Jaguar’s right of review for Evans’ Portland penalty rejected

Jaguar TCS Racing’s right to review the decision which cost Mitch Evans victory in Saturday’s first Portland E-Prix race has been thrown out.

Evans was hit with a 5s penalty after a collision with NEOM McLaren’s Jake Hughes, dropping him from first to eighth by race’s end. The penalty came with a spin for Evans’ teammate Nick Cassidy, derailing a hugely strong race for the team where both drivers had an obvious shot at the victory.

“It was clearly a disappointing result in the grand scale of it, but we were on for a double podium in an immensely tense race where a lot of strategy came into place,” team principal James Barclay told Formula E’s broadcast on Sunday morning, before the FIA’s final decision had been made. “The team and drivers executed brilliantly, but that last bit obviously fell away for us. Nick drove 25 brilliant laps so I really feel for him; he really was so close to a phenomenal win.”


Barclay added, “It’s a hard one to judge. The consistency of the penalty is a hard one to take; I don’t think it was deserving of losing a race.

“Our view is that Mitch had a right to have a lane, Jake had rejoined from Attack Mode and Mitch, we felt, was right to be left some room, in a corner that you can run side-by-side. But that’s our perspective. The stewards…ultimately we have to respect their final decision, whatever that may be.”

With the initial decision made in the race, the penalty couldn’t be directly appealed, but Jaguar had a right to call for a review if it could bring new evidence to the table. Explaining the situation to RACER, Barclay said, “The difference between the right of appeal and the right to review is decisions made which are applicable for a right of appeal means you can put a formal appeal against the stewards’ decision.

“A right to review means you have the option to bring new evidence that wasn’t available at the time the stewards made their decision for them to consider for review. They don’t have to; they have the option to decline it, they have the option to accept it. In a right to review, [if] the option is to accept it, they will look at the new evidence and they will reconsider whether their decision is valid based on the context of that new information.

“If it isn’t, they’ll keep their decision. If it is and it fundamentally means they review their decision to be incorrect based on that evidence provided, they will reconsider either taking the penalty away or applying a different penalty depending on the circumstance.”

The former is what happened, with an FIA stewards bulletin posted ahead of qualifying noting that “the review is unfounded” and the penalty is “upheld.”

“After the race, the Stewards received car data from the lap before and during the incident (laps 3 and 4) at the location of the incident,” read the stewards’ decision. “Team representatives from Jaguar TCS Racing presented the data trace showing speed, vertical acceleration, and throttle application.

“Upon review, the Stewards recognized that the driver of Car 9 made an effort to avoid contact with Car 5, but it is the view of the Stewards that Car 9 could have made even more of an effort to avoid contact, and as such, Decision 18 is upheld.

“The Stewards appreciate Jaguar TCS Racing for their preparation and presentation of this new, significant and relevant evidence.”

Story originally appeared on Racer