You're listening to the Autosport podcast.

Welcome back to Mexico City and the Autodromo Hermannos Rodriguez, where it is cold, it is six hours after the stewards convened, and finally, Alex, we have a result in the writer review in the form of a document that quite frankly reminded me of the contract scene in the Marx Brothers film, a night at the opera.

But instead of wasting our running time going through that,

just please explain because it made my head spin reading all that legalese.

Good, I'm even more baffled by that reference than I was.

I was going through that legal document.

But yes, six hours to reject McLaren's request for a right of review

into London Iris' penalty at the end of the United States Grand Prix. And yeah, quite comprehensive the explanation, as you say, Codders, but it all

boiled down essentially so one thing. And this was how McLaren argued that, as I read all my

hastily scrawled notes here, McLaren had argued that stewards have made an incorrect statement

in the document announcing Landon Arsies penalty. And this was because McLaren's position that stewards have made an incorrect statement in the document announcing

Landon Ars's penalty. And this was because McLaren's position is he was so far ahead of

Matt McSappen when it came to that overtaking manoeuvre that he was, if you over, I use my hands

to demonstrate he was ahead of the car and therefore when it came to taking that corner,

he went from being the attacker, being the defender and therefore Max Verstappen, getting to the apex first and forcing them both off the track was the one that

therefore had been in the wrong. There are four elements for any right of view to go forward.

McClaren felt that this met the criteria for it being significant, new and relevant. And also

that it meant the high bar requirement for right of review cases which is enshrined in the FAA's

international sporting code. However, when it came to assessing everything, the steward only looked at the relevant element of it and they rejected that because the steward's felt that the team's argument did not demonstrate an error had been made in terms of what the stewards

determined for Lando Norris.

They did also comment on the high bar element of the right review process in the

FAA sporting code.

...