Andrea Stella has publicly accused Alpine’s senior advisor Flavio Briatore of delivering an "insulting" remark toward McLaren after the latter questioned the impartiality of a judge on the FIA International Court of Appeal. The controversy stems from a recent ruling that reinstated two five‑second penalties imposed on Alpine driver Pierre Gasly during the Monaco Grand Prix in June. Those penalties had originally been removed after Alpine successfully lodged a right‑to‑review appeal, but McLaren and Red Bull appealed that decision and won, prompting the court to restore the sanctions and drop Gasly from third to seventh in the official results.
The reinstatement reshaped the podium: Red Bull’s Isack Hadjar moved up to third place, while McLaren’s Oscar Piastri advanced to fourth. The decision sparked a heated exchange at the Italian Grand Prix press conference, where Briatore and McLaren team principal Andrea Stella found themselves on opposite sides of a very public dispute. Alpine issued a brief statement shortly after the court’s announcement, expressing disappointment with the outcome but also acknowledging the panel’s decision. Briatore, however, took a markedly different tone a few hours later.
He alleged that one of the four judges on the panel had a "working relationship" with McLaren, suggesting a conflict of interest that could have biased the ruling. "It’s very unfair, first of all, but we accept the decision," Briatore said, before adding that the third judge on the panel behaved more like a prosecutor than an impartial arbiter.
He pointed to a charity event in California in 2018 where the judge allegedly appeared alongside McLaren representatives, noting that "two of three McLaren cars" were donated at that gathering. Briatore claimed he had photographic evidence of the judge speaking at a McLaren‑related function and argued that the judge’s close ties to the team made the hearing "quite unfair." According to Briatore, the judge was "very nasty" to Alpine’s representatives during the hearing and that Alpine was "thinking about" pursuing legal action over the perceived bias. The International Court of Appeal responded the following morning, acknowledging that public comments had questioned the independence and impartiality of its judges.
The court stressed that the appointment of judges follows FIA statutes and the International Bar Association’s guidelines on conflicts of interest. All judges are elected by the FIA General Assembly, often after being nominated by a group of at least five F1 teams, and they must sign declarations of independence for each case, disclose interests annually, and adhere to strict confidentiality rules. The statement further noted that both parties were invited to raise concerns about the composition of the panel at the start and end of the hearing, and no objections were lodged.
It emphasized that the panel’s diversity—geographically and culturally—helps ensure a balanced deliberation and bolsters the credibility of the process. The court concluded that while decisions can be interpreted in various ways, the proceedings were conducted to the highest standards, and the integrity of the judges remains intact. Sky Sports reported that McLaren maintains there is no connection between the team and the judge in question. Initially, Stella chose not to answer Briatore’s accusations, but eventually he responded, describing the allegations as "insulting" to McLaren’s reputation.
"If anyone makes such serious claims in a public forum, they must take responsibility for their words," Stella warned. He defended the appeal process, stating that the International Court of Appeal operated under the highest standards and should not be undermined.
Stella also clarified that McLaren’s motivation for contesting the penalties was not to gain two championship points for Oscar Piastri—who is mathematically out of the title fight—but to secure a clear and consistent application of the sporting regulations for the benefit of the entire sport. "We were concerned about the principle of sporting equality and fairness, not just a couple of points that would not change the championship outcome," Stella explained. He added that the hearing involved all teams because the issue of rule interpretation and consistency affects everyone, not just McLaren or Red Bull.
In the background, Alpine’s right‑to‑review case succeeded because the team presented new evidence showing that the distance calculation used to assess Gasly’s pit‑lane speed was incorrect. The stewards accepted this as a "significant and relevant new element," concluding that Gasly had not actually exceeded the speed limit. By contrast, other drivers—including Ferrari’s Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes’ George Russell (whose penalty was later converted to a drive‑through), and McLaren’s Piastri—had already served similar speeding penalties during the race, so those sanctions could not be retroactively removed. The broader context of the dispute highlights the delicate balance between sporting justice and team interests in Formula 1.
Penalties for pit‑lane speeding are designed to protect safety, yet the precise measurement of distance and speed can be technically complex, especially on circuits with varying pit‑lane configurations. When a team believes a penalty has been applied on faulty data, the right‑to‑review mechanism offers a pathway to challenge the decision, but the subsequent appeal by rival teams can reverse that outcome, as seen in this case. The incident also underscores the importance of perceived judicial independence in high‑stakes motorsport. Even the suggestion of a conflict of interest can fuel media scrutiny and fan debate, potentially eroding confidence in the FIA’s disciplinary system.
The FIA’s response, referencing the IBA Guidelines and its own judicial rules, aims to reassure stakeholders that judges are selected impartially and are bound by strict conflict‑of‑interest protocols. Looking ahead, the Italian Grand Prix at Monza—a race steeped in history and a home event for Ferrari—promised additional drama. The weekend schedule included F3 and F2 support races, a sprint qualifying session, and the main Formula 1 qualifying and race. Fans were encouraged to watch via Sky Sports, with streaming options available through NOW without a long‑term contract.
As teams prepared for the high‑speed, high‑pressure environment of Monza, the lingering questions about rule consistency and judicial impartiality remained a backdrop to the on‑track action. In summary, the clash between Briatore and Stella reflects a broader tension within Formula 1: the pursuit of competitive advantage versus the need for transparent, fair governance. While Alpine succeeded in overturning Gasly’s penalty on technical grounds, the subsequent appeal by McLaren and Red Bull reinstated it, reigniting debate over the integrity of the appeal process. Both parties have vowed to protect their interests—Alpine by considering further legal steps, and McLaren by defending the legitimacy of the court’s decision.
The episode serves as a reminder that in the world of elite motorsport, every point, every penalty, and every judicial ruling can have far‑reaching implications for teams, drivers, and the sport’s reputation.