Max Verstappen Handed FIA Community Service for Language Offense
Sep.20 - Max Verstappen found himself facing the stewards yet again, but this time it wasn't for an on-track incident. The reigning world champion was summoned to explain his choice of words during Thursday's FIA Driver Press Conference in Singapore. According to the stewards, Verstappen used language to describe his car during the Azerbaijan Grand Prix that was deemed inappropriate for public forums.
While the Dutch driver claimed that his choice of words was a result of language differences, the stewards weren’t entirely convinced. English may not be Verstappen’s first language, but as a high-profile figure in motorsport, the FIA expects drivers to be mindful of their words—especially in broadcast settings. Despite apologizing for the remark and emphasizing that it wasn't aimed at anyone specifically, Verstappen wasn’t let off the hook.
In a firm reminder that all competitors are role models both in and out of the car, the stewards opted for a creative penalty: community service. Verstappen will be required to complete some public interest work, as outlined in Article 12.4.1.d of the International Sporting Code. This penalty was deemed more fitting than a financial fine, which is often used in cases involving offensive language directed at specific groups.
Though the Red Bull driver has the right to appeal the decision, it's unlikely this will cause too much disruption ahead of the weekend’s racing. Nonetheless, it’s a situation that Verstappen—and the rest of the paddock—won’t forget anytime soon.
Keep an eye on this space as the Singapore Grand Prix weekend unfolds.
✅ Check out more posts with related topics:
What a joke.
He should be made to sit in the corner like all naughty preschoolers. He needs to grow up and get out from under his father's influence.
Swearing never physically hurts anyone, so people shouldn't act in a butthurt manner.
In a press conference it's unprofessional, makes the sport look cheap. Why should Max get away with it.
Can't believe the FIA is getting so tight up these days. They use to be pirates, but now it seems like they want to be the holy Pope.
So FIA now stands for F*cking Idiots Adrift now?
" some public interest work" Please not on "Dont do Drugs" or hes likely to turn up stoned just to wind em up
Point of order ~ does the FIA have jurisdiction in such matters?
Sure, they have jurisdiction over the event and the cars, however, I believe it is the jurisdiction of the laws in the country in which the incident took place that should prevail. If it were me, I would challenge the FIA's authority to make this absurd decision.
Next thing we know the FIA will be issuing parking tickets!
Some light reading for you Smokey
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2023_international_sporting_code_fr-en_track_changes_19.12.2022.pdf
Shroppy, I have a good friend who is a senior judge, and previously was a well respected barrister. He has always said that rules / laws / legislation / regulations are not worth the paper they are written on until they are tested by a court. As you probably know, court decisions and all based on precedent, and until a precedent is established the matter is open to be challenged. A finding may support or enhance the issue, or revoke it.
Always a a good person to know, yes i understand what hes saying, i but "guilt" is "guilt" , and in a criminal court a "crime" is a "crime", what i think your friend is saying is what can be challenged is the level of culpability the person may have ,and then the amount of punishment they could receive/be given, easiest way to explain that is , for identical crimes one judge/magistrate may give a punishment of X, whereas 100 miles away (for same crime) another might give a punishment of Y, without knowing all the facts/circumstances, and hearing all mitigation, from the outside, the public ( us included) sometimes can struggle to understand why that is so, an absolute minefield, i was a magistrate for 8 years so the story telling of defence solicitors never failed to amaze me, whereas the prosecutions case was -this is this-that is that So Guilty-Guilty-Guilty very black on white, (no rap pun intended there for all the Lady GaGa Hamilton fans)
Re prosecutions case, don’t think the sub postmasters wrongly accused would agree with you..
I once appeared as a witness non expert for a neighbour who was accused of speeding and dangerous driving causing him to hit scaffolding poles on a dumper unlit and unmarked. The prosecution relied on police scientific evidence that the length of his skid marks proved that he was doing over 45 mph. When I pointed out that theoretically a ten ton truck on bald bicycle tyres would stop in the same distance if that were true plus the defendants Triumph Herald did not have a hope of achieving that speed in the distance available, the case was thrown out. By a magistrate like you who had the common sense to see the prosecution case was nonsense.
No ofcourse the sub post office people wouldnt agree, Triumph Herald , when was this , 1964?
1974
Let’s be honest, it’s all about power, nobody really cares but some people have a desperate need to wield power usually to cover up their own anadaquacy.
Sorry just been corrected by my wife, power and jealousy.
Back then , there were no sentencing guide lines, the magistrates could basically decide there own punishment, Today if the magistrates are leaning towards punishment X, the legal advisor will step in, behind closed doors and as a trained solicitor and say why they cant, plus back then im not sure a defendant in a magistrates court after being found had any recourse , unlike now where if they dont agree with the magistrates verdict , it gets sent to crown c for appeal, hence why with the aid of the legal advisor 98% of magistrate court decisions stand and are not appealed by the guilty party, oh and the expenses for being a Magistrate were marvelous too, i miss that lunch allowance
✅ Checkout the latest 50 F1 Fans comments.