George Russell’s victory at the Canadian Grand Prix has been unequivocally confirmed, solidifying his impressive performance after the FIA stewards dismissed a protest lodged by Red Bull Racing against the Mercedes driver. This ruling not only validates Russell’s win but also adds another compelling chapter to the escalating rivalry between him and Red Bull’s star, Max Verstappen.
Advert | Become a Supporter & go ad-free
The stewards’ decision, which declared Red Bull’s protest “not founded,” brought an end to the post-race uncertainty. Verstappen, who finished second behind Russell, stood to benefit directly from any sporting penalty imposed on his rival, underscoring the high stakes of the complaint. The protest centered on two key allegations: that Russell drove erratically behind the Safety Car and that he engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct by drawing attention to Verstappen’s momentary overtake.
After a thorough hearing that included submissions from both Mercedes and Red Bull teams, as well as representatives from the FIA, the stewards comprehensively rejected Red Bull’s arguments. Their official ruling affirmed: “We accept the driver of Car 63 [Russell’s] explanation of the incident and we are satisfied that the driver of Car 63 did not drive erratically by braking where he did or to the extent he did.” Furthermore, they added, “We are not satisfied that by simply reporting to his team that Car 1 had overtaken that he engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct.” The verdict also proactively addressed a potential implicit claim, stating, “Even though the protest did not allege it, we are also satisfied that by braking where and when he did and to the extent he did, the driver of Car 63 did not engage in unsportsmanlike conduct.”
The FIA’s final race classification now officially lists George Russell as the undisputed winner of the Canadian Grand Prix, cementing a crucial victory for Mercedes and the British driver. This outcome not only underscores the integrity of the race but also highlights the meticulous process by which such disputes are resolved at the highest level of motorsport.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter andgo ad-free
During the race, Verstappen had repeatedly communicated over his team radio, claiming that Russell had fallen more than ten car lengths behind the Safety Car, which would constitute a further contravention of the sporting regulations. However, according to the stewards, this specific claim was not formally included as part of Red Bull’s official protest submission, and thus was not subject to their direct adjudication in this particular hearing.
Red Bull’s protest against Russell at the Canadian Grand Prix is far from an isolated incident; it represents the latest in a series of intensifying flashpoints between the two formidable drivers. Their rivalry has steadily simmered throughout the current season and even last year, often erupting into on-track skirmishes and off-track controversies that captivate Formula 1 fans. This recent dispute only serves to underline the fierce competitive dynamic that defines their battles.
A notable instance of their contentious relationship occurred at Losail last year, where Verstappen was left infuriated after losing pole position to Russell. In that case, the stewards determined that Verstappen had obstructed his rival during qualifying, leading to a penalty that reshuffled the grid. This decision highlights the fine margins and strict interpretations of the rules that often dictate outcomes when these two drivers are involved.
Just last month, Red Bull mounted another unsuccessful protest attempt against Russell following the Miami Grand Prix. On that occasion, the stewards did not accept Red Bull’s argument that Russell had failed to slow sufficiently under yellow flags. The consistent pattern of protests and counter-protests illustrates Red Bull’s persistent scrutiny of Russell’s driving, particularly when it directly impacts Verstappen’s performance or position.
In the race immediately preceding Sunday’s Canadian Grand Prix, the intensity of their rivalry was starkly evident. Verstappen incurred a 10-second time penalty and received three endorsement points on his super licence for colliding with Russell. This incident stemmed from a decision by Red Bull for Verstappen to relinquish his position due to an earlier infringement, but in the process of slowing to allow Russell to catch him, contact was made. This clash brought Verstappen perilously close to an automatic race ban, accumulating penalty points that put him just one point away from the threshold. Such a history of direct contact and regulatory disputes demonstrates that the animosity between these two drivers is not merely a matter of post-race complaints but extends to actual on-track incidents with significant consequences.
Stewards’ Verdict on Red Bull’s Protest Against Russell
Protest lodged by Oracle Red Bull Racing against
Car 63 for allegedly driving erratically under Safety Car and displaying unsportsmanlike behaviour by complaining that Car 1 had overtaken under Safety Car conditions
Stewards’ Decision:
The Protest is rejected as it is not founded.
Procedure
1. On June 15, 2025, following the publication of the Provisional Classification for the [Canadian] Grand Prix, Oracle Red Bull Racing (“Red Bull”) filed a Protest against Car 63 (George Russell) entered by Mercedes-AMG PETRONAS F1 Team (“Mercedes”). Red Bull claimed in its protest that the driver of Car 63 had breached Article 55.5 of the FIA Formula 1 Sporting Regulations by braking unnecessarily and erratically behind the safety car. The protest further alleged that the driver of Car 63 had breached Article 12.2.1m of the FIA International Sporting Code by complaining that the driver of Car 1 had overtaken him under safety car conditions. The parties were summoned and heard. The following persons were present during the hearing:
On behalf of Red Bull: Stephen Knowles, Gianpiero Lambiase and the driver of Car 1, Max Verstappen
On behalf of Mercedes: Ron Meadows, Andrew Shovlin and the driver of Car 63, George Russell
On behalf of the FIA: Tim Malyon and Rui Marques2. None of the parties objected to the composition of the panel of Stewards.
