Soon after the chequered flag fell in Monaco on 7 June 2026, it became apparent that the final results might still change, as Alpine requested a Right of Review. Five days later, the final classification was amended - but instead of settling the matter, that reopened the door for the results to be challenged again. McLaren and Red Bull protested, while Mercedes requested another review, with a new hearing scheduled for Saturday.
Kimi Antonelli won the race, with Lewis Hamilton finishing second. But the fate of the final spot on the podium remains unclear. Pierre Gasly crossed the line third but was later demoted to seventh, leaving Red Bull's Isack Hadjar to celebrate on the podium - only to be dropped back to fourth a few days later, with further changes still possible.
So what's actually going on? Could the results change again? And when will all this end?
What actually happened?
An unusually high number of pitlane speeding penalties were issued during the Monaco Grand Prix. Five drivers – including Alpine's Pierre Gasly on two occasions – received five-second penalties, all for exceeding the speed limit by no more than 0.4km/h. Five of the six infringements were recorded at just 0.1km/h over the limit.
It only emerged several days later that most of those penalties may have been issued incorrectly after Formula One Management admitted that the pitlane timing system had been configured incorrectly.
The real problem was that these penalties, although minimal, had a major impact not only on the race result but also on the championship battle. Among those penalised was George Russell.
What made the situation even worse was that the Mercedes driver attempted to serve his penalty during the race – but failed to do so correctly.
There is a prescribed mechanism in the regulations for serving such penalties. Teams are required to "lose" five seconds during the driver's next pitstop. If a driver does not pit again during the race, the same amount of time is added to the final race time.
What went wrong for Russell was that he decided himself to pit and serve the penalty during a safety car period. But Mercedes was not expecting him to do so and failed to follow the required procedure. That earned Russell a second penalty, this time a drive-through, which dropped him out of the points.
Whose fault is it?
This question is difficult to answer.
The FIA is responsible for the sporting side of Formula 1, but in this case it is effectively the customer of the official timing provider, which is Formula One Management, the championship promoter.
The error occurred before the event, after the Monaco pitlane configuration was slightly changed compared to previous years.
The system measures average speed between timing loops rather than using speed cameras. That approach has worked reliably for years and is generally considered more robust, as it prevents teams from trying to trick the system by briefly slowing down at the timing point while exceeding the speed limit elsewhere.
But in Monaco, one of the timing sectors appears to have been configured with the wrong distance, causing drivers to trigger speeding violations despite remaining below the actual 60km/h limit.
There is also a widespread view that the affected teams share some responsibility.
Teams know how the system works and are expected to leave enough margin for any minor imperfections. During practice and qualifying there were already several pitlane speeding infringements, so teams could theoretically have reacted by setting their pitlane limiters slightly lower to avoid being caught out by what many suspected was a wrongly configured system.
Why was only Gasly's result revised?
There are two reasons.
First, the FIA stewards - who are independent of the FIA and are responsible only for enforcing the regulations - had no formal mechanism to review every penalty automatically. Since only Alpine requested a Right of Review, they could only reconsider Gasly's case.
The main reason Gasly's penalties were overturned was evidence provided by Alpine, including a statement from FOM confirming that the pitlane timing system had been operating incorrectly.
That evidence only became available on the Wednesday after the race, which is why other teams did not challenge the results immediately.
For Mercedes and McLaren, overturning the outcome would also have been far more complicated.
Russell had already attempted to serve his penalty during the race, while Oscar Piastri successfully served his during a pitstop. In Gasly's case, the stewards simply restored his original race time. In the other cases, it was much less clear how the consequences of penalties that had already been served could be undone.
At the time, many believed there was simply no practical solution.
Why are teams protesting now?
Because both FOM's admission that the system had been configured incorrectly and the subsequent decision to cancel Gasly's penalties came as a surprise to many.
The stewards effectively overturned one driver's penalties while leaving the others untouched.
In their verdict, they specifically stated that there was no mechanism within the regulations to reverse the consequences for the other affected drivers because their races had already unfolded differently as a result of the penalties.
While it remains unclear whether there is any practical way to reverse those consequences, rival teams argue that cancelling only Gasly's penalties creates a dangerous precedent.
From their perspective, Alpine has benefited from a system failure while others continue to suffer the consequences of the same error.
There is also a sporting argument. In Russell's case, the incorrectly issued penalty may have cost him a podium finish and a significant number of championship points.
Will other penalties be cancelled now?
That is impossible to answer. The case is becoming messier and more complicated with each passing day.
The stewards have already created one major precedent by overturning Gasly's penalties, and it is difficult to predict what other precedents may follow.
The fundamental problem is that there may be no solution that satisfies everybody involved. Alpine won its case and is happy for the results to remain as they are. Red Bull wants Hadjar's podium position restored. McLaren argued that the decision in Alpine's case "risks creating sporting inequity and undermining confidence in the consistent application of the FIA Sporting Regulations". Mercedes, meanwhile, continues to seek justice for Russell.
Mercedes' Right of Review request has now been accepted for a hearing, and the Monaco stewards will reconvene via video call on Saturday to hear the team's arguments.
What happens with the protests from McLaren and Red Bull - and when - remains unclear.
Isn't it easier to just cancel the whole race?
Not really.
Aside from the fact that the regulations provide no mechanism for voiding an entire grand prix result, doing so would also unfairly punish teams and drivers who were not affected by the pitlane timing issue.
Above all, it would penalise Antonelli, who dominated the weekend and won the race on merit.
There's also another point: out of the 22 drivers who started the race, only five were ultimately caught speeding in the pitlane. While that does not change the fact that the timing system was configured incorrectly, it suggests that avoiding penalties was still possible. Had teams chosen to leave a slightly bigger margin and set their pitlane limiters at a lower speed, they may well have avoided the entire controversy.
When will all this end?
Potentially - and hopefully - by the time Formula 1 gets to Austria.
Even Saturday's hearing may not produce an immediate outcome. It took the stewards a full day to publish their seven-page verdict following Alpine's successful Right of Review request.
The stewards are dealing with a situation that has never arisen before, which means Formula 1 is operating in uncharted territory. Whatever decision is ultimately reached, some parties are likely to be unhappy.
With the Monaco Grand Prix classification still unsettled almost two weeks after the chequered flag, the case is already becoming one of the longest-running sporting disputes in recent Formula 1 history.
As one insider put it, the saga is "going to drag on for potentially months, and the only people who truly win now are the lawyers".
