Official: No verdict yet in the Mercedes/Pirelli case

The FIA International Tribunal, seized in the context of the “Testgate”, has indicated that it will not deliver a verdict today, reserving its decision in the case involving Mercedes and Pirelli for tomorrow. As a reminder, the International Tribunal of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile was convened following the tire tests conducted by the German team and the Italian manufacturer after the Spanish Grand Prix last May. These tests, carried out with the 2013 cars and drivers, were initially contrary to regulations, yet they were conducted with the consent of Charlie Whiting, Formula 1 race director and FIA member; this is, in any case, one of the main arguments put forward by Mercedes.

Mark Howard, FIA representative in court, quickly refuted any such agreement: « Whether Whiting consented or not, it is irrelevant, because conducting such tests, in relation to Article 22, is a violation until [a change] is decided by the World Motor Sport Council. Whiting was asked a general and non-specific question: the general question concerned the permission to use a 2013 car. His preliminary response was that such a test could comply with Article 22 provided the purpose was for Pirelli to test its tires and that he would oversee it. » But Mr. Howard added that such a response from one of its members – no matter how eminent – does not involve the institution: « This communication was not an agreement from the FIA: it was nothing more than an interpretation of Article 22 by Whiting and Bernard ».

Speaking later in the day, Ross Brawn wanted to recall Charlie Whiting’s role in the proper functioning of the Formula 1 regulatory system: « Charlie is the reference for all sporting issues, especially on a circuit because there are many problems that arise during a race weekend, and Charlie takes care of them as the race director. A significant part of the sporting rules requires a timely response during a Grand Prix, so if we were in a situation where a procedure had to be initiated for clarification or verification, then there would be many areas where it would be quite complicated. »

Paul Harris, Mercedes’ lawyer, recalled the wording of Article 22 to exonerate Mercedes: « [Tests must be considered], track tests – not part of an event (a Grand Prix, ed.) – organized by a competitor entered in the championship. » For him, this part of the sentence would be enough to demonstrate that Mercedes did not violate the regulations: « It was not a test organized by Mercedes. The words are crucial in Article 22: « organized by ». Pirelli’s tests were not organized by Mercedes, it is irrefutable that it was a test organized by Pirelli. This evidence is confirmed by Pirelli, so the people who were present unanimously provided the same evidence on what was happening, who was doing it, and who was in charge of it. It is undeniable that the tests were organized by Pirelli. »

On the side of the Italian manufacturer, the defense is clear: Pirelli is not subject to sporting regulations and therefore cannot be troubled; this is, in any case, what has been put forward by Dominique Dumas, Pirelli’s lawyer: « We suggest that it is clear that Pirelli is not bound by the regulations. Pirelli cannot understand the disciplinary action, Pirelli acts only with the rights given by the FIA. We cannot understand the disciplinary procedure. Ferrari and Red Bull have confirmed that they have no grievance against Pirelli. The complaints are unfounded because it has been recognized that Pirelli has not violated the code. »

Drawing on the case opposing the FIA to Flavio Briatore, following the Crashgate, the lawyer adds: “In the matter of ‘FIA v. Flavio Briatore,’ an expert explained that the FIA, subject to French law, could have competence for sports issues and statutes, but not the authority or power to sanction individuals who did not agree to comply with the regulations. There can be no sanction without a solid legal basis, and Pirelli cannot accept and will not accept that its image, the quality of its products, and its credibility are tarnished by an instance that is not admissible and unfounded.” Dumas concludes: “I hope the decision you make will ease tensions and allow the parties to come together and pronounce on the rules related to tire testing in F1. It is absolutely urgent and imperative to do so.”

Outside of the regulatory aspect, the question was whether Mercedes gained a sporting advantage. While for Mark Howard, the FIA’s lawyer, there is no doubt about it, Ross Brawn’s position is more nuanced: « I don’t see how. We didn’t know what the tires were; we didn’t know the details of what Pirelli was doing. We always operate on the principle that no information is better than bad information. I don’t see how we could have used any data from this test. » However, he reminds that the use of telemetry is imperative: « It is essential for the team to keep track of what’s happening with the car when it’s running to ensure there’s no malfunction or problems with the car; telemetry was used for the normal operation of the car. »

Finally, despite everything, the team director does not hide that Mercedes was able to derive an advantage: I think it is inevitable, and it was a consideration taken into account when we got permission from the FIA to conduct the tests, all things considered.

See you tomorrow for the conclusion of the proceedings before the FIA Tribunal.