国际上诉法院裁定维持处罚，加斯利失去摩纳哥大奖赛领奖台
国际汽联国际上诉法院裁定，皮埃尔·加斯利因维修区超速所受的处罚有效，其阿尔派车队的摩纳哥大奖赛领奖台成绩最终被取消。
皮埃尔·加斯利失去摩纳哥大奖赛领奖台席位，国际汽联上诉法院裁定
国际上诉法院裁定，皮埃尔·加斯利在摩纳哥大奖赛收到的、此前曾被撤销的处罚依然有效
国际汽联国际上诉法院（ICA）裁定，阿尔派车队一级方程式车手皮埃尔·加斯利最终失去了他在摩纳哥大奖赛的领奖台完赛成绩，他因在维修通道超速而受到的处罚维持不变
加斯利是在该赛事中因维修通道超速被处罚的多名车手之一，但后来发现维修通道的测量数据不准确，前两个计时点之间存在77厘米的误差——这也是处罚数量异常之多的原因
当奥斯卡·皮亚斯特里和乔治·拉塞尔等人因为在比赛中执行处罚而蒙受损失时——拉塞尔的处罚执行方式有误，这位梅赛德斯车手因此被处以穿过维修区的处罚——加斯利的两个五秒处罚则被加到了他的比赛成绩上，使他从第三名跌至第七名。这一时机意味着阿尔派车队得以申请复审。
FIA赛事干事随后于6月12日推翻了这些处罚，加斯利因此恢复了第三名的位置。但对于那些在比赛期间执行处罚的车手来说，这并非可行的选择。
红牛车队的伊萨克·哈贾尔和迈凯伦车队的皮亚斯特里蒙受了损失，分别从第三和第四名跌至第四和第五名。因此两支车队都向国际上诉法院（ICA）提起了上诉；这一举措得到了小红牛车队（其两名车手均在成绩榜上各失去一个位置）和英国赛车运动协会（Motorsport UK）的支持。
法院于周五裁定处罚有效，因此加斯利重新跌回第七名，而他的同胞哈贾尔则继承了第三名——这位红牛车手在赛后已经庆祝过这个位置。
加斯利（阿尔派车队）、哈贾尔（红牛 比赛车队）
ICA的部分推理依据是，阿尔派无法完全确定地证明Gasly在维修区内实际行驶的距离比（不准确地）测量出的距离更远，因此其在两个计时点之间较短的时间可能反映出“更短的路线、更高的速度，或两者的结合”。
然而，ICA确认，其他车手已经服完处罚“不能成为取消一项不合法处罚的障碍，因为那些处罚是由车队自行斟酌和选择而执行的。若以会造成体育不公平为由持相反观点，反而会与体育公平相悖。”
阿尔派对这一决定表示“失望和沮丧”，仍然坚称Gasly没有任何过错，不应受到任何处罚。
车队在声明中表示：“车队对国际汽联国际上诉法庭就2026年摩纳哥大奖赛结果所作出的裁决表示失望和沮丧。”
“尽管我们不同意这一决定，并且仍然完全坚持10号车在比赛期间任何时候都没有超过维修区限速，但车队接受近期在巴黎举行的听证会上裁判小组作出的决定。”
“虽然这一结果并非我们所期望的，因为我们认为自己受到了不公正的处罚，但车队将坚定地专注于继续提升赛道上的表现，并仍处于一场激烈而胶着的冠军争夺战中。”
“这一结果不会削弱车队在赛季结束前实现其目标的努力和动力。”
与此同时，国际汽联（FIA）在一份声明中坚称，其赛事干事做出错误决定并不一定负有责任，但该联合会承诺将审查其相关流程。
声明中写道：“国际汽联注意到国际上诉法院（ICA）今天就8月25日星期二听证会（案件编号 ICA-2026-06-07-08-09）做出的决定。”
“国际上诉法院的裁定支持了迈凯伦F1车队（迈凯伦 F1 Team）和红牛车队（红牛 比赛）针对摩纳哥大奖赛第99号文件中赛事干事决定所提出的上诉，实际上推翻了这些决定。”
“国际汽联正在审查当前一级方程式计时系统的方法和运作以及相关的规则事务。还将审查其他司法程序和运作，包括复审权以及上诉流程。”
“国际汽联（FIA）完全支持干事（Stewarding）工作流程，以及由多元化干事小组所具备的独立性和客观性，他们是全球赛车运动不可或缺的一部分。
“干事的裁决是在与法庭不同的环境下作出的，而法庭可以获得大量额外的法律顾问意见、辩论和证据。
“国际汽联干事不断审视其工作流程，并参与大量的专业发展培训。国际汽联干事会仔细研究国际上诉法院（ICA）的每一项裁决，以确保流程的持续改进。”
英文原文
Pierre Gasly loses Monaco GP podium, FIA’s Court of Appeal rules
The International Court of Appeal has ruled that Pierre Gasly’s Monaco GP penalties, which had been rescinded, do stand
Alpine Formula 1 driver Pierre Gasly has lost his Monaco Grand Prix podium finish after all, as his penalties for pitlane speeding stand, the FIA’s International Court of Appeal (ICA) has ruled.
