As the teams rolled into Barcelona for the 2026 Catalunya Grand Prix, the FIA decided that Pierre Gasly had been unfairly stripped of his third-place finish the week before in Monaco. Formula 1’s governing body accepted that their timing system was faulty and that the pit-lane speeding penalties handed out were incorrect.
Of course, with Gasly being the only driver not to have physically served his punishment on track, only he was able to be offered a Right of Review. Oscar Piastri, for one, believes this to be an astounding state of affairs.
“I’m pretty mind-blown by the decision,” Piastri stated. “Because how you can reverse a decision that was ultimately wrong, but when other people have been penalised for the same thing and served a penalty in the race, how you can then change one penalty, knowing that probably five or six other races have been impacted by that, is astonishing.”
This is the view of the McLaren hierarchy too, who have lodged an appeal against Gasly’s reinstatement. Red Bull has also indicated they will appeal alongside Mercedes, whose George Russell suffered the most from the poorly installed FIA timing kit.
The Paddock Debate: Sanctity vs. Accuracy
The debate is already moving forward in terms of paddock views. Some believe “in-race” decisions should be held sacrosanct, while others accept there should be post-race reviews and corrections made if required.
Whichever way the dice eventually fall, Red Bull team boss Laurent Mekies wants some important questions answered over stewards’ post-event verdicts.
“We think it’s more so a matter of principle for the good of the sport to get the right clarity on how we go about non-appealable penalties during the race, and getting the right results at the end of the race,” Mekies said in Barcelona.
“No measurement system is perfect on Earth. There is not one single way to measure speed, and they are all wrong. However, we have been working with that measurement system for a very high number of years. It was the same the day before [the race], the same on Friday, and the same the previous years.
“We have all adapted to it, and 17 or 18 cars have managed to be legal. So we just need to make sure that, as a sport, we have a solid enough approach so that moving forward we get the right parity for the fans and to the competitors.”
The 59 km/h Strategic Bitter Pill
It now appears certain teams deliberately reduced the maximum speed on their pit-lane limiters—which the drivers rely on—from 60 km/h to 59 km/h. This cost them three-tenths of a second across the entirety of the pit lane, a bitter pill that other teams like Alpine refused to swallow.
Alpine’s Managing Director, Steve Nielsen, indicated that Alpine refused to set their cars up this way for the Grand Prix, and subsequently, they were pinged for three of the six speeding penalties. He further admits that he and the team knew there were issues during the weekend.
“We were aware that there had been issues with that part of the track on Friday and on Saturday. So we had some doubts about it,” Nielsen explained. “Because of that, we’d already warned our drivers about it. And when we started seeing all these penalties come in the race, whilst we didn’t know exactly what the error was, it was not unreasonable to think there’s something wrong.
“I’ve been doing this for a few years now, and across the season—okay, you see pit lane speeding—it’s one or two, maybe four or five in a whole year. So to see six, three of which were ours, in one afternoon, combined with what we knew about Friday and Saturday, you’d think there’s something wrong. Whilst we didn’t know exactly what it was, we were very sure there was something wrong.”
Then, during the red-flag period, Alpine decided to reduce their pit lane limiter to 59 km/h. They claim their data confirms they were not speeding at any time and that the FIA’s false measuring systems were entirely to blame.
The Threat of “Courtroom Racing”
The problem this decision has created is that some decisions made by FIA officials are appealable, while others are not—despite them being for the exact same offense and awarded for the exact same reasons.
The implication is clear: it could be better for a driver to refuse to serve a penalty during the race and argue the toss after the event, hoping the FIA will reverse their decision. If enough drivers choose to do this in a race, the official classification may not be known in some parts of the world until the following day.
This would be catastrophic for the sport of Formula 1, returning it to the dark days of the late 1970s and 1980s, where post-race protests and inter-team appeals were common. The counter-argument is that decisions made by human interpretation or technology can inherently be flawed. Is it surely better to accept a bad decision than to force the FIA to rescind it? Penalties handed out in the race should be served on track; if they are not, a time penalty is added, and that should be the end of the matter.
In a few weeks, it will be the FIFA World Cup Final—a game only played once every four years, which is rarer than the Super Bowl. Imagine if, just hours after the final whistle and the trophy presentation, one team had a right to appeal a refereeing decision that was crucial to the outcome of the game.
The same should be true in F1. Yes, there will always be post-race penalties for technical infringements, such as skid blocks being worn too thin, or drivers gaming the in-race penalty system as George Russell did at the 2025 Monaco GP. There, Russell decided to deliberately cut the chicane on the harbor front to pass a intentionally slow-moving Alex Albon, who was backing up the pack to allow his teammate space for a free pit stop.
But judicial decisions made must be equitable across the board. Reinstating Gasly while the others continue to suffer the consequences of the exact same faulty hardware is clearly the wrong direction for F1 and the FIA to go.
Would you like to see more TJ13 Formula 1 coverage? Add us to your favourites list on Google to receive trusted F1 news.
A.J. Hunt is Senior Editor at TJ13, where Andrew oversees editorial standards and contributes to the site’s Formula 1 coverage. A career journalist with experience in both print and digital sports media, Andrew trained in investigative journalism and has written for a range of European sports outlets.
At TJ13, Andrew plays a central role in shaping the site’s output, working across breaking news, analysis, and long-form features. Andrew’s responsibilities include fact-checking, refining editorial structure, and ensuring consistency in reporting across a fast-moving news cycle.
Andrew’s work focuses particularly on the intersection of Formula 1 politics, regulation, and team strategy. Andrew closely follows developments involving the FIA, team leadership, and driver market dynamics, helping to provide context behind the sport’s biggest stories.
With experience covering multiple seasons of Formula 1’s modern hybrid era, Andrew has developed a detailed understanding of how regulatory changes and competitive shifts influence the grid. Andrew’s editorial approach prioritises clarity and context, aiming to help readers navigate complex developments within the sport.
In addition to editorial duties, Andrew is particularly interested in how media narratives shape fan perception of Formula 1, and how reporting can balance speed with accuracy in an increasingly digital news environment.
