The 2025 Mexican Grand Prix will go down in history as one of the most compelling and dramatic races of the season. It delivered a spectacular showcase of on-track brilliance, featuring breathtaking overtakes, intense wheel-to-wheel battles, and a championship fight that grew tighter with every kilometer. Lando Norris, despite intense pressure, emerged with a dominant performance that saw him seize the lead in the Driver’s Championship over Oscar Piastri by a single, agonizing point. Max Verstappen also delivered a stunning recovery drive to the podium. Yet, the memories of this thrilling spectacle are irrevocably tainted—overshadowed by a terrifying safety catastrophe and a series of controversial and baffling stewarding decisions that have exposed a glaring crisis of consistency at the highest level of motorsport governance.

The most chilling moment of the weekend, one that mercifully played out off-camera, involved a safety failure so profound it could have led to an unspeakable tragedy.

The Whisper of Tragedy: Lawson’s Near-Fatal Encounter

The horrifying incident occurred on Lap 3, shortly after the race had restarted following a frenetic opening lap. Liam Lawson, after making contact with Carlos Sainz early on, had pitted for repairs and was rejoining the circuit. As he hurtled out of the pit lane and approached Turn 1—albeit under double-waved yellow flags—he was confronted with a sight that made his blood run cold: two marshals were on the track, collecting debris.

This was not a matter of a close call; this was a terrifying near-miss. Footage released after the race, including Lawson’s onboard view and fan videos, paints a grim picture. A Formula 1 car, even under caution, is a lethal projectile, and the presence of human beings on the racing line, particularly at a high-speed entry point like Turn 1, is an absolute cardinal sin of race management.

The young driver’s reaction on the radio encapsulated the sheer horror of the moment. “Oh my god, are you kidding me? I could have killed them!” His words were raw, shaken, and utterly justified. This wasn’t merely a rule breach; it was a devastating systemic failure that placed the lives of selfless volunteer marshals in immediate, mortal peril.

The subsequent investigation by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) confirmed a catastrophic breakdown in communication. An FIA spokesperson revealed that following an incident at Turn 1, marshals were placed on standby to recover debris. However, the order to dispatch the marshals was explicitly rescinded the moment it became apparent that Lawson had pitted and would be exiting onto the track. The fact that the marshals still ended up on the racing surface indicates a serious, potentially fatal, lapse between Race Control and the local marshal post. The FIA’s investigation into what occurred after the rescinded order must be swift, public, and result in immediate, verifiable changes. This type of hazard, where a Formula 1 car and unprotected human life intersect, is simply not worth contemplating, and it must never happen again.

The Line of Inconsistency: Leclerc Walks Free, Hamilton Pays a Heavy Price

While the near-tragedy involving Lawson was the most dangerous moment, the racing itself was defined by a maddening inconsistency in stewarding that left both fans and drivers fuming.

The drama began almost immediately at Turn 1 on Lap 1. Max Verstappen, pushing hard, locked up and cut across the grass. Critically, Verstappen did “totally the right thing” by immediately slotting back into the position he had legally secured before the off-track excursion. His actions were fair, transparent, and correct.

The same cannot be said for Charles Leclerc. Battling with Lewis Hamilton, Leclerc ran wide at the complex, cutting across the grass. In the view of many observers, Hamilton was ahead, and Leclerc should have ceded the position or at least faced an investigation. Instead, he was not even noted by the stewards and was allowed to keep the position. The argument is compelling: listening to Leclerc’s onboard audio suggests he was able to get back onto the throttle while off-track. As the analysis points out, if a driver is able to apply the throttle, they are in control of their car and, therefore, took a deliberate “liberty” by cutting the corner rather than attempting to save the corner on track.

