Several questions have been asked as to why the FIA are revisiting a penalty awarded to Lewis Hamilton at the Qatar Grand Prix, after he crossed a live circuit.
Following his collision with George Russell on the opening lap of the Qatar GP, Hamilton was seen running across the Lusail International Circuit, once all but Russell had gone past on the second lap.
This was seen as very dangerous by the stewards, who received a formal reprimand and a £34,700 – although only half of the fine has to be paid if he doesn’t repeat his offence for the remainder of the season.
When summoned by the stewards prior to being penalised, Hamilton recognised what he’d done wrong and was reportedly “apologetic”, something the stewards and the FIA have recognised.
However, as Hamilton boasts a “role model status”, the governing body are revisiting the incident as they’re concerned “about the impression his actions may have created on younger drivers”.
The FIA doing this has created some controversy, with the FIA being accused of singling the seven-time World Champion out.
This does appear to be the case, given that rookie Logan Sargeant ran across the circuit after he crashed out of Q1 at the Japanese Grand Prix recently.
Even three-time World Champion Max Verstappen crossed a live circuit back at the 2021 Italian Grand Prix, after himself and Hamilton collided.
For some reason, Hamilton has been treated differently, supposedly just because of the way the governing body view him.
Ex-F1 driver and Sky Sports F1 pundit Karun Chandhok doesn’t quite understand the situation, with him pointing out that Hamilton “isn’t the first person” to cross a live race track.
“Not saying this should be condoned but I’m sure Lewis isn’t the first person to do this… Didn’t Sargeant cross the track just at the previous event in Japan?” Chandhok wrote on Twitter/X.
“Bit odd to talk about precedent when other people have done it before.”
He then added: “Max at Monza 2021 is another example I think…”
It’s caused plenty of debate on social media, with some wondering whether the governing body have simply worded their reasoning for revisiting the incident wrong.