Fernando Alonso, representing the Aston Martin F1 Team AMR24, faced a setback in his quest for justice after the Sprint of the Chinese Grand Prix. Aston Martin had filed a Right of Review request in response to Alonso’s penalty, but FIA Stewards quickly dismissed it. During the race, Alonso was involved in a fierce battle with Carlos Sainz, resulting in a collision at Turn 9. As a result, Alonso received a 10-second penalty and three points on his license. Aston Martin’s attempt to reopen the case was deemed futile as they failed to present any new evidence. Alonso expressed his disappointment with the decision, comparing it to differing opinions in other sports like football. He also mentioned his previous disagreement with a penalty he received in Australia. Despite his frustration, Alonso acknowledged that stewards have the power to make such decisions and he must accept them.
During a hearing with the presence of Aston Martin and Ferrari, FIA Stewards expressed disagreement with the visual evidence presented by Aston Martin. The team, based in Silverstone, provided forward-facing camera images in an attempt to sway the stewards’ decision made during the Sprint race. However, the stewards maintained that the new camera angles were insufficient to change their original verdict. Despite the additional evidence from Aston Martin, the stewards stated that their decision-making during the race was based on a substantial amount of alternative images available at the time.
According to the stewards, the alleged new element presented by Aston Martin was a forward-facing camera video of car 14, which was not accessible to both the team and the stewards during the initial decision-making process. The images were downloaded after the sprint session by the F1. Although the stewards had several other images of the incident captured from different camera angles, they did not have access to these specific images. Aston Martin, in their written submission seeking a review, argued that the new camera angle demonstrated that the incident in question was a racing incident and did not warrant a penalty for their driver.
However, the stewards maintained that even if they had possessed these images at the time of their decision, they would not have considered it a “significant” new element. The additional images would not have led them to question their decision or provide a different perspective of the incident. They emphasized that there were more than enough images from other camera angles that already provided them with a clear basis for their decisions.
