Mark Webber, Red Bull, Barcelona, 2012

Should Red Bull lose points over ‘illegal’ floor?

Debates and pollsPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Mark Webber, Red Bull, Barcelona, 2012The FIA has decided the hole in Red Bull’s floor in front of its rear wheels does not comply with the rules.

Red Bull have run the RB8 in this configuration for the last three races, of which they have won two.

Following the Monaco Grand Prix both Red Bulls (and all the other cars which finished in the top ten) were checked by FIA technical delegate Jo Bauer and passed scrutineering. The post-race technical report shows this included an inspection of the “rear bodywork area”.

However yesterday the FIA issued a new Technical Directive which stated that the hole in Red Bull’s floor is not legal:

“It has been argued that, as it is not explicitly stated that fully enclosed holes cannot be located in a surface lying on the step plane rearward of a line 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit template, then they may be located in such areas. We disagree with this view and consider it implicit that fully enclosed holes may not be located there.”

But if Red Bull’s car has not complied with the rules, should they be allowed to keep the points gained while their car has been running in this configuration?


At the Australian Grand Prix last year, the rear wings on both Saubers were found not to comply with the rules. They were thrown out of the results and the cars which finished behind them were promoted in the standings.

Three weeks ago at the Spanish Grand Prix, Lewis Hamilton’s car was found in violation of the technical rules during qualifying, and he too was excluded from the results and had to start the race from last place.

The technical rules have to be enforced strictly, otherwise there’s no disincentive for teams to cheat and gain a performance advantage. The FIA sporting code even says that not gaining a performance advantage is no argument for breaking the technical rules.

The scale of the advantage gained is likely in the region of hundredths of a second, not tenths. But this is the margin pole positions are being won or lost by at the moment, and we all know how important that is on a track like Monaco.


Red Bull’s cars were ruled legal by the scrutineers at the races they competed in, so there are no grounds to go back and remove them from the results.

Their rival teams had the opportunity to protest against them and chose not to – despite much speculation in Monaco that McLaren, Ferrari or another of their rivals might do.

Given that, there is no reason for the FIA to change the results of the races Red Bull has won with a design which has now been ruled illegal.

I say

Red Bull can’t be blamed for pushing the FIA’s interpretation of the rules in a bid to gain every last fraction of a second of performance. That is what racing teams do.

The real question here is why have the FIA been allowing Red Bull to run their car in a specification which they now say is against the rules.

We have seen several examples of the difficulties of enforcing a written set of rules on car design in the past. But unlike past controversies such as flexible front wings, this does not involve discovering how much a wing is deforming when a car is in motion, but a rather more straightforward question of measuring a car part and deciding what constitutes a hole.

Given that, the only difference between Red Bull’s car being ruled illegal today and Sauber’s 14 months ago is the amount of time the FIA took to make its mind up.

How can it be right that a team whose cars are ruled illegal immediately after a race lose all their points, yet a team whose cars are ruled illegal a week after the race keep them?

Red Bull don’t deserve to be punished for the FIA’s ineffectual policing. But if they win the constructors’ title courtesy of the points gained at Monaco, McLaren or Ferrari may regret having passed up their chance to protest them.

You say

Should Red Bull lose the points and wins gained with their ‘illegal’ floor?

Should Red Bull lose points over their 'illegal' floor?

  • Yes, they should lose some or all of their points (43%)
  • No, they should not lose any points (55%)
  • No opinion (3%)

Total Voters: 666

Loading ... Loading ...

An F1 Fanatic account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here.

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

Image ?é?® Red Bull/Getty images

169 comments on “Should Red Bull lose points over ‘illegal’ floor?”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4
  1. I’m no Red Bull fan, but no they should not lose the points.

    Hopefully teams may learn to grow a pair and actually protest a rivals car in future though. The current fashion of whining to the media about other teams until the FIA intervene rather than actually protesting is pathetic. Put up or shut up.

    1. As someone involved in motorsport, I can tell you that the person who protests is always regarded as the bad guy whether they were right to do it or not. Yes, you should protest if you believe you have a valid protest to make, but first and foremost the scrutineers and technical people need to do their job correctly to begin with.

