Alpine overcome first FIA hurdle in controversial penalty review

Decision 1: The petition of review in relation to the first petition is admissible.

Decision 2: The petition of review in relation to the second petition is admissible.

Decisions 1 and 2 are subject to appeal.

Decision 3: There is a significant and relevant new element which was unavailable to the Stewards at the time of the decision in Document 73, no hearing having been conducted at the time.

Decision 4: There is a significant and relevant new element which was unavailable to the Stewards at the time of the decision in Document 75, no hearing having been conducted at the time.

Reasons (which apply to both Decisions 3 and 4):

1. Significance

In its written submission, Alpine argued that there were four matters which demonstrated the “significance” of the element, namely:

a. That the FIA and FOM, but not the Race Stewards, were aware in advance of the race that there was an issue with the timing loops in the pit lane

b. That Alpine had data that demonstrated that the driver of Car 10 (Pierre Gasly) activated the pin lane speed limiter in advance of entry into the pit lane and did not exceed the pit lane speed limit

c. A witness statement from Pierre Gasly that he took a cautious approach before entering the pit lane having been warned by his engineers

d. FOM, as Official Timekeeping Supplier to the Competition, provided evidence that the distance used in calculating the F1 Official Timing (and hence the pit lane speed) was inaccurate and overestimated the speed of Car 10

The Stewards determine that item d. above is sufficient on its own to meet the required standard of “significant”.

[It is NOTED that the FIA and FOM representatives strongly refuted the assertion in “Significance” point 1a, that they had advance awareness of the issue with the timing loops in pit lane. The Stewards also NOTED that they became concerned after the third alleged speeding breach was reported to them by the Official Timekeeper, and at that time, asked Race Control if it was aware of any issue or irregularity with the system. Race Control reported back that it raised the matter with the Official Timekeeper and was reassured that there were no issues.]

2. Relevance

In its written submission, Alpine argued that the new element was relevant in that it directly related to the speed of Car 10 in the Pit Lane.

The Stewards determine that this meets the standard of “relevant”.

3. New Element

The information concerning the inaccurate distance measurement was provided by FOM on Wednesday, June 10; therefore, was “new” and unavailable to the Stewards at the time of the two decisions referred to in Documents 73 and 75 (June 7).

Conclusion: Both the first and second petitions meet the required standards for a Right of Review in accordance with Article 14.1.1 of the FIA International Sporting Code.

Accordingly, Part 2 of the Hearing will be conducted into both matters referred to in Documents 73 and 75 [the original penalty decision documents from after the Monaco Grand Prix].

With the agreement of the parties, both Hearings will be conducted concurrently...

Decisions 3 and 4 are not subject to appeal.