What's next for NASCAR? So far this year, NASCAR officials have hosted more news conferences and answered more questions than its top drivers.
Accusations of cheating dominated Speedweeks at Daytona, talk that only slowed when Mark Martin and Kevin Harvick enjoyed a spirited battle at the finish of the Daytona 500. Immediately after the race, Harvick's victory thrust the officials back into the spotlight with questions about whether a caution flag should have been thrown on the final lap. Then, two days later, Sunoco, NASCAR's official fuel sponsor, questioned the competing logos on Harvick's Shell-sponsored uniform.
NASCAR stepped in and met with Harvick's Richard Childress Racing, creating what was apparently a temporary solution by having Harvick and his team lessen the prominence of the Shell logos for the Feb. 25 race at California Speedway. The debate over how this should be handled could rage on for weeks. And it'll only take another competition penalty to raise the specter of those cheating debates once more.
While one can argue endlessly the merits of good publicity versus bad publicity or the level of penalties the sanctioning body should mete out, the larger issue is that NASCAR officials need to bluntly say what they mean. Don't step around issues with words like "unapproved" or skirt questions about intent or possible advantages an alteration, or the lack of one, could provide a team.
NASCAR Vice President Robin Pemberton has handled the situation well, but wouldn't it be great if NASCAR could allow its officials to just bluntly state their stance without speaking in politically correct terms? How about just saying someone cheated and go forward?
For example, five crew chiefs were ejected or suspended at Daytona, while a sixth (Steve Letarte) was found to have a car that was illegal after a qualifying race but was assessed a minor penalty because NASCAR deemed his violation unintentional. The implication is that the other infractions were intentional. Obviously the team owners debate this issue and point out ways that things could have happened. It seems entirely plausible that Robbie Reiser simply forgot to replace parts in Matt Kenseth's car.
NASCAR clearly cannot think that is the case, though. If it did, the penalty should have mirrored that of Gordon, which was disallowing his qualifying effort. That precedent was set when a portion of Gordon's car was too low after Gordon's qualifying race. NASCAR said it was 100 percent certain it was unintentional and moved him to the rear of the field. Reiser, meanwhile, was already sidelined for four weeks for a part change that offered little or no advantage in qualifying.
What's the difference?
And then there's Michael Waltrip's fuel. There's no room to fudge here. There was something placed into the fuel that didn't belong there. In the world of NASCAR, fuel and engines are sacred areas and tampering with either equates to harsh penalties.
The question now is, what was in the fuel? NASCAR has tested and analyzed it. The sanctioning body knows. So why not tell everyone? It only adds credibility to the stern stance NASCAR is taking. Where's the harm?
Think it might embarrass the team? Who cares? Think it might lead people to figure out how this happened? Who cares, it was a skirting of the rules that deserves to be explained.
Frankness only makes the sanctioning body look better. Pemberton's openness in discussing why penalties were assessed and why others weren't lent a professional air to the embarrassing saga that competitors at Daytona created. NASCAR should continue in that vein and let officials actually use the word cheating, let them address intent on a weekly basis and let them explain why they did or did not suspend someone.
The same, for that matter, goes for appeals. A team argues its case through the media weekly, presenting intriguing reasons that a penalty should be altered. Why can't the appeals committee be just as open in explaining the reason it dismissed those arguments? Now, it looks to an outsider to be a fruitless endeavor, a process in which one can present arguments but with little hope of changing the outcome. Wouldn't it be nice if the National Stock Car Commission's statements addressed why a penalty was upheld?
It would certainly add credibility to the process that often seems to be a mere formality.
NASCAR has done a good job of appearing to crack down on inconsistencies in the sport this season.
So how about letting those officials explain the process? NS
Accusations of cheating dominated Speedweeks at Daytona, talk that only slowed when Mark Martin and Kevin Harvick enjoyed a spirited battle at the finish of the Daytona 500. Immediately after the race, Harvick's victory thrust the officials back into the spotlight with questions about whether a caution flag should have been thrown on the final lap. Then, two days later, Sunoco, NASCAR's official fuel sponsor, questioned the competing logos on Harvick's Shell-sponsored uniform.
NASCAR stepped in and met with Harvick's Richard Childress Racing, creating what was apparently a temporary solution by having Harvick and his team lessen the prominence of the Shell logos for the Feb. 25 race at California Speedway. The debate over how this should be handled could rage on for weeks. And it'll only take another competition penalty to raise the specter of those cheating debates once more.
While one can argue endlessly the merits of good publicity versus bad publicity or the level of penalties the sanctioning body should mete out, the larger issue is that NASCAR officials need to bluntly say what they mean. Don't step around issues with words like "unapproved" or skirt questions about intent or possible advantages an alteration, or the lack of one, could provide a team.
NASCAR Vice President Robin Pemberton has handled the situation well, but wouldn't it be great if NASCAR could allow its officials to just bluntly state their stance without speaking in politically correct terms? How about just saying someone cheated and go forward?
For example, five crew chiefs were ejected or suspended at Daytona, while a sixth (Steve Letarte) was found to have a car that was illegal after a qualifying race but was assessed a minor penalty because NASCAR deemed his violation unintentional. The implication is that the other infractions were intentional. Obviously the team owners debate this issue and point out ways that things could have happened. It seems entirely plausible that Robbie Reiser simply forgot to replace parts in Matt Kenseth's car.
NASCAR clearly cannot think that is the case, though. If it did, the penalty should have mirrored that of Gordon, which was disallowing his qualifying effort. That precedent was set when a portion of Gordon's car was too low after Gordon's qualifying race. NASCAR said it was 100 percent certain it was unintentional and moved him to the rear of the field. Reiser, meanwhile, was already sidelined for four weeks for a part change that offered little or no advantage in qualifying.
What's the difference?
And then there's Michael Waltrip's fuel. There's no room to fudge here. There was something placed into the fuel that didn't belong there. In the world of NASCAR, fuel and engines are sacred areas and tampering with either equates to harsh penalties.
The question now is, what was in the fuel? NASCAR has tested and analyzed it. The sanctioning body knows. So why not tell everyone? It only adds credibility to the stern stance NASCAR is taking. Where's the harm?
Think it might embarrass the team? Who cares? Think it might lead people to figure out how this happened? Who cares, it was a skirting of the rules that deserves to be explained.
Frankness only makes the sanctioning body look better. Pemberton's openness in discussing why penalties were assessed and why others weren't lent a professional air to the embarrassing saga that competitors at Daytona created. NASCAR should continue in that vein and let officials actually use the word cheating, let them address intent on a weekly basis and let them explain why they did or did not suspend someone.
The same, for that matter, goes for appeals. A team argues its case through the media weekly, presenting intriguing reasons that a penalty should be altered. Why can't the appeals committee be just as open in explaining the reason it dismissed those arguments? Now, it looks to an outsider to be a fruitless endeavor, a process in which one can present arguments but with little hope of changing the outcome. Wouldn't it be nice if the National Stock Car Commission's statements addressed why a penalty was upheld?
It would certainly add credibility to the process that often seems to be a mere formality.
NASCAR has done a good job of appearing to crack down on inconsistencies in the sport this season.
So how about letting those officials explain the process? NS
