Bottom post of the previous page:
That would make sense, except drivers with disabilities were already mentioned as being "promoted" under Jean Todt's rule. I guess he could mention them twice.Everso Biggyballies wrote: ↑2 years agoThat was my initial thought when I read it last night..... but then realised he must be talking of ability in a disability context (if that makes sense)
Motor Racing wouldn’t exist if everybody with questionable talent was excluded from taking part…. Half the F1 grid is made up of people who bought their way up the ladder and honed their craft on that journey.
This is mega cool. Anna Nordqvist, a former co-worker and friend of mine is the new FIA VP. Freaking' awesome.
Ah, I see the "Ecclestone appointed as FIA VP" was a clickbait headline, which really upset Lewis fans lol.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/ben-s ... /10583187/.FIA president MohammedBen Sulayem investigated for alleged attempt to interfere in F1 race result
The event involved is the 2023 Saudi Arabian GP, where Fernando Alonso finished third on the road before a 10-second penalty for the team touching the car during a penalty stop demoted him to fourth.
However, later the stewards rescinded the penalty, restoring the Aston Martin driver to third in the final results.
According to the BBC, Ben Sulayem is the subject of an investigation after a whistleblower accused him of attempting to interfere with the result by attempting to get Alonso's 10-second penalty overturned.
Ben Sulayem is alleged to have called Sheikh Abdullah bin Hamas bin Isa Al Khalifa, FIA vice-president for sport for the Middle East and North Africa region and a close ally of his, who was present at the race.
The BBC says that the matter is being investigated by the FIA's ethics committee and that a report has been submitted by FIA compliance officer Paolo Basarri, who has been with the organisation since 2017.
At the time, there was no suggestion that there was anything untoward with the change of heart by the stewards.
In fact, the focus was on Aston Martin sporting director Andy Stevenson, who successfully made the team's case in a right of review, and convinced the stewards to change their minds.
It was also seen as a rare example of the stewards accepting new evidence and making a decision that appeared to be logical and fair.
It also led to an FIA investigation that created clarity for the rules related to touching cars at penalty pitstops.
The saga began when Alonso was deemed to have stopped on the grid too far to the side of his painted grid box, a result of extra FIA scrutiny at the time following a 2023 F1 sporting regulation change.
Alonso subsequently had to take a five-second penalty at his pitstop. Mercedes viewed a video of the stop and alerted the FIA to the fact that the rear jack was touching the car.
The FIA looked into the matter via its remote operations centre in Geneva, and the matter went to the stewards.
The stewards were initially led to believe that an earlier meeting of the FIA sporting advisory committee had agreed that jacks could not touch the car during a penalty stop, violating a regulation that says a car "may not be worked on until the car has been stationary for the duration of the penalty."
Alonso was given a 10-second penalty that dropped him from third to fourth. However, Aston Martin requested a right of review.
The AM team was able to demonstrate to the stewards that while the matter had indeed been discussed at the SAC, there was no firm agreement on jacks touching cars being illegal.
Stevenson also showed videos of seven examples of penalty pitstops involving Mercedes, Alpine, AlphaTauri, Haas and McLaren where jacks were touching.
The stewards considered this was new evidence and thus reversed the decision on Alonso's 10-second penalty, and the Spaniard got his third place back.
The change of mind led to some criticism of the FIA because of the apparent confusion over what the regulations said.
The governing body decided to fast-track a review of the events, noting that "consistent with the transparent approach adopted by the FIA, a thorough analysis has been undertaken and conclusions drawn that will help improve the sport."
It added that "the review panel comprised representatives from a number of FIA departments including race control, safety, operations and technical and members of the FIA remote operations centre (ROC)."
Consistent with the decision of the Jeddah stewards the review noted that "this circumstance arose due to a lack of clarity in the wording of the relevant regulations and conflicting precedents, which were exposed by this specific incident.
"The rule itself had been a point of discussion at recent sporting advisory committee meetings, the forum in which the FIA, FOM and all the teams discuss and propose amendments to the F1 sporting regulations for approval and implementation in the FIA F1 World Championship."
After further discussion in the team managers' meeting at the Australian GP new protocols were issued regarding touching cars during penalty stops.
The FIA did not respond to a request for comment when contacted by Autosport.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68478049Mohammed Ben Sulayem, president of Formula 1's governing body, allegedly told officials not to certify the Las Vegas circuit for its race last year.
The claim is from the same whistleblower who accused Ben Sulayem of allegedly telling officials to overturn a penalty to Fernando Alonso in Saudi Arabia last year.
The whistleblower says they were told "on behest of the FIA president" to find a way not to pass the circuit safe for racing.
The claim is in a report by the FIA's compliance officer to its ethics committee.
BBC Sport has seen the report.
An FIA spokesperson said: "From a sporting and safety perspective, the Las Vegas circuit approval followed FIA protocol in terms of inspection and certification.
"If you recall, there was a delay in the track being made available for inspection due to ongoing local organiser construction works."