3. None of the parties requested the hearing of additional persons or requested conducting further investigations.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter andgo ad-free
Admissibility
4. The Stewards find that the Protest is admissible as all requirements of Article 13 of the FIA International Sporting Code have been fulfilled.
5. The Hearing of the Protest then proceeded.The Claims of Red Bull
6. Red Bull claimed that during a safety car deployment the driver of Car 63 had braked unnecessarily along the back straight between turns 12 and 13 as a result of which Car 1, which was following Car 63, overtook Car 63 and then dropped back behind Car 63 after Car 63 accelerated.
7. Red Bull also alleged that by complaining over team radio that Car 1 had overtaken him under safety car the driver of Car 63 had ‘displayed unsportsmanlike intent’.
8. The driver of Car 1 said that he was taken by surprise by Car 63’s sudden braking on the straight and had no alternative but to overtake Car 63 momentarily.
9. Red Bull tendered telemetry showing the throttle and brake applications of each Car.
10. Red Bull suggested that it could be inferred from the fact that Car 63’s onboard showed the driver looking in his mirrors before he braked that he knew Car 1 was immediately behind and he braked to force Car [1] to overtake to force an infringement by Car 1.
11. Red Bull suggested that the driver of Car 63 complained about the overtake on his team radio knowing that it would be overheard by race control and in the hope that Car 1 would be investigated.
12. They also suggested that it must have been obvious to the driver [of] Car 63 that the race would end [behind the] safety car such that it was unnecessary for Car 63 to maintain heat in tyres and brakes.Mercedes’ arguments in defence:
13. The driver of Car 63 explained that:
– periodic braking is commonplace and to be expected during safety car deployments to ensure that temperature is maintained in tyres and brakes;
– on the back straight he found himself catching the safety car. He pointed to in-car video which showed him gesticulating with his hand which he said was to signal to the safety car driver to speed up;
– he braked where he did for two reasons. First to ensure he kept a gap to the safety car. Secondly, to keep temperature in his brakes and tyres;
– he looked in his mirrors before he braked to check whether Car 1 was immediately behind and only braked after he saw that Car 1 was to the side;
– his telemetry showed that the brake pressure he applied was 30psi which he said was not severe;
– the driver of Car 1 ought to have anticipated that he might apply brake to keep heat in his brakes and tyres;
– it is not the responsibility of the Car ahead to look out for the following Car in any event;
– by pointing out to his team that Car 1 had overtaken he was not intending to provoke an investigation into Car 1;
– he did not know that the race would definitely end under safety car.
14. Mercedes submitted that what the driver of Car 63 had said over team radio was nothing other than factual. The team lodged no complaint with race control about the Car [1] overtake because the position was given back by Car 1.
15. Mercedes also tendered telemetry showing brake patterns of both Car 63 and Car 1 on several laps under safety car which they said showed that the driver of Car 1 had been braking on the same straight on other laps under the safety car – which they said showed that what the driver of Car 63 [did] was unremarkable.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter andgo ad-free
Submissions of the FIA
16. Mr Malyon explained that the incident had been observed by the race control team and assessed to not warrant being reported to the stewards. He said that periodic braking under safety car is typical and to be expected. He said that for this reason, race control always allows a degree of tolerance with respect to the 10 car length rule recognising that there is a need for a reasonable degree of braking and acceleration.
Conclusions of the Stewards
17. Having regard to the evidence of Mr Malyon, we accept the driver of Car 63’s explanation of the incident and we are satisfied that the driver of Car 63 did not drive erratically by braking where he did or to the extent he did.
18. We are not satisfied that by simply reporting to his team that Car 1 had overtaken that he engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct.
19. Even though the protest did not allege it, we are also satisfied that by braking where and when he did and to the extent he did, the driver of Car 63 did not engage in unsportsmanlike conduct.Decision
20. The Protest is rejected as it is not founded.
21. The Protest Deposit is forfeited.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter andgo ad-free
2025 Canadian Grand Prix
- Canada was my most obvious missed opportunity to score more points – Norris
- Norris names China and Canada as biggest missed opportunities this year
- Don’t boo Piastri, Norris tells British Grand Prix fans
- Fine teams for “long shot” protests like Red Bull’s in Canada, says Wolff
- Verstappen refuses to say whether he supported Red Bull’s latest Russell protests
Browse all 2025 Canadian Grand Prix articles