FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[EwanM]

The full judgement from the ICA

Tuesday, September 23rd 2008, 14:32 GMT


FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L'AUTOMOBILE CASE:

Appeal lodged by the Motor Sports Association (MSA) on behalf of its licence-holder Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, against Decision N° 49 taken by the Panel of Stewards on 7 September 2008 at the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, an event run on 7 September 2008 and counting towards the 2008 Formula One World Championship

Hearing of Monday 22 September 2008 in Paris

The FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL ("the Court"), comprised of Mr Philippe NARMINO (Monaco), who was elected President, Mr Harry DUIJM (Netherlands), Mr Erich SEDELMAYER (Austria), Mr Xavier CONESA (Spain) and Mr Thierry JULLIARD (Switzerland), met in Paris on Monday 22 September 2008 at the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, 8 place de la Concorde, 75008 Paris.

The Court, ruling on the appeal submitted by the Motor Sports Association (MSA) on behalf of its licence-holder Vodafone McLaren Mercedes ("McLaren") against Decision N° 49 taken by the Panel of Stewards on 7 September 2008 at the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, run on 7 September 2008 and counting towards the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship, heard presentations and considered arguments presented by the MSA/Vodafone McLaren Mercedes and by the Fédération Internationale Automobile (“FIA”).

The Commissione Sportiva Automobilista Italiana (CSAI) notified the Court on 12 September 2008 of the request of its licence-holder Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro (“Ferrari”) to be heard in the present case in accordance with article 21 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal. The Court therefore heard the presentations and considered the arguments presented by Ferrari.

Attending the above hearing were:

MSA: Robert Jones (Secretary General)

for Vodafone McLaren Mercedes:

Mark Philips QC (Lawyer)
Lewis Hamilton (Driver)
Philip Prew (Race Engineer)
Martin Whitmarsh (Chief Executive)
Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton)
Tim Murnane (Legal representative)
Matt Bishop (McLaren)
David Ryan (Team Manager)
Tom Cassels (Legal representative for McLaren)
Ben Allgrove (Legal representative for McLaren)

for Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro:

Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer)
Stefano Domenicali (Team Principal)
Luca Baldisserri (Team Manager)
Massimiliano Maestretti (General Counsel)
Andrea Fioravanti (Legal representative)
Henry Peter (Legal representative)

for the FIA:

Mr Paul Harris (Lawyer)
Mr Pierre de Coninck (Secretary General FIA Sport, on behalf of FIA Sport)
Mr Sébastien Bernard (Head of Legal Department)
Mr Charlie Whiting (Race Director)

The parties presented oral arguments at the hearing. The witnesses or knowledgeable parties answered questions put to them by the parties and by the Court. The hearing took place in accordance with the applicable rules, with the aid of simultaneous translation; no objection to any element of the simultaneous translation was raised by anyone. During the discussions, the adversarial principle was respected.

Reminder of the facts

1. This case concerns the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, an event that was run at Spa Francorchamps (Belgium) on 7 September 2008, counting towards the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship (“the event”).

2. On lap 42 of the event, the car belonging to the Ferrari team, driven by Mr Kimi Räikkönen, was leading the race at turn 18. The car belonging to the McLaren team, driven by Mr Lewis Hamilton, drew level with Mr Räikkönen's car on the approach to turn 19, cut the chicane and took the slip road. Mr Hamilton thus found himself in the lead, in front of Mr Räikkönen's car, at the exit from turn 19. On rejoining the track, Mr Hamilton allowed Mr Räikkönen to overtake him in order to cede back the latter's place. Immediately afterwards, Mr Hamilton carried out another overtaking manoeuvre at turn 1 (La Source) and again overtook Mr Räikkönen. Mr Hamilton finished the event in the lead.

3. In its decision N° 49 (the “contested decision”), taken on 7 September 2008, the Panel of Stewards considered that Mr Hamilton had not sufficiently ceded back the advantage he had gained by cutting the chicane, and had thus breached Article 30.3.a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations and article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code. On the basis of Article 16.3.a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations, the Panel imposed a drive-through penalty on Mr Hamilton. Article 30.3.a) of those regulations stipulates that “during practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits”. Article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code states that “the race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race”. As the penalty was to be applied at the end of the race, the Panel of Stewards added 25 seconds to the driver's race time, in accordance with the provisions of Article 16.3, final paragraph.

Procedure and forms of order sought by the parties

4. McLaren lodged the present appeal with the Court Secretariat on 9 September
2008.

5. McLaren claims that the Court should:

- declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

- annul the contested decision.

