he outcome of the 2007 drivers' world championship has been plunged into renewed doubt after McLaren declared its intention to appeal the decision of the Interlagos stewards not to penalise Williams and BMW Sauber for alleged fuel irregularities.

After Sunday's Brazilian Grand Prix the stewards analysed fuel samples taken from the Williams and BMW cars during their pit stops, which appeared to show temperatures outside the permitted range.

The enquiry into an apparently arcane technical issue had potentially huge repercussions, since Williams driver Nico Rosberg and BMW's Robert Kubica and Nick Heidfeld finished the race fourth, fifth and sixth respectively - ahead of Lewis Hamilton, who lost the world title to Kimi Raikkonen by a single point after a disastrous race.

Had the three drivers been disqualified, Hamilton would have been promoted to fourth place and declared world champion.

But because the stewards deemed the evidence inconclusive, they opted not to impose any penalties and upheld the original result, confirming Raikkonen as champion.

However, a McLaren spokeswoman told ITV-F1.com late on Sunday evening that the team intends to challenge the stewards' ruling in the FIA's International Court of Appeal - leaving the title result hanging in the balance once again.

McLaren has notified the governing body of its intentions but no appeal date has yet been set.

A couple of hours earlier, in a statement explaining their decision, the stewards said they could not prove that the fuel used by Williams and BMW was illegal.

Article 6.5.5 of the Formula 1 technical regulations states: "No fuel on board the car may be more than 10 degrees centigrade below ambient temperature."

FIA technical delegate Jo Bauer reported that the fuel samples from all four cars showed temperatures 12-14C lower than the ambient at the time.

But the stewards said they could not be certain the temperatures were outside the 10C limit due to conflicting evidence.

They pointed to a discrepancy between the ambient temperature recorded on the Formula One Management timing monitors and that provided by the FIA and team-contracted meteorologists Meteo France - and said there was no "regulation stating in clear terms that for the purposes of Article 6.5.5 the definitive ambient temperature shall be indicated on the FOM timing monitors alone".

They also said they lacked "a precise reading of the temperature of 'fuel on board the car' which shows fuel at more than 10 degrees centigrade below ambient temperature".

Their statement concluded: "In view of the matters referred to above, the stewards consider that...there must be sufficient doubt as to both the temperature of the fuel actually 'on board the car' and also as to the true ambient temperature as to render it inappropriate to impose a penalty".

Ferrari has warned that Formula 1's reputation may be damaged if Kimi Raikkonen loses his 2007 drivers' world title in the court room.

During the FIA Court of Appeal hearing convened to establish the result of the Brazilian Grand Prix following the so-called 'cool fuel' row, in London on Thursday, Ferrari's representative Nigel Tozzi QC, said it would be a "serious injustice" if Lewis Hamilton inherited the title as a result of Nico Rosberg, Robert Kubica and Nick Heidfeld's potential disqualification.

"This is not the way a world championship should be won," Tozzi said at the hearing.

"Mr Hamilton himself, potentially the only beneficiary, has said very clearly he does not want to win the championship this way.

"Mr Martin Whitmarsh (McLaren F1 CEO) in an interview yesterday said 'finding a way to award the world drivers' championship to Lewis retrospectively, is not at all what this is about'."

The stewards of the Brazilian Grand Prix allowed the result to stand after stating that they couldn't prove that the fuel used by Williams and BMW was illegal.

In the run-up to the hearing, the verdict of which is expected on Friday afternoon, McLaren repeatedly claimed its appeal of the result was based on a desire to establish clarity over how fuel temperatures should be regulated.

However McLaren's own legal representative, Mr Ian Mill, argued during the hearing that if the Williams and BMW cars that finished ahead of Hamilton at Interlagos were found to have been running fuel that was cooler than the regulations allow, then both teams and drivers should be disqualified from the results, establishing Hamilton as champion.

Tozzi also attacked McLaren for the position it took during the hearing, questioning its motives for calling the appeal.

"It could be said McLaren are shameless hypocrites devoid of any integrity, or maybe what their representatives have said should be taken at face value," said Tozzi.

