What exactly does the FIA say about the rejection of the revision of the US Grand Prix?

Procedure

On November 3, 2023, the commissioners received a request from the MoneyGram Haas F1 team to exercise their right of review in accordance with Article 14 of the International Sporting Code of the FIA.

2. The request was related to the commissioners’ decisions contained in documents number 59 (no further action for car 23 for alleged infringements of Annex L, Chapter IV, Article 2c of the Code and Article 33.3 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations) (« Decision ALB ») and number 66 (Final Classification) of the United States Grand Prix 2023.

3. A hearing was scheduled for 3 p.m. on November 8, 2023, and the parties involved were summoned (document numbers 68 to 71).

4. The commissioners of the United States Grand Prix conducted the hearing.

5. Were present at the hearing:

– For the MoneyGram Haas F1 team – Mr. Ayao Komatsu and Mr. Andrea Fioravanti (External Legal Counsel)

For the Aston Martin Aramco Cognizant F1 team, Mr. Mike Krack, Mr. Oliver Rumsey, and Mr. Andy Stevenson.

For the Williams Racing team, Messrs. Sven Smeets and David Redding.

For the Oracle Red Bull Racing team – Mr. Jonathan Wheatley.

For the FIA – Messrs. Nikolas Tombazis, Steve Nielsen, and Tim Malyon

– For the Scuderia Ferrari – Mr. Inaki Rueda

– For the McLaren F1 team – Mr. Randeep Singh

The first four contestants mentioned in the above list were summoned to the hearing, while the last two contestants requested permission to attend as interested parties.

6. This hearing was dedicated to determining, at the sole discretion of the commissioners (as specified in article 14.3 of the Code), whether « a new significant and relevant element is discovered, which was unavailable to the parties requesting the review at the time of the relevant decision ». In this case, the party was the MoneyGram Haas F1 team and the relevant decisions were documents 59 and 66 issued during the United States Grand Prix.

7. Therefore, the commissioners had to determine if the evidence presented met each of the aforementioned criteria, namely significant, relevant, new, and unavailable to the party requesting the review. Furthermore, if the criteria of significance, relevance, and novelty were met, the commissioners had to determine that such an element had been discovered.

8. Haas mentioned four problems that she considered to meet these criteria. These were:

a. Embedded video footage of car 23 and the following cars showing car 23 allegedly leaving the track multiple times at the apex of turn 6 during the race.

b. Embedded video footage from car 2 showing it allegedly leaving the track multiple times at the apex of turn 6 during the race.

c. Embedded video footage of car 11 allegedly showing it repeatedly leaving the track at the apex of turn 6 during the race.

d. Footage from onboard cameras of car 18 allegedly showing it repeatedly leaving the track at the apex of turn 6 during the race.

9. In its written submission, Haas also claimed that during the team principals’ meeting held on October 27, 2023, before the 2023 Mexican Grand Prix, the FIA race director and the FIA single-seater sporting director made several statements indicating that the supervision of track limits at turn 6 during the United States Grand Prix was not ideal.

During the hearing, Haas, represented by Mr. Fioravanti, clarified that the request to review the ALB decision should be considered separately from the request to review the Final Classification. The request to review the Final Classification was submitted with the intention of acting upon the evidence submitted regarding the alleged track limit violations by cars 2, 11, and 18, which were neither noted, investigated, nor penalized by the officials, as reflected in the Final Classification.

11. Haas did not provide any additional evidence during the hearing but reinforced their position set forth in their written submission.

12. Aston Martin, represented by Mr. Stevenson, expressed their belief that there were no new elements. In particular, they mentioned that several tests required by Article 14.1 of the Code would not be satisfied as, in their opinion, the evidence submitted was neither new, nor unavailable or discovered, since onboard cameras in all cars are available to teams during the race.

Furthermore, Aston Martin does not consider the onboard images as significant, as no secondary evidence such as surveillance footage has been presented, and all teams were clearly informed by the FIA multiple times that track limit violations would not be judged solely based on onboard camera images due to the inherent limitations of such footage.

13. Aston Martin also emphasized that no decision had been made regarding car 18 during the United States Grand Prix, and therefore any alleged violation by car 18 would not fall within the scope of a review right which should be directed towards a decision. The correct process in such a case would, in their opinion, be a protest, and no protest has been filed against car 18. Allowing a review right regarding the Final Classification in order to act on alleged violations for which no decision has been made would undermine the validity of any result in their view.

14. Red Bull, represented by Mr. Wheatley, stated that they share Aston Martin’s opinion and agreed that there are no new elements. They added that no decision has been made regarding car 11 during the event either. Furthermore, they acknowledged that, in their opinion, the statement made by Haas regarding any information given during the team principals’ meeting before the Mexican Grand Prix is completely irrelevant to this matter.

15. Williams, represented by Mr. Redding, echoed the arguments of Aston Martin and Red Bull.

16. The representatives of Ferrari and McLaren have indicated that they have nothing further to add to the points already mentioned.

17. The commissioners asked Haas if they could expand on the statement made in their submission regarding the unavailability of onboard camera images. In response, Mr. Fioravanti, representing Haas, maintained that the submitted evidence was not available to the team at the time.

18. The commissioners adjourned the hearing at 3:30 p.m. to determine the existence or non-existence of any element that met all the criteria required in Article 14.1.1 of the Code.

