After a long wait, the Sainz case is definitively closed with a black smoke. Through a press release released on Tuesday, the International Federation officially rejected the request for revision presented by Ferrari for the penalty inflicted on the Spaniard during the Australian Grand Prix.
The Ferrarista had been fined five seconds for colliding with Fernando Alonso’s Aston Martin during the restart following the second red flag. A penalty which, when it was applied, then caused the Madrilenian to slip from fourth to twelfth final position, with a zero on the scoresheet that the Maranello team hoped to overturn in appeal.
In order for the review request to be approved, the Cavallino team would have had to present to the commissioners new and relevant elements that were not available at the time the penalty was originally assigned, in a similar way to what happened with the Aston Martin after this year’s Saudi Arabian GP. Only in the event of the FIA’s consent would it be possible to move on to the next phase, the one in which the case would be officially reopened by discussing whether or not to remove the penalty.
Green light which, however, has not arrived. In fact, according to the stewards who met this morning from 8.00, Ferrari would not have brought significant and relevant evidence useful for changing the provision for which Sainz had been found guilty of the contact with Alonso.
The elements presented by Ferrari
The defense of the Maranello team, for which the Team Principal Fred Vasseur and the Racing Director Laurent Mekies were also represented, basically rested on three different elements: the traces of the telemetry, the testimony of Sainz and the declarations of other drivers collected in the post-race.
As for the telemetric tests, in which Ferrari highlighted the braking points of the two Spanish contenders, the stewards decided not to consider them relevant because they were already available when the original decision was made in Australia, making them not useful for case review.
Carlos Sainz, Ferrari
Photo by: Ferrari
“Trying to brake late while racing GAS (Gasly), (Sainz) ran the risk of losing control of the car. In this case, this risk materialised, with the consequence of a collision, for which a penalty was imposed,” reads the press release with which the FIA rejected the request.
In an attempt to provide his own version of events, Sainz explained that, also thanks to the particularly slow formation lap, he arrived in turn one with cold tires on an asphalt that offered little grip and with the setting sun not allowing a view clear. All elements which, in fact, were also confirmed by other riders, who after the race had complained of both the poor adherence of the track and the difficulties in warming up the tires properly before the restart.
The third point of the Ferrari defense was based precisely on the testimonies of the rivals who, in the vision of the Reds, should have contributed to strengthening the position of their standard bearer. However, even in this case the commissioners agreed that the elements brought by Cavallino were not new and significant.
Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB19, Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes F1 W14, Fernando Alonso, Aston Martin AMR23, Carlos Sainz, Ferrari SF-23, the remainder of the field at the start
Photo by: Glenn Dunbar / Motorsport Images
“Firstly, if we thought a statement from SAI (Sainz) was needed to analyze the matter, we would have called him after the match. We did not consider it necessary to listen to him to decide”, the press release explains, underlining that the dynamics of the accident were clear.
“His (Sainz’s) testimony basically states how poor the grip was and that he was bothered by the sun on his face. But logic would say that the position of the sun would have had the same impact on the other pilots as well. It is not a justifiable reason to avoid a penalty for a collision.”
Ferrari tried to use precedent which was not such
But above all, in order to convince the FIA that the telemetric traces and the declarations of the drivers could be accepted as new and relevant evidence, Ferrari looked into the past. In fact, the Maranello team has chosen to highlight a rare example of a penalty that has been challenged by a review process, namely the case involving Sergio Perez and Felipe Massa in the 2014 Canadian GP.
During the last lap, the two had come into contact while battling for fourth position, both ending up in hospital for tests after the strong impact against the barriers in turn one. Therefore, on that occasion neither of the two drivers could have argued with the stewards after the checkered flag.
The crash between Sergio Perez, Force India VJM07 Mercedes, and Felipe Massa, Williams FW36 Mercedes, in the Canadian GP 2014
Photo by: Glenn Dunbar / Motorsport Images
After analyzing the data, the FIA still decided to assign the Force India Mexican a penalty for the next Grand Prix in Austria, finding him guilty for having changed his trajectory under braking. Inevitably, the teams involved in the crash had opposing views on who was at fault, so much so that a few days later Force India decided to present
“It was very disappointing to lose such an important result through no fault of mine. I was following the same line and braking points as in the previous laps and was hit from behind by Massa. There was plenty of room to the left of my car to attempt a clean overtaking, and I don’t understand why he had to pass. I watched several replays of the accident and I can’t help but notice how Felipe turns right just before hitting me,” Perez explained after the investigation, following the decision of the commissioners.
