The charges stemmed from the discovery of an extra fuel cell inside the main fuel tank, which, it was claimed, had been left full of fuel at initial checks. When this extra fuel was eventually drained, the BAR was found to be under the 600kg minimum weight limit.

The incident raised an inevitable question: had BAR been using this extra fuel during the race, thus running an underweight car for several laps? In the opinion of the FIA, they had. BAR, meanwhile, contested that the fuel was merely ballast never intended to be used in the race.

At the hearing the team was ultimately found guilty of "a regrettable negligence and lack of transparency" with regards to their interpretation of the FIA's minimum weight regulations. They were, at very least, grateful for the choice of words, given that the FIA had hauled the team before the court on grounds of deliberate cheating, and had requested that the team be thrown out of the championship if found culpable.

While the four-judge panel stopped short of accusing BAR of deliberate cheating, they nevertheless handed down a two race ban to BAR, ruling them out of Grand Prix races in Spain and Monaco. The decision by the FIA to overturn the Imola race stewards' ruling that the BAR squad had committed no infringement during the San Marino Grand Prix is symptomatic of a sport trying to eat itself whole.

Let's be honest, if the people employed by the FIA to interpret the rules cannot take a decision on board themselves, then what chance is there for the FIA and the renegade teams coming to an agreement that will avert the looming shadow of the GPWC, the mooted grand prix breakaway series?

F1 is in a state of flux -- it always has been, to be honest. But these recent tribulations smack of something more terminal. The gulf between the FIA and the majority of the team bosses grows ever larger, and events like the recent kangaroo court in Paris are only going to further increase tensions.

The facts of the matter involving BAR seem clear enough: the team interpreted the rules in an erroneous manner. Their understanding of what ballast could constitute (by their reading of the rules, fuel was acceptable) highlighted serious discrepancies in the FIA's rulemaking procedures. That was the first problem.

Later, the problem intensified.

At the Malaysian GP, so claim BAR's management, race scrutinizers were made aware of the extra fuel cell inside the master cell. BAR's explanation, that the cell was for ballast, satisfied the officials. Had BAR's reading of the rules been challenged at that time, when their performance was poor, the ramifications may not have been so severe. That exception was taken to the car's design only after a podium finish had been secured certainly raised a few eyebrows.

Were the FIA keeping this one back as punishment for Honda's defection to the GPWC? Difficult to say, and slanderous to do so. But Nick Fry, BAR's team principal, came very close to accusing the FIA of just that.

In an interview with ITV's Ted Kravitz, Fry stated: "Jo Bauer, the FIA technical delegate, admitted that he had inspected our fuel system at the Malaysian grand prix, and he said there was nothing unusual about it. It does seem very strange that, having seen our fuel system, you'd think they would have raised any issues at the time, not wait until we got our first podium position."

Conspiracy theories aside, what is clear is that the inconsistencies in the scrutinizing process played a key role in the ugliness of the ensuing wrangles. This breakdown in communicating the rules efficiently and with clarity is clearly the fault of the FIA, but BAR must also be accountable for the rather naive way in which they interpreted this grey area.

Ballast is common in F1 -- modern cars with their lightweight alloy metals and carbon fiber component easily duck under the 600kg minimum weight limit, so the teams use ballast (usually metal-based materials) to bring the car up to the required weight. A byproduct of this ruling is that ballast may be used to improve the balance of the car (i.e. if the car is skittish at the rear end, then ballast can placed further towards the rear axle to ease it.)

What BAR chose to do was to run with ballast in a permanent cell in the fuel tank. What this achieved, they said, was to cure a handling imbalance and bring the car up to the required weight. This handling imbalance, so claimed the team, meant that the car would not perform well when run under the 600kg limit. Once the fuel was on board the handling settled down and good pace was achievable.

BAR argued that it would serve no purpose whatsoever to run the car underweight because, ultimately, it would be slower. The FIA did not buy this defense. They argued that the extra fuel was stored as a back up to the main fuel cell and that, at the time of a pit stop, the BAR would be able to continue beyond the mileage permitted by the main tank by simply tapping into this reserve. During those laps, the car would be racing under the 600kg limit.

Later, there were even accusations that a tube was found in the fuel system, the purpose of which could not adequately explained by team personnel. This, in my opinion, is the only tangible evidence that could link BAR with cheating. In the end, this snippet of evidence appears to have been ignored and the team were cleared of deliberate impropriety.

BAR's reading of the regulations will be costly in the long term. Sponsors will hold back a percentage of their funding as they will not receive exposure at all of the season's 19 races. That one of the events the team misses is the Monaco GP may prove to be even more costly.

The jewel in the F1 calendar, the Monaco Grand Prix, far and away, the race that all the sponsors really look forward to. Deals are chased up and signed in the glamour of Monte Carlo, and a huge marketing operation for team and sponsors has been lost. The money men will not be amused.

Another huge blow is that BAR now looks almost certain to lose the services of Jenson Button for 2006. Needing to have scored at least 70 percent of the world championship leader's points total by the end of July was always going to be a tall order, even with six points from Imola stowed in the locker. Now that those (and two races) have gone out the window, it now looks an impossible task. The FIA have truly taken BAR to the cleaners.

And what of the FIA? Where does all this leave them?

Already Honda was upset enough with the FIA's handling of the sport's commercial revenues to align themselves with the GPWC; now they will be apoplectic at the sport's governing body for what they view as an unnecessary punishment given their subsequent clearance of any deliberate wrongdoing.

There is an element of one-upmanship going on here, that is for sure. The FIA was beginning to gain the upper hand in the FIA/GPWC battle when Honda, along with Toyota, joined the rival series' board earlier this year, and it did not amuse F1's bosses.

This troubled, controversial and convoluted court case is a clear flexing of FIA president Max Mosley's political muscles. After all, F1 will continue until 2007 whatever happens with the GPWC, which means that Honda and BAR could be in for a rocky ride if they don't toe the line and accept the rulings of the court with the silence and dignity the FIA expects.