Andrea Stella has publicly accused Alpine’s senior figure Flavio Briatore of making an "insulting" remark toward McLaren after the former suggested a conflict of interest involving a judge on the FIA International Court of Appeal. The controversy erupted after the appellate panel announced on Friday that the sanctions imposed on Alpine driver Pierre Gasé during the Monaco Grand Prix in June would be reinstated, following a successful challenge by McLaren and Red Bull.
Gasé originally crossed the finish line in third place, but two five‑second penalties for exceeding the pit‑lane speed limit were applied after the race, dropping him to a lower position. Alpine exercised its right of review and, five days later, the penalties were withdrawn. The appellate court’s decision to restore the penalties now pushes Gasé back to seventh in the official results, promotes Red Bull’s Isack Hadjar to the podium in third, and lifts McLaren’s Oscar Piastri to fourth.
During the press conference at the Italian Grand Prix, which coincidentally featured Alpine adviser Briatore and McLaren team principal Stella, the two men engaged in a heated exchange. Alpine issued a brief statement immediately after the decision, expressing disappointment while also acknowledging the panel’s ruling from the recent hearing in Paris.
Briatore, however, took a markedly different tone a few hours later. He claimed that one of the four judges on the panel had a "working relationship" with McLaren, suggesting that the judge’s impartiality could be called into question.
"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 arbiter. He pointed to the judge’s attendance at a 2018 charity event in California where, according to Briatore, two of 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 ties to the team were inappropriate.
Briatore went on to describe the judge as "very nasty" toward Alpine’s representatives during the hearing and hinted that Alpine might consider legal action over the perceived bias. In response, the International Court of Appeal released a statement on Saturday morning acknowledging public concerns about the independence and impartiality of its judges. The statement emphasized that the appointment and participation of judges follow the FIA’s established judicial procedures, which are modeled on the International Bar Association's guidelines on conflicts of interest in international arbitration. According to the FIA, judges are elected by the General Assembly, often upon the recommendation of a group of at least five F1 teams, and are bound by strict independence and confidentiality rules.
They submit annual disclosures of interests to the FIA compliance officer and sign a declaration of independence for each case they handle. The statement noted that both at the start and the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were invited to raise any concerns about the composition of the panel, and none were raised. No objections were recorded concerning the way the court questioned witnesses or conducted the proceedings. The ICA further stressed the importance of assembling panels with judges from diverse cultural and geographical backgrounds to ensure a breadth of legal traditions and perspectives, thereby enhancing the fairness, credibility, and integrity of the process.
It affirmed confidence in the soundness of the proceedings and the integrity of its judges, reaffirming the FIA’s commitment to impartiality and independence. 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 allegations, but later he appeared to threaten legal action against the Alpine executive. "I find this conference is turning into something quite insulting for McLaren and for the reputation of a team that deserves a lot of respect," Stella said.
"If anyone makes such serious allegations, they must be prepared to take responsibility for what they say in a public forum." Stella defended McLaren’s stance, emphasizing that the team’s primary aim was to clarify the sporting regulations for the benefit of the sport, not simply to gain two championship points for Piastri, who is not in contention for the title this season. "We had concerns beyond the fact that we might have lost two points – those two points probably won’t change anything," he explained. "Our worry was about the consistent application of sporting equality and fairness, which matters to every team, not just McLaren." He added that the hearing involved all teams, as the clarification of rule enforcement was crucial for the sport’s integrity. "It wasn’t only Red Bull; every team was present because this was an important moment for clarifying how we apply the rules and ensure consistency throughout a race weekend," Stella noted.
Alpine’s right‑of‑review case succeeded after the stewards accepted new evidence that highlighted a significant miscalculation of the pit‑lane distance, proving that Gasé had not actually exceeded the speed limit. In contrast, Ferrari’s Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes’ George Russell (whose penalty was later converted to a drive‑through), and McLaren’s Piastri had all received the same speeding sanction during the race, but because those penalties had already been served, they could not be retroactively removed. The broader context of the weekend includes a packed schedule of support races and practice sessions at Monza, with Formula 3 and Formula 2 events, as well as the Porsche Supercup, leading up to the main Grand Prix.
The Italian Grand Prix, a home race for Ferrari, is set to be broadcast live on Sky Sports F1, with streaming options available through NOW without a long‑term contract. Overall, the dispute underscores the delicate balance between sporting governance, team interests, and the perception of judicial independence in Formula One. While Alpine feels aggrieved by what it sees as a biased panel, McLaren insists the process was fair and that its challenge was motivated by a desire for regulatory clarity rather than point‑gaining opportunism. The FIA’s reaffirmation of its procedures aims to reassure all stakeholders that the sport’s adjudicative mechanisms remain robust, transparent, and free from undue influence, even as high‑profile figures continue to voice their grievances publicly.