Gasly was one of several drivers who were pinged for pitlane speeding during the race in the principality, but it emerged the pitlane measurements were inaccurate, with a discrepancy of 77cm between the first two timing loops – hence the unusual number of penalties.
While the likes of Oscar Piastri and George Russell lost out by serving their penalties during the race – incorrectly served in Russell’s case, with the Mercedes driver consequently incurring a drive-through sanction – Gasly’s couple of five-second penalties were added to his race time, dropping him from third to seventh. The timing meant Alpine was able to request a right of review.
FIA stewards subsequently overturned the penalties on 12 June, meaning Gasly was reinstated in third position. But this wasn’t an option for the drivers who served their penalties during the race.
Red Bull’s Isack Hadjar and McLaren’s Piastri lost out, dropping from third and fourth to fourth and fifth. Both teams therefore appealed the decision before the ICA; the move was supported by Racing Bulls, whose drivers both lost a spot in the classification, and Motorsport UK.
The Court ruled on Friday that the penalties do stand, so Gasly is back down to seventh, with fellow countryman Hadjar inheriting the third place the Red Bull racer celebrated post-race.
Pierre Gasly, Alpine, Isack Hadjar, Red Bull Racing
Part of the ICA’s reasoning was that Alpine couldn’t prove with full certainty that Gasly had travelled a longer distance in the pitlane than (inaccurately) measured, so its shorter time between the timing loops could reflect “a shorter path, greater speed, or a combination of both”.
However, the ICA confirmed that other drivers having served their penalties “cannot be an obstacle to the cancellation of an illegitimate sanction, because those penalties were served at the discretion and choice of the team. Admitting the contrary on the grounds that it would create sporting unfairness would in return be inconsistent with sporting fairness.”
Alpine has expressed “disappointment and frustration” with the decision, still adamant that Gasly did nothing wrong and was undeserving of any penalties.
“The team expresses its disappointment and frustration with the outcome reached by the FIA International Court of Appeal relating to the result of the 2026 Monaco Grand Prix,” a team statement read.
“While we disagree with the decision, and still fully maintain that Car #10 did not exceed the Pit Lane speed limit at any point during the race, the team acknowledges the decision of the judging panel from the recent hearing in Paris.
“While the result is not what we had hoped for, as we feel that we have been unjustly punished, the team is firmly focused on continuing to improve its performance on track and remains in a close and very competitive Championship fight.
“This outcome will not deter the team’s efforts and motivation in achieving its objectives by the end of the season.”
Meanwhile, an FIA statement insisted that its stewards weren’t necessarily to blame for making a wrong decision, though the federation pledged to review its processes.
“The FIA notes the decision today from the International Court of Appeal (ICA) in relation to the hearing of Tuesday, August 25 (case ICA-2026-06-07-08-09),” the statement read.
“The ICA decision upholds the appeals of McLaren F1 Team and Red Bull Racing against the decisions of the stewards contained in document 99 of the Monaco Grand Prix, effectively overturning those decisions.
“The FIA is reviewing the methodology and operation of the current Formula 1 timing system and the related regulatory matters. It will also be reviewing other judicial procedures and operations including the right of review and the appeal processes.
“The FIA is fully supportive of the Stewarding process and the independence and objectivity of the diverse panels of Stewards who are an integral part of global motorsport.
“Stewards’ decisions are taken in a different environment to that of the Court, whereas the Court has access to extensive and additional legal counsel input, arguments and evidence.
“The FIA Stewards constantly review their processes and take part in extensive professional development. Every decision of the ICA is carefully examined by FIA Stewards ensuring a process of continuous improvement.”
Motorsport.com ·
内容来自公开信源，聚合内容版权归原作者与来源所有。