6. The FIA, in its submission of 19 September 2008, claims that the Court should:

– declare the appeal inadmissible pursuant to Article 152 of the International
Sporting Code;

– if the appeal is admissible, dismiss the appeal as unfounded and confirm the
contested decision in its entirety.

7. Ferrari, as an intervening party, claims that the Court should:
– declare the appeal inadmissible;

– if the appeal is admissible, confirm the contested decision in its entirety.

Arguments presented by the parties

McLaren

8. Concerning admissibility, McLaren points out in its submission that according to Article 152, three types of penalty are not susceptible to appeal: (i) drivethrough penalties; (ii) stop-and-go penalties; and (iii) penalties expressly specified in FIA Championship regulations. McLaren claims that, as the penalty imposed in this case consists of adding 25 seconds to the race time, it does not fall into any of those three categories and that, consequently, it does fall within the scope of the restriction upon the right of appeal under Article 152.

9. On the substance, McLaren claims that while Mr Hamilton did indeed cut the chicane, he gained no advantage from this, since immediately upon taking the lead of the race he allowed Mr Räikkönen to pass him and retake first place. McLaren considers that since its driver and its car were faster, Mr Hamilton was able to overtake his rival again properly, without in any way using all or part of the advantage he had obtained by cutting the chicane.

FIA

10. Concerning admissibility, the FIA claims that in the contested decision, the Stewards clearly indicated that the penalty imposed was a drive-through penalty. In accordance with Article 152, this type of penalty is not susceptible to appeal. The fact that the penalty came into effect at the end of the race and thus took the form of an addition of 25 seconds to the race time does nothing to change the nature of the penalty.

11. On the substance, the FIA considers that the decision taken by the Stewards is not to be criticised, since Mr Hamilton incontestably gained an advantage by leaving the track. The FIA considers that while this advantage was ceded back to Mr Räikkönen, it was only partially so, and that it had not been ceded back in its entirety.

Ferrari

12. Regarding admissibility, Ferrari also claim that the penalty imposed in the present case constitutes a drive-through penalty, which is not susceptible to appeal pursuant to Article 152.

13. Concerning the substance of the case, Ferrari considers that the Stewards' decision was justified, and claims that Mr Hamilton would not have been able to overtake Mr Räikkönen if he had not gained an advantage from the disputed manoeuvre undertaken at the chicane.

Decision of the Court

Regularity of the appeal

14. Ferrari raised the question of whether or not the appeal submitted against the contested decision had been notified within the time limits stipulated in the Rules of the Court. McLaren claim that the appeal was indeed submitted within the given time limit.

Nothing in the dossiers submitted to the Court establishes that the appeal was not lodged properly, and in particular that the appeal time limits were not respected. The documents produced suggest, on the contrary, that the time limits were observed. It follows that the appeal must be declared properly formed.

Competence of the competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes

15. The competitor Ferrari, having claimed that only Lewis Hamilton was penalised by the Stewards’ decision, and having observed that the driver concerned had not appealed, deduced that McLaren could not appeal. However, it must be noted that, with regard to this decision, the Stewards did indeed record a breach of the rules committed by “the competitor named below’, which referred expressly to the “competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes”.

16. In these conditions, it is clear that this competitor was sanctioned, even if the penalty of 25 seconds was added to the race time of the driver Hamilton. 17. It follows that McLaren, through its ASN, is competent to submit the appeal that is now before the Court.

Admissibility of the appeal

18. Article 16.3 of the Formula One Sporting Regulations stipulates that: “The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident:

a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping.

b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.

c) A drop of ten grid positions at the driver’s next Event.

However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.”

19. Furthermore, Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that:
“Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties
specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not
susceptible to appeal. ”

20. The above-mentioned decision of 7 September 2008 demonstrates that the Stewards, after having noted that the driver Lewis Hamilton “cut the chicane and gained an advantage”, considered that an infringement of Article 30.3a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations and of Article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code had been committed. As a consequence, they decided to pronounce the following penalty: “drive-through penalty (Article 16.3(a)), since this is being applied at the end of the Race, 25 seconds will be added to the driver’s elapsed race time”.

21. The foregoing demonstrates that the Panel of Stewards intended to impose a drive-through penalty within the meaning of Article 16.3.a) of the Sporting Regulations. In applying Article 16.3, final paragraph of those Regulations, they added 25 seconds to the elapsed time of the driver concerned.

