Saturday October 23rd, 1999

The following is the full statement made by the FIA's president, Max Mosley, this morning in Paris:

"It was felt that whatever the decision that the International Court of Appeal might take there might be criticism of Formula One or of the FIA. This is because there were a large group of people who feel that to interfere with a very exciting championship for the sake of a few millimetres or for the sake of something which would make no difference to the performance of the car would be wrong. On the other hand there is a very large group of people, which includes me, who believe that if a car does not conform with the rules, not matter how small the non-conformity, you have no choice but to exclude it. The reason being that otherwise you get into a massive debate about whether a particular thing makes a difference or not.

"Now some of you may have noticed that Mr Ecclestone belongs to the former camp - that is to say the people who think we should not interfere with the championship over small matters. Now I have to say that in financial matters Mr Ecclestone has great influence and people listen carefully to what he says. He has a small influence in making the rules because he has one vote among 24 on our World Council. When it comes to enforcing the rules he has no influence what so ever and no one, neither the Court of Appeal nor the Stewards, would pay any attention to his views. He is of course entitled to his opinion but it is of no consequence what so ever.

"Now having said that, it is important to explain one point. The whole of Formula One is governed by detailed technical regulations which include a large number of dimensions. These dimensions fall into two categories - those which are either a maximum or a minimum, and those which are simple dimension. When you have a maximum dimension you cannot pass that by even the smallest amount because you have the freedom to have less. In other words, if one metre is the maximum you can be 99.5 but you cannot be one metre plus even half a millimetre. If you are, then you are outside the regulations. The same with minimum - you must not go below the minimum.

"When you have a simple dimension, such as the present case where it is a flat bottom, you have to have a tolerance because when you say the bottom of the car must be flat, how flat is flat? If you measure something with sufficient precision you can always demonstrate that it is not flat. For this reason, in the flat bottom regulations, there is a tolerance under article 3.12.6 of 5mm. Now, during the hearing yesterday Ferrari came with a very accurate jig and were able to show the court that the turning vane, when at a certain angle to the car, had no dimension which exceeded the tolerance of 5mm. That is to say that when the vane is slightly turned at an angle, the dimension, the shadow, on one side decreases and on the other side increases. They were able to show that all the relevant dimensions were within the 5mm tolerance.

"In addition to that they criticised, I think with some justification, our methods of measurement. There was also criticism by the court as to the clarity of the regulation itself. Those two criticisms, of the methods of measurement and of the clarity of regulation, are going to be looked into very carefully. Having regard to the fact that the dimensions in no part of the turning vane exceeded the tolerance allowed by the regulations, and having regard to the uncertainty introduced by the methods of measurement and the wording of the regulation itself, the Court of Appeal decided to overturn the decision of the stewards and therefore the original result of the race stands in its entirety. That is to say the drivers have the points they earned in the race and so do the constructor, Ferrari. That was the decision of the Court of Appeal."