Search results

Considering that it was part of the prior deal when NASCAR arguably had more leverage than now? Yeah, I'm sure that's there along with an increase to the money that the teams will receive from NASCAR. That's what they wanted, not a breakaway series to run SMI ovals or whatever other fantasy...

Only one entity had that power and it wasn't any of them. Sounds like they finally came to their senses.

Trial's over kids. NASCAR settled. Can't imagine why.

NASCAR hasn't won already so clearly that can't be true!

Even if it ultimately revealed that NASCAR was funneling support to Tony George because they knew it would blow up Indycar and benefit the Frances, it still wouldn't matter because the trial is specifically about major league stock car racing. And as you keep pointing out so deftly for me, the...

That's right, because it isn't pertinent to the trial. And again, it isn't Judge Bell's job to let NASCAR tell whatever story it wants. It is Judge Bell's job as the judge to keep them focused on relevant factors in the trial specific to them. You open it up to be a discussion about the CART/IRL...

Lmao yeah, of course not. ????

It's not Bell's job to let NASCAR "present their case" and that contract you keep talking about doesn't justify anticompetitive behavior. At all.

He has actively sanctioned NASCAR multiple times and...wait, that's right, because it's NASCAR that must mean NASCAR is being wronged, not that NASCAR is doing wrongs.

Huh.

Yeah, NASCAR let out protected info they shouldn't have had access to which is a wild thing to just act like was cool to do. ESPECIALLY when one of NASCAR's most loyal sponsors now putting them on blast. People put illegal clauses in contracts all the time! That doesn't make them enforceable...

NDAs/noncompetitive contracts have zero to do with anticompetitive behavior by a monopsony. On top of that, NASCAR might have just committed tortious interference in this trial with relation to Childress!

That NASCAR may feel motivated to act in an anticompetitive fashion doesn't mean that they legally can!

1) They already race in alternative venues/series 2) There's nothing requiring anticompetitive behavior to prevent an alternative series (which is what the trial is about; whether or not NASCAR exercised it's power as the sole entity in top tier stock car racing against the laws of the US) You...

Sponsors sound thrilled.

Bingo. NASCAR could of course keep itself the only major stock car series by not engaging in anticompetitive behavior too. Instead, as we learned yesterday via Ben Kennedy's own text messages, the France family has been planning for years for this "inevitable" showdown with the teams. Turns out...

NASCAR didn't have a problem with HendrickCars.com on a different sort of stock car!

They don't have to and if the do they never had to. It will be for the same reason Tony George is (maybe) just a part owner of Ed Carpenter Racing.

Why does this thread exist?

Huh. Who owns half the tracks and sanctions 100% of the races?