Andrea Stella has publicly accused Alpine’s senior advisor Flavio Briatore of delivering an "insult" to McLaren by suggesting that a judge on the FIA International Court of Appeal had a personal connection to the rival team. The controversy stems from a recent decision by the appeal court to reinstate penalties that had been imposed on Alpine driver Pierre Gasly during the Monaco Grand Prix in June. Those penalties were initially removed after Alpine successfully lodged a right‑to‑review appeal, but McLaren and Red Bull later challenged the reversal, arguing that the original sanctions for a pit‑lane speed infringement should stand. When the court announced its ruling on Friday, the penalties were restored, dropping Gasly from third place on the track to seventh in the official results.
This adjustment promoted Red Bull’s Isack Hadjar onto the podium in third and lifted McLaren’s Oscar Piastri 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 while also acknowledging the panel’s decision. However, Briatore took a markedly different tone a few hours later.
He claimed that one of the four judges who sat on the panel had a "working relationship" with McLaren, implying a conflict of interest that could have influenced the ruling. "It’s very unfair, first of all, but we accept the decision," Briatore said.
"What’s strange is that the third judge on the panel behaved more like a prosecutor than an impartial arbiter." Briatore went on to cite a 2018 charity event in California where the judge in question allegedly appeared alongside representatives of McLaren, noting that two of the three McLaren cars were reportedly donated to the cause. "We have a nice picture of this guy at a McLaren speech in 2018," he remarked, adding that the judge’s apparent ties to the team made the hearing "quite unfair" for Alpine. He also described the judge’s conduct during the proceedings as "very nasty" toward Alpine’s representatives and hinted that Alpine might consider legal action in response.
The International Court of Appeal quickly issued a response, acknowledging that public comments had raised questions about the independence and impartiality of its judges. The court emphasized that the selection and participation of judges follow FIA statutes, the International Bar Association (IBA) guidelines on conflicts of interest, and strict confidentiality and independence requirements.
Judges are elected by the FIA General Assembly, often on the recommendation of at least five F1 teams, and they must disclose any potential conflicts annually to the FIA compliance officer. Each judge also signs a declaration of independence for every case they handle, which is shared with the parties involved.
In its statement, the ICA noted that both parties were invited to raise any concerns about the composition of the panel at the start and end of the hearing, and no objections were raised. The court further highlighted its commitment to assembling panels with diverse cultural and geographical backgrounds to ensure a broad range of legal perspectives, thereby strengthening the fairness and credibility of the process.
"A Court’s decision can leave room for various interpretations and comments as for its legal merits; that is fair and accepted by all the judges," the ICA added, reaffirming confidence in the integrity of the proceedings. Sky Sports reported that McLaren maintains there is no link between the judge and their organization. Initially, Stella chose not to engage with Briatore’s accusations, but he later appeared to threaten legal action against the Alpine executive. "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 also stressed that McLaren’s motivation throughout the appeal was not to gain two championship points for Piastri—who is not a title contender this season—but to clarify the sport’s regulatory framework. "We had concerns beyond the fact that we might have lost two points; those points probably wouldn’t have changed the championship outcome," he explained. "Our focus was on sporting equality and fairness, which matters to every team, not just McLaren." He added that the hearing involved representatives from all teams because the case presented a crucial opportunity to define how rules are applied consistently across the calendar. "It wasn’t just Red Bull; every team was present because this was an important moment for clarifying the application of the regulations and ensuring consistency throughout a race weekend," Stella said.
Alpine’s right‑to‑review case succeeded because the team presented new evidence that the stewards had not previously considered—a significant error in the calculation of the distance traveled in the pit lane, which demonstrated that Gasly had not actually exceeded the speed limit. By contrast, Ferrari’s Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes’ George Russell (whose penalty was later converted to a drive‑through), and McLaren’s Piastri had all received similar speeding penalties during the race, but those sanctions had already been served and could not be retroactively removed.
The broader context of the dispute includes a packed schedule at the Monza circuit, where the Italian Grand Prix weekend features a series of support races, practice sessions, and qualifying rounds for Formula 2, Formula 3, and the Porsche Supercup, in addition to the main F1 event. Fans can follow live coverage on Sky Sports F1 or stream via NOW, with flexible subscription options.
In summary, the episode highlights the delicate balance between sporting governance, team interests, and the perception of judicial independence within Formula 1. While Alpine feels aggrieved by what it sees as a biased panel, the FIA’s appellate bodies maintain that their processes adhere to the highest standards of fairness and transparency.
McLaren, for its part, continues to argue that the ruling does not affect the sport’s integrity and that the focus should remain on consistent rule enforcement rather than speculation about personal relationships. The situation underscores how regulatory decisions can reverberate through the paddock, influencing not only race results but also the broader narrative surrounding fairness, accountability, and the ever‑present tension between competition and collaboration in the world’s premier motorsport.