22. The provisions of Article 16.3 must be read in their entirety, as the three points a), b) and c) and the last paragraph of this Article are manifestly linked. There is no indication that one is allowed to confer an autonomous character to the last paragraph of this provision. On the contrary, this paragraph sets out a specific mode of execution of penalties a) and b) and aims to determine the implementation of these sanctions when they must be imposed during the last five laps of the race or after the end of the race.

23. It is with this in mind that the Panel issued its decision, as the penalty that it expressly imposed on the competitor is indeed a drive-through penalty pursuant to Article 16.3.a).

24. Therefore, the nature of the penalty mentioned in the last paragraph of Article 16.3 (addition of 25 seconds to the elapsed time) is identical to those mentioned in points a) and b). Its legal regime must for that reason be in line with the regime applicable to the sanctions foreseen under a) and b).

The Court therefore considers that the penalty imposed by the Stewards on 7 September 2008 must be considered to be a drive-through penalty.

25. As a consequence, this sanction falls within the scope of Article 152, paragraph 5, of the International Sporting Code. According to these provisions, “penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal”.

26. The above must thus be taken into account in the present matter by declaring inadmissible the appeal against the contested decision.

27. The Court, in a judgment of 12 October 2007 rendered in the Toro Rosso case concerning the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix (driver Vitantonio Liuzzi), concluded, in similar circumstances, that the appeal against a decision to impose a 25- second penalty was admissible. However, none of the parties concerned had raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case, the FIA for its part leaving the matter to the sovereign appreciation of the Court. Therefore, the Court was able, in the conclusion of its decision, to declare the appeal admissible, but it did not give reasons for its decision on the issue, as the question was not debated. Consequently that judgment does not present itself as settled law with respect to this question and does not bind the Court in the present case.

On the substance

28. In view of the foregoing, it follows that there is no need to examine the substance of the appeal submitted by McLaren.

On those grounds,

THE FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL

Hereby:

1. Declares the appeal inadmissible;

2. Orders the Appellant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 24 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal.


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70793

[bud]

27. The Court, in a judgment of 12 October 2007 rendered in the Toro Rosso case concerning the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix (driver Vitantonio Liuzzi), concluded, in similar circumstances, that the appeal against a decision to impose a 25- second penalty was admissible. However, none of the parties concerned had raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case, the FIA for its part leaving the matter to the sovereign appreciation of the Court. Therefore, the Court was able, in the conclusion of its decision, to declare the appeal admissible, but it did not give reasons for its decision on the issue, as the question was not debated. Consequently that judgment does not present itself as settled law with respect to this question and does not bind the Court in the present case.

ahh so because Ferrari stuck their nose in its inadmisible!
Typical of Ferrari

Ok, let's put this behind us...and watch some nice seasonfinal !

yeah easy for a Ferrari fan to say how about some nice court room decisions winning you titles?? Ferrari LOVE IT

im sick of this s***! adios amigo's!!

ive lost the passion for F1 bye!!

[juggles]

not surprised. what a disgrace

[sprinter]

It's all B.S. I'm not a Mc Laren fan but, because of all this drama and BIAS thing, I will include Mc Laren team in my prayer to win this year. I am so upset with the decision. Now, Hamilton is PISSED......

[8-ball]

27. The Court, in a judgment of 12 October 2007 rendered in the Toro Rosso case concerning the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix (driver Vitantonio Liuzzi), concluded, in similar circumstances, that the appeal against a decision to impose a 25- second penalty was admissible. However, none of the parties concerned had raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case, the FIA for its part leaving the matter to the sovereign appreciation of the Court. Therefore, the Court was able, in the conclusion of its decision, to declare the appeal admissible, but it did not give reasons for its decision on the issue, as the question was not debated. Consequently that judgment does not present itself as settled law with respect to this question and does not bind the Court in the present case.

ahh so because Ferrari stuck their nose in its inadmisible!
Typical of Ferrari

Ok, let's put this behind us...and watch some nice seasonfinal !

yeah easy for a Ferrari fan to say how about some nice court room decisions winning you titles?? Ferrari LOVE IT

im sick of this s***! adios amigo's!!

ive lost the passion for F1 bye!!

Does that mean you won't be inflicting your presence on this forum anymore?

For me there is no point starting another rant about how the FIA is biased for Ferrari cause we have heard it all before. Mclaren should just move on and stick it to both Ferrari and the FIA by winning the title

[f1ea]

THE FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL
Hereby:
1. Declares the appeal inadmissible;

I more or less thought this would happen. Not the best situation for F1, but definitely not the witch hunt Mclaren people want to bring about... To be honest there have been many controversial situations regarding Lewis and Mclaren, so the burden should not hang solely on the FIA. As much as the way the penalty was given may have been arguable, the conditions that led to it were arguable as well... all in all it was not the clearest penalty ever given, but also the conditions and driving procedures that led to it were not the cleanest either. Take for example the way Nick Heidfeld and Alonso make their passes... they are ussualy VERY clean.