      To my mind this is not a rules clarification, it is an admission that the FIA had been doing it wrong for 3 races. A clarification is necessary when scrutineers are interpreting rules in a way contrary to how they were intended, or their interpretation is not clear. This on the other hand is the governing body saying ‘yes that seems fine’ and then having to back pedal when it is shown they are wrong.

      1. I have to say that makes sense @dvc, it is a bit like teams decided in Monaco to be loud enough with rumours they might protest to finally force the FIA to take a good look, and that finally happened. Too late by FIA, but better than late than never I suppose.

    2. xeroxpt (@)
      3rd June 2012, 14:51

      yep they should quicky resolve their problems even if this small detail on the Red Bull was certantly worth a few thousands of a second and apparently this detail on the red bull wasnt as obvious as the rule that restricts the size of the rear wings or that cars should get back to the pits by their own after qually, rule instated last year after Hamilton stopped on the back straight in Canada, that’s my opinion and the opinion of any other team that’s why they arent really bothered at all, plus Red Bull made a good case about it.

      1. xeroxpt (@)
        4th June 2012, 17:49

        I forgot to say that this floor was the same used in bahrain and Shanghai.

    3. I agree, its a normal procedure that the Fia will allow an innovation to run for a couple of races to see if there are objections to it from other teams. It’s not the sames a cheating where banned systems are used. It’s also why there are always objections to new interpetations. It’s part of the game.

    4. Agree.

      If it was deemed legal at all those events, then what happens after the races is irrelevant. They should keep the points.

      However, it’s absolutely critical for the FIA to start doing its job and not realizing something’s illegal after 3 races. How fair is it that they only revise their decision after some teams spotted something themselves that they think illegal? FIA should take care of it on it’s own, they must not wait for others to see it first. After all, THEY are the scrutineers, not the teams.

    5. Agree @lopek, first of all, I hate it when results are changed later. Must be something really important. And from ScarfsF1 I understood there was some merit (albeit little) to RBR’s argument that it was nowhere explicitly stated, that no holes could be made in this area.
      And the last thing is, honestly how big is the difference between a hole (RBR) and Ferrari having just an opening because they have a millimeter wide hairline “slit” that connects the holes to the outer edge of the floor.
      In a way its nitpicking, although I think had it been allowed, we would be starting to see all kinds of holes appearing, so a ruling was needed.

      So, indeed, no points lost, but its another nice detail of how murky the rules are in F1, that we keep seeing these kind of things appearing.

      1. Bernie should fine the FIA a couple million for not stopping them in the first time when RBR tried to run the car with big holes in the floor.
        this has always been a problem with the FIA, if they cant tell a car has been change and have no idea if it is legal or not then get rid of them.
        we shouldn’t never have a situation like this if the FIA was doing it job.
        they have to go or be replaced with someone that has bigger #!^* and sort it out before it is ever used on a track.

        1. Bernie should fine the FIA a couple of million for not stopping them in the first time when RBR tried to run the car with big holes in the floor

          They can hardly be called big holes @lethalnz , it is a minor performance upgrade probably worth a few thousands of a second. They had allowed them to run with it for the previous races as they deemed Red Bull’s interpretation of the rules complied with the rule book. This event was most likely brought on due to the threat of a protest; upon closer inspection they deemed it illegal. They merely clarified the rules, no fine is necessary.

    6. Teams shouldn’t have to protest other teams’ cars for the scrutineering process to be effective: the FIA should do their job and stop flip-flopping about. Teams need to have confidence that as they toe the line and play within FIA regulations, other teams are doing the same – rather than having to worry about whether some other team is obtaining an illegal advantage that will give them points which are allowed to remain even after the illegality is discovered and declared so.

    7. Agreed! TO begin, it is quoted: “Following the Monaco Grand Prix both Red Bulls (and all the other cars which finished in the top ten) were checked by FIA technical delegate Jo Bauer and passed scrutineering.”
      This is then followed with: “However yesterday the FIA issued a new Technical Directive which stated that the hole in Red Bull’s floor is not legal”…therefore, per legal ruling, there should be NO points deducted from Red Bull’s team! Legality does ‘rule’, thus points should remain as standing, and the corrections should now be made to any vehicle that may not ‘pass’ this newly initiated Technical Directive.

  2. McLaren lost points (constructors) for “spygate” in 2007, Sauber lost points (drivers and constructors, when it should’ve just been constructors) for the rear wing issue you described, so why shouldn’t Red Bull lose their constructors points?

