E
Eagle1
Guest
Actually was real surprised to find this on NASCAR.com and by Marty Smith. Both usually kiss NASCAR's behind.
NASCAR.com
NASCAR plays doubles with sport's future
By Marty Smith, Turner Sports Interactive July 8, 2004
10:23 AM EDT (1423 GMT)
Holding NASCAR accountable has gotten cumbersome, exasperating even.
There are countless positives in and outside the garage that merit recognition, but until the sanctioning body gets its act together it is warranted -- if not vital -- that the media unveil their oft-shady practices.
On tap this week: double standards.
If it's not scoring it's procedure. If it's not procedure it's rules enforcement. If it's not rules enforcement it's sponsorship.
First, scoring.
Though there have been countless scoring snafus in 2004, the one that bewildered me beyond description was the Charlotte Truck Series caution light fiasco.
How can NASCAR expect its drivers to let off the throttle -- no questions asked -- any time the caution flies, when it can cost them a race? Carl Edwards did as instructed at Charlotte in May, got out of the gas when he saw an illuminated caution light, enabling Dennis Setzer to scream by and on to Victory Lane.
Someone somewhere screwed up, inadvertently turned the light on, and then wouldn't fess up to it until Edwards himself went to SPEED Channel studios and found evidence that he did in fact see a yellow light. He was right, NASCAR was wrong. And they wouldn't fess up to it until four days after the fact? Please...
Second, rules enforcement.
In the quest for Victory Lane at Daytona and Talladega, blocking is part of the game. A guy gets a run, you slice in front of him to cut off his advance. Some drivers may not like it as it's often dangerous. But nonetheless it's accepted. Most of the time.
When Jason Leffler slid up the track to block Dale Earnhardt, Jr. last weekend at Daytona, he inadvertently put Junior in the fence, a punishable offense according to NASCAR. Many were baffled, including yours truly. Leffler was merely trying to maintain his position by cutting off the best restrictor-plate racer alive, and miscalculated.
Honest mistake, right? Wrong. According to NASCAR, anyway. They penalized Leffler 11 positions in the final running order, from second to 13th.
"I was trying to hold people off. At Talladega, Junior knocked me out of the way with like two to go when I was behind Martin (Truex, Jr.)," Leffler said. "I just didn't want to give up. It was nothing against him. Whoever was behind me I was just trying to hold them off.
"I expected a bunch of them to come by me and I was just trying to hold them off and try to get to the end. That's what you have to do, otherwise they would have just ate me up and I would have finished further back in the field. (The penalty) is a shame. It was rough driving, but I'll take that finish and go with it."
Put in Leffler's situation, Junior would've used similar strategy. As I said, it's part of restrictor-plate procedure. But if Junior were to accidentally misjudge and subsequently cause an accident, would he be penalized 11 positions?
Hypothetical as it is, I deemed it a worthy question. So I asked several crew chiefs and drivers, and the unanimous answer was no.
Third, sponsorship.
This one baffles me, as well. So you're telling me Daytona International Speedway can promote Crown Royal as it's "official whiskey," yet Jeff Burton can't run the brand on his hood? How's that work?
NASCAR says DIS promotions are an International Speedway Corp. deal, that the two are separate companies and therefore have separate policies regarding sponsorships.
Fair enough. I would be more than accepting of that explanation were the higher-ups at ISC and NASCAR not of the same bloodline, nor NASCAR the sanctioning body at 13 ISC venues.
I've seen no contracts, but it's hard to fathom that NASCAR isn't in some way benefiting financially from Crown Royal's involvement with ISC. If I'm Jack Roush, Geoff Smith or Jeff Burton, I'm seething.
And don't pull the IROC card, either. I understand that Crown Royal is the series sponsor of the International Race of Champions, which holds one of its four races at ISC-owned Daytona International Speedway. That makes the signage viable on track grounds.
But don't Cup cars run on that track, which boasts Crown Royal as it's "official whiskey," as well? Isn't there a possibility that that signage could end up on Nextel Cup network broadcasts, as well? Sure. So isn't it odd that Brian France said just last week that television relationships are a large aspect of the decision?
With such a long list of discrepancies, I had to know why NASCAR refuses to allow Burton to run the brand on his sponsorship-starved Ford Taurus.
