Why Gasly’s Monaco case is so complex – and why the outcome could take weeks

Almost three months after the Monaco Grand Prix, the result of Formula 1’s most prestigious race is still not definitive.

Pierre Gasly’s penalty for pitlane speeding was overturned in the week after the race, restoring him to third place at the expense of Isack Hadjar, but that was far from the end of the matter.

McLaren and Red Bull have since challenged the decision before the FIA’s International Court of Appeal (ICA), with the hearing taking place on Wednesday.

However, all parties have indicated that a verdict should not be expected in the immediate future. A decision – or at least an explanation of that decision – could take another two to three weeks, which is standard procedure for an ICA case.

What was more unusual was that the hearing lasted the entire day. The ICA heard the arguments from all sides, but it will take time to reach a considered judgement. This is due to the complexity of the legal arguments involved, but also the wider implications for F1, which McLaren in particular has explicitly linked to some general ‘principles of fairness’.

Hadjar and Oscar Piastri both lost positions and therefore championship points as a result of Gasly’s time penalty being overturned, but according to both teams, there is a lot more at stake. Both have portrayed the events in Monaco as setting a dangerous precedent.

Gasly has been handed Hadjar’s trophy, but nearly three months later he still doesn’t know whether he is allowed to keep it

Photo by: Erik Junius

Team principal Andrea Stella spoke at Zandvoort of a “double intent” behind his team’s appeal, with the matter extending beyond the points lost in both championships.

“We think that the process that happened after the race in Monaco is a process that needs to be reviewed from a fairness [point of view] for all competitors. The fact that the penalty was removed introduces some significant elements of concern,” McLaren’s team principal said.

“There’s obviously more related to this case. It can go into the technical aspects of how the pit limiter speed was calculated. But for me, at a high level, it’s more the fairness and the principle that needs to be clarified and possibly reinstated. I think what happened sets some significant concerns.”

Those final words refer to the precedent that drivers and teams could in future be encouraged not to serve time penalties on track, but instead challenge them after the chequered flag.

By not doing so, Piastri and George Russell were among those who ended up paying the price in Monaco.

The Mercedes driver unsuccessfully attempted to serve his time penalty, incurring an additional drive-through penalty in the process. It ultimately left him without points in the principality, and with no opportunity to do anything about it afterwards – even though Mercedes explored the options.

Furthermore, the teams feel that as long as the measurements have been incorrect for everyone, accepting that the system has certain flaws is part of the responsibility that comes with competing in a championship – so as not to open a can of worms.

According to McLaren and Red Bull, the appeal also concerns the wider implications and the fairness of the sport

Photo by: Guido De Bortoli / LAT Images via Getty Images

According to McLaren and Red Bull, that sets a precedent, although the ICA judges are effectively faced with choosing between two evils. It must be said that an ideal solution for the Monaco race is no longer really available.

After the Monaco GP, it was established that the pitlane measurement was inaccurate, with a discrepancy of 77cm in the distance between two timing loops. This meant the speed measurements were incorrect and that it could not be proven that drivers such as Gasly had actually exceeded the limit.

Knowing that the measurement was wrong makes it difficult, with the benefit of hindsight, to reinstate Gasly’s time penalty once more.

At the same time, however, other drivers who may have been wrongly penalised cannot get that lost time back, meaning that getting to a fair result for all parties is virtually impossible, no matter what the ICA’s decision will be.

We want to hear from you!

– The Autosport.com Team