McLaren’s bid for a Right of Review to overturn Lando Norris‘ 5-second penalty from the United States Grand Prix has been rejected by the FIA stewards. McLaren contended that the stewards’ decision in Document 69 from the Austin weekend contained an inaccurate statement, leading to an incorrect ruling in penalizing Norris.

McLaren was supposed to submit new evidence in the hearing that was not considered when Stewards handed Norris the 5-second penalty, which pushed him down to the fourth position behind Max Verstappen.

However, McLaren instead argued that Norris had gained a clear lead over Red Bull’s Max Verstappen during the late-race battle at Turn 12 during the USGP, positioning Norris as the defending driver rather than the attacker. However, Verstappen managed to reclaim the apex just before both drivers veered wide, with Norris ultimately completing the overtake in the run-off area.

The hearing in the Mexican GP paddock lasted just 25 minutes, with Austin stewards joining via video. McLaren team principal Andrea Stella and racing director Randeep Singh presented their case, while Red Bull sporting director Jonathan Wheatley provided counterarguments before the FIA ​​officials and head of single seater Nikolas Tombazis.

With the lack of new evidence, Singh argued that Document 69 from the FIA ​​timing system was a relevant element because it contained an incorrect and provable statement. McLaren stated “that the statement (in ‘Document 69’) was that “Car 4 was overtaking Car 1 on the outside but was not level with Car 1 at the apex.” In addition, “the above statement was in error because McLaren had evidence that Car 4 had already overtaken and was ahead of Car 1″ at the braking zone”. (sic)

Stella argued that McLaren’s case presented a substantial and sophisticated legal basis, deserving of serious consideration compared to prior Right of Review cases. In contrast, Wheatley countered that none of the four criteria for a Right of Review were met, emphasizing the high standard set by Article 14 of the FIA ​​Sporting Code, making it exceptionally challenging to establish new evidence.

Looking at the evidence, the stewards declared that “the concept that the written Decision (Document 69) was the significant and relevant new element, or that an error in the decision was a new element, is not sustainable and is therefore rejected.”

Additionally, the Austin stewards clarified that McLaren argued their finding that Car 4 was not level with Car 1 at the apex was incorrect. McLaren claimed that Car 4 had overtaken Car 1 before reaching the apex, making Car 1 the overtaking car, and that this alleged misjudgment constituted new evidence. The stewards stated:

“This is unsustainable. A petition for review is made in order to correct an error (of fact or law) in a decision. Any new element must demonstrate that error.

“The error that must be shown to exist, cannot itself be the element referred to in Article 14 (of the ISC).”

Adding on the high bar element, the stewards stated: “The current ‘high bar’ that exists in Article 14 and the fact that it appears to have been designed more for decisions that are taken as a result of a hearing where all parties are present , rather than in the pressurized environment of a race session, when decisions are taken, (as is allowed under the International Sporting Code), without all parties being present.”

Following the rejection, McLaren said in a statement:

“We acknowledge the Stewards’ decision to reject our petition requesting a Right of Review.

“We disagree with the interpretation that an FIA document, which makes a competitor aware of an objective, measurable and provable error in the decision made by the stewards, cannot be an admissible “element” which meets all four criteria set by the ISC, as specified in Article 14.3.

“We would like to thank the FIA ​​and the stewards for having considered this case in a timely manner.

“We will continue to work closely with the FIA ​​to further understand how teams can constructively challenge decisions that lead to an incorrect classification of the race.”