    1. I don’t believe you should ever lose only drivers or constructors points. It takes a team of people to run a car, and the drivers know that. Sometimes it is the driver’s error that loses points, sometimes it is the rest of the team’s. A technical mistake that takes a car outside the regulations is no different to failing to screw the wheel on correctly in this respect.

      1. It’s not a technical ‘mistake’ though is it? It’s a performance advantage.

        Don’t get me wrong.. I think Red Bull should keep the points, but only because the FIA clowns didn’t know the rule book when they were validating the legality of the car.

        1. It’s a mistake in the sense that they didn’t interpret the rules correctly. All I’m trying to say here is that just because it is the engineer who is in error doesn’t mean it’s ok to keep driver’s points.

    2. ” so why shouldn’t Red Bull lose their constructors points?”

      Because Mclaren didn’t loose points for there later deemed illegal front wing last year or starter hole. Nor did Mercedes relating to a similar problem found with the starter hole. It happens all the time around grey areas.
      Sauber was black and white though and shouldn’t really be compared.

      For the record I was pretty mad about RBR legal but really illegal hole last week, I posted last Sunday, but I don’t think they should lose points due to the incompetence of the FIA.

      I have no reason not to believe Horner saying they had a letter saying it was legal so why should they lose points. I am glad that they have tighten the rules on this area and it is ‘now’ illegal, so change it and that should be the end of it.

      1. Re: starter Hole

        It was 2010 they had to make changes, it was then further cleared up in the rules for 2011

      2. Front wing didn’t lose Mclaren points, didn’t they run it in the European GP?

      3. I’m sure the sauber illegal rear wing was due to a manufacturing defect and not an illegal design?

  3. Their car was declared legal just after the race, and then the fia declared them illegal: at the time of racing, they were legal. therefore, a loss of points isnt necessary

    1. And that should be the end of that.

    2. The rules were the same, the cars were the same, so how can whether they were illegal or not (which is presumably meant to be a function only of the car and the rules, not of other things like the name of the team or the time of day) change?

      1. which is presumably meant to be a function only of the car and the rules, not of other things like the name of the team or the time of day

        Greatly put.

      2. peoples opinions change; the design was clearly borderline, but the FiA can’t blame the team for running the part, as it is a competitive, ruthless sport. And, if the stewards decided that the floor was legal in the last 3 races, then no penalty can be given.
        It’s as clear cut as that

        1. If we have rules A, and a car with specifications B, the question is whether A is numerically identical to B. During the weekend it was found that A did indeed equal B, yet now it is believed that it is not. Hence, Red Bull should lose points.

          I agree that this fiasco is primarily down to the FIA’s incompetence in letting the cars race in the first place. Yet if Red Bull are to keep their points, on what grounds can Sauber’s situation be justified? The reason why people find that Red Bull should not lose points is because it did not give them a significant advantage – if the floor gave them a second a lap and it was found to be illegal after the race, I would argue that most people would find a penalty to be justified.

          The validity of a ruling does not change with the judge. I can see the argument that the FIA found the cars to be legal in the first place, but I am not aware of a rule saying that a car entered into an event cannot be found illegal after the event, even if the characteristics of a car have not changed. @keithcollantine, would you be able to clarify this?

          I am the first to raise my hand and to say that a lack of such a rule is ridiculous (if indeed such a rule does not exist), but just as taking points away from Red Bull might seem unfair, so was penalising Sauber last year.

    3. I agree, I don’t see how a points deduction could be made fairly and in proportion to the offence. I do see how people become frustrated at inconsistent stewarding of the races and technical regs. I think Saubers punishment last year was fair, i think LH’s punishment was harsh but these are all individual seperate incidents. If Christian has a document containing expressed consent for that design, and now through various pit lane discussions it has been decided by Charlie that it is in fact an incorrect interpretation then I think the best course forward is to do what they are doing. Change the design with no retrospective punishment. One thing that most of us have agreed time and time before is that we hate it when stewards change race results, I know some people argue that perhaps some WCC points could be deducted, but i don’t see the validity in it. I have read all the various articles written about this design, and in making up my own mind this is simply a technical infringement at a technical level i.e. I can’t see how there was any real tangible performance benefit. (but i make no claims to be an aero engineer, it’s simply my 2 pennys worth!)

