Mercedes would have a compelling case if they appealed over the controversy surrounding the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, a sports law expert told RaceFans.
The team is considering appealing after the stewards rejected their protest against restarting the race on Sunday. Mercedes claimed that the rules of the sport were not being properly followed when the race resumed on short notice and only five of the eight cars lapped were allowed to lap themselves.
The controversy in Abu Dhabi casts doubt on the outcome of the title-defining race of the 2021 season for two days. Lewis Hamilton lost the world title to Max Verstappen when he was overtaken by his rival on the final lap after the restart.
Under FIA rules, Mercedes has a 96 hour window to commit to appeal, about half of which has passed. After a controversial season, the team arrived in Abu Dhabi and prepared for a lawsuit after engaging in the services of Paul Harris QC. He previously represented the team in 2013 when they appeared before an FIA tribunal over a Pirelli tire test, and last July he successfully represented Manchester City at a sports arbitration hearing for alleged club licensing and financial violations UEFA regulations fair play.
Nicholas Bamber, an associate in regulatory and trade dispute resolution at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP, believes Mercedes has good reason to contest the decision to decline their protest.
“Race director Michael Masi and the interpretation of the stewards of the FIA 2021 have been questioned by racing drivers, experts and legal commentators alike,” he told RaceFans.
“In response to the protest from Mercedes, they came to the conclusion that Article 15.3 gives the race director a license to control the use of the safety car and overrides the procedure for the safety car under Article 48.12.
“At first glance, this interpretation seems to be incompatible with a clear view of the regulations. It also directly contradicts Michael Masi’s approach under similar circumstances at the Grand Prix of the Eifel 2020, where he said: “The sporting regulations contain the requirement that all lapped cars pass”. [emphasis added] before the safety car returns to the pit lane and the race starts again, “therefore the safety car phase was a little longer than we normally would have liked” – ie the race director can ensure the appropriate application of the regulations, including the full application of Article 48.12. “
Display | Become a RaceFans supporter and
This could be seen as a violation of the international sports code, said Bamber. “Article 1.1.1 of the FIA International Sports Act 2021 makes it clear that the regulations should be enforced ‘on the basis of the basic principles of safety and sporting fairness’. [emphasis added]. Part of sporting fairness revolves around the consistent application of the rules of sport. Therefore, there seems to be a good legal basis on which Mercedes could appeal. “
Should the matter go to an International Court of Appeal, Bamber believes this apparent inconsistency could prove difficult to justify.
“Aside from repeating the arguments set out in the Stewards’ decision, the FIA would likely argue that any ambiguity in the regulations should be resolved in real time in favor of Masi’s decisions, under pressure to ensure the race is completed safely and competitively – based on the sports law doctrine of the respective “playing field” decisions, ”he said.
“Again, given the inconsistency in the use of decision-making during the race itself and given the same circumstances in previous races, this again seems an unconvincing argument.”
When the field circulated behind the safety car at the end of the race, Masi had a narrowing window of time to organize a restart. He also received communications from the two teams vying for the championship – Mercedes and Red Bull – urging him to restart the race to give Verstappen a chance to overtake Hamilton.
Bamber pointed out that such communication is highly unusual in professional sport. “While a relatively new move in shaping FIA radio communications between teams and the race director has proven popular with the F1 audience from an entertainment perspective, it also highlighted the volume and questionable nature of the communication made by the teams during the race is sent, “he said.
“In a sporting context, it is extremely unusual, if not unique, that team representatives have a direct line to the officials in the middle of a competition. In sport it is of the utmost importance that officials are not inappropriately influenced and this raises questions about how this communication will be regulated in the future.
“In rugby we saw the South African rugby director receive a long ban for ‘outrageous’ crimes during the UK and Irish Lions ‘South Africa tour, including his role in posting a video criticizing the match officials’ performance would. The World Rugby Independent Committee found that his behavior was ‘corrosive to the game in its broader sense, as well as to the public and the press’. “
Display | Become a RaceFans supporter and
F1 season 2021
Browse all articles related to the 2021 F1 season
