MotoMatters.com | Kropotkin Thinks

On the third lap of the opening grand prix of the 2023 MotoGP season, Marc Marquez locked the front wheel of his Honda RC213V while braking for Turn 3, trying to close the gap to Jorge Martin and Miguel Oliveira. As he did so, he clipped the Ducati of Martin, lost control, and barreled into the RNF Aprilia of Miguel Oliveira.

For that incident, Marc Marquez was handed a Double Long Lap Penalty, to be served at the Argentina GP the following week. But two days after the penalty notice was issued, the FIM Stewards issued a revised penalty, stating that Marquez was to serve the Double Long Lap Penalty at "the next MotoGP Race in which the rider will be able to participate".

That revised penalty has kicked off a controversial process which has gone on so long that the case has exceeded the term set for a hearing by the MotoGP Court of Appeal. As such, the penalty for Marc Marquez is no longer valid.

The FIM regulations set out very clearly that the MotoGP Court of Appeal must hear an appeal and issue a judgment within four weeks of the brief of appeal (basically, the letter from the appellant setting out their case) being received by the court. Section 3.4.4 of the FIM Grand Prix World Championship Regulations states the following:

3.4.4 Time limits to be observed for appeal hearings

The FIM Appeal Stewards must be convened to examine an appeal immediately after the brief of appeal is received.

The FIM Appeal Stewards must in all cases announce a decision immediately following the hearing of the appeal.

The MotoGP Court of Appeal must be convened to examine an appeal not later than 4 weeks after the brief of appeal is received.

The MotoGP Court of Appeal must in all cases pronounce a decision, within 4 weeks after the brief of appeal is received.

The timeline in this case, as set out in the MotoGP Court of Appeal's decision on the stay issued for the Marquez penalty, is as follows:

1. On 26th March 2023, the FIM Stewards Panel handed Marc Marquez a Double Long Lap Penalty for causing the crash in which he hit Miguel Oliveira. The penalty was to be served in Argentina. Neither Marquez nor the Repsol Honda team appealed that original penalty.
2. Marc Marquez decided to have surgery on the first metacarpal bone in his right thumb on the evening of the 26th March.
3. On the 28th March 2023, the FIM Stewards Panel issued a revised penalty, stating that Marquez would have to serve the Double Long Lap Penalty at Argentina or the next MotoGP Race in which he participated.
4. On 29th March 2023, within the 24-hour deadline for appeals to penalty notices, the Repsol Honda team appealed the change to the original penalty, stating that penalty notices are final once issued, and cannot be changed after the fact. They made their appeal to the FIM Appeal Stewards, and requested that the penalty be stayed (postponed) until the full appeal against the change of wording had been heard.
5. The FIM Appeal Stewards, with a view to the importance of the case, immediately referred the Repsol Honda team's appeal to the MotoGP Court of Appeal.
6. On 4th April, the MotoGP Court of Appeal issued a procedural order asking the Repsol Honda team to submit its reasons why they believed the penalty should be stayed, which they did within the deadline of 6th April.
7. On 12th April, the MotoGP Court of Appeal ordered the stay of the Double Long Lap Penalty, pending a full hearing of the case.

The key phrase in the FIM Regulations is "within 4 weeks after the brief of appeal is received". The brief of appeal are the documents and information setting out the reasons the appellant (in this case, the Repsol Honda team) is appealing against the penalty issued.

When was the brief of appeal submitted? According to section 3.4.2.3, within 24 hours after an appeal was lodged.

3.4.2.3 Lodging of an appeal

To be admissible, the statement of appeal must be submitted in writing (appeal before the FIM Appeal Stewards) or submitted or sent by registered letter or special courier or by electronic mail to the FIM Executive Secretariat and postmarked (appeal before the MotoGP Court of Appeal).

The correct security deposit for appeal must be paid to the FIM MotoGP Stewards (appeal before the FIM Appeal Stewards) or paid in to the FIM Executive Secretariat (appeal before the MotoGP Court of Appeal).

Within 24 hours following the statement of appeal before the MotoGP Court of Appeal, the appellant assigns to the FIM Executive Secretariat a brief of appeal stating the facts.

If the appeal was not lodged and/or the security deposit for appeal not paid within the deadline specified in Article 3.4.2.2, the appeal will be declared inadmissible without hearing.

Yet when I approached the FIM for comment, I received the following reply: "29 March 2023 corresponds to the date of the statement of appeal and not to the brief of appeal which was submitted at a later date. As a consequence the deadline provided for in article 3.4.4 has not yet expired". When I asked when the case will be heard, I was told the FIM will deal with it "in due time".

I have also approached the Repsol Honda Team for confirmation of the date when the brief of appeal was filed, but they have not yet been able to provide that information.

Following this timeline, the hearing should have been held four weeks after Repsol Honda filed the brief of appeal with the MotoGP Court of Appeal. That had to be filed within 24 hours of the appeal being referred to the MotoGP Court of Appeal.

The Repsol Honda Team lodged the appeal with the FIM Appeal Stewards, and the Appeal Stewards referred the case to the MotoGP Court of Appeal. That happened on 29th March. The Repsol Honda Team must have filed the brief of appeal within 24 hours after the case was referred to the Court of Appeal, which is 30th March. Four weeks after 30th March is April 27th. That date has passed.

It is customary under civil law systems, such as the framework the FIM regulations operate in, for cases which have not been heard within the time limits set out in the law (or in this case, regulations) to be dismissed. The court is considered to have forfeited its right to hear the case, and the defendant or appellant is free of the penalty issued.

Therefore the logical conclusion from a close reading of the regulations is that the penalty handed down by the FIM Stewards at Portimão has been forfeited. The FIM, by not arranging for the case to be heard before he MotoGP Court of Appeal within four weeks of the appeal being filed, has by default lost the case. Marc Marquez should no longer have to serve the penalty issued at Portimão.

2023 has been a bad year for the FIM and penalties. There has been a constant list of complaints against the decisions of the FIM Stewards in the grand prix paddock, the main complaint being one of a lack of consistency. The changing of the wording of the penalty issued to Marquez was controversial enough, but to fail to hold a hearing of the appeal and suffer a de facto loss in the case adds insult to injury.

The original version of this story has been updated with information from a response from the FIM. It originally stated that the case had been dismissed. The FIM contests that, despite the rules being clear on the deadline for filing the brief of appeal. It will be updated again when I receive more information.