Fernando Alonso and the FIA do not share the same perspective.
Fresh from declaring “nationality matters” with the FIA stewards, Fernando Alonso and Aston Martin had their right to review the Spaniard’s Chinese Grand Prix penalty rejected.
Alonso received a 10-second penalty two weeks ago for colliding with Carlos Sainz during the Sprint race, although it had no impact as he had already retired.
Chinese GP stewards have rejected Aston Martin’s right to review
In less than a month, he accumulated six penalty points on his Super Licence, including three additional points recently. Any driver who amasses a total of 12 penalty points within a 12-month rolling period will be automatically suspended from one race.
Claiming the stewards were being “tough” on the Aston Martin team-mates, team boss Mike Krack told the media after the Chinese GP: “You feel at that point that is not fair.
“First, we had the incident involving Alonso in yesterday’s Sprint race. Then, today we witnessed another incident where individuals were pushing a car off at Turn 6, but no action was taken. Additionally, there was the situation where both Ferraris were pushing each other without leaving any gap, yet no action was taken. In contrast, Fernando was penalized immediately with a 10-second penalty.”
Asked if his drivers were ‘easy targets’, he replied: “It’s interesting you asking because it shows that you seem to have that kind of feeling as well.”
On Friday morning in Miami, Aston Martin requested a right to review, which was heard by the stewards. The team had the responsibility to present substantial, pertinent, and fresh evidence during the process.
The stewards determined that Aston Martin did not satisfy the criteria because although they provided new footage, it was deemed insignificant.
Aston Martin’s right to review was denied by them.
According to the stewards, a supposedly new element that was brought forward was a video footage of car 14 captured from a forward-facing perspective. Aston Martin and the stewards did not have access to this footage during the initial decision-making process. The footage was downloaded by F1 after the sprint session.
Despite having access to different camera angles, the stewards lacked this specific footage of the incident.
Aston Martin, in its written submission for the review, proposed that the updated camera angle revealed the incident as a racing event rather than a situation warranting penalties for their driver.
The statement further clarified that, despite not having this footage when our decision was made, we did not deem it as a “significant” new factor.
“The new footage did not have the potential to make us second-guess our decision or provide us with any additional perspective on the incident that we didn’t already possess.”
“We had ample footage from additional camera angles that provided us with a distinct foundation for making decisions.”
PlanetF1.com recommends
Follow PlanetF1.com’s WhatsApp channel for all the F1 breaking news!
F1 penalty points: Kevin Magnussen joins top of growing list near race ban threshold
The stewards’ decision in full
Petition for the Right of Review
The stewards were presented with a petition from Aston Martin Aramco F1 Team (“Aston Martin”) on April 23, 2024. Aston Martin requested a Right of Review as stipulated in Article 14 of the FIA International Sporting Code (“the Code”).
The request pertains to the stewards’ decisions mentioned in documents 40 (regarding the violation of Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2d by car 14) of the FIA International Sporting Code (“ALO Decision”) and number 41 (Final Sprint Classification) of the 2024 Chinese Grand Prix.
On May 3rd, 2024, a hearing was scheduled for 0800hrs EST, and the relevant parties were summoned, identified by document numbers 78 to 79.
The hearing was carried out by the stewards of the Chinese Grand Prix.
5. Attending the hearing were:
On behalf of Aston Martin – Messrs. Mike Krack and Andy Stevenson
On behalf of Scuderia Ferrari (“Ferrari”) – Mr Diego Loverno
On behalf of the FIA – Messrs Nikolas Tombazis and Tim Malyon
The purpose of this hearing was to decide, based on the stewards’ exclusive authority (as mentioned in Article 14.3 of the Code), whether “a substantial and pertinent new factor is found that was not accessible to the parties seeking the reconsideration when the decision in question was made.”
7. Therefore, the stewards were required to determine if any evidence presented to them was:
a. “significant”;
b. “relevant”;
c. “new”; and
d. “unavailable” to the party seeking the review at the time of the original decision.
The stewards would need to convene a further hearing to reconsider their original decision only if the criteria is met.
The Test under Article 14.1.1
Previous requests to exercise the right of review have consistently adhered to the high standards set by Article 14.1.1 regarding the scrutiny of Stewards’ decisions.
Alleged New Element
The new element that was claimed as evidence consisted of a video recording showing the front view of car 14. Aston Martin and the stewards did not have access to this footage during the original decision-making process. It was only obtained by F1 after the sprint session concluded.
11. Although the Stewards possessed additional footage of the incident captured from different camera angles, they lacked this particular footage.
Aston Martin’s written submission for the review suggested that the new camera angle revealed the incident in question to be a racing incident, rather than one deserving penalty for their driver.
13. They contended, among other things, that:
a. The new footage was “significant” because it showed “more clearly than any other evidence considered by the stewards and/or the parties to date, that car 14 was in a position of the incident which entitled it to be given room whilst attempting to overtake on the inside of turn nine pursuant to the Guidelines”;
b. The new footage was “relevant” as it showed for the first time the entirety of the incident; and
c. The new footage was “new” as it was not available during the hearing.
During the hearing, Aston Martin stuck to the aforementioned points and aimed to persuade us that this met the requirements specified in Article 14.
Our Decision
Despite the fact that the footage was previously unseen during the hearing, there were enough videos from different camera angles to provide us with a solid foundation for making decisions in Documents 40 and 41.
The footage, being directly related to the incident in question, would also be considered “relevant”.
Despite not having this footage when we made our decision, we deemed it insignificant and unlikely to alter our perspective or raise doubts about our initial determination of the incident.
18. While it showed the incident from a different angle, it added nothing material to the visual perspective that we already had.
19. We accordingly dismissed the petition for review, without the need for us to proceed to the second stage of the review.
Competitors should be aware that as per Article 14.3 of the Code, this decision cannot be appealed. Stewards’ decisions are made autonomously from the FIA and rely solely on the applicable regulations, guidelines, and presented evidence.
Read next: ‘He’s not Spanish’ – Fernando Alonso takes latest FIA swipe after Lewis Hamilton collision in Miami
