Ducati ‘s General Manager Luigi Dall’lgna calls the Qatar GP complaints put forward by its MotoGP rivals as a ‘negative difference’, while shows confidence of appeal rejection.
The fantastic battle between Ducati’s Andrea Dovizioso and Honda’s Marc Marquez to open the 2019 MotoGP season at Losail circuit quickly turned sour when news broke of technical delegates visiting Ducati garage post race on complaint of their rivals.
Honda, Suzuki, Aprilia and KTM came together to act against Ducati’s ‘aerodynamic devices on the rear swing arm’, with the FIM Stewards Panel then rejecting their complaint for the Qatar GP result to stay as it is, with Dovizioso winning ahead of Marquez.
However, the matter was still sent to the MotoGP Court of Appeals to get further clarification, the decision of which is pending still but is expected to be revealed before next weekend’s Argentina GP race.
In the meantime, Ducati’s Dall’lgna has expressed disappointment over the way the situation was handled especially the complaint involving people outside MSMA, which usually resolves all the matter of dispute – like it did in the past.
“We were a bit perplexed, above all for the way in which all this happened,” said Dall’lgna to MotoGP website. “Before the race in Qatar, all the various disputes, and there were so many, have always been resolved either within the MSMA or involving the Technical Director in MSMA.
“This is the first time that any team decides to make a complaint against someone else based on a technical doubt. This marks a clear difference from the past, a negative difference.
“Having questioned the Federation’s Technical Director, who is the only one by regulation who can decide whether something mounted on the bike is legal or not, there is the risk of becoming like a far west town in which the sheriff has also been killed.
“You risk having recourse to every race. First they questioned the Technical Director, then questioned the first panel of judges. This suggests a complete distrust of the Federation. But we are confident that our work perfectly complies with the technical regulation.
“We are convinced and confident that the appeal will also be rejected.” Dall’lgna was a bit surprised with Aprilia and KTM’s involvement as he didn’t ‘understand’ their participation in it which had Honda and Suzuki – more of direct rivals to Ducati.
He had added surprise over Honda’s decision, considering that together with Yamaha, the trio form an integral part of the MotoGP championship. At the same time, he felt Yamaha understood the situation better to not be involved in the complaint.
“They were correct reports,” he started about Honda. “Every time there was a problem it was gutted and analysed in what we, as Ducati, consider to be the offices prepared to do so, the MSMA rather than the MSMA plus the technical director of the championship.
“Nothing has changed for us. If we had faced such a question we would have done it as we did in the past, discussing it within the MSMA. Obviously these four manufacturers have decided to change their approach.
“And what surprises us is that above all Honda, together with us and Yamaha, is one of the founding fathers of the championship. Because they have always participated from the beginning they decided to change the rules, challenging the Federation.
“We didn’t talk much with Yamaha [on this case]. I don’t know what the reason was why they didn’t want to participate in this complaint. I do not know why. Perhaps because Yamaha has always been involved from the beginning in the rules discussions.
“And like us thinks that it is more correct to address these issues in another way. It’s a question for them to ask. That would have been the case for us.” When asked if he has thought about going to Court of Arbitration for Sport if the COA agrees with the complaints, Dall’lagna added:
“Within the Federation, the degrees end at the FIM Court of Appeal,” he said. “You have to go to the CAS, which is the sports court but in this case you exit the perimeter of the FIM. I don’t even want to think about getting to this point.
“We are so convinced that we are within the regulation and in the right that we do not see the reasons why the appellate court can decide differently. If so we will evaluate, and we will think about it, but later.”
