Since Formula 1's return from the summer break, McLaren's dominance has begun to falter, not only due to the lack of new updates to the car confirmed by Andrea Stella in Austin when he declared that "we are not going to bring any more updates for the remainder of the year" but mainly due to internal factors that now threaten to undo two seasons' worth of work. While Red Bull re-emerges with an increasingly competitive car and an unstoppable Max Verstappen who has cut 50 points off Oscar Piastri in just five races, McLaren is exposed by an internal policy that has gone from being a symbol of fairness to becoming the epicenter of controversy: the so-called "Papaya Rules."

These rules, defended by the team as a "fair" way to allow both drivers to compete on equal terms, are based on a single rule: no contact. However, since their implementation, far from promoting fairness, they have generated imbalances, tensions, and contradictory decisions that have distorted the true essence of the competition. Examples abound: the victory Lando Norris had to surrender to Oscar Piastri in Hungary last year due to a team error, the position change orders at Monza, or the constant intervention of the pit wall in battles that could have been iconic, but were halted for fear of breaking a structure that exists only on paper.

The situation came to a head at the Singapore Grand Prix, when an aggressive but completely legal move by Norris on Piastri was internally dismissed as a mistake by the Briton, even leading to possible disciplinary consequences.

But the inconsistency was exposed in Austin: in the sprint race, it was Piastri who hit Norris, causing a double DNF for the team. Despite this being a racing incident, the contrast between what was said after Singapore and what actually happened on track made it clear that the fairness McLaren promotes is not as impartial as they claim.

All of this has made McLaren the focus of ridicule and criticism within the paddock. It's ironic that a team that has managed to rise from the back of the grid to become the winners is now crippled not by a lack of performance, but by its inability to manage two elite drivers fighting for a championship. History repeats itself: Senna vs. Prost, Alonso vs. Hamilton, and now Norris vs. Piastri. McLaren hasn't learned from its past, and what is sold on paper as a close call turns on the track into constraints, tension, and missed opportunities.

Meanwhile, Max Verstappen has capitalized on every mistake, every lost point, and every poorly executed team order. His perfect weekend in Austin pole and sprint win, pole and race win has put him just 40 points off the lead, transforming the championship fight into a three-way battle where McLaren no longer controls its own destiny. The dilemma is clear: if they prioritize Piastri, they deprive Norris of the chance to fight for a title that's just 14 points away; if they prioritize Norris, it would be illogical to have Piastri as the leader; if they let them fight freely, they risk losing everything to Verstappen.

The question, then, isn't whether the Papaya Rules should be scrapped, but why didn't McLaren do so when there was still time? With five races remaining and two sprints at stake, breaking their own rules would mean publicly contradicting the philosophy they've championed all season, but maintaining them could cost them the drivers championship. McLaren has worked too hard to return to the top to allow its own internal politics to become the weapon that fires against itself. Formula 1 demands firm decisions, because titles are not won only with speed, but with clear leadership. And today, more than ever, McLaren needs to make a decision that will define its legacy: continue clinging to an idea that no longer works or release its drivers before it's too late.

Equality or sabotage? The Papaya Rules push McLaren to the limit

Colapinto asserts his authority to Alpine’s ‘questionable’ team orders

Controversy overshadowed the Constructors’ Championship