Believing that the Mexican’s statement could be useful to overturn the penalty, Force India decided to present a request for revision to the Federation which, unlike the Sainz case, was accepted by the stewards believing that there was new and revealing evidence such as to be able to reopen the case. However, it should be emphasized that in that case the request was exceptionally accepted because Perez, taken to the hospital for tests at the time the sanction was imposed, had not been able to tell his version of the facts.
Carlos Sainz in the car after hearing about the penalty. The Spaniard had asked on several occasions to speak to the commissioners
Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images
Nine years later, that same request for review was cited by Ferrari in an attempt to build its defence, arguing that if driver statements and telemetry had been deemed new and relevant evidence in 2014, then they could have been viewed in the same way. also this year, in fact reopening the case.
“The Competitor (Ferrari) states that there are precedents in which these aspects (telemetry and driver declarations) are considered significant and relevant new elements. (Ferrari) Indicates the Stewards’ decision regarding the petition presented by the Sahara Force India F1 Team which asked for the right of review as a precedent to say that a driver’s verbal testimony and related telemetry can constitute a significant and relevant new element.” , reads today’s press release with which the stewards rejected the request of the Red Army.
However, the stewards reiterated that the two cases cannot be compared and that, consequently, the contact between Perez and Massa could not be used as a precedent. In fact, if in 2014 the penalty had been decided after the checkered flag, given that the accident had occurred during the last lap, in the Sainz affair the penalty arrived during the race, as the marshals believed they had enough evidence to establish who was at fault for the contact.
Mechanics in the pit lane with Fernando Alonso, Aston Martin AMR23, Carlos Sainz, Ferrari SF-23
Photo by: Glenn Dunbar / Motorsport Images
“The factual circumstances of the Stewards’ decision under consideration in that case (Perez/Massa) are very different from those in this case. The Sahara Force India F1 team’s case involved a post-race hearing into an accident (in other words, it was unclear to the stewards who was to blame for the collision in question). The competitor’s driver (Perez) was not available to attend the hearing because he had been taken to the hospital after the accident. The hearing was held without the contestant (Force India) being able to speak to his pilot to get a release. This happened after the hearing (in which a penalty was awarded) and the driver’s version put the facts that had been presented to the Stewards in a different light”.
Substantially, the distinctive element between the two cases is that in 2014 the version of Perez, who could not attend the post-tender hearing for the assignment of the penalty as he was engaged in some medical checks in the hospital, actually provided the commissioners of the new elements. Conversely, in the episode involving the Ferrari driver, the stewards did not deem it necessary to listen to the Spaniard to establish that he was fully responsible for the contact given the clear dynamics of the episode, so his testimony did not change the board’s opinion .
“The distinctive element is that our decision (on the Sainz case) was made in the tender. We did not deem it necessary to hear from SAI (Sainz) or any other driver to decide that the responsibility for the collision lay entirely with him. A decision that we, and the other colleges of stewards, routinely make and are encouraged to make, when the cause of the collision is clear and there is a need to issue sanctions as quickly as possible.
The interesting aspect of the story is that, in reality, the Federation had already underlined in 2014 that the Perez-Massa case would not have constituted a precedent for the future, as the decision to accept the revision was due to exceptional circumstances, i.e. the fact that the pilots involved were not available because they were in hospital.
“We note, for the record, that these are exceptional circumstances, namely that the rider was taken to hospital and was unable to communicate with his team or attend the hearing, and this decision should not be considered (as) a precedent”, the commissioners had remarked in the press release with which they had accepted the request for revision by Force India. Thus, in fact, Ferrari based part of its defense on a case which, as the Federation has already explained above, would not have constituted a precedent given the exceptional circumstances.
Beyond the failure to overturn the sentence, the warning launched by the Italian team remains important, which has requested greater fairness and consistency in the judgements, alluding to the fact that, as underlined by the Team Principal Frederic Vasseur in a meeting with the media, some episodes during that restart were treated differently, avoiding a penalty.
Read also:
