So what did he actually do? I have read a few articles on different sites about this but I am still confused; if he "attempted to interfere" with the results, what did he actually do? None of the articles I have read explain what action(s) he took in an attempt to overturn the penalty.

Making a statement that, in his opinion, the penalty should have been overturned does not to me constitute manipulation on its own.

Making a phone call to somebody else he knows within the FIA does not to me constitute manipulation on its own.

If you are going to accuse somebody of something in an public article, you need to explain in no uncertain terms why exactly you believe this to be the case and provide corroborating evidence.

You can't just say "yeah well he said he disagreed with it so he must have done it", or "he phoned his mate in the FIA afterwards". That's not proof, it's circumstantial. If you believe the phone call contains incriminating evidence, then quote what was allegedly said in the call.

And, if I remember correctly, the penalty was revoked because the FIA doesn't know how to interpret their own rules properly. Sound familiar?

The allegation made by the whistleblower is that Ben Sulayem called Sheikh Abdullah bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa - the FIA's vice-president for sport for the Middle East and North Africa region, who was in Saudi Arabia for the race in an official capacity - and made it clear he thought Alonso's penalty should be revoked.

Alonso had been given a 10-second penalty for work done on his car while he was serving a previous five-second penalty.

The report, by compliance officer Paolo Basarri, says the whistleblower reported that Ben Sulayem "pretended the stewards to overturn their decision to issue" the penalty to Alonso.

In Italian, the word "pretendere" means to require or expect.

This to me is pretty clear. He called an official and requested for the penalty to be removed.

Right, so where is the evidence? You can't just say "he called some guy and said stuff". No recording of the call has been presented, and no transcript of the call has been presented. How do we know that this "whistleblower" isn't just making shit up?

Not to mention that this supposedly happened nearly 12 months ago. Why now?

In addition, BBC Sport has verified the information with several senior figures at high levels in F1 and close to the FIA. None would go on the record, but all said they had the same information.

Hopefully you can understand how significant such an accusation is and that it's understandable that people don't want to go out in public, especially if the evidence is a private phone call and probably in-person conversations.

The timing of it doesn't matter, unless you're insinuating that the victim of a crime loses validity on it if isn't reported in the same day.

Hopefully you can understand how significant such an accusation is and that it's understandable that people don't want to go out in public, especially if the evidence is a private phone call and probably in-person conversations.

The timing of it doesn't matter, unless you're insinuating that the victim of a crime loses validity on it if isn't reported in the same day.

If you are asking about whether I agree with the statute of limitations, then for non-criminal cases, yes I do. There are good reasons why limitations exist for certain matters, but I don't think it should apply in this case. What I am asking is "why now"?

Rumors suggest that Horner attempted to acquire the team with British financiers, without the knowledge of the Austrians.
With the passing of Dietrich Mateschitz in October 2022, the harmonious balance that allowed the coexistence of Red Bull's Thai and Austrian identities was lost. Oliver Mintzlaff, a German manager already involved in the football side of the company, was entrusted with the management of the sporting aspect of Red Bull.
Despite the apparent success of Red Bull's F1 project, winning the drivers' title in 2021 and the constructors' title in 2022 and 2023, rumors of internal disagreements within the team began to surface last year. Team principal Christian Horner was reportedly seeking to consolidate decision-making power within the new Red Bull sporting structure, potentially leading to friction.
There were even discussions about Horner's attempt to remove Helmut Marko, a close friend of the late Mateschitz, though this effort was reportedly thwarted by Max Verstappen, who owed much of his F1 career to Marko.
According to FormulaPassion.it, a reliable source familiar with the situation revealed the genesis of the bitter disagreements that ultimately fractured the team, with Horner on one side and the Austrian leadership on the other.
Allegedly, in 2023, Horner approached the Yoovidhya family with an offer from British financiers aimed at acquiring, wholly or partially, the Formula 1 team from the company. This move, reminiscent of Toto Wolff's leadership style, reportedly caught the Austrians off guard and led to a clear rift between Horner and the headquarters in Fuschl, even before the recent scandal emerged.
VIA: [formulapassion.it]

Meanwhile, in one of the oddest weeks of following this sport even, another rumor that came up is that Jos has an affair with former personal secretary, and possible whistleblower, of Horner.

Man, a fictional series of this mess would be 10x more interesting than DTS

Meanwhile, in one of the oddest weeks of following this sport even, another rumor that came up is that Jos has an affair with former personal secretary, and possible whistleblower, of Horner.

Man, a fictional series of this mess would be 10x more interesting than DTS