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 the FIA Stewards quickly rejected 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, such as football. He also mentioned his previous disagreement with a penalty he received in Australia. Despite his frustration, Alonso acknowledged that the stewards have the power to make such decisions and he must accept them.
During a hearing with the presence of Aston Martin and Ferrari, the FIA Stewards expressed disagreement with the visual evidence presented by Aston Martin. The team, based in Silverstone, provided forward-facing camera footage in an attempt to influence 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 footage available at the time.
Según los comisarios, el supuesto nuevo elemento presentado por Aston Martin era un video de la cámara frontal del auto 14, que no estaba disponible ni para el equipo ni para los comisarios durante el proceso de toma de decisiones inicial. Las imágenes fueron descargadas después de la sesión de sprint por la F1. Aunque los comisarios tenían varias otras imágenes del incidente capturadas desde diferentes ángulos de cámara, no tenían acceso a esas imágenes específicas. Aston Martin, en su presentación por escrito buscando una revisión, argumentó que el nuevo ángulo de la cámara demostraba que el incidente en cuestión era un incidente de carrera y no justificaba una penalización para su piloto.
Sin embargo, los comisarios sostuvieron que incluso si hubieran tenido esas imágenes en el momento de su decisión, no las habrían considerado como un nuevo elemento «significativo». Las imágenes adicionales no los habrían llevado a cuestionar su decisión o a proporcionar una perspectiva diferente del incidente. Enfatizaron que ya tenían imágenes más que suficientes desde otros ángulos de cámara que les proporcionaban una base clara para sus decisiones.
