After the race of Saudi Arabian GP, and after Fernando Alonso shared the podium ceremony with Sergio Pérez, winner of the race, and Max Verstappen, second classified, the FIA stewards announced a 10-second penalty to the Spanish driver, who thus lost the third position in favor of George Russell. The surprised Mercedes driver inherited the trophy and commented that the “Fernando’s sanction was harsh, he deserved this cup“. Alonso, resigned, assured that “in any case, let them take away our bailao, we have proven to be the best after the Red Bulls and we have been able to celebrate the success with our sponsors”, referring to the two big companies in Arabia, the oil company Aramco and the Saudi airline, which finance the Aston Martin project. “I don’t know if it ends here… because the team It seems that he does not agree”, warned Fernando.
No sooner said than done. The legal advisers of the team of Lawrence Stroll they launched an appeal against the decision and after midnight they got the FIA to reconsider its decision and return third place to Alonso, who thus reached his 100th podium in Formula 1. But how did they manage to convince the stewards? ?. The sanction imposed on the Asturian was due, as reflected in the FIA minutes, to the fact that one of his mechanics had broken the rule of “not working” on the car while a penalty was being served, which had been imposed on Alonso for being unwell. placed at the start (stepping on the white line) and that he had to apply at his first pit stop.
The Aston Martin mechanics waited even more than five seconds to start changing the tiresbut the person in charge of the rear jack touched and raised the car slightly before the penalty time expired.
Apart from the fact that the FIA announcement came at the end of the race and did not give Fernando a chance to achieve a 10-second cushion with Russell)Aston Martin clung to a technicality. Specifically to a word of the regulation, in addition to providing up to seven videos and evidence of other similar cases in which other pilots were not punished.
Specifically, Aston Martin referred to article 54.4 in its section c) of the FIA Sporting Regulations 2023, which says: “While a car is stopped in the pit lane as a result of incurring a penalty in accordance with Articles 54.3a) or 54.3b) above, it may not be worked on until the car has been stationary for the duration of the penalty.”
Aston Martin defended that jacking the car is not the same as working on it, and that in fact his mechanics did not work on Alonso’s car until the penalty was completed, so they did not take advantage. In addition, he claimed an agreement between the FIA and the teams to take into account that, indeed, touching a car is not the same as working on it.
Among the seven cases presented by the defense of Aston Martin was one of Mercedes, which everything indicates that it was the one who alerted the FIA to the action at Alonso’s stop in Jeddah. Those from Brackley had a penalty for Hamilton in Great Britain 2021, 10 seconds of stop and go, with the two cats touching the car.
Andy Stevenson, Aston Martin’s sporting director, pleaded the case before the panel of stewards and around eleven o’clock in Spain, when it was almost one o’clock in the morning in Saudi Arabia, the FIA first published the penalty, then Aston Martin’s request for review and, finally, the decision that gave Alonso the podium number 100 in Formula 1, the one that had been won on the track.
the final sentence
The full sentence of the FIA stewards in the decision to return the podium to Alonso in Arabia specifies the following:
“The Stewards received a letter dated 19 March 2023 from the Aston Martin Aramco Cognizant Formula 1 Team with a ‘Request for Review’ pursuant to International Sporting Code (ISC) Article 14.1.1 regarding the decision of this panel of stewards to impose a 10-second penalty on car 14 for failing to correctly serve another penalty”.
“In support of the request for review, delegates were shown the minutes of the last SAC meeting and video evidence of 7 different instances where other cars were jacked while serving a penalty similar to the one imposed on car 14 without being penalized.”
“The clear statement from the team was that the alleged representation of an agreement between the FIA and the teams that touching the car in any way, including with a jack, would constitute ‘working’ on the car for the purposes of Article 54.4(c) of the Sporting Regulations, was incorrect and therefore the basis of the stewards’ decision was wrong”.
“In light of the petition, the commissioners had to decide whether there was a ‘new, significant and relevant’ element that was discovered that was not available to the parties requesting the review at the time of the decision.”
“If there were such an element(s), then the stewards would have to consider whether they had to modify the decision in any way.”
“Having reviewed the video evidence submitted and having heard from the Aston Martin team representative and relevant members of the FIA, the stewards determined that significant and relevant new evidence did exist as required by Article 14.1.1 to trigger a review of the decision, in particular the video evidence and the verbal evidence of the team and the FIA”.
“It became clear to us that the substratum of the original decision, namely the representation of an agreement, was called into question by the new evidence. Therefore, the merits of the request for review proceeded.”
“Having reviewed the new evidence, we came to the conclusion that there was no clear agreement, as suggested to the commissioners above, that could be relied upon to determine that the parties had agreed that a cat touching a car would amount to working on the car. car, no more.”
“Under the circumstances, we felt that our original decision to impose a penalty on car 14 had to be reversed and we did so accordingly.”
:quality(85)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/infobae/J4GEAUK25NCJXIKFMXRAMQB23Y.jpg?fit=300%2C300&ssl=1)
