Mclaren's appeal decision!

Press Release
International Court of Appeal - Decision
23/09/2008

At the Grand Prix of Belgium, run on 7 September 2008, and counting towards the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship, the Stewards of the meeting imposed a drive-through penalty upon the driver of car No. 22, Lewis Hamilton, for a breach of Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L, Chapter 4, Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.



As the drive-through penalty was imposed at the end of the race, 25 seconds were added to the driver’s elapsed race time in accordance with Article 16.3 of the FIA 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations.



Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that drive-through penalties are “not susceptible to appeal”.



The competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes appealed the Steward’s decision before the International Court of Appeal in a hearing in Paris on September 22nd.

Having heard the explanations of the parties the Court has concluded that the appeal is inadmissible.



The International Court of Appeal was presided over by Mr Philippe NARMINO (Monaco), elected President, and composed of Mr Xavier CONESA (Spain), Mr Harry DUIJM (Netherlands), Mr Thierry JULLIARD (Switzerland) and Mr Erich SEDELMAYER (Austria).




NOTES FOR EDITORS



Article 16.3 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations provides as follows:



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.



Paragraph 5 of Article 152 of the International Sporting Code provides as follows:



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.

[www.fia.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2008 04:19PM by Rodrigo007.

Took the FIA long enough to decide...

Was never going to be overturned in a million years, regardless of inadmissibility.

What a shock not!!!! Was never gonna get overturned as it would favour Mclaren! And we know how the FIA feel about mclaren. Never mind that kimi cut the track when he overtook lewis on lap 2.

Waste of Mclaren's time and effort. Mclaren and Lewis fans will not see it but they were in the wrong anyhow.

Not surprising, altough I don't think it should be overturned.
However, the rules should be more democratic and allow appeal on this.

---

GPGSL career;
Current team: Team ShadowSubaru, Previous teams: MPR, Minardi
starts:100 Wins: 12, Podiums: 34, Fastest Laps: 14, poles: 12 Points: 708
winner of Belgian GP (s1), Australian GP (s1), Canadian GP (S1), Brazilian GP(s4, s5), Hungarian GP(s3), Italian GP(s3), French GP (s5,s7), Monaco GP (s4) and USA GP

Woo!

Let's continue with the championship!

BAR#10 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not surprising, altough I don't think it should be
> overturned.
> However, the rules should be more democratic and
> allow appeal on this.

Why? We'd have Silverstone '94 situations every other race if that were the case!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2008 05:04PM by gav.

McLaren should appeal against the appeal.

_______________________________________________________________________

It was the right decision not to allow the appeal (the rules say so, after all) but it doesn't change the fact that penalties need to be applied properly in the first place.



RedSam
Winner: Not the Nickv Comment of the Year 2009
Due to the voting system in Germany, Governments are always made up of coalitions of different parties. At the last election, an almost unprecidented result saw the CDU/CSU (rough equivilant of the Conservatives) go into Government with the SPD (rough equivilant of Labour)

How convenient that they managed to avoid discussing the issue of whether Lewis gained an advantage.

I'm not particularly a Lewis fan, but I don't like this decision because it highlights the fact that unelected race stewards can make arbitrary decisions, with no right of appeal, that can change the outcome of a Championship. That just seems utterly wrong to me.

---

K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.

Reading the ruling, I also thought it was funny that there was an appeal about Liuzzi getting a 25 second penalty in Japan last year, but because noone questioned why they were having an appeal, it cannot be counted as a setting of precedent!



RedSam
Winner: Not the Nickv Comment of the Year 2009
Due to the voting system in Germany, Governments are always made up of coalitions of different parties. At the last election, an almost unprecidented result saw the CDU/CSU (rough equivilant of the Conservatives) go into Government with the SPD (rough equivilant of Labour)

mikef1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Waste of Mclaren's time and effort. Mclaren and
> Lewis fans will not see it but they were in the
> wrong anyhow.


QFT!

---

RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael

Complete farce. Ridiculous penalty in the first place, and they have now completely bottled it by not even ruling over the penalty. In future, they should just drop the championship trophy round at Maranello before the season even gets underway.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Locke Cole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How convenient that they managed to avoid
> discussing the issue of whether Lewis gained an
> advantage.
>
> I'm not particularly a Lewis fan, but I don't like
> this decision because it highlights the fact that
> unelected race stewards can make arbitrary
> decisions, with no right of appeal, that can
> change the outcome of a Championship. That just
> seems utterly wrong to me.


From the first post, which is from the item distributed to the media:

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.


They didn't really have a choice under that rule.

---

Everyone knows that million-to-one chances happen 9 times out of 10; indeed, it's a common requirement in fairy tales. If the human didn't have to overcome huge odds, what would be the point? Terry Pratchett - The Science Of Discworld

GPGSL S5 Race driver for IED.

FRESCO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Complete farce. Ridiculous penalty in the first
> place, and they have now completely bottled it by
> not even ruling over the penalty. In future, they
> should just drop the championship trophy round at
> Maranello before the season even gets underway.


The only farce here are the people that are refusing to open thier eyes and admit that the penalty was indeed needed,

FRESCO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Complete farce. Ridiculous penalty in the first
> place, and they have now completely bottled it by
> not even ruling over the penalty. In future, they
> should just drop the championship trophy round at
> Maranello before the season even gets underway.


It would have been a farce if they had overruled it as that is against the rules. And the penalty was deserved anyway. TBH it was farcical for McLaren to even appeal when it was clear they were in the wrong.

---

no it wasn't, lewis did what was required of him in the rules, to relinquish the advantage back to kimi. He did. That is the black and white. Yes, he stretched it as far as possible and pushed his luck alot with the move into the very next corner.

What tickles me is that it took them 2 days to find the technicality to throw it out. And still now, there's this situation regarding Fuji last year and a precedent. Its another political mess.

---

SexySam182 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FRESCO Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Complete farce. Ridiculous penalty in the first
> > place, and they have now completely bottled it
> by
> > not even ruling over the penalty. In future,
> they
> > should just drop the championship trophy round
> at
> > Maranello before the season even gets underway.
>
>
> It would have been a farce if they had overruled
> it as that is against the rules.


lol, didnt stop them 'finding' a rule in 99 about tolerances did it?

reading that one things comes to mind, the rules need updating. how a drive through and a 10s stop go can equal the same amount in teh last 5laps is beyond me

Sim

---

All Hail The New York Giants - Winners of Superbowl XXI, XXV and XLII!

"I'd love to know what goes on in that crazy head of yours sometimes, Sim..." - Locke Cole

¨McLaren was ordered to pay court costs.¨

damn... that must´ve hurt

LOL

Lewis Hamilton was right, the 'truth' would decide the appeal, and it did!