Andrea Stella has publicly accused Alpine’s senior adviser Flavio Briatore of delivering an "insult" to McLaren by insinuating that a member of the International Court of Appeal (ICA) had a personal connection with the rival team. The dispute stems from a recent decision by the ICA concerning penalties imposed on Alpine driver Pierre Gas ly during the Monaco Grand Prix in June.
McLaren and Red Bull successfully appealed the original sanctions, prompting the court to reinstate the penalties on Friday. Gasly 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. Alpine exercised its right‑to‑review, and the penalties were briefly withdrawn five days later.
The ICA’s reversal now restores the penalties, dropping Gasly to seventh in the official results. This adjustment promotes Red Bull’s Isack Hadjar to the podium in third, while McLaren’s Oscar Piastri moves up to fourth. During the Italian Grand Prix press conference at Monza, the tension between the two parties reached a boiling point. The event, which featured Alpine executive adviser Flavio Briante and McLaren team principal Andrea Stella, turned into a heated exchange.
Alpine issued a brief statement after the court’s announcement, 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, suggesting 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 is strange is that the third judge acted more like a prosecutor than an impartial arbiter." He went on to point out that the judge had attended a charity event in California in 2018 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 added, implying that the judge’s past involvement with the team compromised his neutrality.
Briatore described the judge’s conduct during the hearing as "very nasty" toward Alpine’s representatives and hinted that Alpine might consider legal action over the perceived bias. The International Court of Appeal responded on Saturday morning, acknowledging that public comments had questioned the independence and impartiality of its judges. The ICA emphasized that the appointment of judges follows strict FIA judicial procedures, referencing the International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration.
All judges are elected by the FIA General Assembly, often upon recommendation from a group of at least five F1 teams, and are bound by independence and confidentiality requirements outlined in the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules. They must disclose their interests annually to the FIA Compliance Officer and sign a declaration of independence for each case they hear. The ICA further noted that both at the start and conclusion of the hearing, the parties were invited to raise any concerns about the composition of the panel or the proceedings, and no objections were lodged. No complaints were made during the hearing regarding the manner in which witnesses were questioned or how the process was conducted.
The statement highlighted the importance of having judges from diverse cultural and geographical backgrounds to ensure a balanced perspective, reinforcing the fairness and credibility of the judicial process. Sky Sports reported that McLaren maintains there is no connection between the team and the judge in question.
Initially, Stella chose not to reply to Briatore’s accusations, but eventually he responded, characterising the allegations as an affront to McLaren’s reputation. "I find this conference is turning into a very insulting direction for McLaren, for a team that deserves a lot of respect," Stella said. "If anyone makes such serious allegations, they must take responsibility for what they say in a public forum." Stella defended the integrity of the ICA, stating that the hearing was conducted to the highest standards and should not be questioned. He stressed that McLaren’s motivation was not to gain two championship points for Oscar Piastri—who is not a title contender this season—but to clarify the application of the sporting regulations for the benefit of the sport as a whole.
"We had concerns beyond the fact that we might have lost two points; those points probably won’t change anything," Stella explained. "Our focus was on sporting equality and fairness, which matters to all teams, not just McLaren." He added that the hearing involved representatives from every team because the matter was crucial for establishing consistent rule interpretation across the championship.
"All teams were present because this was an important moment for clarification on how we apply the rules and ensure consistency throughout a race weekend," Stella said. Alpine’s right‑to‑review case succeeded after the stewards accepted new evidence showing that the distance calculation used to determine Gasly’s pit‑lane speed was incorrect, meaning the French driver had not actually exceeded the limit. The same speeding sanction had been applied to Ferrari’s Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes’ George Russell (whose penalty was later converted to a drive‑through), and McLaren’s Piastri.
However, because those drivers had already served their penalties during the race, the sanctions could not be retroactively removed. The broader context of the dispute includes a packed weekend schedule at Monza, with Formula 3 and Formula 2 support races, practice sessions, qualifying, and the main Grand Prix itself.
The event is a marquee race for Ferrari, who are celebrating a home‑coming at the historic Italian Grand Prix. Fans can follow the action live on Sky Sports F1, with streaming available via NOW without a long‑term contract.
In summary, the controversy revolves around allegations of a conflict of interest within the FIA’s International Court of Appeal, the reinstatement of penalties that reshaped the Monaco Grand Prix results, and the competing narratives from Alpine and McLaren about the fairness of the sport’s judicial processes. While Briatore argues that a judge’s past association with McLaren undermines impartiality, the ICA maintains that all procedural safeguards were observed. Stella, representing McLaren, insists the focus remains on rule clarity and sporting integrity rather than point‑gaining tactics, and warns that any unfounded claims must be backed by responsibility and evidence. The episode underscores the delicate balance between legal oversight and competitive rivalry in Formula 1, where every point and every decision can have far‑reaching implications for teams, drivers, and the sport’s reputation.