The FIA has publicly denounced the wave of online abuse that erupted after its stewards handed drive‑through penalties to Alpine’s Franco Colapinto and Racing Bulls’ Arvid Lindblad at the Dutch Grand Prix.
Stewards decide on double‑yellow infractions
Both drivers were penalised for overtaking under a double‑yellow flag on lap 1, when debris from a Max Verstappen crash forced drivers into unpredictable manoeuvres. While the red‑flag period on lap 2 began the same lap, the penalties were applied before the race fully restarted.
FIA’s statement on the penalties
In a formal note, the FIA stewards described the infringements as “normally requiring a 10‑second stop/go penalty” but cited “mitigating circumstances” due to the heavy debris on track. The same language was used for Lindblad, who had drafted past Pierre Gasly before the start‑finish line.
Colapinto’s sponsor turns the spotlight on steward integrity
Argentinian sponsor Mercado Libre’s chief marketing officer, Sean Summers, publicly questioned the stewards’ trustworthiness by claiming the penalties were driven by “incompetence” and “dishonesty”. Summers’ comments amplified the harassment that followed on social media, with threats directed at both the FIA and Alpine’s own channels.
FIA’s United Against Online Abuse campaign steps in
The FIA’s coalition released a statement condemning “all forms of abuse and harassment” targeting stewards. It highlighted three key points: disagreement with decisions is normal; it must not lead to threats; and respect is required online and offline. The organisation is reportedly open to legal action against further threats.
Broader implications for F1 governance
With both penalties applied under identical circumstances, the abuse targeted specifically the perceived national bias of the sanctioning process. Colapinto, an Argentine, was criticised for the nation‑based retaliation, whereas his British counterpart Lindblad faced the same penalty yet no such accusations. The FIA’s response underscores the organisation’s commitment to consistent rule enforcement and the protection of its officials.
"