Why did the FIA let Vitantonio Liuzzi appeal but not Lewis Hamilton?
The FIA's ruling on Hamilton contradicts a similar verdict from last year
Lewis Hamilton has had Belgian Grand Prix penalty appeal thrown out, bringing another wave of reaction, much of it highly critical of the FIA.
At the heart of the controversy is the FIA’s decision not to allow Hamilton to submit his appeal, despite letting another driver, Vitantonio Liuzzi, do so last year.
The official documents that shows how the FIA permitted Liuzzi’s appeal is below. How are the FIA going to explain why they allowed Liuzzi to appeal, but not Hamilton?
How Liuzzi was allowed to appeal
The International Appeal Court verdict on the Liuzzi appeal is still available on the FIA’s website.
Here are the relevant parts from that document (emphasis added):
Having acknowledged that the due hearing of all parties was in order, that the appeal was admissible, that the rights of each of the parties had been duly examined both in the proceedings which preceded the hearing and during the hearing itself, that the appealing competitor, the intervenor and the knowledgeable parties were duly heard…
And in the conclusion:
WHEREAS under these circumstances it is necessary to confirm the decision of the Panel of the Stewards of the Meeting;
ON THESE GROUNDS,
STATES AND RULES the appeal to be admissible,
It doesn’t get more clear-cut than that. The article under which Hamilton was refused grounds to appeal was apparently never discussed. Liuzzi was allowed to appeal.
How Hamilton was not allowed to appeal
McLaren knew Liuzzi had been allowed to appeal his 25-second penalty which, just like Hamilton’s, was intended as a drive-through penalty but took the form of a time penalty because the incident occurred so late in the race. A McLaren representative, Mark Hubbard, had been at the Liuzzi hearing, but even if he hadn’t been the appeal court’s findings were freely available after the verdict. (See correction below)
However when Hamilton made his case on the same grounds as Liuzzi he was refused appeal under Article 152 paragraph five of the International Sporting Code:
Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal.
One might ask whether Hamilton’s penalty, given he never took a drive-through or stopped in the pits, applies here.
But assuming it does the more compelling question is: why was this same clause not used against Liuzzi? As it was not invoked, any observer might reasonably have drawn the conclusion that time penalties applied after a race can be subject to appeals.
The FIA’s decision to refuse Hamilton grounds of appeal is a stunning act of hypocrisy. How can they justify treating two identical cases so differently?
Suspicious timing
Let’s assume for a moment the FIA genuinely felt the Liuzzi ruling was a mistake and wished to correct it. We must ask then why did they not announce the change earlier? They’ve had almost a year.
The FIA only revealed it would no longer admit appeals such as Liuzzi’s after McLaren confirmed its decision to do just that. The FIA sent notification to McLaren at 6:30pm last Friday.
The suspicious nature of the timing and the highly dubious means by which the FIA attempted to prove such appeals were no longer valid (more on that here) gives the strong impression that the FIA changed its own rules to hinder McLaren.
Time for an explanation
The FIA must be held to account over this. It is a disgrace that two F1 teams should appeal on the same grounds, and for one to be given the right to appeal and the other denied it.
Before the hearing Max Mosley said:
It’s a reflection, and I’m sorry to say this, of the stupidity of the people who say it because they haven’t really thought the thing through and put themselves in the position of the people who have to take these very difficult decisions.
The Liuzzi precedent is not the first glaring inconsistency we’ve observed in the FIA’s handling of this penalty. If you think through the case, the rules and the precedent you end up with a simple observation: that one driver was allowed recourse to the law and the other was denied it.
So why did the FIA let Vitantonio Liuzzi appeal but not Lewis Hamilton? Share your thoughts in the comments. (For general comments on the Hamilton verdict see here: Lewis Hamilton’s appeal fails and Felipe Massa keeps Belgian Grand Prix win).
Comments have been split across multiple pages. If you are having trouble viewing the pages, click here to see all comments
ajokay said on 23rd September 2008, 20:51
Probably because he’s Italian, like the accent of the whispering voice in the FIA’s ear.
mail123456 said on 23rd September 2008, 20:53
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080923172326.shtml
Alianora La Canta said on 23rd September 2008, 20:56
Probably because Article 152 does not, in fact, give the FIA latitude to ignore time penalties. Only drive-throughs, pit-stoppages and series-specific incidents.
beneboy said on 23rd September 2008, 21:01
Law’s are made by precedent or decree.
