It is high time for the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile to listen to their objectors and impose positive changes in order to safeguard the future integrity of Formula One.
Yet again this week we had a truly unsurprising instance of motor sport's world governing body hiding behind the hundreds of pages and myriad of chapters and appendices that make up their Sporting Code.
Presiding over McLaren's appeal into Lewis Hamilton's 25-second drive-through penalty at the Belgian Grand Prix, the five judges from Monaco, Switzerland, Austria, Holland and Spain applied the letter of the law.
No harm there, you might ascertain, but in determining the protest was inadmissible from the outset, "the substance of our appeal", as noted by McLaren F1 CEO Martin Whitmarsh, was never once debated.
In short, Monday's International Court of Appeal hearing inside the walls of the FIA's illustrious headquarters overlooking the Place de la Concorde in Paris was a complete and utter waste of time and money, around Ј1million to be precise.
When the verdict was made public on Tuesday, there was a feeling of deflation, of being short-changed, that the whole process just 24 hours previously had been nothing more than a sham.
In court there were two eminent QCs, a raft of other lawyers, the team principal for Ferrari, Whitmarsh, and of course, Hamilton.
The stage was set, but after five and a half hours of debate, legal argument, of weighing up video evidence and telemetry, what emerged from the verdict rendered it nothing more than a side-show.
Formula One's reputation, already sullied by last season's spy saga and FIA president Max Mosley's antics this year, had suffered further injury.
Not from the judges in one respect because they merely followed the regulations, even though the wording in the FIA rule book that a drive-through penalty is "not susceptible to an appeal" offers a ray of hope to any appellant as it is not entirely conclusive.
However, the least they could have done, with permission from the FIA, was shed some light on the one reason why so many prominent figures had gathered in Paris in the first place, to discuss Hamilton's penalty.
So the appeal was inadmissible, fair enough, but to leave open to conjecture the incident that had been the hot topic of discussion for the previous fortnight, and had enraged many, including former drivers and fans, merely added to the post-verdict sourness.
If they had mulled over the matter it is almost certain they would have sided with Hamilton for the reason that led to them initially dismissing the appeal - the rules.
Or in this case, the lack of one, because while it is accepted a driver has to cede back advantage if he has cut a corner and gained a place, there is nothing in the regulations that states he has to bide his time before making an attempt to again pass.
That is unwritten code between the drivers, and not something you will find typed up on any page of the FIA's detailed documents.
For reasons of clarity going forward, that needs to be addressed, but more pertinent than the addition of one extra rule is the role of the stewards.
It is the three "amateurs", as Sir Jackie Stewart is fond of calling them, who led the sport down a road it really could have done with avoiding.
How is the sport meant to retain its appeal to its millions of fans worldwide when those who sit in judgment on the kind of event that transpired at Spa lack credibility?
The stewards are rotated race by race, so the trio in Belgium were different to those in Valencia, and different again to the three men most recently in Italy.
The FIA argue it is to ensure they remain impartial, but that lends itself to the prospect of them being unprofessional and unable to pass judgment without impunity.
The FIA need professionalism at this level because the decisions of their stewards are increasingly being drawn more sharply into focus and argued over.
There are those, such as Niki Lauda, who maintain a former Formula One driver should be full-time on the panel to offer an objective viewpoint.
Again the FIA would counter a driver would have prior allegiance to a team on the grid, potentially helping to sway any decision.
So how, then, can they employ Alan Donnelly, a 'stewards' overlord', and the only man to question Hamilton in Spa when he was summoned to give his version of events, who previously made money out of Ferrari's road car division?
The FIA's moral and ethical principles are on the line here, but will they alter their ethos? That is doubtful.
No comments:
Post a Comment