Search results

Or maybe those races wouldn't be relevant, since NASCAR was under orders to treat the teams as chartered. NASCAR didn't do it on it's own initiative. Why get credit for something you had to be forced to do?

The rules explicitly allow non-chartered teams to attempt to qualify, so NASCAR didn't allow them anything beyond what the other open teams got. I do think that the races 23FRM ran under the court order to be treated as chartered teams would be relevant.

Huh?

Talladega Night(s) Court

Or movie / TV stars.

That much we can agree on. Dope slaps for both sides.

No, but I don't see how this approach is productive, and appears to be easy to counter-argue. I'm just trying to make sense of the approach.

I read them before I posted. Jordan could give the Frances solid gold medals to show his appreciation for what they've done, but that doesn't affect whether what they've done is legal or not. Napoleon is said to have given a lieutenant a medal for winning a battle, then having him shot for...

Again, what does what they've done for NASCAR have to do with whether what they did was legal?

Where's O'Donnell getting this 'SRX is coming back' stuff?

Again, irrelevant. Why NASCAR did it doesn't matter.

The subject of 'Growing the sport' is itself moving the goalposts. The question isn't why NASCAR took actions, it's whether they were illegal. That's probably why it isn't an acceptable defense. I can fill in a wetland to build a factory and provide hundreds of jobs but it's still a violation...

Daytona Beach, on the shores of De Nile, France.

I have no idea how much effect the distribution channel has on series or team profitability, or the difference between each series' average income per race over a season. I don't know enough to say if being on broadcast Fox means Indy makes twice as much per race as Cup. Since the ratings for...

The post was intended as a generalization, the point being it's the court's job to determine legality, not potential effects.

As I noted, it's not NASCAR's job to fund the teams. But it can't expect the teams to run a Cup schedule on an IndyCar budget. If France thinks it's 1960 and Denny thinks it's 2000, both are wrong.

That's using the ends to justify the means. I'm still inclined to think breaking up AT&T resulted in reduced consumer service and satisfaction. Rightly or wrongly, that wasn't up to the court to consider, only if it was a monopoly.

While I don't think it's up to NASCAR to fund teams 100%, O'Donnell's comparison to IndyCar season expenditures was apples to boat anchors. Excluding the I500, IndyCar races are maybe half as long as Cup races, and they run less than half as many races as Cup. I doubt the Frances are willing...

LJS? I'd rather have Mrs. Paul's. At least it will be hot.

How would that excuse operating as a monopoly? Aren't illegal actions still illegal regardless of profit or loss? Does the phrase have a legal definition? Maybe it's inadmissible because it's vague?