[f1maniac95]

This decision is absalutely stupid and biased I to am losing my passion for F1 because of the way it is being run at the moment.

[stonemonkey]

If Mclaren won their case the FIA would have to admit they were wrong in the first place, if they lost the FIA would be seen to be bias. The A*seholes took the easy option of not having to make any decision. The penalty stands whether it was justified or not!

How the F*** are the teams and drivers supposed to know what they can and can't do if the governing body behaves like this?

[texasmr2]

It is simply pathetic I agree. Man I wish this was the '09 season so we might actually know if Max was going to abide by his word and step down.

My condolences to the McLaren camp .

[Denthúl]

You're probably going to throw s*** at me for this, but...

The actual verdict (i.e. that if it being inadmissable) is technically the correct one. However, now we'll never know what the outcome would have been had the appeal gone ahead and I'm still disappointed because the penalty was way too harsh in the first place. It would have been nice for them to have released information regarding that, though I guess it was far better for them not to in some ways. o.o

In the interest of the sport, the appeal should have been deemed as admissable and overturned. In the interest of how the sport is handled, it should have gone as it did. Which makes for another debate that we shall not go in to here.

And today started off so well...

[texasmr2]

Technically I think it is wrong for the simple reason that the FIA did not make it clear at the beginning of the season about when it is deemed appropraite for said driver to re-attack for the lead.

I know what your trying to say but we the F1 fans would not be in such turmoil and at each other's throat's if the FIA had done their job correctly.

Anyway it's now over, atleast for the time being, so I'm getting ready for the last 4 race's which should be awesome!!

[Denthúl]

Technically I think it is wrong for the simple reason that the FIA did not make it clear at the beginning of the season about when it is deemed appropraite for said driver to re-attack for the lead.

I know what your trying to say but we the F1 fans would not be in such turmoil and at each other's throat's if the FIA had done their job correctly.

Anyway it's now over, atleast for the time being, so I'm getting ready for the last 4 race's which should be awesome!!

I meant the fact that the appeal was deemed inadmissable, seeing as it was a drive-through in effect. I fully agree that it was wrong to impose such a penalty - a grid drop would have had people far less angered by it. The FIA should now bring in to place a policy which means that, except for exceptional circumstances, any penalty imposed after the end of a race cannot affect the outcome of that race.

Edit: A very interesting article on the whole matter.

No-one in Formula One will be surprised at the decision to uphold the penalty that deprived Lewis Hamilton of victory in the Belgian Grand Prix - but that does not mean it was the right one.

The decision to reject McLaren's appeal leaves the world championship finely poised, with the McLaren driver just a point ahead of Ferrari's Felipe Massa with four races to go ahead of this weekend's inaugural night race in Singapore.

That is great for those wanting the title fight to go to the wire but less so for those more concerned about the championship's integrity.

Many will believe that if Hamilton loses the title by less than the six-point swing that was a result of his penalty at Spa, then the wrong man will be champion.

DID HAMILTON COMMIT AN OFFENCE?

Hamilton was outspoken during Monday's appeal court hearing in his belief that he had done nothing wrong.

He said he was within his rights to go off the track at Spa's Bus Stop chicane in his battle with Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen and that he gave back any advantage earned before re-passing the world champion.

Both are debatable points.
Hamilton contends that he cut the chicane to avoid a collision with Raikkonen, and that the Finn could have given him more room.

Interestingly, in evidence before the court of appeal, Hamilton said something he had not before in claiming that their wheels were interlocked and that had he braked the Ferrari's rear wheel would have broken his front suspension.

Regardless, many of his fellow F1 drivers think Hamilton did have options.

They believe Hamilton could have chosen to drop back behind Raikkonen rather than go completely off the track on the inside - indeed that had there been a wall or barrier there instead of a run-off area, he would have done, or not even tried the move in the first place.

As for Raikkonen giving him more room, why should he have?

He was ahead by half a car's length and on the racing line as he turned in to the second part of the Bus Stop. It was his corner. In those circumstances it was up to Hamilton to sort himself out.

And, if there was a barrier there, and Hamilton had not pulled out of the move, the chances are they would have collided, with a high probability of Hamilton being blamed for taking both of them out of the race.

It is hard to imagine Hamilton, who is as hard a racer as they come, acting any differently had the roles been reversed. He certainly didn't give Red Bull's Mark Webber much leeway as they fought over seventh place in Italy nine days ago.

