McLaren Team Principal Andrea Stella has branded accusations made by Flavio Briatore as “quite insulting” as fallout following the reapplication of Pierre Gasly’s Monaco penalty stirred up tensions during a press conference.
Ahead of the Formula 1 Italian GP, the FIA Court of Appeal decided to overturn its decision to remove Gasly’s 10-second penalty from the Monaco GP earlier this year following an appeal from McLaren and Red Bull.
Alpine had initially won a right of review after Gasly, along with four other drivers, had been judged to have breached the pitlane speed limit, after which the team discovered the pitlane measurement was out by 77cm.
Stella: Briatore’s bias accusations “insulting” for McLaren
During the team representative’s press conference at the Italian GP, both Stella and Alpine boss Briatore were present. The latter expressed his frustration at the FIA’s verdict and made a plethora of claims against the judge, calling him “very nasty” and suggesting he had links to McLaren and was biased in favour of the British team.
Stella gave a blunt response to the accusations: “My reaction is about the decision of the International Court of Appeal. If we want to talk about that, then I’m happy to comment. We have just released also a statement. If we want to talk about this kind of allegations, then I think that’s not convenient.”
“I find that this conference is going in this direction quite insulting for McLaren, for the reputation of a team that deserves a lot of respect.
“And if anybody makes these kinds of allegations, which seem quite serious, they are going to have to take the responsibility for what they are saying in a public forum. The hearing, the whole International Court of Appeal, was conducted to the highest standards, and we should not question this space like it’s been done.”
McLaren appeal was not for points, but for fairness, says Stella
The ruling promoted Piastri to fourth place in the revised race results, which Stella said McLaren “welcomed”.
“It’s a decision that we definitely welcome,” he said.
“It’s very important. It’s important because, first of all, it adds clarity in relation to the application of Article 1.1.1 of the International Sporting Code of the FIA, which is foundational, foundational for anything that derives from there.
“We applied, we appealed because we wanted to make sure that this clarity was sought. We had concerns which were beyond the fact that we might have lost two championship points. Probably these two championship points are not going to make any difference.
“We were concerned about the application of sporting equality and fairness, and this is important. And this is not only important for McLaren. In fact, not only Red Bull applied, but all teams were present in the hearing because this was a very important moment, I would say, in terms of clarification as to how we apply the rules, as to how we apply consistency, and also in the specific case, consistency is related to the methodologies that are valid through our race weekend.”
Stella proposes reforms to FIA judicial system
Stella then confirmed where he would change the existing FIA process: “I think in the statement of the FIA, it’s highlighted how this was a case that will bring some positive outcome, because it will give the drive to review some of the ways in which regulations are enforced.
“I think there are a couple of points which, I think one is certainly in the declaration of the FIA. First of all, the stewards, they do a difficult job. They have to make decisions within a limited time frame.
“We know as competitors what it means when time is a variable, when pressure is up. The stewards won’t be different. It won’t be different for them. So I think there’s a point related to the decisions of the stewards, and to the job they do. Actually, we’ve been in discussion before with the FIA in relation to that, and we’ve always been very supportive of giving the stewards the best conditions to succeed in their work.
“The second topic is, in my view, the right of review. I think we have to consider the conditions in which a right of review should be received and should go ahead, and when that is not the case.
“And there’s a third point, which is also very well described in the 29 pages of the decision, which has to do with the consistency in the application of a methodology used for measurements.
“There are many things we [use to] measure the speed in pit lane. Likewise we use scales to measure car weight. So there’s many measurements that happen, and I think there’s an interesting topic related to the consistency of this sort of measurement. So for me, these are the three things that I would suggest are reviewed.”
Discussion about this post