"If what they want is clarity, then by all means let them have that, but do not allow them to have the world championship this way.

"It would be a serious injustice to Mr Raikkonen should the world title be taken away from him, a fact recognised by Mr Hamilton and Mr (Fernando) Alonso."

Tozzi went on to argue that the integrity of Formula 1 was at stake over the issue.

"It would be highly damaging for the sport if the title were to be won this way," said Tozzi.

"The fans would probably feel it had been achieved by grubby manoeuvring by the lawyers rather than by skill on the track."

Following the hearing, McLaren's CEO Martin Whitmarsh defended his team's arguments, stating that it had based it on previous precedents borne of similar circumstances.

"At today's hearing all parties had the opportunity to present evidence and make arguments based on their respective perception of the facts," he said.

"It now lies with the FIA International Court of Appeal to deliberate and issue a decision.

"As I made clear prior to the appeal, the team was seeking to clarify the regulatory uncertainty that has arisen from a decision of the FIA Stewards at the 2007 Brazilian Grand Prix and not to win the Driver's World Championship.

"Our lawyer's argument that an appropriate penalty would be a disqualification of the cars is based on the fact that this is ordinarily what has occurred during the last 20 years in Formula 1 when there was a breach of a technical regulation during a race.

"Consequently, while this was the only appropriate argument from a legal point of view, it's not our ultimate goal in respect of today's hearing."

Lewis Hamilton will learn if he is to be crowned world champion on Friday when judges announce their verdict into McLaren's appeal.
FORMULA 1 2007 Brazilian GP McLaren Hamilton - 0
More Stories

* Bernie: Crown Raikkonen or I quit

During Thursday court proceedings, Ferrari's lawyer said Formula One will be badly damaged if 'grubby' legal manoeuvring leads to Kimi Raikkonen losing his title to McLaren's Hamilton in a courtroom.

"It would be a serious injustice to Mr Raikkonen were the championship to be taken away from him," Nigel Tozzi told a hearing of the governing FIA's independent International Court of Appeal.

McLaren were appealing against the action of stewards at the season-ending Brazilian Grand Prix in failing to punish BMW Sauber and Williams for using fuel that was apparently cooler than the rules allow.

If the three drivers concerned are disqualified, Hamilton could be promoted from seventh to fourth in the race -- handing the 22-year-old British rookie the points needed to overhaul Raikkonen and become Formula One's youngest champion.

The Finn beat Hamilton by a single point at the end of the 17 race season. A decision by the four judges will be announced in Paris on Friday.

"It would be highly damaging for the sport if the title were to won this way with the fans probably feeling it was more about grubby manoeuvring by the lawyers than by skill behind the wheel," said Tozzi.

"As McLaren have always said, the championship should be decided on the racetrack and not in the courtroom."

Tozzi said comments by McLaren bosses that they were not appealing in order to win the title through the back door but for clarification of the rules should either be taken at face value or be seen as the words of "shameless hypocrites devoid of any integrity".

He, and representatives for BMW Sauber and Williams, argued that McLaren's appeal was in any case inadmissible because the team were not an interested party in the stewards' initial enquiry and had not appealed against the race classification.

BMW Sauber's lawyer Ian Meakin spoke of "naked opportunism" on the part of McLaren and suggested that, even if the appeal were to be allowed, a fine should be the maximum penalty applicable.

The stewards do not have to move Hamilton up the race order, even if others are disqualified and the driver himself has said he wants to win the title on the track.

McLaren's lawyer Ian Mill had earlier called for Hamilton to be promoted.

"The principle is clear," said Mill. "If there was a breach, it was performance-enhancing. The sanction, I'm afraid, has to be disqualification."

The lawyer urged the judges not to be influenced by the fact that the title could be at stake.

"I ask you to address this as though it was any team at any stage of the season," he said.

"Whenever in the past there has been a disqualification, there has been a re-classification... All we ask you to do is what normally happens."

