Brazilian GP: FIA rejects the appeal of Ferrari for lack of new evidence

la-fia-desestima-el-recurso-de-ferrari-p

After meeting by teleconference this afternoon with representatives of Ferrari and Red Bull, the FIA has decided to reject the resource that the Scuderia filed yesterday by the sanction that Sebastian Vettel received in the last Grand Prix of Mexico, that left the German pilot without a podium to the detriment of Daniel Ricciardo and made him fall to the fifth end position.

The Italian team had based its argument that “a number of new elements” had come to light after the application of the sanction, on the basis of article 27.5 of the Sporting Code, and calling for a review of the same “to provide clarity to the application of the rules in future events”, although it does not engender an alteration of the results.

The transcript of the statement issued by the FIA reads as follows:

“The stewards of the Grand Prix of Mexico 2016 held a hearing today at 16:45 hour of Brazil, to hear a request for (…) the Scuderia Ferrari to review the decision of the document 38 of that event. The petition was requested according to Article 14.1 of the Sporting Code of the FIA. The hearing was conducted by teleconference. Scuderia Ferrari was represented by the lord Jock Clear. Red Bull Racing was represented by the lord Christian Horner and the lord Jonathan Wheatley“.

“Scuderia Ferrari argued in his writing that the “new item” (…) existed. In his verbal presentation, he argued that there were two “new elements”. Specifically, the Scuderia argued that the Race Director (…) had the “power” of giving the driver of the car 33, Max Verstappen, the instruction to return the supposed advantage who had won the get out of track in lap prior to the incident between the car 5 and car 3 Daniel Ricciardo. Ferrari also argued that the GPS data presented were a “new item”.

“In relation to the issue of the Race Director taking the “power” of giving the instruction to the car 33 to return the supposed advantage, we note first that the article is relevant gives the Race Director a “absolute authority” to allow a pilot to return a position. does Not imply the obligation to do so. The fact that the Race Director not exercised that discretion is not relevant to the decision taken..”

“In relation to the GPS data, we note that these data are available for the teams during the race. Are also available to the Commissioners. When asked if the GPS data contradicted in any way telemetry and other evidence by which the commissioners concluded that the driver of the car 5 is moved in the braking in turn 4, the lord is Clear, granted that they did not do it“.

“article 14.2 of the Sporting Code gives the Commissioners the discretion to determine if there is a new item. Having received all written submissions and verbal, and after considering them all carefully, the Commissioners have determined that there is not a new item. (…). It reminds all parties of their right to appeal”.