Officials deny McLaren Canadian review

Officials have denied McLaren a review of Lando Norris' Canadian Grand Prix penalty

Officials have denied McLaren a review of Lando Norris’ Canadian Grand Prix penalty. Picture: XPB Images

McLaren has had its right of review rejected by officials following a hearing into the penalty Lando Norris received in the Canadian Grand Prix.

Running behind Oscar Piastri as the Safety Car emerged, Norris slowed compared to his team-mate to prevent losing track position as he stacked behind his team-mate in the pit lane.

Norris crossed the line in Montreal ninth, the penalty demoting him to 13th and out of the points.

On Friday, McLaren announced it would exercise its right of review on the matter, with the hearing taking place on Sunday morning.

There, the team had to demonstrate that it had “a significant and relevant new element” that was unavailable at the time of the penalty in Canada.

Representing McLaren was Randy Singh, who cited notes taken at the Team Managers’ meeting on Friday, where the understanding was such instances would not be penalised.

He also recounted discussions following the 2019 Monaco Grand Prix where it was understood that type of action would not be penalised.

On top of that were examples of the practice of other drivers who’d dallied to open a gap that had gone unpunished.

The final submission was that Alex Albon, who trailed Norris at the time, did not lose position because of the McLaren driver’s actions.

While officials agreed all were considered significant, they deemed none relevant and rejected the review.

“Therefore, the Petition for the Right of Review is REJECTED because there is no significant, new, relevant element that was unavailable to McLaren at the time of the Decision,” the stewards confirmed in their summary.

“We respect the FIA and Stewards’ decision to uphold Lando Norris’ five-second time penalty at the 2023 Canadian Grand Prix,” a statement from McLaren said.

“However, we believe that we provided sufficient new, significant and relevant evidence to warrant a ‘right of review’.

“We accept the Stewards’ decision that this evidence did not meet their requirements.

“Whilst it is not the outcome we hoped for, we thank the Stewards for their time and collaboration.”

Join the discussion below in the comments section

Please note: reserves the right to remove any comment that does not follow the comment policy. For support, contact [email protected]