dTwo days after summoning the representatives of Aston Martin, whom the FIA stewards received at 7:45 a.m. local time in Miami, (after granting them a curfew so they could access the circuit), This morning the official resolution was issued regarding the non-acceptance of the review of Alonso’s clash with Sainz, at Sprint China, 14 days ago
There, Fernando slightly touched Carlos’s car in turn 9, causing a puncture in his own car, which cost him the Asturian abandoned and the Madrid native was overtaken by Checo Pérez and Charles Leclerc. At the end of the session both were called and when a simple racing incident was expected, the FIA panel of judges decided to sanction Alonso with 10 seconds and three points on his license.
The seconds were the least important, since having abandoned it did not imply a change in their final position, but The three points seemed excessive to almost everyone, in an action of which dozens see dozens any weekend without that punishment measure.
Aston Martin wanted a reduction or withdrawal of those three points in the canet, which when added to the three from Australia, also more than doubtful, represent six points less than the 12 that each has. pilot in one year before being penalized with an exclusion race. For this reason, they presented new images that were not available that Saturday, April 20, with new perspectives and angles, which showed that the touch was not intentional in any case.
After 14 points of argument, the five final resolutions arrived on whether or not they agreed to review the sanction;
Our decision
fifteen. While the footage was undoubtedly “new” as it was not available to us during the hearing, there was enough footage from another camera angle to give us a clear basis for making the decisions in Exhibits 40 and 41.
16. The images were also “relevant” as they related specifically to the incident in question.
17. However, although we did not have these images at the time we made our decision, we did have them. not consider the recording as a “significant” new element. The new footage didn’t make us question our decision or give us a perspective we didn’t have on the incident.
18. While it showed the incident from a different angle, it didn’t add anything material to the perspective of the image we already had..
19. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for review, without the need to proceed to the second stage of the review.
Competitors are reminded that, in accordance with article 14.3 of the Code, this decision is not subject to appeal.