If a precedent is set then it should be adhered to until such time as the decree over-rides the precedent, but this can not be applied retrospectively (as in this case).
The FIA is corrupt.
Kevin said on 23rd September 2008, 21:05
“How are the FIA going to explain why they allowed Liuzzi to appeal, but not Hamilton?”
Why do they have to? And to who? The FIA doesn’t have to to explain anything they decide. That’s the biggest part of the problem.
areez said on 23rd September 2008, 21:23
@ Keith…
…regardless of all that is going on, arguing about it won’t bring back those points…
…I feel like Lewis just has to regroup and simply try to outscore Felipe in the last races, that’s it…no ‘balls-out, win-at-all-cost, i’m the best’ driving…that’s what messed him up in Bahrain, Canada, France, and Hungary (I think he was overdriving the car, causing the tire to rupture, as Heikki’s did not). The truth of the matter is none of us really know what goes on behind the scenes…hell, BMW could be plotting with the FIA to make sure they win 09
Rod Sutton said on 23rd September 2008, 21:23
being English (not Italian or German), a Maclaren driver (wrong colour car and not Italian or German and being Black means Hamilton “needs some more of zee punishment”
I may be wrong of course – it may just be that Mosley just likes punishing people. Maybe he will invite Lewis to one of his parties!
Rod S (a very disilusioned ex F1 Fan)
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 23rd September 2008, 21:35
Mail123456 – here’s the FIA verdict in full. The relevant bit says:
This is a perverse attempt at logic. The fact neither party had raised the question of admissibility neither proves nor disproves anything. Furthermore, if Max Mosley is apparently so infuriated by cases such as these being a waste of time (recall his comments at Monza) why did he not clear up the matter between the Fuji and Spa incidents?
mail123456 said on 23rd September 2008, 21:48
@Keith:
This says that FIA must administer rules and regulations, not to wait someone to complain :)
… oh yes they did it! at Spa after the race, when nobody complains :) (yes I know that Ferrari may be asked race control, and knew about investigation but there is no appeal)
Source: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/about-fia/Pages/AboutFIA.aspx
And again agree about wasting time … already said that 2 days waiting and receive inadmissible is pure joke with all fans and competitors.
ben j said on 23rd September 2008, 21:48
My complaint all along has been that the FIA’s refereeing system is completely messed up.
No other sport in the world would need the amount of time required by the marshals at the track to come to a decision regarding the rules. If the marshals had made a ruling in an appropriate period of time (one lap should really do it, and they had three), then the confusion surrounding the case would be slight. Fans of EVERY sport argue about the justice of penalties all the time – F1 fans would accept joining that group.
No other sport in the world tries to impose a post-event “equivalent” of an on-field penalty. Football referees don’t add a point to one team’s score because later that evening, it final appeared conclusive that they deserved a penalty kick. An official in a 100m dash would never take three seconds off one runner’s time because an opponent tripped in front of them and disrupted their run. The punishment here may have been the functional equivalent of a drive-through, but it didn’t involve driving through anything.
All of this is wrapped up in a cloak of pseudo-legal terminology that I am convinced serves only to render the verdict unreadable (and therefore unopposed) by the public. It obviously isn’t there to ensure that the rigorous logic of the ruling is correctly interpreted.
beneboy said on 23rd September 2008, 21:53
@Keith
I think it may be because if they had established the rule and then one of my beloved red cars had broken it then that would mean the FIA would have to punish them.
And if there’s any punishing to be done than Max will be the one doing it (or getting it) and not too (but possibly from) Ferrari.
SkinBintin said on 23rd September 2008, 21:59
All I can do is sigh… Doesn’t seem worth the effort to do anything else.
Ken said on 23rd September 2008, 22:25
What’s the point in saying anything. We all knew that this would be the verdict anyway. A pointless waste of time, money, carbon emissions, breath etc……
ukk said on 23rd September 2008, 22:34
FIA(T) can publicly spit in its own face and loudly announce decisions that have nothing to do with law or justice. So why would they give a s**t for what we have to say?
Time to let go and move on.
Chris Johnston said on 23rd September 2008, 22:34
So what we see is not what we get.
My wife thinks the mafia must be involved. She’s usually right.