The main reason for the replacement of barriers with run-off areas is safety - although there is the happy by-product of giving drivers in touch-and-go situations more options to get themselves out of them and stay in the race.

But the drivers have to buy into the bargain, too. The rule saying it is illegal to gain an advantage by running off the track is there to stop drivers taking the mickey by exploiting the run-off areas.

Once Hamilton had committed to his move, had he not used the run-off area, and instead braked and followed Raikkonen through the chicane, it is extremely unlikely he would have been close enough to pass the Ferrari into the next corner.

That is why the Belgian GP stewards decided he had not sufficiently surrendered his advantage.

WAS THE PENALTY FAIR?

Whether Hamilton deserved to lose the race as a result of his minor transgression is a wholly different question from whether he committed an offence by a strict interpretation of the rules.

While most F1 drivers agree that he did not fully surrender his advantage, they are equally united in the belief that to lose the race as a result of it was harsh.

The problem most people have with this decision was that it was so transparently unfair.

Hamilton was almost certainly going to win the race anyway. In the slippery conditions, his McLaren's grip advantage over the Ferraris was too big for him not to.

Raikkonen's crash not long after his brush with Hamilton and Massa's snail-like pace on the final lap of the race are proof of that.

And Massa, who inherited the victory, was never a contender all afternoon.

According to a strict application of the rules, the stewards at Spa had no choice but to penalise Hamilton.

The penalty for what he did is to drive through the pits, where there is a speed limit, without stopping. Or - if it happens in the last five laps of the race - for 25 seconds to be added to his race time.

But in practice this rule is rarely invoked.

What normally happens in these situations is that the driver who benefits from cutting the corner subsequently allows the guy he passed to overtake him, although there is usually some discussion with race control first.

However, in Spa, there was no time for that.

McLaren knew the move was open to interpretation, and therefore a possible penalty - or they would not have asked race director Charlie Whiting for his opinion about it. Whiting told them he thought it was OK.

But Whiting's opinion is just that - he has no power over the stewards, even if traditionally these situations have been sorted out between the team and race control.

Nevertheless, if McLaren were concerned Hamilton could get a penalty - and given the level of paranoia at the team about the motives of the FIA, world motorsport's governing body - they should have intervened, asked Hamilton to let Raikkonen back past again and then let them carry on.

This was surely a time for flexibility in the application of the rules - just as had been the case when Ferrari illegally released Massa from the pits into the path of another car at the previous race in Valencia.

The normal penalty for that is also a drive-through. But the Valencia stewards decided the incident had not affected the result of the race, and Ferrari were let off with a fine.

The decision was widely applauded as a rare example of the stewards using their common sense - a bit of which would have gone down well when it came to discussing Hamilton's misdemeanour.

But the lack of consistency that so angers F1 teams about race stewards was on display several times at Spa.

Firstly, in one of the GP2 races, title contender Bruno Senna was given a drive-through for an incident remarkable in its similarity to Massa's in Valencia.

And in the Grand Prix, Raikkonen three times ran off the track, arguably gaining an advantage each time, and not one of the incidents was even scrutinised.

THE FUTURE

F1 needs a clear rule defining what it acceptable when a driver involved in a close battle passes his opponent as a result of going off the track.

At the Italian Grand Prix, a consensus was emerging that drivers would have to give the place back and not be allowed to overtake at the succeeding corner.

That at least provides clarity but it should be enshrined in the rules - after all, it was an attempt to act on a precedent rather than a clearly defined rule that got Hamilton into all this trouble in the first place.

There is also the issue of the FIA's perceived bias in favour of Ferrari.

FIA president Max Mosley rejected those claims in meetings with the press at Monza, dismissing them as "nonsensical", and saying the sport could not survive if they were true.

Nevertheless, the number of incidents in which rulings have come down either for Ferrari or against their opponents in recent years - and the climate of fear that pervades F1 when it comes to criticising the FIA - makes it easy to see how such feelings have taken root.

The Spa controversy was just the latest in a large catalogue of those.

And for the sake of its own credibility and that of F1, the FIA needs to find some way of changing those perceptions.

[texasmr2]

Excellent post and info, many thanks!

[scotty]

The thing that bugs me is the fact that a drive through apparently costs you 25 seconds on the track. It just doesn't.

Also, i can't believe some people actually voted 'yes', as if McLaren ever stood a chance on this one...

[Hanwombat]

I come online and what do I see

REJECTED!!!!!!!!!!



F***ing Arsehole Association