F1: Hamilton's Spa penalty upheld

The FIA's ICA is a strange beast and the procedures to get a case before it are even more arcane.

For example, the appeal against the decision of the stewards of the Spa race is lodged not by the driver or the team but by the UK's Motor Sports Association on behalf of the team. The hearing was yesterday, the decision was rendered today.

The Court has a bizarre approach to representation and the giving of evidence.

Technically, the respondent to the appeal is the FIA and, as noted above, the applicant is the MSA. But the MSA does not appear: in this case the appeal was on behalf of McLaren so they appeared.

But Ferrari also appeared - not as witnesses (which would have made sense) but as a party, and as a party, they were represented.

This meant that Ferrari got to cross examine Lewis Hamilton whilst not fielding their own driver for questioning.

The facts as presented in the ICA's judgment do not stand up to scrutiny when the video from the overhead cameras is shown: the ICA says ""Raillonen was leading the race at turn 18... Hamilton drew level with ..Raikkonen's car on the approach to turn 19, cut the chicane and took the slip road"

But the video shows a different story altogether. The two turns concerned are the first and second part of the bus-stop chicane, first hard right, then immediately hard left. As the cars entered the first part of the chicane, Hamilton was clearly in front. As he steered around the corner, Raikkonen dived across his nose, making contact inevitable. Hamilton turned hard left, missing being pushed onto the kerb and / or having the front of his car driven into or over.

But aside from getting the facts wrong. the ICA was presented with a get-out clause by the FIA, supported by Ferrari.

They said that the rules precluded the making of an appeal and should be struck out without any need for consideration of the facts.

The ICA agreed.

The applications made by Ferrari and the FIA, as cited in the decision, are identical, suggesting collusion between the two - something that many have for some time been saying was clear.

The FIA rules say that three types of penalty are not susceptible to appeal: drive through penalties, stop and go penalties and penalties specified in the FIA Championship regulations. The addition of 25 seconds to the race time did not fall into any of those categories, McLaren argued. However the FIA and Ferrari both argued that the Stewards did in fact order a drive-through but, as it took place within the last five laps of the race, the rules provide that it should be converted to a 25 second penalty (the approximate length of time lost in a drive through.

But the case appears to fly in the face of natural justice.

First, McLaren appear to have been denied the opportunity to argue that contesting the penalty is one thing but they should be entitled to contest the decision as a separate issue. Article 152 of the International Sporting code says "Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated are not susceptible to appeal." Surely the ordinary and natural meaning of that phrase opens the door to, in effect, appealing conviction even if an appeal against sentence is not permitted.

Secondly, Ferrari were regarded as a party when their only standing should have been as witness.

Third, that they had been given two indications that Hamilton had "done enough" and therefore he did not push for the last few laps in order to make up time to afford himself the opportunity to build up a cushion exceeding 25 seconds.

The ICA decided that, having concluded that the appeal was inadmissible with regard to penalty, they did not have to consider the material questions including whether Hamilton had been forced off the track, whether McLaren had in fact been told they had done enough and whether Hamilton had done enough in the eyes of the ICA.

McLaren were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal - if that includes Ferrari's costs, then the situation is even more ludicrous.

What started as a disgrace has turned into a debacle.