19. The commissioners also note the decisions of the commissioners in relation to the presence of such elements in previous cases of requests for a right of review (Aston Martin) Saudi Arabia 2023, (Ferrari) Australia 2023, and (McLaren) Canada 2023. Other similar requests dating back several years have also been noted. It is fair to say that Article 14.1.1 establishes a very high threshold to overcome before opening a new hearing and reviewing a decision.

20. Therefore, the commissioners subsequently evaluated each of the « elements » submitted by Haas against each of the criteria mentioned in point 7 above.

Decision

21. Regarding the onboard camera footage of car 23 and the following cars, the commissioners:
a. They determine that they are significant.
b. Determine that they are not new.
c. Determine that they were available to Haas (the party requesting the review) at the time of the decision.
d. They determine that they are not relevant.

For the purposes of this assessment, please refer to points 24 to 26.

22. Regarding the three other submitted elements (in-car camera footage of cars 2, 11, and 18), the commissioners:

a. They determine that they are not significant.
b. They determine that they are not new.
c. They determine that they were available to Haas (the requesting party for revision) at the time of the decision.
d. They determine that they are not relevant.

For the reason of this evaluation, please refer to points 27 and 28.

23. Therefore, the petition for the right of review is REJECTED as there is no new significant and relevant element that was unavailable to Haas at the time of the decision.

Reasons

24. In connection with point 21a, the images from the onboard camera of car 23, especially of the following cars, are significant as they appear to show at least some apparent violations of Annex L, Chapter IV, Article 2c of the Code and Article 33.3 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations when viewed without the additional context that the stewards apply, as noted in point 25.

25. In relation to point 21d, the images are not relevant. As already noted in the ALB decision (one of the subjects of this review request) after the race, the available evidence for the stewards (at that time and now) was not sufficient to penalize accurately and consistently (i.e., for every car on every lap) any infringements [of track limits] occurring at the apex of turn 6. Track limit infringements are almost universally enforced based on primary video evidence from a fixed surveillance camera with adequate resolution positioned to clearly see the position of a car relative to the track limit. The surveillance camera for turn 6 did not meet this standard as it did not cover the apex of the turn. Because onboard cameras are only useful for checking infringements when viewing a car ahead of the camera car and not the camera car itself, the stewards believed they could not accurately and consistently conclude if an infringement had occurred for every car on every lap. The anecdotal use of video from following cars, which may or may not be available for any potential infringement of a given car at a given time, does not meet this standard of accurate and consistent evidence. Therefore, the latitude granted to the stewards in the Code was used to take no further action due to the lack of accurate and consistent evidence for all cars, in the interest of sporting fairness as stipulated in articles 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 of the Code and delegated to the stewards in article 11.9.1 of the Code.

26. Regarding points 21b and c, the onboard images are not new and were available to Haas during the part requesting revision, as well as to the stewards at the time of the decision. Contrary to Haas’ statement during the hearing, these images were available to the stewards and could have been reviewed, but they were not chosen to be reviewed for the reasons already mentioned. The criterion of article 14.1.1 is availability, not whether the elements were discovered as a result of this availability. Furthermore, all onboard cameras are made available to all teams in real-time during an event, so the onboard images were available to Haas at the time of the decision even if they were not reviewed at that time.

27. Regarding points 22b and c, the embedded images are not new and were available to the reviewing party (Haas) as well as the stewards at the time of the decision (also refer to the explanations provided in point 26).

28. Regarding points 22a and d, the submitted elements are neither significant nor relevant to the requested Review Decision (document 66). The review request seeks an examination of Document 66 (Final Classification). Haas argues that the purpose of this petition was to request the commissioners to take action on alleged track limit violations by cars 2, 11, and 18, for which no decision was made by the commissioners during the race. The commissioners reaffirm that a petition for revision of the Final Classification must concern the classification itself. It is not possible to exercise the Right of Review on the Final Classification to contest decisions made prior to it. This also applies to incidents for which no decision was made during an event. The appropriate remedy to raise alleged rule violations by other competitors during a competition is a protest, such as the one conducted, for example, by Aston Martin at the 2023 Austrian Grand Prix. The Right of Review is intended to allow competitors to request a review of a formal decision made by the commissioners in light of any new significant and relevant evidence that was not available to the requesting party at the time of the decision.

29. The Witness Statement submitted by Haas regarding the Team Directors’ Meeting before the 2023 Mexican Grand Prix does not constitute significant evidence, as the alleged statements made by the FIA Race Director and the FIA Single-Seater Sporting Director were irrelevant in assessing whether the criteria of Article 14.1.1 of the Code had been fulfilled for either of the requested review decisions.

30. Given that, notwithstanding the formal outcome of this Decision, the stewards have seen individual pieces of evidence showing what appears to be potential track limits violations at the apex of Turn 6, they find their inability to properly enforce the current track limits standard for all competitors to be completely unsatisfactory and therefore strongly recommend that all parties concerned work towards a solution to prevent the recurrence of this widespread issue as soon as possible. Whether the problem is adequately addressed through better technological solutions, track modifications, a combination of these factors, or a different regulatory and enforcement standard, the stewards leave it to those better positioned to make such assessments. However, based on the timeline of this Decision, it is evident that a comprehensive solution cannot practically be implemented this year. But given the number of different circuits where significant track limits problems have arisen this season, and recognizing that the FIA, in conjunction with the circuits, has already made significant progress, further solutions should be found before the start of the 2024 season.

According to the statement from the FIA.