After McLaren’s request for a Right of Review into Lando Norris’ penalty in Austin was rejected by the FIA stewards, the team argued that there were incorrect statements made in the decision. McLaren believed that the evidence they presented was significant and relevant and was not available to them when the decision was made to penalize Norris.
McLaren contended that Norris had successfully overtaken Max Verstappen at Turn 12 during the United States Grand Prix and should have been considered the defending car, not the attacker, when Verstappen retook the lead before both cars went off track and Norris passed in the run-off area.
Lando Norris, McLaren MCL38, Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB20
Photo by: Red Bull Content Pool
To proceed to the second stage of the Right of Review procedure, which would have involved a new assessment of Norris’s penalty, McLaren needed to prove that the new evidence presented was ‘significant’, ‘relevant’, ‘new’ and ‘unavailable at the time of the decision’.
The hearing in the Mexican GP paddock lasted 25 minutes, with McLaren’s team boss Andrea Stella and team manager Randeep Singh making their case, while Red Bull representatives and FIA officials were also present to weigh in on the matter.
The Austin stewards ultimately rejected McLaren’s argument that a statement in Document 69 was a significant and relevant new element, as they believed that the error in the decision was not a valid basis for a Right of Review.
Following the decision, McLaren issued a statement expressing their disagreement with the interpretation of the rules and their commitment to working with the FIA to challenge decisions that impact race results.