  4. I think this amounts to a rule change/clarification during the season. The points should be kept by the team, as the scrutineers passed the cars, but they will no longer be legal for subsequent races. This has often happened in the past where, e.g., driver aids and other innovations have been introduced, run for a race or two, then banned.

    1. sid_prasher (@)
      3rd June 2012, 15:01

      I agree. This is my view as well. A clarification on the rule which now onwards makes the floor illegal.

    2. I agree; the most recent case of this kind that I can think of is Renault’s mass damper of 2005/6. Scrutineers from the end of 2005 up until the middle of 2006 declared them to be legal, but ultimately the FIA banned them from mid-2006 onwards. Renault weren’t retrospectively punished for the races where they had run the mass damper because it had been declared legal by the scrutineers up to that point.

  5. I think I would say yes, they should lose all their points – if it wasn’t at Monaco. If it was somewhere like Catalunya or Sepang then I might kick up more of a fuss.

    What annoys me is, like Keith highlights in the article, the inconsistency in how they have deal with such situations i.e Sauber in Melbourne ’11.

  6. I fail to see how this is not an open and shut case. Red Bull broke the rules. If a team races an illegal car, they are disqualified from the race results. If they race 3 races with an illegal car, they are disqulified from those 3 races. As Keith mentioned in the article, the prescedent was set with Sauber last year, and many other teams in the past, or did the FIA come down with a case of weak backbone when it came to disqualifying a large team?

    1. But it was legal fro the duration of the race; the floor was passed by the scrutineers after the race, and was only declared illegal a few days after the race.

      1. Was Sauber not declared legal during scrutineering?

        1. Was Sauber not declared legal during scrutineering?

          @matt90 No. Could be wrong on this one but Sauber was declared illegal at the race event, scrutineering after the race wasn’t it? Anyway it was not declared legal.

      2. Also, it wasn’t legal- it doesn’t conform with the current unchanged rules, so it didn’t conform before and was therefore illegal. It was however deemed legal (incorrectly) and that is enough that they avoid punishment.

    2. Indeed, however the point is in Sauber’s case the wing was illegal when they raced it and not only from Malaysia onwards, whereas in the Red Bull case it was legal in Monaco and before and is only illegal from Canada.

      It is therefore tantamont to a mid-season rule change and the results of these cannot be applied post event.

      Therefore Red Bull have done nothing wrong and they should not lose their points.

      1. But the rules havent changed so if its illegal now it was illegal then. I voted red bull should lose their points, but what I really meant is they should HAVE LOST their points.

    3. The car was not deemed illegal at the events in question. Why Lin1876 do you and so many others fail to understand this? The FIA would like the floor changed moving forward, end of story.

    4. You’ve made your point, and I can see where you’re coming from better than I could. I still say they should lost the points, since the car broke the rules at the three races (which have, as @matt90 said, have remained static). I’m also going to step on a land mine here and say that the technical directive overrules the Stewards because of the time allowed to discuss the ruling. That’s how I see it, you’re welcome to disagree.

      1. Lin1876 you have a point, the technical directive is THE rules, but the stewards run the weekends. Charlie Whiting was seen up to an hr prior to the race still in conversation with Christian Horner, the fact that the FIA allowed this floor to pass in 2 previous races shows ( as alot of ppl have stated ) that there is either in flaw in FIA ruling or a misunderstanding of the regs. I think the issue was highlighted as other teams disputed the holes and brought this area further scrutiny and therefore further ruling. I at no point believe this was favourtism.

        1. Another football analogy might help here. If the referee doesn’t see a handball that leads to a goal then that’s just luck. The game ends when the whistle blows. In F1 the race ends at the completion of the scrutineering procedures, at least for technical compliance. Issues surrounding spying or whatever are a different case.

      2. The Saubers failed post race scrutineering

        1. +1

          That is what I though, I wish people was stop mentioning it, totally different circumstances.

  7. The FIA accepted the floor for 3 races, confirmed to the team they were ok with it, so no, RBR shouldn’t lose points. The rule has now been clarified with a Technical Directive which makes the hole illegal as of now.

