something right, regardless of how 'authentic' it feels. To be sure, it is preferable to do the right thing for the wrong reasons than the wrong thing for the right reasons! In short: don't ask whether a company is 'being itself.' Ask what kind of self it's choosing to perform—and whether that performance is making anyone's life better. In the end, the best brands aren't the ones that feel most authentic. They're the ones that behave responsibly, or at least manage to mitigate, if not avoid, bad behaviors relative to others.

USA Today

a day ago

• USA Today

Is there a Formula 1 race this weekend? F1 standings, schedule

Is there a Formula 1 race this weekend? F1 standings, schedule Show Caption Hide Caption 'F1: The Movie' trailer: Brad Pitt drives fast in Formula 1 film Brad Pitt plays a veteran driver recruited for a Formula 1 race team and Damson Idris is the hotshot racer in "F1: The Movie." Formula 1 has a new winner for 2025. Last weekend's Canadian Grand Prix saw a non-McLaren driver take victory for just the third time in the first 10 races. Mercedes' George Russell earned pole position and his first win of the season in the best weekend of the season for the team. His teammate, Andrea Kimi Antonelli, came home third to give Mercedes its first double-podium of the year. Four-time defending champion Max Verstappen kept close to Russell but couldn't challenge him for the win. The McLarens couldn't match Russell and Verstappen's pace on race day. Instead, they collided with each other late enough to force the race to finish under safety car conditions. Lando Norris tried to pass Oscar Piastri for fourth on the start/finish straight but instead hit Piastri's left rear tire and went into the wall. Norris immediately took responsibility for the incident on team radio in the first clash between this year's top two title contenders. That finish meant Piastri widened his lead atop the drivers' championship standings to 22 points, nearly a full race win's points haul, over this teammate. Norris still holds a 21-point gap to Verstappen even with his crash and Verstappen's second-place finish. 'A PRETTY DETERMINED CHARACTER': First female F1 race engineer Laura Mueller on track with Haas' Esteban Ocon at Miami GP That was a thrilling end to an exciting race as usual in Canada. Will F1 be back on track this weekend? Here's what to know: Is there a Formula 1 race this weekend? No, the teams get a week off following the Canadian Grand Prix. It was one of the "fly-away" races of the schedule so the grid gets a week off before and after. The F1 grid returns to Europe in the next race of the season in the Austrian Grand Prix. It's the first of a double-header from June into July. When is the next F1 race? The next F1 race will be the Austrian Grand Prix on Sunday, June 29. In 2024, that race saw the first of many clashes between Max Verstappen and Lando Norris. The two collided when fighting for the lead late in the race, handing the victory to Mercedes' George Russell. 2025 Formula 1 schedule, recap Here's a list of each Grand Prix race with the winner if applicable. Australian Grand Prix (March 2): Lando Norris, McLaren Lando Norris, McLaren Chinese Grand Prix (March 9) : Oscar Piastri, McLaren : Oscar Piastri, McLaren Japanese Grand Prix (April 6) : Max Verstappen, Red Bull : Max Verstappen, Red Bull Bahrain Grand Prix (April 13) : Oscar Piastri, McLaren : Oscar Piastri, McLaren Saudi Arabian Grand Prix (April 20) : Oscar Piastri, McLaren : Oscar Piastri, McLaren Miami Grand Prix (May 4) : Oscar Piastri, McLaren : Oscar Piastri, McLaren Emilia Romagna Grand Prix (May 18) : Max Verstappen, Red Bull : Max Verstappen, Red Bull Monaco Grand Prix (May 25) : Lando Norris, McLaren : Lando Norris, McLaren Spanish Grand Prix (June 1) : Oscar Piastri, McLaren : Oscar Piastri, McLaren Canadian Grand Prix (June 15) : George Russell, Mercedes : George Russell, Mercedes Austrian Grand Prix (June 29) : : British Grand Prix (July 6) : : Belgian Grand Prix (July 27) : : Hungarian Grand Prix (Aug. 3) : : Dutch Grand Prix (Aug. 31) : : Italian Grand Prix (Sept. 7) : : Azerbaijan Grand Prix (Sept. 21) : : Singapore Grand Prix (Oct. 5) : : United States Grand Prix (Oct. 19) : : Mexico City Grand Prix (Oct. 26) : : São Paulo Grand Prix (Nov. 9) : : Las Vegas Grand Prix (Nov. 22) : : Qatar Grand Prix (Nov. 30) : : Abu Dhabi Grand Prix (Dec. 7): 2025 Formula 1 drivers' standings Oscar Piastri, McLaren: 198 points Lando Norris, McLaren: 176 Max Verstappen, Red Bull: 155 George Russell, Mercedes: 136 Charles Leclerc, Ferrari: 104 Lewis Hamilton, Ferrari: 79 Andrea Kimi Antonelli, Mercedes: 63 Alex Albon, Williams: 42 Esteban Ocon, Haas: 22 Isack Hadjar, Racing Bulls: 21 Nico Hülkenberg, Sauber: 20 Lance Stroll, Aston Martin: 14 Carlos Sainz Jr., Williams: 13 Pierre Gasly, Alpine: 11 Yuki Tsunoda, Red Bull: 10 Fernando Alonso, Aston Martin: 8 Oliver Bearman, Haas: 6 Liam Lawson, Racing Bulls: 4 Gabriel Bortoleto, Sauber: 0 Franco Colapinto, Alpine: 0 2025 Formula 1 constructors' standings McLaren: 374 points Mercedes: 199 Ferrari: 183 Red Bull: 162 Williams: 55 Racing Bulls: 28 Haas: 28 Aston Martin: 22 Sauber: 20 Alpine: 11 The biggest stories, every morning. Stay up-to-date on all the key sports developments by subscribing to USA TODAY Sports' newsletter.