McLaren and Red Bull are contesting before the FIA Court of Appeal the cancellation of Pierre Gasly’s penalties in Monaco and are demanding clarifications.
Read more Nico Rosberg warns about Verstappen’s crash: «It could have ended very badly»
The case of Pierre Gasly’s penalties at the Monaco Grand Prix enters a new phase. The FIA International Court of Appeal is examining this Tuesday in Paris the appeal filed by McLaren and Red Bull against the cancellation of the two five-second penalties imposed on the Alpine driver.
Gasly had initially been penalized twice for exceeding the 60 km/h speed limit in the pit lane. These ten seconds added to his race time had dropped him from third to seventh place.
But Alpine later obtained a right of review after discovering an error by the official timekeepers in calculating the length of the pit lane. The stewards considered this element as new, relevant, and significant before canceling the penalties and restoring Gasly’s third place.
A decision with heavy consequences
The problem goes far beyond the French driver’s case. Other drivers, including Oscar Piastri, George Russell, and Lewis Hamilton, had also been penalized for exceeding the allowed speed in the pits.
The fundamental difference lies in how these penalties were served. Gasly had not served his during the race: they were simply added to his final time. Their cancellation therefore directly restored his original result.
Conversely, Piastri, Hamilton, and Russell had already served their penalties during the race. However, the regulations do not provide any mechanism to retroactively erase the time lost when a penalty has already been served.
This difference in treatment has caused a particularly delicate situation. The same measurement error can thus have different consequences depending on how the drivers concerned served their penalty.
McLaren denounces a problem of “fairness”
It is precisely this situation that McLaren wants the International Court of Appeal to examine. Andrea Stella explains that his team pursues a “dual objective” in this procedure.
“We approach this hearing before the International Court of Appeal with a dual objective.”
The first goes beyond McLaren’s own interests. For Stella, the way the penalties were canceled raises a fundamental question concerning fairness among competitors.
“We believe that the process that took place after the Monaco race must be re-examined because, from the point of view of fairness among all competitors, the fact that the penalty was removed introduces several important elements of concern.”
McLaren therefore wants to obtain a clarification likely to prevent a similar situation from happening again in the future.
Read more Max Verstappen lands a colossal contract with Red Bull: stratospheric earnings!
“The integrity of the sport” at the heart of the appeal
Stella specifies that the case obviously has a technical dimension concerning how the speed in the pit lane was calculated. But the McLaren boss believes the real issue lies elsewhere.
“We can get into the technical aspects of how the limit in the pits was calculated, but for me, it is especially fairness and principle that must be clarified and possibly restored.”
According to the Italian, the decision made after Monaco could create a problematic precedent if the rules concerning penalties already served and those simply added to the final time are not clarified.
“I think what happened raises significant concerns.”
The procedure initiated by McLaren and Red Bull could therefore have consequences far beyond the Monaco Grand Prix classification.
McLaren also believes it was directly harmed
The second part of the appeal is much more concrete for McLaren. Oscar Piastri had also been penalized, but unlike Gasly, he had served his penalty during the race.
When the Frenchman’s penalties were finally canceled, McLaren therefore did not benefit from any equivalent mechanism to restore to Piastri the time he had lost.
“We not only have this concern, but we have also been materially penalized for serving a sanction that is not subject to appeal, and it even cost us championship points.”
The revised Monaco result had placed Gasly back on the third step of the podium, notably pushing Piastri down one position. Isack Hadjar, Liam Lawson, and Arvid Lindblad had also lost a place following the Frenchman’s reinstatement.
The Court of Appeal called to decide
Mercedes had also considered action after the cancellation of Gasly’s penalties. Toto Wolff had even revealed that the team had immediately consulted its lawyers regarding Russell’s situation before finally deciding not to pursue the procedure.
McLaren and Red Bull have chosen a different path. The hearing is held behind closed doors in Paris and should allow the International Court of Appeal to determine whether the decision made following Alpine’s right of review should be upheld.
“So there is a general interest for Formula 1 and for the integrity of the sport, but also a material interest for McLaren concerning the impact on our championship.”
Beyond Gasly’s podium in Monaco, it is therefore above all an important regulatory principle that McLaren wants to clarify: how to ensure fairness when an official error leads to canceling a penalty that some drivers have already served and others have never had to serve?
Read more Kimi Antonelli admits it: the Mercedes is no longer the fastest car on the grid