Why did the FIA let Vitantonio Liuzzi appeal but not Lewis Hamilton?

23rd September 2008, 20:48 by Keith Collantine 104 Comments »

The FIA\'s ruling on Hamilton contradicts a similar verdict from last year

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

Read more: Articles in full | F1 drivers (past) | Lewis Hamilton | Vitantonio Liuzzi