Andrea Stella has publicly accused Alpine’s senior advisor Flavio Briatore of delivering an "insult" to McLaren by suggesting that a member of the FIA International Court of Appeal had a personal connection with the rival team. The controversy erupted after the appellate panel announced on Friday that the sanctions imposed on Alpine driver Pierre Gasly during the Monaco Grand Prix in June would be reinstated, following a successful challenge lodged by McLaren and Red Bull.
Gasly had crossed the finish line in third place at Monaco, but two five‑second penalties for exceeding the pit‑lane speed limit were applied after the race, dropping him down the order. Alpine exercised its right of review, and the penalties were temporarily withdrawn five days later.
The appeal court’s decision to restore the penalties now pushes Gasly back to seventh in the official results. Red Bull’s Isack Hadjar moves up to the podium in third, while McLaren’s Oscar Piastri climbs to fourth. During the press conference at the Italian Grand Prix, which coincidentally featured both Alpine’s executive adviser Briatore and McLaren’s team principal Stella, the two men engaged in a heated exchange that quickly captured headlines.
Alpine issued a brief statement immediately after the court’s ruling, expressing disappointment with the outcome but also acknowledging the panel’s decision from the hearing in Paris. Briatore, however, adopted 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, implying a conflict of interest that could have influenced the verdict. "It’s very unfair, first of all, but we accept the decision," he said.
"What is strange is that the third judge acted more like a prosecutor than an impartial arbiter." He went on to cite a 2018 charity event in California where the judge in question had been photographed alongside two of the three McLaren cars that were donated at the occasion. "We have a nice picture of this guy at the McLaren speech in 2018," Briatore remarked, adding that the judge’s alleged close ties to the team were "quite unfair" given the circumstances of the hearing. Briatore further claimed that the judge had been "very nasty" to Alpine’s representatives during the proceedings and hinted 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 emphasized that the appointment of judges follows FIA statutes, the International Bar Association’s guidelines on conflicts of interest, and a strict disclosure and independence declaration process. It noted that all parties had the opportunity to raise concerns about the composition of the panel at the start and conclusion of the hearing, and that no objections were raised.
The ICA also highlighted the importance of assembling panels with diverse cultural and geographical backgrounds to ensure a breadth of legal traditions and perspectives, thereby strengthening the fairness and credibility of the process. It concluded that while decisions can be interpreted in various ways, the proceedings were conducted to the highest standards and the judges’ integrity remained intact.
Sky Sports reported that McLaren has categorically denied any connection between the team and the judge in question. Initially, Stella chose not to respond to Briatore’s accusations, but later he appeared to threaten legal action against the Alpine executive.
"I find this conference is turning into a very insulting narrative for McLaren and for the reputation of a team that deserves great respect," Stella said. "If anyone makes such serious allegations in a public forum, they must be prepared to take responsibility for their words." Stella defended the appeal process, stating that the International Court of Appeal had been conducted according to the highest standards and should not be subject to the kind of speculation that had emerged. He stressed that McLaren’s primary interest was not to gain two championship points for Piastri—who is not a title contender this season—but to clarify the application of the sport’s rules for the benefit of all participants. "We had concerns beyond the fact that we might have lost two points, which probably won’t change the championship outcome," Stella explained.
"Our worry was about sporting equality and fairness, which is crucial for every team, not just McLaren." He added that the hearing attracted all the teams because the matter was about establishing a consistent interpretation of the regulations. "It was a pivotal moment for clarifying how we apply the rules and maintain consistency throughout a race weekend," Stella said. Alpine ultimately won its right‑of‑review case by presenting new evidence that the stewards had miscalculated the distance in the pit lane, showing that Gasly had not actually exceeded the speed limit.
The evidence was deemed a "significant and relevant new element," prompting the panel to reverse its earlier decision. Other drivers—including Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc, Mercedes’ George Russell (whose penalty was later converted into a drive‑through), and McLaren’s Piastri—had also been penalised for pit‑lane speeding, but because those penalties had already been served during the race, they could not be retroactively removed.
The incident has added another layer of drama to the Italian Grand Prix weekend at Monza, where fans will watch Ferrari’s home race live on Sky Sports F1. The schedule includes practice sessions, qualifying, and the main race, with additional support events such as the F2 and F3 sprints and the Porsche Supercup. As the teams prepare for the high‑speed showdown at the historic circuit, the dispute over the appeal court’s decision and the alleged judge‑team connection remains a talking point among paddock insiders and journalists alike. In summary, while the reinstatement of Gasly’s penalties reshapes the Monaco results, the broader narrative now centres on questions of judicial independence, the integrity of FIA’s disciplinary process, and the ongoing rivalry between Alpine and McLaren.
Both parties have signalled they are prepared to defend their positions vigorously, whether through further legal avenues or continued public statements, underscoring how off‑track disputes can be just as contentious as the battles that unfold on the track.