  8. Why do people (including the FIA) think that Red Bull are above the rules? It’s ridiculous. What gets me is the inconsistency of punishment. Hamilton runs out of fuel and gets totally disqualified from qualifying but when Maldonado uses his car as a weapon it’s only a ten place penalty. Meanwhile Red Bull can go racing in an illegal car with no real punishment whatsoever. In honestly makes you lose faith in Formula 1.

    1. Hamilton runs out of fuel and gets totally disqualified from qualifying … meanwhile Red Bull can go racing in an illegal car with no real punishment whatsoever

      Well, for starters, Hamilton was prosecuted under the sporting regulations, while Red Bull was in violation of the technical regulations. These are two entirely different documents that dictate entirely different things, and have no bearing on one another.

      when Maldonado uses his car as a weapon it’s only a ten place penalty

      If you’re referring to the incident in Monaco, that was never proven to be deliberate. If your only evidence is that Maldonado was off the racing line when he hit Perez, then by your logic, Lewis Hamilton deliberately crashed into Jenson Button in Canada last year – when they reviewed the incident, the stewards stated that they were satisfied that Button had not deviated from the racing line that he or any other driver had used, which means Hamilton was off the racing line when he hit Button. Therefore, it must have been deliberate.

      1. @prisoner-monkeys

        Hamilton was prosecuted under the sporting regulations

        No he wasn’t, Hamilton was excluded under the technical regulations, as was explained here at the time:

        Hamilton penalty hands Maldonado first pole position

        1. The rule McLaren broke was clear as night and day. However the punishment didnt fit the crime, Hamilton made it into Q3 fair and square, and therefore should only have been excluded from Q3 results!
          Red Bull’s car has passed a number of times, its not their problem that the FIA have changed their mind. Red Bull now have to change the car. What, are Red Bull going to change it when the FIA deems it legal?
          End of story!

          1. However the punishment didnt fit the crime, Hamilton made it into Q3 fair and square, and therefore should only have been excluded from Q3 results!

            Hamilton’s case wasn’t simply a situation where the stewards looked at the rules and decided on a punishment. I believe the rule is quite clear as to the punishment that will be given. It’s a harsh rule, but it’s one designed to stop teams exploiting it. What would you say if, for example, a Force India made it to Q3 with an underfuelled car, but then did not set a lap time and was calssified tenth?

    2. I would say watching your favourite team make a meal out of your favourite driver’s chances is the cause of your loss of faith.

      1. @dragon Burned! Good post!

  9. They were told they were legal and now because of complaints they have to change it. Martin Whitmarsh said on Tv they were told it was a clever interpretation of the rules by the FIA.

    It’s interesting that now they are the second team to win a race it looks bad and they are worried red bull might pull away agin so they get penalised.

    But that’s just my view! I don’t expect many will agree with me as there are plenty of people who accuse red bull of cheating in every race!

    1. Actually, I do agree. It’s FIA’s way of making sure that RedBull don’t pull ahead of the pack and ruin the championship

  10. I know the following comment is an immature attitude to take, but it feels like certain other teams would face a points deduction before even batting an eyelid. While this probably isn’t true, this is the impression the FIA has given by it’s inconstancy and recent overly harsh punishments.

    1. If it was McLaren, they would have lost point. That is 100%.

      Having said that, I don’t think Red Bull should lose points as their cars were deemed legal. This is yet another cock up by the FIA but it is nothing to do with Red Bull. They checked if they could race legally with the holes in place and were told they could.

      1. @petebaldwin

        If it was McLaren, they would have lost point. That is 100%.

        No you are wrong. Mclaren have twice raced with a later deemed illegal car and have kept their points, and I am a Mclaren fan, which is why I know (the details).

  11. Wow, 50/50!
    I think they should get about a 50 constructor point penalty, but the driver’s points should stay as is.

    1. Why? If an advantage was gained, then it was gained by the drivers. If Hamilton had to pay for his team’s error, when the mistake probably had no bearing on the fact he qualified in first place, then why should Webber and Vettel benefit from a clear performance advantage over three races?

      Just how incompetent are FIA and its technical staff? How many weeks/months do they need to decided if a clearly visible design element is an infringement or not? Do they work 20 minutes a day? The latitude they have makes me think, very cynically, that space is simply given for bargaining between the teams, they are the ones who ultimately decide. In this case there was a behind-the-scenes agreement that Red Bull would drop their design solution but without punishment from FIA. If so, I just wonder what McLaren’s management are up to, because they’re draining points everywhere, allowing an illegal solution to go unchallenged for 2-3 races , winning two of them, while their own driver is punished over a technicality that had no real influence on the championship.

