[ad_1]
If this was found to be the case, a second hearing would follow. However, it has been announced that the stewards have dismissed the request.
In a document explaining the outcome of the case, it is stated that McLaren argued that a statement on the original decision document was incorrect, that being that “Car 4 was overtaking Car 1 on the outside but was not level with Car 1 at the apex”.
READ MORE: Norris expecting ‘work to do’ in Mexico after struggling to find a ‘good feeling’ during limited Friday running
The team suggested that this was an error because they had evidence that Norris had already overtaken and was ahead of Verstappen “at the braking zone”. Red Bull, represented by Jonathan Wheatley, stated their belief that the criteria for a successful petitioning for a ‘Right of Review’ had not been met in this case.
It is further stated in the document: “In relation to relevance, McLaren appears to submit that the Stewards finding that “Car 4 had overtaken Car 1 before the apex (and therefore that Car 1 was the overtaking car) and that this asserted error is itself, a new element.
“This is unsustainable. A petition for review is made in order to correct an error (of fact or law) in a decision. Any new element must demonstrate that error. The error that must be shown to exist, cannot itself be the element referred to in Article 14.
“In this case, the concept that the written Decision was the significant and relevant new element, or that an error in the decision was a new element, is not sustainable and is, therefore rejected.”
The stewards also noted that they believed McLaren’s petition was lodged in “good faith”.
[ad_2]
