Great read on Tim Richmond

That article was a good read.

I didn't know about the positive drug test against Richmond. I can see how that incident would make people doubt NASCAR in the Mayfield case.

One mistake Hinton makes though is that he implys that Richmonds death caused the sterile drivers we see today. Although I'm sure that's a part of it, that's not the whole story.

Today's drivers have much more at stake then their counter-parts in the 1980s. For one thing, they're paid a lot more. Competition is much closer, and there's a lot more talented drivers that want to get into the series.

Lets say for example that Jimmy Johnson did the same stuff today that Richmond did back then. That might be good for ratings, and I'm sure the fans will love it. But Lowes might not. If they cancel their sponsorship, that means the team is out millions. It might or might not be hard to get another sponsor. Even then, they'll have to pay a lot less. With more risk, comes less commitment. All of a sudden, a driver has become a liability rather than an asset. Today it's much easier to let go of troubled talent, and get someone new than it was 20 years ago.

This is why you are unlikely to see the old Tony Stewart anytime soon. He wears the hat of a owner as well as a driver now. With that comes added responsability, and he can't take the chance of his attitude causing a problem anymore.

I'm all for drivers showing more emotion, and acting more humanly flawed. But with increased risk and reward, comes the desire to not rock the boat. After all, star athletes causing problems tends to hurt a team more than it helps anything else these days.

Just look at Michael Vick or Patrick Kane.
 
That was a great read. Thank you!

This is why you are unlikely to see the old Tony Stewart anytime soon. He wears the hat of a owner as well as a driver now. With that comes added responsibility, and he can't take the chance of his attitude causing a problem anymore.
Click to expand...

Dang I miss the ole Fire and Brimstone Tony!
 
foehammer, I will disagree with you on one count, there are more "good" drivers today than in the past. Today is no different than yesterday in that vein. Thing was in the old days, one had to be "interested" in NASCAR and also have connections in the series in order to get a ride. Tim didn't come out of nowhere, but reading what many NASCAR fans have to say about him, one would think that when he came into this series, he was totally new to racing. Tim was a racer and his family had money which got him rides many places, especially in USAC. He was only a soso driver in most people's minds until he made a splash in NASCAR. NASCAR was the type of racing that Tim was a natural and that is why he made such a big name. Few drivers could compare to him when it came to a lose car, something that most racers will tell you that is the fastest. Dale Earnhardt was his equal and they loved racing against each other. But with all that said, short tracks all over the country had competent drivers that could have made it big in NASCAR if given the chance. Today, it's even harder to be able to show your talent in the Cup series and even if you are able to find a ride, it better be good or you will find yourself on the outside looking in. No more "paying your dues" to find a top ride in NASCAR. Owners and sponsors will look worldwide and in other series to find "that" driver that will sell a product. if "that" driver becomes a star, it's really a sum of many parts...looks, driving ability, speaking ability, etc. If one would look back at Jimmie Johnson's career before he hit the big time, one would see that he didn't have anything special. How wrong that would have been. But if you looked at some of the other hopefuls, thinking that they would one day become champs, what a let down. I would venture to say that at any given local track, one could find a diamond in the rough, but like finding a needle in a haystack, these days there are a gazillion of those hot shoes. There are only 43 spots in any given race that an owner/sponsor can sport a driver, and with so many to choose from...
 
Buck, I'm not even sure what your opinion is. It got lost somewhere in that huge paragraph.

I assume you mean that there are just as many talented drivers now as there were in Richmond's time. If that's what you're getting at, then that's the same point I was trying to make. In fact, there's even more talented drivers now.

That's what I'm getting at: if a driver sturs the pot today like Richmond did back then, it would be much easier to replace them now. As you said, getting a ride in NASCAR 20 years ago was more a right of passage. These days there are thousands, maybe even millions of drivers who want to race in the top level of the sport, but will never be given a chance.

Not because they don't have talent, but because there are so many of them. There could be some 14-year-old kid racing midgets right now that could be better than Earnhardt Sr, and get more wins than Richard Petty in his career. But he might never see the top level because there are a thousand more just waiting for a chance.

My point is that the talent pool is so large and diverse now, that a team owner doesn't need to put up with a driver that may cause problems. For every Jimmie Johnson, there's a thousand or more waiting to take his ride who would never race in Sprint Cup otherwise.

We talk a lot lately about the problems David Stremme has been causing. He might end up losing his ride, and there are many eager drivers that would be more than happen to take it over.
 
One thing the story did not touch on that someone reminded me of this is rumors were Richmond got AIDS because he was shooting heroine and not from unprotected sex. Of course, he did pass it on to women with sex, but he allegedly got AIDS himself from a needle and not a woman. That is why NASCAR originally suspended him, many drivers were afraid to race against him knowing he was shooting up.
 
Don't forget, this was the late 1980s.

People then knew as much about AIDS as someone from 1945 knew about radiation. AIDS was still a new disease to the general public, and mis-information was all over. Some people thought it was a homo-sexual disease, and thus impossible for hetro-sexuals to get it.

Others thought you could get it by using the same toliet as someone with AIDS. Still others thought kissing, or simple blood-to-skin contact could get you infected.

Even today, there's still a lot of mis-information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom