Fernando Alonso will keep his Saudi Arabian Grand Prix podium after an appeal from his Aston Martin team and despite the FIA briefly doubling down on the penalty awarded to the Spaniard.
Alonso crossed the finish line third in the race and took to the podium to collect his trophy. But it was soon taken away from him after footage emerged which appeared to show him not properly serving a time-penalty, and a punishment was handed out by the stewards.
George Russell was promoted to third place, but Aston Martin exercised their right to appeal. After discussions behind the scenes, Alonso's 10-second penalty has been rescinded and the 41-year-old has his 100th career Formula 1 podium after all.
But it was a chaotic process, made all the more confusing by how slow the FIA was at publishing the documents. Seconds after Alonso tweeted to celebrate the podium, the governing body released an official document in which it appeared to double down on the penalty.
It explained: "The Stewards were informed that both race control and remote operations centre had determined that the penalty had been properly served. The stewards did not examine the matter further thereafter."
But a report on the last lap provided new TV evidence that the rear jack may have touched the car, which the FIA said constituted working on the car. It added: "We considered that disqualification would be too harsh an outcome. In the circumstances, the Stewards imposed a 10s penalty."
But minutes later, another document was published showing that Aston Martin had appealed the decision. And, shortly after, the FIA confirmed that the punishment had been reversed and that Alonso's podium was reinstated.
In its final decision document, the FIA explained: "Having reviewed the video evidence presented and having heard from the team representative of Aston Martin and the relevant members from the FIA, the Stewards determined that there did exist significant and relevant new evidence as required under Article 14.1.1 to trigger a review of the decision, in particular the video evidence and the verbal evidence from the Team and from the FIA.
"It was clear to us that the substratum of the original decision, namely the representation of there being an agreement, was called into question by the new evidence. We therefore proceeded to hear the substance of the request for review.
"Having reviewed the new evidence, we concluded that there was no clear agreement, as was suggested to the Stewards previously, that could be relied upon to determine that parties had agreed that a jack touching a car would amount to working on the car, without more.
"In the circumstances, we considered that our original decision to impose a penalty on Car 14 needed to be reversed and we did so accordingly."