The contrast with Oscar Piastri’s similar moment earlier in the race is damning. Piastri, facing a slightly slippery patch, chose to slow down enough to stay on track, costing him positions. Leclerc, by contrast, chose to take a “massive liberty” by cutting the track, and it gained him a position. This established a “ridiculous precedent” for the rest of the race. While a degree of leniency is typically given on Lap 1 to encourage aggressive racing, allowing a driver to gain and hold a position via an intentional cut sets a dangerous standard. Leclerc, at the very least, should have been instructed to give the place back to Hamilton.

The Arbitrary Penalty: Lewis Hamilton’s Frustration

The simmering tension over stewarding boiled over later in the race when Lewis Hamilton received a 10-second penalty for gaining an advantage by leaving the track at Turn 4. The incident, which occurred during a heated battle with Verstappen and involved a third car, Ollie Bearman, was a complex racing moment. Hamilton made a genuine mistake, running wide and rejoining ahead of Verstappen.

While there is no doubt that Hamilton gained time and should have been penalized for failing to give the time/position back, the severity of the 10-second penalty felt disproportionate and, more importantly, unfair when viewed against the precedent set by Leclerc’s unpunished maneuver.

Hamilton’s anger was understandable. He witnessed his direct competitor cut a corner on Lap 1, seemingly on purpose, to keep a position, only for the stewards to remain silent. Yet, when Hamilton himself made a mistake later, he was slapped with a hefty 10-second time penalty.

The contrast is stark: Leclerc’s action was arguably a deliberate act of corner-cutting that went unpunished; Hamilton’s action was a genuine mistake under pressure that resulted in a ten-second penalty, which is an extremely heavy penalty in the context of the Mexican Grand Prix. This stewarding inconsistency—penalize both or neither—is the source of the immense frustration. The stewards must operate with a consistent, clear, and universally applied rulebook, regardless of team allegiances or the stage of the race. The current system appears fractured and arbitrary, undermining the integrity of the competition itself. To avoid these issues, adding a gravel trap at the Turn 1/2 complex could also be a simple and effective deterrent against drivers taking such liberties.

The VSC That Killed the Finale

The final act of the drama unfolded at the end of the race, involving the deployment of a Virtual Safety Car (VSC) that effectively froze the field and killed the highly anticipated final lap showdown between the main contenders, Verstappen and Leclerc.

Carlos Sainz spun and crashed into the barrier, damaging his car and leading to smoke, and reports of fire. The immediate reaction from fans, understandably hungry for a final blast of racing action, was one of fury, arguing that the car was in an escape road and the incident could have been handled under double-waved yellows.

However, a closer look at the facts and the FIA’s justification suggests that while frustrating, the VSC was the correct, albeit poorly timed, decision. Sainz’s car did not fully clear the track; roughly two-thirds of the car remained on the live Grand Prix circuit, just over the threshold of the safe zone. Moreover, the car began to smoke, and Race Control received notifications of a fire, requiring immediate marshal intervention.

In a situation involving a car that is not completely clear of the racing surface and an active fire hazard, the imperative must always be safety. While drivers are slower under double-waved yellows, they are still pushing to the absolute limit, especially in a tight battle for P2, which was the case with Verstappen and Leclerc. Putting marshals onto the track to deal with a damaged, potentially burning car, while live F1 cars are still passing—even slowly—is simply too high a risk.

The timing was deeply unfortunate, robbing the race of a spectacular finish, but the FIA’s decision to prioritize the safety of the marshals over the final minutes of the show, in this specific instance, was justifiable. It highlights a cruel paradox of the sport: sometimes, the correct, safest decision is also the one that causes the most viewer frustration.

The 2025 Mexican Grand Prix was a race of two halves: a thrilling competitive showcase and a frightening exposé of systemic flaws. The sport was saved from a catastrophic loss of life only by sheer luck, and its governing body was exposed for its failure to apply its own rules with clarity and fairness. To move forward, Formula 1 must address the fundamental inconsistency in its stewarding and—most crucially—guarantee that the terrifying communication failure that nearly cost two marshals their lives is never allowed to happen again. The spectacle must never come at the cost of human life, nor should the rules be subject to arbitrary interpretation.