Fernando Alonso has been awarded a controversial penalty after the Saudi Arabian GP has ended. At the end of the race, the marshals applied a 10 second penalty and the Spaniard lost the podium. A few hours later, the penalty was canceled and the driver restored his third place.

The result of this event corresponds to the 100th podium of the career of the double Formula 1 world champion. The second obtained with Aston Martin and the second of the 2023 season. With the change George Russell returns to fourth place.

After the test was completed, Aston Martin applied for a review of the sanction, and upon presentation of evidence of the stewards’ inconsistency, they decided to withdraw the sanction.

Fernando Alonso. The Centurion. 💯#SaudiArabianGP #F1 @alo_official pic.twitter.com/pD4LPgzrNk

— Formula 1 (@F1) March 19, 2023

Alonso received a five-second penalty shortly after the start of the race, with the driver being investigated for stopping the car outside the pit. Heading into the pits on lap 19, the team ran the penalty, but one of the jacks used to lift the car hit AMR23.

Aston Martin took advantage of the entry into the track of the safety car – caused by the abandonment of Lance Stroll – to make the mandatory stop and the penalty received by Alonso. The Spaniard was called to the pits on lap 19 of 50, punctured in five seconds, changed tires and returned to the track. The pit stop was reviewed by Race Control and the FIA’s Remote Operations Center (ROC), similar to VAR; in turn, they determined that the punishment had been properly carried out.

However, on the final lap of the race, Race Direction received a report from the ROC that the penalty had not been properly served. Mercedes pointed out to George Russell that Alonso was under investigation and could face another sanction and urged the Briton to approach Alonso. The Spaniard’s engineer also asked the Spaniard to tighten his pace, to increase the distance that existed between him and fourth place.

The sanction has been applied and the review process has been requested by Aston Martin. Initially, it was agreed that “no part of the car should be touched while a penalty is being served. However, Aston Martin presented the latest minutes of the meeting and evidence of seven different cases where cars that were hit by jacks when the penalties were served did not receive further penalties.

The FIA ​​decision:

“The Stewards have received a letter dated 19th March 2023 from Aston Martin Aramco Cognizant Formula 1 with a request for review in accordance with Article 14.1. 10 seconds to car 14 (Fernando Alonso) for not having served the penalty properly former.”

“In support of the motion for review, the Stewards viewed the minutes of the last meeting and video evidence of 7 different instances where cars were hit by the jack while serving a penalty similar to that imposed on car 14 without being penalised.

“The team’s clear presentation was that the purported depiction of an agreement between the FIA ​​and the teams touching the car in any way, including with a jack, would constitute ‘work’ on the car for the purposes of the paragraph 4(c) of Article 54 of the Sporting Regulations, was incorrect and therefore the basis for the Stewards’ decision was wrong.

“In light of the motion, the commissioners had to decide whether there was a ‘new and significant element’ [que foi] discovered and which was not available to parties requesting reconsideration at the time of the decision in question.

“If there were such evidence, then the Stewards should consider whether the decision should be changed in any way. After analyzing the submitted video evidence and listening to the Aston Martin team representative and relevant members of the FIA, the stewards have determined that there is significant and relevant new evidence, as required by Article 14.1.1, to trigger a review of the decision, in particular the video evidence and verbal evidence of the team and the FIA.

“It became clear to the commissioners that the basis for the original decision, namely the representation of the existence of an agreement, was called into question by the new evidence. Consequently, we are proceeding with the assessment of the merits of the request for review.

“After reviewing the new evidence, we concluded that there was no clear agreement, as had been suggested to the commissioners previously, that could be relied upon to determine that the parties agreed that a jack hitting a car was tantamount to working on the car, no more. Under these circumstances, we considered that our original decision to impose a penalty on car 14 should be reversed and we have done so.”

It should be mentioned that after Lance Stroll abandoned the safety car, it only entered the track because they were unable to identify where the Canadian had stopped on the track, due to the lack of images identifying the location.

Related