Danica Patrick has publicly defended Max Verstappen, arguing that the FIA made a mistake by penalizing him during the 2024 Dutch Grand Prix. As a former racing driver and commentator, Patrick voiced her belief that the penalty was unjust, emphasizing that it should not be compared to the penalties that Lewis Hamilton has received in the past.

Patrick’s defense of Verstappen centers around her view that the FIA’s decision lacked consistency and fairness. She claims that Verstappen’s actions did not warrant the penalty and suggests that the way racing rules were enforced in this instance was flawed. Her remarks come amid ongoing debates about the application of race regulations and their fairness.

In drawing a comparison between Verstappen’s situation and Hamilton’s past penalties, Patrick argues that Hamilton’s infractions were often more clear-cut, whereas Verstappen’s case was more complex and should have been treated differently. She implies that the FIA’s handling of Verstappen’s case might have been influenced by factors other than the incident itself.

Patrick’s comments have ignited discussions among fans and analysts about the consistency and fairness of FIA regulations. Her stance adds depth to the ongoing conversation about how penalties are applied in Formula 1 and whether the FIA’s decisions always align with the spirit of the sport.

As the debate continues, Patrick’s defense of Verstappen brings to light the broader issues of regulatory consistency and fairness in motorsport, prompting further scrutiny of how racing rules are enforced and interpreted.