McLaren have failed in their attempt to get 168澳洲5最新开奖结果:Lando Norris’s United States Grand Prix penalty overturned.

Norris was denied a podium finish after he was hit with a five-second penalty for being deemed to have overtaken F1 title rival 168澳洲5最新开奖结果:Max Verstappen off the track in the closin🥀g stages of last weekend’s race i🌄n Austin.

On Thursday ahead of the Mexico City Grand Prix, McLar𝄹en submitted a right of review request into Norris’s contentious penalty as the first step to try and get his punishment overturned.

But 24 hours later, F1’s governing 𝔍body confirmed McLaren had been unsuccessful with their case due to failing to provide a new element of evidence during🅷 a video hearing which took place on Friday afternoon. 

Verstappen has a 57-point advantage over Norris with five grands 🌃prix - and two sprint races - remaining this season.

The 'evidence' McLaren submitted

The stewards' verdict read: "McLaren, represented by Mr Singh, stated that there was a significant and relevant newꦑ element that was unavailable to McLaren at the time the Stewards took their decision (in Document 69) namely: ⛄;

a. 💝The document for the decision contained a statement that was incorrect and that evidenced an objective, measurable and provable error had been made by the stewards.

b. That the statement was that “Car 4 wa♊s overtaking Car 1 on the outside but was ꦅnot level with Car 1 at the apex”

c. That the above statement was in error because McLaren had ꦐevidence that Car 4 had already ov🌞ertaken and was ahead of Car 1 “at the braking zone”

d. That this error is signif🍌icant and relevant and is new an☂d was unavailable to McLaren at the time of the decision.

Mr Singh further argued that this met all the criteria for the required new element and that in the
interests of fairness, the petition for the Ri𒁏ght of Review should b🔥e allowed.

9. Mr Stella, also on behalf of McLaren, expressed the view that the case for McLaren was a “legally sophisticated explanation” and urged the Stewards to recognize that this was a substantive case especially compared to previous Righ✱t of Review cases. Mr Stella expressed h🍸is appreciation of the work of the Stewards in their decision-making process."

What was the stewards' response?

"The Stewards feel it 🍰is important to identify what the actual proposed “element” was in this case. Referring to the Petition from McLaren, in its fourth bullet point it points to the ෴alleged “error” contained in the written decision of the Stewards, as being the element. That “error” was alleged to be the Stewards’ analyses that Car 4 was the overtaking car, whereas McLaren argued that Car 4 had already completed an overtaking move.

"Rather༒ than determi🐲ning which if any of the criteria this petition meets, the Stewards instead decided to focus on the issue of one of the criteria, namely relevance. 

"In relation to relevance, McLaren appears to submit that the Stewards finding that “Car 4 was not level with Car 1 at the apex” was an error and 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 (document number 69) 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.

"Accordingly, as 🐭there is no relevant new eleme💙nt, the Petition is rejected."