Thread by @trvynicolas

(1/18) Applying ordinary legal principles, the #FIA, #Masi and #RedBull are on shaky ground, on the basis of the #F1 #FIARegulations. Regulations 48.12, 48.13 and 15.3 do not work the way the FIA have explained. A thread. #safetycar #cas #formula1 #verstappen #Hamilton

(2/18) Let's start with what happened - Race Control announced: "Lapped Cars 4-14-31-16-5 to overtake Safety Car". Nothing in the Regulations *specifically* permits this announcement. Reg 48.12 is the sole Reg dealing with un-lapping under a Safey Car.

(3/18) Reg 48.12 says as per the pic. There are a few things that need unpacking, but if this stood on its own, it appears pretty clear.

(4/18) On its own, 48.12 is fairly clear. And if this were an English law contract, a Court would give effect to its ordinary meaning . The Race Steward announcement should read "LAPPED CARS MAY OVERLAP". And "any cars that have been lapped" are "required" to pass the safety car.

(5/18) As such: reading 48.12 alone, the direction that *certain* cars pass the S/C was not expressly permitted. Importantly, neither was Masi's direction that the S/C come in once *those* cars had passed the S/C - it should do so 1 lap after ALL lapped cars have passed S/C.

(6/18) What are the counterarguments? FIRST - RB argued that, textually, "any lapped cars" doesn't mean "all lapped cars" must pass the safety car. I can expand on this if interesting, but this is a poor textual argument legally.

(7/18) SECOND, RB and Masi argued that 48.13 overrode 48.12 in this case. It's worth looking at 48.13.

(8/18) 48.13 does give the "course clerk" (more on this later) the power to call in the S/C "on this lap" when safe to do so. However, nothing within it specifically overrides 48.12. Importantly - it doesn't say that the clerk (or RD) can unlap some but not all cars.

(9/18) And it doesn't say expressly that 48.13 overrides the specific rules in 48.12 regarding timing of S/C exit (1 lap after unlapping). This is important because, as a general principle of construction, the specific (48.12) over rules the general (48.13).

(10/18) As such, 48.13 offers (i) NO independent justification for a deviation in application to 48.12 as regards selective unlapping, and (ii) a very weak independent justification for an "override" (the term used by the FIA) of 48.12 regarding timing of exit of the S/C.

(11/18) THIRD, and importantly (because of the FIA's reference to "override"), Masi relies on Reg 15.3. This is set out in the pic, but it is very, very weak as an argument.

(12/18) RB expressly relied on this. But 15.3 is describing the relationship between the Racing director (Masi) and the local (Abu Dhabi) clerk. It gives Masi an override - but only over the clerk if there is a dispute. There was no dispute (that we know of).

(13/18) It doesn't give the RD/Masi carte blanche discretion; his authority is constrained by the rest of the Regs, including 48.12. It doesn't offer any sort of get-out for non-application of 48.12.

(14/18) FOURTH, RB argue that breach of Regs made no difference. This is hopeless - no racing fan could honestly conclude that MV (i) having to lap 5 cars before attacking LH, or (ii) finishing under S/C wouldn't have resulted in LH winning.

(15/18) To conclude - the stated basis for (i) Masi's decision and (ii) the FIA's decision to refuse McLaren's appeal (tweeted earlier by Mercedes), is really, really shaky. Maybe they find something better, but they should have brought their own lawyers!

(16/18)The more interesting point, however, is where this leads. We are in unchartered territory. This is going to CAS - but it's not clear at all that CAS has the ability to readjudicate the race result.

(17/18)Hamilton's/Mercedes' best argument may be that Masi's original transgression (to breach 48.12) was ultra vires/invalid, so made his subsequent decision (under 48.13) void. The race should end as under S/C. But this is not clear at all.

(18/18) Anyway, it's entirely possible that CAS finds that Masi and the FIA acted contrary to Regs anyway - even if this doesn't result in an overturned championship, it may still result in a massive damages claim by Mercedes and an asterisk next to MV's title.

(19/18) Sorry for the essay; hope you'll excuse a few tags, since I am just a low-follower law geek! @guardian_sport @TelegraphSport @amylovesf1 @MercedesAMGF1 @PsychoRelic_ @MotorsportWeek @Giles_Richards @tim_bennett_ @f1 @_the44 @ThePolymath11 #CAS #Formula1

(20/18) If you found this thread interesting/informative (and regardless of MV/LH fan status) I'd appreciate it if you could retweet Tweet 1/18 so I don't feel like I completely wasted my evening looking at Regulations :) Also really, really happy to answer questions or debate.

Side note to the thread - the reason I haven't spent a lot of time on this argument, apart from it being weak (as I say, I can expand!), is that the FIA's dismissal of Mercedes' appeal does not appear to rely on it at all expressly.

(21)18) UPDATE - Thank you all for kind comments and lively debate. One point from this evening is that it is the ICA, not CAS, which is competent to decide appeals. The identity of the arbitral body rarely changes the outcome, but I haven't looked in detail.

(22/18) UPDATE 2 - Having looked at ICA panel candidates, I remain of the view that the switch to ICA from CAS is unlikely to change result. Same remedy uncertainties remain, but it is an independent body with credible arbitrators who also sit on (e.g.) LCIA tribunals.

(23/18) Update 3 - I should also say that my description of RB's "it would make no difference" case was incorrectly based on reports, not the actual FIA appeal summary. I remain of the view, however, that RB's case on that was speculative and of little impact for the FIA appeal.