After the Saudi Arabian GP race, and after Fernando Alonso shared the podium ceremony with race winner Sergio Pérez and second-placed Max Verstappen, FIA officials handed down a 10-second penalty to the Spanish driver who had thus lost third place. The position favors George Russell. The surprise Mercedes driver took over the trophy and said:Fernando’s sanction was heavy, he deserved this trophyResigning Alonso, “in any case, let them take our bail, We proved that we are the best after the Red Bulls and We celebrated the success with our sponsors, referring to Aramco and the Saudi airline, the two major oil companies in Arabia that financed the Aston Martin project. .. because the team seems to disagree”, warned Fernando.

No sooner said than done. The team’s legal advisers, Lawrence Walk They appealed the decision and had the FIA ​​reconsider its decision after midnight and return third place to Alonso, who had reached his 100th podium in Formula 1. So how did they manage to persuade the officials? The sanction imposed on Asturian was due, as reflected in the FIA ​​minutes, when one of his mechanics violated the “no work” rule on the vehicle while he was executing his sentence. Alonso said he took part in the start (by pressing the white line) because he was uncomfortable and had to apply at the first pit stop.

The Aston Martin mechanic took more than five seconds to start replacing the tyres.however, the person in charge of the rear jack touched the car and lifted it slightly before the penalty time expired.

Except that the FIA ​​announcement came at the end of the race and didn’t give Fernando a chance to catch a 10-second tape with Russell)Aston Martin clings to a technical detail. In particular, in addition to a word of the regulation, up to seven videos and evidence of other similar cases where other pilots were not punished.

Aston Martin specifically referred to article 54.4 in section c) of the FIA ​​Sporting Regulations 2023: “When a car is stopped in the pit lane as a result of receiving a penalty under Article 54.3a) or 54.3b), until the car is stationary during the penalty period. cannot work.”

Aston Martin argued that jacking up the car is not the same as working on it, and actually his mechanics didn’t work on Alonso’s car until the penalty was completed, so they didn’t take advantage. In addition, he claimed there was an agreement between the FIA ​​and the teams to take into account that actually touching a car is not the same as working on it.

Among the seven cases presented by Aston Martin’s defence, there was also one from Mercedes, which showed that it all spurred the FIA ​​to action at Alonso’s stop in Jeddah. Those from Brackley, Great Britain gave Hamilton a 10-second stop-and-go penalty after two cats touched the car in 2021.

Aston Martin’s sporting director, Andy Stevenson, defended the case before the arbitral tribunal. And at around eleven o’clock in Spain and almost one o’clock in the morning in Saudi Arabia, the FIA ​​first issued the penalty, then Aston Martin’s request for review, and finally the decision giving Alonso the podium. 100 tricks won on the track in Formula 1.

final decision

In the decision to return the podium to Alonso in Arabia, the full sentence of the FIA ​​officials states:

“Commissioners, second penalty from Aston Martin Aramco Cognizant Formula 1 Team to car #14 for failing to properly serve 10 – another penalty by this panel of officials, pursuant to Article 14.1.1 of the International Sports Code (ISC)”.

“To support the review request, delegates were shown the minutes of the last SAC meeting and video evidence of 7 different incidents where other cars were jacked while serving a similar penalty to the 14th car.”

“The clear statement from the team was the alleged presentation of an agreement between the FIA ​​and the teams that any touching of the vehicle, including jacking it up, would constitute ‘work’ on the vehicle for the purposes of Article 54.4. The basis of his decision was wrong”.

“In light of the petition, the commissioners had to decide whether there was a ‘new, important and relevant’ element discovered that was not available to the parties requesting review at the time of the decision.”

“If there was such an element(s), then the referees would have had to consider whether they had to change the decision in any way.”

“After reviewing the video evidence submitted and receiving information from the Aston Martin team representative and relevant members of the FIA, the officers decided that significant and relevant new evidence was available as required by Article 14.1.1 to trigger a reconsideration of the decision. verbal evidence of the team and the FIA”.

“It became clear to us that the representation of an agreement on which the initial decision was based was questioned by new evidence. Therefore, the merits of the request for review remained.”

“After reviewing the new evidence, we concluded that, as suggested to the commissioners above, there is no clear agreement that can be relied upon to determine that the parties have agreed that a cat touching a car will mean working on a car. The car no longer exists.”

“Under these circumstances, we felt that our decision to penalize the 14th car should be reversed and acted accordingly.”