McLaren were fined $100 million and stripped of all their constructors' points in September in a spying controversy involving Ferrari.

The governing body ruled at that time, however, that the McLaren drivers should keep their points because of an amnesty offered to them if they provided evidence, despite strong arguments against them remaining in the championship.

Mill turned that argument against McLaren's rivals.

"The driver may be entirely innocent...but he has the benefit of the infringing car," he said.

"It must be right that if the team is disqualified, the driver loses the points as well. In the other case, the drivers were offered immunity if they assisted the FIA."

Ferrari have accused McLaren of being "naked opportunists" at an appeal over the result of the Brazilian Grand Prix.

McLaren objected to Williams and BMW not being penalised for using fuel that was too cool in the season finale.

The FIA's ruling is expected on Friday and if it upholds the appeal, McLaren's Lewis Hamilton could depose Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen as world champion.

McLaren lawyers have called for a reclassification of the championship which led to Ferrari's sharp retort.

Hamilton was seventh in Brazil behind a Williams and both BMWs.

If Williams's Nico Rosberg and BMW Sauber pair Robert Kubica and Nick Heidfeld are disqualified, the Englishman could be moved up to fourth and would gain enough points to overtake Raikkonen, who won the race.

Hamilton finished the season one point behind the Finn.


It could be said McLaren are shameless hypocrites devoid of any integrity

Ferrari lawyer Nigel Tozzi

McLaren Barrister Ian Mill pointed to 26 instances in Formula One history where there had been disqualifications and a championship reclassification.

"We offer no special plea on behalf of the team, but I ask you to do what normally happens," he said.

"It's clear the infringement of this rule did have a performance-enhancing effect.

"If you put in cool fuel it increases the horse power.

"The principle is clear: if there was a performance enhancement, there was a breach and there has to be a disqualification.

"I ask you to address this as though it was any team at any stage of the season.

"It cannot make a difference it was the last race of the season, and that it will decide the championship.

"Invariably, whenever there has been a disqualification, there has been a reclassification."

But Ferrari's Nigel Tozzi countered: "This is not the way a Formula One world championship should be won.

"Mr Hamilton himself, potentially the only beneficiary, has said very clearly he does not want to win the championship this way.

"Mr Norbert Haug, head of Mercedes motorsport, has again gone on the record and said McLaren are not appealing in order to claim the championship.

"Mr Martin Whitmarsh (McLaren F1 CEO) in an interview yesterday said 'finding a way to award the world drivers' championship to Lewis retrospectively, is not at all what this is about'.


606: DEBATE
Formula One really is losing its way when it gets to the point that the politics in the sport detract from the racing

CB

"It could be said McLaren are shameless hypocrites devoid of any integrity, or maybe what their representatives have said should be taken at face value.

"If what they want is clarity, then by all means let them have that, but do not allow them to have the world championship this way.

"It would be a serious injustice to Mr Raikkonen should the world title be taken away from him, a fact recognised by Mr Hamilton and Mr (Fernando) Alonso.

"As McLaren are fond of saying: 'The championship should be decided on the track and not in the courtroom'," he concluded.

It is widely expected that the FIA will not change the race classification even if it decides to punish Williams and BMW Sauber and it is unlikely to result in Raikkonen losing out.

And Hamilton has already said that he does not want to win the championship in this fashion.

F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone, former Ferrari driver Michael Schumacher and Britain's last world champion Damon Hill also believe it would be bad for the sport if the championship is settled in this way.

But the trio are united in their belief that McLaren's appeal will not affect the outcome of the title race.

Ecclestone said on Wednesday: "I don't think Formula One fans would like a championship to be won because the temperature of the fuel, which can't be measured anyway, is possibly 5C out," he told The Times.

"If anybody thinks that is the best thing for Formula One, then I'd have a serious thought about retiring.

"They don't have to change the results of the race - it's an infringement of the regulations.

"On the same weekend, McLaren used an extra set of tyres, which they shouldn't have used - that was an infringement - so if anything does happen at this Court of Appeal, maybe they'll treat it exactly the same as the tyres."