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
b0son said on 24th September 2008, 5:50
one must surely notice the irony…
the FIA is headed by someone who well understands the legal concepts in question, yet the organisation brushes them aside at a moment’s notice. i would wager that were Mosley representing McLaren in a legal capacity, he would be outraged at this outcome. FIA… feifdom in action?
Negative Camber said on 24th September 2008, 6:49
Why? I’ll be damned if I know Keith. Enlighten me when you find out would you? ;) Keep up the great work my friend.
Dan aka AussieLeb said on 24th September 2008, 7:36
Beautiful work William Wilgus and Todd!
Exactly correct. Of all the words (besides the swear words such as McLaren or even worse Ron Dennis etc) the word “precedent” will be the word remembered as the most exploited, to argue the point for ChicaneGate (That’s mine Keith!). The fact of the matter is that unless a precedent is party to the establishment of a law or rule that is to be adhered to, no amount of jumping up and down screaming “corruption” and the even more comical “but he did it so why can’t I ?” will do any good for future cases. It is now up to McLaren and any other team who should seeks to gain from this outcome, to demand a clarification of the rules and issues that have been exposed herein.
One thing todd, I don’t think Keith is really trying to pervert anything. I do agree with you that this issue has brought out Keith’s allegiance and solidified my opinion that this site is geared more towards the English fan base and that of Lewis Hamilton. That’s not to say I will stop trying to post my own opinion and stir up a few of these ****! After all would I be a true blue aussie if I didn’t?
One other point I would like to make is that as justified as I think they were to pull the “inadmissable” card the fact that this was not declared prior to (hence closing) proceedings has a touch of arrogance about it on the part of the FIA. Maybe the judges wanted to send McLaren a message, not to come in half cocked in the future.
Keith, have we heard anything from anyone that has a genuine knowledge of law and due process etc? I can’t seem to find anything from proper law makers, not ex drivers or team principals etc. on their opinion of how the process was handled.
John Beamer said on 24th September 2008, 8:10
It is a shame that the FIA didn’t give Massa a drive-though in Valencia. Ferrari would have appealed that and wouldn’t it have been interesting to see if that was admissible?
DG said on 24th September 2008, 8:28
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I cannot think of any major disputes with the FIA in any of the other motorsports they ‘govern’. I think there was a grumble or two from GT Racing and WRC when they first took over, but apart from that, nothing of any consequence.
So why is there all this hassle over F1? I still feel that we need to look at the bigger picture, the is he / isn’t he tug of love between Bernie and Max and who is best to control F1. Is Bernie inciting Big Ron to mad acts of commercial suicide, just to point out how badly the FIA run things? Is this the motorsport equivalent to insider-trading?
Alex Cooper said on 24th September 2008, 8:59
If it really is as petty as Max holding a grudge against Ron that Max needs his own padded cell somewhere.
Owen said on 24th September 2008, 9:16
Can anyone explain what the term “fanboy” means? Other than sounding like the sort of character you should probably avoid on a trip to Bangkok, is this now the collective term for any supporters of Hamilton, McLaren or aggressive racing in general?
Oliver said on 24th September 2008, 9:16
Todd, If we go by your reasoning, then why did the FIA come up with the lie, that the race steward at the time, admitted he made an error, as reason not to allow for an appeal?
If the race steward was in the wrong, they he should have been read the rule book.
Its Max who says, race control shouldn’t communicate with the teams, but its the same race control that asked alonso to give the position back.
Madurai said on 24th September 2008, 9:19
I have a doubt whether it is a F1BLOG or HAMILTON fan site?????@@@@@
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 24th September 2008, 9:31
Todd:
That simply isn’t true – Liuzzi was allowed to appeal, Hamilton wasn’t. If the FIA wanted to clear up the implementation of their own rules then it would have been fair enough if they’d done it before McLaren lodged an appeal. As ever, this has nothing to do with which drivers I do or don’t like – I read the reports, I read the rules, I look at past precedent, and I call it like I see it.
Senor Paz & Negative Camber – thankyou!
AussieLeb (& Madurai) –
This site is only geared towards English fans of F1 in that it’s written in English (I’d love to make multi-language versions available but I don’t have the time/knowledge/resources). As I always say, impartiality is something one strives to achieve while knowing it’s impossible. But if you think I never criticise Hamilton or I never support what the FIA has done, then you’re wrong on both counts:
Video: Pressure on Lewis Hamilton after error in French Grand Prix …
Traction control banned in F1 from 2008
John Beamer – Indeed…
Owen – ‘Fanboy’ is a last-resort term used when you disagree with someone else’s point of view and want to claim they only hold a certain opinion because they support a certain driver. See above.
Jian said on 24th September 2008, 9:31
Madurai, couldn’t you have attempted to argue a case as todd did (even though with flawed points as Oliver mentioned) instead of flaming this thread? I love this blog because of the standard set here with people trying to reason and show their reasons. You I am afraid to say are far below that standard.
roser said on 24th September 2008, 9:34
Someone has alreay pointed out it, but I would like to insist: Liuzzi didn’t get a drive-though, that’s why they accepted the appeal. One can agree or not with the drive-though given to Hamilton, but the difference with Liuzzi is clear and simple.
diseased rat said on 24th September 2008, 9:35
Brazillian, Spanish and Italian press generally make no mention of the Liuzzi precident and seem to imply justice was done. I don’t imagine that news surprises anyone. I did find a Fittipaldi interview where he said Hamilton would be the more deserving world champion though, despite his love for Massa. He said Hamilton has been more consistent.
German press makes plenaty of mention of the Liuzzi precident and the strange obfuscation by the FIA. Perhaps the Mercedes connection would induce some bias, I offer no view on that.
Personally I’m unimpressed with the verdict, not because they upheld the penalty but the manner in which it was done. The FIA needs to be consistent and have its laws and regulations clearly stated for all to read. It really wouldn’t take that much for them to deal with all this negative reaction in a positive way, instead they look arrogant, insular and inconsistent.
NDINYO said on 24th September 2008, 9:36
so what is the difference between FIA and Zimbabwe again?
Dan aka AussieLeb said on 24th September 2008, 9:53
Sorry for the clear breach of your comments policy Keith I never knew you Englishmen took the word *** as racial abuse.
Nice try also on the splitting of hairs in regards to where your deep seeded allegiance lies. By English fans I do mean British. I’m sorry but to fuel the fire burning inside of the Hamilton, Mclaren and British fans after the case has closed, smacks of sour grapes to me, Keith. What is your motivation for this thread when McLaren have clearly moved on and to this date, have not sought clarification on the incident? I would think they would be entitled to do so? What happens next time? No one knows, and I believe it’s the task of the teams to seek such clarification by posing their own questions otherwise accept the referees decision!
Nice jibe at the end to Keith!