McLaren have failed in their attempt to get 168澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果历史: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澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果历史:Max Verstappen off the track in the closing stages of last weekend’s r✅ace in Au﷽stin.

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

But 24 hours later, F1’s governing body 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.&n𓃲bsp;

Verstappen has a 57-point advantage over Norri🀅s with five grands prix - and two sprint races - remaining this seas𒁏on.

The 'evidence' McLaren submitted

The stewards' verdict read: "McLaren, represented by Mr Singh, stated that🐽 there was ඣa significant and relevant new 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 ꦚa statement that was incorrect and that evidenced an objective, measurable and prov🌊able error had been made by the stewards.

b. That th꧅e statement was that “Car 4 was overtaking Car 1 on the outside but was not level with Car 1 at the apex🐼”

c. That the above statement ♏was in error because McLaren had evidence that Car 4 had already overtaken and was ahead of Car 1 “at the braking zone”

d. That this error is significant and relevant and is new and was unavailable to McLaren at the tim🧸e of the decision.

Mr Singh further argued that this met all the criteria for the required new element and that in the
interests of fairnᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚ⁤⁤⁤⁤ᩚ⁤⁤⁤⁤ᩚ⁤⁤⁤⁤ᩚ𒀱ᩚᩚᩚess, the petition for the Right 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” andܫ urged the Stewards to recognize that this was a substantive case especially compared to previous Right of Review cases. Mr Stella expressed his 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 “𒆙error” 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 th🍸an determining which if any of the criteria this petition meets, the Stewards instead decided to focus on the issue of one of the criteria, namelꩲy 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 element, th🌳e Petiti🍰on is rejected."