There was no reason not to see a reason why George Russell won the Canadian Grand Prix, a proven example of dedication and raw skill that the young man portrays in his Formula 1 adventure. Rather, it was a long-running controversy by Red Bull made that diverted attention away not only to the fact that he had won, but also highlighted the flaws of the protest process in the sport. There was an 8 hour wait to confirm it, a tedious experience in the stewards room and the argument which now needs reformation. It is not only sensible but necessary to suggest a deposit fee of at least six figures to those who want to get their appeals heard even on the basis of a frivolous appeal.

At the moment, groups are obliged to pay only 2000 euros to submit a claim to the FIA ​​stewards. That is small change in the cut-throat cash-laden Formula 1 world. To those teams which pay hundreds of millions of dollars every year on development, logistics and human resources, two grand does not do a dent. It is flip a coin in order to find out whether you can alter the stress of a race. It is Russell justifiably complained that teams will be more fined on expletive utterances in an interview or touching a rear wing than on behaving in a way to detract with the outcome of a Grand Prix by raising a protest. Such an imbalance should be overcome in order to make the sport maintain some credibility in the governance.

The case which was filed by Red Bull was not even that clean. It began by making accusations of Russell behavior behind the safety car and then switched to make unspecified arguments of unsportsmanlike conduct towards Max Verstappen. The irony? According to the informants, Verstappen never directly participated in the protest. It seems to have been a Red Bull creation, no doubt a strategy by the team to divert attention away of their own controversial actions in the last Spanish race with Verstappen. This accident had already incurred him a 10-second penalty and three superlicence points against him into colliding with Russell.Perhaps this was playing defense in case the other potential penalty could take place.

Whatever the reason, the end result was a comical hold up which cost the Canadian Grand Prix its deserved post-race euphoria. The fans were left hanging. Media reports turned into guesswork. And in the case of Russell, the excitement of being on the top step of the podium was substituted to worry of lawyered scrums. The stewards eventually overruled this appeal by saying the appeal lacked grounds of punishment but now the moment has already been ruined.

The proposal by Russell does not aim at the eradication of a right to protest because that is very necessary in a sport where the risks are so high. But with his financial deposit suggestion, he is appealing to responsibility. When a team is serious about their appeal, they would be ready to stake with real cash. And when they are right they will have it back. When they are mistaken, they will pay the price, not only through the rejection, but in a financial sting of a kind that will cured them the next time. It is not a ban, but deterrent.

It is something that should not be taken lightly by the sport governing body FIA. Formula 1 cannot be treated as a boardroom political game and a field of gamesmanship. The honesty in life and in the racetrack counts. In the event the suggestion of Russell is applied, this may be the turning point, the time when strategy ends in racing and not in the stewards office and the rulebook. It is time we got the balance back and by having a six-figure protest deposit to help do the trick then the sport will become better.

Follow us on Zeroto30s social channels:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zeroto30s/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/zeroto30s

Twitter: https://twitter.com/zeroto30s

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@Zeroto30s