Sainz Sanction: What the FIA statement exactly says to justify the invalidation of Ferrari’s appeal

The four track marshals of the Australian Grand Prix were: Nish Shetty, Loïc Bacquelaine.

Enrique Bernoldi and Christopher McMahon.

Press release from the FIA.

The Sports Commissioners of the Australian Grand Prix 2023 have received a letter from Nikolas Tombazis, FIA Single-Seater Director, attaching a request from Scuderia Ferrari dated April 6, 2023, under Article 14 of the FIA International Sporting Code, asking for a review of Sports Commissioners’ decision No. 46 made during the Australian Grand Prix 2023 and asking the Sports Commissioners to “examine this request and determine whether or not there is a new, significant, and relevant element (article 14.3 of the FIA sporting regulations) related to the decision/incident.”

The Sports Commissioners, after much deliberation on the matter, particularly by examining the annexes and available telemetry, have summoned and heard the representatives of the team, namely Laurent Mekies, Fred Vasseur, and Carlos Sainz (Document no. 58), and determine the following:

Decision

There is no significant and relevant new element that was not available to the parties requesting the review at the time of the decision in question. Therefore, the request is denied.

Reason

Our decision that Sainz violated Annex L, Chapter IV, Article 2 d) of the FIA International Sporting Code by causing the collision with Alonso was made during the race (Document n° 46). We have determined that Sainz was fully responsible for the collision.

“We took into account the fact that this collision occurred at the first turn of the first lap of the restart, while, as a convention, the stewards would usually have a more lenient view of incidents.”

However, we have decided that there was enough gap for Sainz to take measures to avoid the collision and he did not. Therefore, we have imposed a 5-second time penalty.

The appeal maintains that there are new important and relevant elements that were not available at the time when our decision was made (and believes that if we had been aware of these elements, we would not have made the same decision).

Three elements have been brought:

a) The telemetric data from Sainz’s car after the second restart (appendix 4).

b) the statement of the ISC witness (appendix 5);

c) The testimonies of other drivers (annexes 6 and 7), which consist of post-race interview transcripts provided by Alonso (annex 6) as well as other drivers (annex 7).

The competitor [Scuderia Ferrari] asserts that there is a precedent and that these questions should be considered as new important and relevant elements. It highlights the decision of the sports commissioners regarding the request from Sahara Force India F1 Team for a right of review, as a precedent for the proposition that a driver’s verbal testimony and telemetry data can constitute a new important and relevant element.

The factual circumstances surrounding the decision of the sports commissioners being studied in this case are very different from those presented here.

The Sahara Force India F1 team’s case involved a post-race decision regarding an incident (in other words, it was not clear to the stewards at the time who was responsible for the collision in question). The driver was not available to attend the hearing as he had been transported to the hospital following the incident. The hearing took place without the team being able to speak with their driver. This occurred after the hearing, and the version provided by the driver shed a different light on the facts that had initially been presented to the stewards.

The particularity here is that our decision was made during the race. We deemed it unnecessary to hear Sainz or any other driver to decide that he was fully responsible for the collision. It is a decision that we, and other Sporting Stewards, regularly make and are encouraged to make, when the cause of the collision is clear and it is necessary for time penalties to be issued as quickly as possible.

Furthermore, and in any case, we also find the following:

Telemetry: Telemetry data (Annex 4) in themselves are not a new significant and relevant element required to determine who was responsible for the collision. The Stewards have access to a considerable amount of telemetry data. We were also able to access this data. The telemetry data presented in the petition is at best ambiguous and, in our opinion, does not exonerate Sainz but actually supported our decision that he was fully responsible for the collision. He claims to have braked harder but was unable to stop the car due to cold tires. He further states that a slow formation lap contributed to tire cooling.

There are two points to consider.

Firstly, even if this is true, the presentation of telemetry indicating its braking point is not a significant new element within the meaning of Art.14.

Secondly, the track and tire conditions were something every competitor had to consider and adapt to. By attempting to brake late during a race, Gasly took the risk that, as a driver, he could lose control of his car. In this case, that risk materialized, resulting in a subsequent collision, which carries a penalty.

2. The written statement from Sainz’s witness (the document itself) is not a new significant and relevant element required to decide who was responsible for the collision. Firstly, if we had believed that this required a statement from Sainz to analyze the event, we would have summoned him after the race. We did not consider it necessary at that time to hear from him to decide on this matter.

His witness statement, in essence, indicates how bad the grip was (we explained why this is not a sufficient excuse above) and how the sun was in his eyes. But logic would suggest that the sun’s position would have also affected other drivers. This is not a justifiable reason to avoid a penalty for the collision. Therefore, the witness statement is not a new element either.

3. The statements from other drivers are not new significant and relevant elements necessary to decide on the incident (none of the statements contained new significant and relevant versions regarding the collision). These statements were all post-race declarations recorded by the drivers to the media. They were presented to corroborate their position that the grip level was low and that the tires were cold.

Once again, although these statements were made after our decision and therefore could not have been present when we made the decision, none of what is said in these comments was significant or actually relevant to our considerations. It also does not meet the requirements of Article 14.

We have therefore rejected the request.