Andrea Stella has publicly accused Alpine’s senior adviser Flavio Briatore of delivering an "insult" to McLaren by insinuating that a judge on the FIA International Court of Appeal had a personal connection with the team. The controversy erupted after the appeal court announced on Friday that the penalties imposed on Alpine driver Pierre Gas‑ly during the Monaco Grand Prix in June would be reinstated, following a successful challenge by McLaren and Red Bull. Gas‑ly 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 lodged a right‑to‑review appeal, and the stewards temporarily withdrew the penalties five days later.
The latest decision restores the original sanctions, moving Gas‑ly back to seventh in the official results. Red Bull’s Isack Hadjar inherits a podium finish in third, while McLaren’s Oscar Piastri climbs to fourth.
During a heated press conference at the Italian Grand Prix, which coincidentally featured both Alpine executive adviser Briatore and McLaren team principal Stella, the two men clashed in a dramatic exchange. Alpine issued a brief statement moments after the court’s ruling, expressing disappointment with the outcome but also acknowledging the panel’s decision from the recent 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, suggesting a conflict of interest that could have influenced the verdict.
"It’s very unfair, first of all, but we accept the decision," he said, before adding that the third judge on the panel behaved more like a prosecutor than an impartial arbiter. He pointed to the judge’s attendance at a 2018 charity event in California, where Briatore claimed two of the three McLaren cars were donated. "We have a nice picture of this guy at the speech for McLaren in 2018," he remarked, implying that the judge’s prior involvement with the team made his participation in the hearing questionable. Briatore further accused the judge of being "very nasty" to Alpine representatives during the hearing and hinted that Alpine was considering legal action over the perceived bias.
The International Court of Appeal responded the next morning, acknowledging that public comments had raised questions about the independence and impartiality of the panel. The court stressed that the appointment of judges follows FIA statutes, the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, and strict confidentiality and independence rules. Each judge signs a declaration of independence for every case, and the parties are invited to raise any concerns before and after the hearing – a step that neither side took. The statement also highlighted the importance of having judges from diverse cultural and geographical backgrounds to ensure a balanced deliberation process.
It affirmed that the court’s decision, while open to interpretation, was made in accordance with the highest procedural standards and that the integrity of the judges remained intact. Sky Sports reported that McLaren maintains there is no link between the team and the judge in question. Initially, Stella chose not to reply to Briatore’s allegations, but he later appeared to threaten legal action against his Italian counterpart.
"I find this conference is turning into an insult to McLaren and to 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 hearing, insisting it was conducted to the highest standards and should not be undermined. He emphasized that McLaren’s motivation was not to gain two championship points for Piastri—who is not in contention for the title this season—but to clarify the rules for the benefit of the sport as a whole. "We had concerns beyond the loss of two points, which probably won’t change anything in the championship," he explained.
"Our focus was on sporting equality and fairness, which matters to every team, not just McLaren." He added that the hearing attracted all teams because the issue at stake was a fundamental clarification of how the regulations are applied consistently throughout a race weekend. "It’s about ensuring consistency in the methodologies we use on race weekends," Stella said. Alpine’s right‑to‑review case succeeded after the team presented new evidence that the stewards had miscalculated the distance in the pit lane, showing that Gas‑ly had not actually exceeded the speed limit.
The evidence was deemed a "significant and relevant new element" that warranted overturning the original penalties. Other drivers—Ferrari’s Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes’ George Russell (whose penalty was later converted to a drive‑through) and McLaren’s Piastri—had also been penalised for speeding, but because they had already served their sanctions during the race, those penalties could not be retroactively removed.
The incident has sparked a broader discussion about the transparency of FIA judicial processes and the perception of bias when judges have prior affiliations with teams. While the FIA insists that its procedures are robust and that judges disclose any potential conflicts, critics argue that even the appearance of a connection can erode confidence among teams and fans. Looking ahead, the Italian Grand Prix at Monza continues to be the focal point of the championship, with Ferrari hoping to capitalize on its home‑race advantage. The race weekend schedule includes F3 and F2 support events, a Porsche Supercup race, and the main Formula 1 Grand Prix, all broadcast live on Sky Sports F1 and available via the NOW streaming service.
In summary, the dispute between Stella and Briatore underscores the delicate balance between legal scrutiny and sporting fairness in Formula 1. While Alpine succeeded in overturning the penalties on technical grounds, the lingering accusations of bias have prompted the FIA to reaffirm its commitment to impartiality and to remind all parties that the judicial framework is designed to protect the integrity of the sport. The outcome of the appeal and the subsequent public statements illustrate how tightly intertwined legal, commercial, and competitive interests are in the world of top‑level motor racing.