Gasly's Monaco podium reinstated after successful Right of Review

Alpine requested a Right of Review from F1’s governing body, the FIA, following the Monaco Grand Prix, where Gasly fell out of the podium positions due to a pair of pit lane speeding penalties.

Gasly, who had progressed from ninth on the grid to fourth, which became third when Mercedes' George Russell was hit with a similar penalty late in the race.

However, when Gasly's, now redacted penalty, was applied, that demoted him and promoted Red Bull's Isack Hadjar to the third place on the podium. Gasly said it was the hardest day of his F1 career.

Gasly's reinstatement means Hadjar now misses out on his first podium in F1 and demotes him to fourth place. It now leaves an open question as to how other team's will proceed following Alpine's successful appeal.

An Alpine statement said: "We welcome the decision made by the FIA to deem our Right of Review as admissible following the final classification of last weekend’s Monaco Grand Prix.

"As a result, the Stewards have rescinded the two five-second penalties imposed on Car #10, which reinstates the team’s third place finish. We would like to thank the FIA and Formula One Management for its transparency and co-operation throughout the Right of Review process and for reaching this decision.

"The team’s focus is now very much on this weekend’s Barcelona-Catalunya Grand Prix and striving for the best possible result with both of its cars."

38. Critical to the background of the Stewards’ conclusion is the wording of the formula referred to in the Official Timing Report, where reference is made (ref Point 21 above) to “the measured minimum distance between the loops”. In this case, there is merit in Alpine’s assertion that this should be the figure of 2615 cm as measured by the Official Timekeeper.

39. The Stewards also conclude that the revised barrier layout at the entry to the pit lane may have enabled drivers to take a different trajectory to that used in previous years.

40. The Stewards have sympathy for the argument that many other cars were not reported for exceeding the speed limit, however these two Right of Review petitions relate only to the two penalties that were imposed on the driver of Car 10 for allegedly exceeding the pit lane speed limit.

41. The Stewards note the wording of Article B1.6.3a of the F1 Regulations which specifically refers to a “speed limit” but contains no caveat that this limit is solely determined by the Official Timekeeping process. We contrast this to (for example) B5.11.1 where reference is made to a specific method of determining a false start breach. The pit lane speeding regulation does not say that the pit lane speed limit is 60 km/h “as determined by the Official Timekeeping System process”. Therefore, the simple question to be answered by us is “did Car 10 exceed the speed limit of 60 km/h?”

42. The Stewards note that in relation to other cars that were penalised, some served their penalty and this regrettably, impacted their race strategies and therefore their race result. There will undoubtedly remain questions as to whether those breaches were genuine. There is no regulation that gives the Stewards the power to “undo” a served penalty. In any case, it is impossible to imagine how such power could be applied. Notably, no other party petitioned for a Right of Review within the allowable time frame.

43. In this case, following the acceptance of the petition, the finding of its admissibility and compliance with Article 14.1.1 of the ISC, the Stewards’ sole task is to determine if Car 10 exceeded the speed limit of 60 km/h in the pit lane. We determine that it did not.

44. It is to be noted that within the FIA (based on the practices and findings of the FIA International Court of Appeal) there is a certain level of “proof” that is required to make a judicial determination. That level is referred to as “comfortable satisfaction” (which means “a strong and clear conviction”). Within most judicial systems, the lowest level of proof required is that of “balance of probability” which essentially means “more than likely” (greater than 50%). The highest level (usually required in criminal cases) is “Beyond reasonable doubt” (almost absolute certainty).

45. In this case, the Stewards unanimously make their determinations with the required level of comfortable satisfaction, however the evidence, in our view, approaches that of beyond reasonable doubt.

DECISION 1

46. In relation to the penalty applied to Car 10 in Document 73, we determine that:
a. The penalty be rescinded.
b. The 5 seconds added to the elapsed race time of Car 10 shall be removed.
c. The classification shall be amended accordingly and determined as Final subject only to any appeal (see below).

DECISION 2

47. In relation to the penalty applied to Car 10 in Document 75 we determine that:
a. The penalty be rescinded.
b. The 5 seconds added to the elapsed race time of Car 10 shall be removed.
c. The classification shall be amended accordingly and determined as Final subject only to any appeal (see below).

DECISION 3

48. That based on Decisions 1 and 2 above, the Drivers’ and Constructors’ Championship points shall be recalculated accordingly.

DECISION 4

49. As the Right of Review has been upheld and the original decisions have been revised, the deposits paid by the Competitor in relation to both petitions for review shall be returned pursuant to Article 14.4.3 of the FIA International Sporting Code
Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code.