Why the FIM needs to review MotoGP's stewards panel

During one of the most tumultuous seasons in the history of the series, the body that is supposed to steady the MotoGP ship and ensure that the code of conduct between riders is respected, is coming up short.

A lack of consistency in the criteria being followed lately by the FIM Stewards has been met with a wave of criticism from riders in all three categories. Complaints are nothing new, but rarely have they been so multiple and so unanimous as they have been during the back-to-back rounds at the Red Bull Ring.

The target for the flak has been the FIM Stewards Panel, presided over by three-time motorcycle world champion Freddie Spencer. 'Fast Freddie' was brought in to replace Mike Webb as part of a restructuring in 2019, designed so that Race Direction (Dorna) would no longer play a part in the sanctioning process.

The mistakes made in Austria uncovered a lack of uniformity in the criteria applied, which led to widespread public criticism. Some riders, such as Aprilia's Aleix Espargaro, focused their attack on Spencer, while the likes of Valentino Rossi and Danilo Petrucci were less specific. Either way, they were all in agreement that more consistency was required to judge similar incidents, regardless of the rider in question.

"All of the members of the Safety Commission agree that the Stewards Panel must be improved," complained Espargaro. "The problem lies in the discrepancy in the criteria followed when analysing similar incidents.

"Rules are rules and they are the same for everybody, regardless of whether they are a pair of Moto3 riders or Valentino Rossi and Marc Marquez."

Rossi warned: "It is not an easy job but we need to put a stop to the increasing levels of aggression in the smaller categories. There is a lot of contact on the straights and we are at the point where it is getting dangerous."

And Petrucci added: "Most of us are unhappy with the stewards because they are not enforcing the same measures on everybody. There is a big difference depending on whether it is a Moto3 rider or MotoGP. There is a lot of work to do."

A series of incidents over the past two weeks, which ended up with a queue of riders outside the stewards' office, gives credence to such worries. Some of the riders were asked for their version of events, others were read the riot act and given a warning. Others were given penalties that varied in severity and validity, depending on your viewpoint.

The problem is when a series of other incidents, possibly as dangerous or even more so, happen at the same event but are not even put up for analysis or debate

In any case, there are a couple of examples from last weekend that are enough to highlight the inconsistencies that need to be balanced out in order to preserve the integrity of the championship. The list of potential infractions is endless, but they are not all equally serious. Some open the door for discussion, like those regarding track limits, while others are beyond debate.

On Saturday, during the first stage of Moto3 qualifying (Q1), Jaume Masia crashed just after setting the fastest lap time. The Spaniard returned to the pits via the track, with his bike half smashed to pieces and gushing oil, a move that required a full clean-up operation and set the rest of the day's programme back, including MotoGP qualifying. Masia was immediately disqualified from Q2 for "irresponsible riding".

Similar force had been inflicted on Johann Zarco, who was told to start Sunday's race from the pitlane after being deemed responsible for the huge crash between him and Franco Morbidelli that miraculously ended with no major injuries the previous weekend.

Sam Lowes will also be forced to start from the pitlane at the next round at Misano after wiping out Somkiat Chantra and Jorge Navarro at Turn 3 on the third lap of the Moto2 race. Such penalties seem just and deserved.

The problem is when a series of other incidents, possibly as dangerous or even more so, happen at the same event but are not even put up for analysis or debate. The most significant example from last weekend is Maverick Vinales, who stayed on track for more than 10 laps despite knowing full well that the brakes on his Yamaha were failing, before eventually having to jump off at 140mph so that he didn't follow his bike into the air fences at Turn 1.

The inevitable result was a red flag, and Joan Mir's 2.4-second advantage at the front of the race was vaporised.

Autosport revealed on Monday that Yamaha went against the recommendations of Brembo, MotoGP's brake supplier, which told every team before the Styrian Grand Prix that they should fit their bikes with the new system it has introduced this season, which offers better performance.

Vinales's M1 was one of the only bikes in the race running the old system, but what sparked most indignation in the paddock was the Spaniard's decision to stay on track, despite knowing the risks he was running.

"I didn't come in because I was being stubborn, I didn't want to retire," admitted Vinales. "My intention was to try and pick up a few points."

Alex Rins reflected: "If Maverick knew a few laps before that he was out of brakes and that's why he was picking the bike up, the normal thing for him to do would have been to pit. I can't understand why he would keep racing."

A MotoGP team manager told Autosport: "To me the fact that Yamaha allowed him to opt out of using the new brakes, and on top of that put the rest of the grid in danger, is completely irresponsible. Can you imagine what could have happened if he crashed in Turn 3 with other riders in front?

"Last Sunday it was Maverick who so nearly ended up being taken out by Morbidelli's bike. It's like some kind of sick joke."

Lowes, to use one of the earlier examples, admitted fault for the chaos he caused, despite clearly never having done it intentionally. The penalty handed to Zarco suggests that the level of risk taken by the Frenchman when defending from Morbidelli was also inappropriate.

If you agree with the stance on both of those issues, then surely you have to view Vinales' decision to stay on track - knowing that, at any point he could end up with no brakes, which is what eventually happened - as even worse.