  12. If Red Bull lost points, principle of legal certeinty would be breached, because Red Bull believed, that holes were legal and FIA didn’t ban them.

    1. Every team that has ever lost points in F1 could have trotted out this excuse. That has not stopped it happening in the past.

      1. It’s nothing to do with excuses, it’s interpretation. That is why they asked for clarification.

        1. This is not an interpretation. This is a mendacious attempt to ignore the rules. There is no way that a floor with a hole in it is impervious.

    2. Exactly, their interpretation was such that it deemed holes legal. While in the case of Sauber in 2011, they just made something which clearly didn’t comply, furthermore, there were no interpretations which would make their case valid. And thus they lost their points.

  13. No, they shouldn’t lose any points.

    The have have been found legal on several occasions an have probably even asked the FIA to look into this desging with an okay as the outcome.

    To rule it illegal now is more a FIA problem than a Red Bull problem. The FIA should have stated it clear when this design was presented to them the first time.
    But they have the right to be advised on other interpretaions and come with a different ruling when they have come to another insight.

  14. On one hand, there are no legal grounds to deduct their points now. As Keith pointed out, other teams had a chance to place a formal protest, but they didn’t use it. On the other hand, FIA showed again how inconsistent it is when enforcing rules. The be honest, after how they treated Sauber, Red Bull should be punished in the same manner. But it wasn’t. This gives a huge space for speculations about uneven treatment of the teams and for questioning FIA’s credibility as the ruling body.

  15. Following the Monaco Grand Prix both Red Bulls (and all the other cars which finished in the top ten) were checked by FIA technical delegate Jo Bauer and passed scrutineering.

    This says it all to be honest. This is not a matter of Red Bull presenting themselves with an illegal car, it’s more like a matter of interpretation. Teams have been running specs at the limit of the regulations for ages.

    This time though, I feel it’s all on the FIA not being consistent enough and not being able to correctly and efficiently pinpoint what’s legal or not and for that, no one should lose points, be it Red Bull or whoever else.

    FIA – sort your **** out for god’s sake…

    1. Agree. The teams, drivers, managers et al are questioned endlessly about what they do and why. Isn’t it about time the bureaucrats at least had to answer in a similar fashion?? Instead they closet themselves and thus leave themselves more open to wondering about what might have taken place under the table.

      And if ithis had their attention BEFORE the race, why so long to come to this conclusion?

      Millions could rest on such a decision. A club race scrutineer would’ve acted more promptly than them.

  16. The problem is the FIA has no points chart where we could discount some for every mistake they make. They would be far on the negative figures, not only in F1, also in rallying and other disciplines or motorsport.

  17. No, for the simple reason that during those races that they won it was legal, if you wanted to argue the other way you would have infinite reasons for debate. It was legal when it raced and won so thats fine, it’s now illegal so they can’t use it at Canada simple.

    I fail to see how a change or clarification of the rules after the event when they were ruled legal is Red Bull’s fault. So they should not lose any points.

  18. This is very confusing, but I voted no for the reasons Keith stated in the article.

    If the hole was declared illegal after Bahrain, then yes, the result should have been taken off them while they were at the track. Changing history and rewriting everything that happened this year seems excessive and not right. If the FIA didn’t say no to it, Red Bull can’t be expected to take it off their car if they believe it’s giving them an advantage. I really hope things like this are dealt with as soon as they become apparent in the future, though.

  19. While I haven’t read all the comments, as far as I understand it (from Joe Saward’s blog) the foor hasn’t been declared illegal. One body of the FiA has stated that it doesn’t conform with the rules – and the others are therefore likely to agree with it – but strictly speaking, its not illegal.


  20. It was said after Lewis Hamilton’s qualifying mess up that any technical breaches would lead to a disqualification of the event. Why is it that Red Bull are allowed to keep their results when they had a breach of the technical regulations?

    1. Read the article!!!! They car was deemed legal during the events. Results retained, simple as that.

    2. Because nobody decided to protest the results. If they had, then the Red Bulls would have been disqualified, but that didn’t happen.

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.