© Steve Etherington for Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd.
Sports law expert Nicholas Bamber says “there appears to be a good legal basis upon which Mercedes could seek to appeal”, and he breaks down a possible case.
The controversial Safety Car decisions FIA race director Michael Masi made in the closing stages of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, basically handed Max Verstappen a race win and the world title on a silver platter.
Immediately after the race, Mercedes protested the decisions, but they were dismissed by the FIA. The team announced their intention to appeal these decisions, but there has been no word on whether a full appeal will be made.
The crux of the case is the fact that Masi broke FIA’s rules and protocols while making his Safety Car decisions, which in turn influenced the results of the race.
According to Nicholas Bamber, an associate in regulatory and commercial dispute resolution at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP, Mercedes seem to have a strong case if they choose to go through with the appeal.
“Race director Michael Masi and the stewards’ interpretation of the FIA’s 2021 Sporting Regulations has been called into question by racing drivers, pundits and legal commentators alike,” Bamber told RaceFans.net.
“In response to Mercedes’ protest, they concluded that article 15.3 gives the race director carte blanche to control the use of the safety car and overrides the procedure for the safety car stipulated at Article 48.12.
If you like SilverArrows.Net, consider supporting us by buying us a coffee!
“This interpretation seems – on its face – to be inconsistent with a plain language view of the regulations.
“It also directly contradicts Michael Masi’s approach in similar circumstances at the 2020 Eifel Grand Prix where he stated ‘There is a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars past’ before the safety car returns to the pit lane and the race recommences ‘therefore the safety car period was a bit longer than what we would have normally wanted’ – i.e. the race director cannot overrule the appropriate application of the regulations, including the full application of article 48.12.”
Bamber says this could be considered a breach of the International Sporting Code.
“Article 1.1.1 of the 2021 FIA International Sporting Code makes clear that the regulations are to be enforced ‘based on the fundamental principles of safety and sporting fairness’.
“Part of sporting fairness revolves around consistency of application of the rules of the sport. As such, there appears to be a good legal basis upon which Mercedes could seek to appeal.”
“In addition to repeating the reasoning set out in the stewards’ decision, the FIA would likely argue that any ambiguity in the regulations should be resolved in favour of Masi’s decision-making made in real-time, under the pressure of ensuring the race was completed safely and competitively – relying upon the sports law doctrine of respective ‘field of play’ decisions.
“Again, given the inconsistency in the application of the decision-making during the race itself, and against the same circumstances in prior races, this seems an unconvincing argument.”
Bamber also said that the direct communication the teams had with Masi during the race is “extremely unusual”.
“Whilst a relatively recent move to make the FIA radio communications between teams and race director has proven popular with the F1 audience from an entertainment perspective, it has also highlighted the volume and questionable nature of communications sent mid-race by the teams.
“It is extremely unusual, if not unique, in a sporting context for team representatives to have a direct line to the officials in the middle of a contest. In sport it is extremely important for officials not to be inappropriately influenced, and this raises questions about the regulation of those communications going forward.
“In rugby we have seen a lengthy ban handed out to South Africa’s director of rugby for ‘egregious’ offences during the British and Irish Lions’ tour of South Africa, including his role in releasing a video criticising match officials’ performance.
“World Rugby’s independent committee found that his conduct had a ‘corrosive effect on the game more widely, as well as the viewing public and press’,” Bamber concluded.