The report quotes the whistleblower saying they were contacted by their manager, "who on behest of the FIA president instructed him to find some concerns to prevent the FIA from certifying the circuit before the weekend of the race".
The compliance report quotes the whistleblower as saying that "the purpose was to find fault with the track in order to withhold the licence".
It adds: "Asked to be more specific, [the whistleblower] said that issues on the circuit were meant to be artificially identified regardless of their actual existence, with the ultimate goal of withholding the licence."
The whistleblower said they tasked an official with performing this task, and named two further officials who were in the room at the time.
BBC Sport is not identifying the people named in the report.
The report adds that officials were "unable to find any concerns with the circuit and therefore certified the circuit fit for the race".
BBC Sport has learned that other officials present at the time have a different recollection of the events from the whistleblower.
It is not clear why Ben Sulayem would wish for FIA officials to refuse to certify the Las Vegas track.
The race was a poster event for F1, and commercial rights holders Liberty Media had invested at least £500m in the event in the hope of using it to promote the sport in the US and across the globe.
But the backdrop to Las Vegas, the penultimate race of last season, was two years of tension between Liberty Media and the FIA, in which Ben Sulayem on numerous occasions was keen to extract more money from F1 for the FIA.
The contract between the two parties sees the commercial rights holder pay the FIA about $40m a year to perform its duties in legislating F1.
A spokesperson for F1 declined to comment.
What happened to disrupt practice in Vegas?
Early on the first day of practice, Carlos Sainz's Ferrari hit a drain that had become dislodged on the Las Vegas Strip, the centrepiece of the track.
The incident destroyed his Ferrari's chassis and led to the cancellation of the first practice session and a delay to the second one.
The session had been due to start ay midnight. Spectators were sent home at 01:30, before the second session started. It eventually started two and a half hours late and finished at 04:00.
The drain problems were caused by the underground frame beneath the cover becoming cracked, possibly by the forces from cars or Sainz's Ferrari hitting it.
The bolts attaching the cover to the drain were intact and it was established no inspection would have found the problem before practice started.
All grands prix are subject to an FIA report after the event that identifies issues which arose and how they might be dealt with.
The context to this situation
The compliance report is the latest in a series of controversies surrounding Ben Sulaymen since he took office in December 2021.
Most recently, Ben Sulayem inserted himself into the controversy surrounding Red Bull team principal Christian Horner.
During last weekend's Bahrain Grand Prix, the FIA was under pressure from Mercedes and McLaren F1 bosses Toto Wolff and Zak Brown to look into the allegations of inappropriate behaviour against Horner, who has denied the claims.
The 50-year-old was the subject of an internal Red Bull inquiry. The company announced last week on the eve of first practice in Bahrain that the complaint had been "dismissed".
According to Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, after Red Bull's three-time champion Max Verstappen twice failed to give Horner unqualified backing in a news conference in Bahrain, Ben Sulayem approached the Dutchman and said he should publicly back his boss.
Verstappen, BBC Sport has been told, responded by saying Ben Sulayem should launch his own inquiry into the matter.
On the same day, Ben Sulayem posted on Instagram a photograph taken at the inauguration of the Bahrain track in 2004 of him sitting next to Prince Andrew. The post has since been deleted.
And during the off-season, the FIA launched a compliance inquiry into Mercedes team principal Wolff and his wife Susie on the basis of claims in a magazine of a conflict of interest.
The inquiry was withdrawn after just two days, following angry interventions from Mercedes, F1 and the other nine teams, who all said they had not made a complaint.
Insiders say that he and/or the FIA may yet face legal action over the intervention.
The crap has already hit the fan over the findings and methods. Suzi (wife of Toto) who was investigated for saying things to Toto he should not have known.The independent investigation was carried out into both claims with the procedure overseen by the FIA’s compliance officer and reviewed by a six-person ethics body.
It lasted 30 days and included interviews with 11 witnesses.
“After reviewing the results of the inquiries, the Ethics Committee were unanimous in their determination that there was no evidence to substantiate allegations of interference of any kind involving the FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem,” the FIA statement declared.
“Concerns over potential interference were brought to the attention of the FIA Compliance Officer and subsequently passed to the FIA Ethics Committee under Article 32.2.5 of the FIA Statutes.
“There followed a robust and wide-ranging independent review spanning 30 days, which included interviews with 11 witnesses.
“Allegations against the FIA President were unsubstantiated and strong evidence beyond any reasonable doubt was presented to support the determination of the FIA Ethics Committee.
“The FIA President was cleared of any wrongdoing regarding allegations (i) to have interfered with the Stewards’ decision to reverse an additional penalty on Car 14 following a challenge from the Aston Martin Aramco Cognizant F1 Team at the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix 2023 and (ii) to have attempted to interfere with the track certification process for the Las Vegas Grand Prix 2023. The certification was completed and approved in due time.
“The President [sic] complete co-operation, transparency, and compliance throughout the process during this investigation was greatly appreciated.”
