Brundle calls Gasly Monaco podium reinstatement âa mess with no easy solutionâ

Martin Brundle has described the fallout from Pierre Gaslyâs Monaco Grand Prix podium reinstatement as âa mess with no easy solutionâ, after Alpineâs successful Right to Review reopened one of Formula 1âs most awkward recent officiating disputes.
Gasly had crossed the line in third place in Monaco before being demoted to seventh once penalties were added to his race time. Five drivers were reprimanded by the stewards for pit lane speeding incidents, but four had already served their penalties during the race. Gasly had not, allowing Alpine to challenge the penalty applied to its driver after the chequered flag.

Alpine review triggers wider backlash
Alpineâs appeal was accepted, restoring Gasly to third place and stripping Isack Hadjar of what had been his second Formula 1 podium. The decision has now prompted further action, with Red Bull, McLaren and Mercedes all understood to have filed appeals against the outcome. McLarenâs position has already been formalised, with the team appealing Gaslyâs reinstated Monaco result in a separate development covered here: McLaren appeals Pierre Gaslyâs Monaco podium reinstatement.
Writing in his Sky Sports F1 column, Brundle said the situation had become both complex and uncomfortable because the treatment of in-race and post-race penalties had produced different consequences for different drivers.

âThatâs a very complicated and uncomfortable decision,â Brundle wrote. âOther drivers in Monaco had served their penalties and adjusted strategies accordingly, and Russellâs race was destroyed, but because they were not post-race penalties nothing was changed for them retrospectively in the results.â
He added that the appeals from Mercedes, McLaren and Red Bull were inevitable given the competitive damage involved, while Ferrari had less reason to object because the outcome cost Mercedes and McLaren points.
Brundle warns of precedent risk
Brundleâs sharpest concern is the precedent this case may create. If teams believe marginal in-race penalties can be better contested after the race, the incentive to serve them immediately becomes less clear.
âThis also sets a precedent of not serving marginal in-race penalties to preserve the right to contest them post-race,â he wrote. âItâs all a mess with no easy solution.â
Timing loop issue at centre of controversy
The controversy began when multiple pit lane speeding offences were reported to the stewards. Brundle explained that the FIA was not relying on the conventional dashboard speed reading, but on a timing loop method.
âIt turns out one of the timing loops in the Monaco pit lane was 77cm shorter than calibrated hence lots of 60.1kph recordings when the limit was 60kph,â he said.
According to Brundle, the issue had been the subject of correspondence since first practice, and some teams adjusted their limiters. He suggested crucial information had not been properly passed between the FIA and the stewards.
âThere was clearly something amiss with so many identical offences, and itâs surprising that the stewards hadnât been made aware,â Brundle added.
With Formula 1 now turning towards the Austrian Grand Prix at the Red Bull Ring in two weeksâ time, Brundle expects the Monaco story to keep running. His conclusion was blunt: lessons will be learned, but the sporting and procedural damage is unlikely to disappear quickly.