"NASCAR has a long-standing policy prohibiting spirits and our recent internal discussions relate to that policy overall rather than specifically to a team or car such as the No. 99," spokesman Mike Zizzo said.
"This is a policy that dates more than 30 years in our history and there are a lot of factors and circumstances that must be considered as we have those internal discussions.
"Although we understand the sponsorship situation with the No. 99 entry, it is very unlikely at this time that we would change such a long-standing policy for this instance. We don't feel the timing is right at this juncture in time."
Chairman France was posed the hard liquor vs. beer question last week. His response was as follows:
"What's at issue here is a long standing rule going back into the '70s, of a cooperation that the network television partners would have when it comes to hard liquor and spirits, and you know, a lot of our events, 80 percent of them, are on network television. That's a different challenge than other motorsports series have or other people might have.
"So, we have to understand that we've got to be in step, and that's not to say that our television partners are for or against allowing spirits. That's one thing that we've got to understand as we go along. Another is the hard liquor and cars have another element that you have to consider.
"And timing of such a thing, we're all going through now, the incident at the Super Bowl and other incidents where there's a real crackdown of what's, you know, broadcast on national television, how it's treated, how it's presented.
"There's a lot we have to consider before we just throw out a 30-year policy. And that's what we did consider. We looked at all of the circumstances that we thought Roush could provide. They did a nice job of laying out some things in the end. We think the timing is just not right now, and we're going to leave it at that and we'll review it down the road."
Hopefully sooner rather than later.
Burton deserves the sponsorship and many great things could come from it. If there is concern about any stigma that might coincide with "hard liquor," run alcohol awareness PSAs. Promote the importance of designated drivers.
Turn that stigma into an educational tool. Obviously, Crown Royal's parent company, Diageo, is more than willing. They've done awareness advertisements with Matt Kenseth, whose Ford carries Diageo's Smirnoff Ice brand in several races throughout the season.
NASCAR must begin to spread the wealth and help its teams financially.
It'd be a significant step in the right direction, one deserving of positive reinforcement rather than analytical cynicism.
Marty Smith is a senior writer for NASCAR.COM. His column appears weekly.
NASCAR.com
NASCAR plays doubles with sport's future
By Marty Smith, Turner Sports Interactive July 8, 2004
10:23 AM EDT (1423 GMT)
Holding NASCAR accountable has gotten cumbersome, exasperating even.
There are countless positives in and outside the garage that merit recognition, but until the sanctioning body gets its act together it is warranted -- if not vital -- that the media unveil their oft-shady practices.
On tap this week: double standards.
If it's not scoring it's procedure. If it's not procedure it's rules enforcement. If it's not rules enforcement it's sponsorship.
First, scoring.
Though there have been countless scoring snafus in 2004, the one that bewildered me beyond description was the Charlotte Truck Series caution light fiasco.
How can NASCAR expect its drivers to let off the throttle -- no questions asked -- any time the caution flies, when it can cost them a race? Carl Edwards did as instructed at Charlotte in May, got out of the gas when he saw an illuminated caution light, enabling Dennis Setzer to scream by and on to Victory Lane.
Someone somewhere screwed up, inadvertently turned the light on, and then wouldn't fess up to it until Edwards himself went to SPEED Channel studios and found evidence that he did in fact see a yellow light. He was right, NASCAR was wrong. And they wouldn't fess up to it until four days after the fact? Please...
Second, rules enforcement.
In the quest for Victory Lane at Daytona and Talladega, blocking is part of the game. A guy gets a run, you slice in front of him to cut off his advance. Some drivers may not like it as it's often dangerous. But nonetheless it's accepted. Most of the time.
When Jason Leffler slid up the track to block Dale Earnhardt, Jr. last weekend at Daytona, he inadvertently put Junior in the fence, a punishable offense according to NASCAR. Many were baffled, including yours truly. Leffler was merely trying to maintain his position by cutting off the best restrictor-plate racer alive, and miscalculated.
Honest mistake, right? Wrong. According to NASCAR, anyway. They penalized Leffler 11 positions in the final running order, from second to 13th.
"I was trying to hold people off. At Talladega, Junior knocked me out of the way with like two to go when I was behind Martin (Truex, Jr.)," Leffler said. "I just didn't want to give up. It was nothing against him. Whoever was behind me I was just trying to hold them off.
"I expected a bunch of them to come by me and I was just trying to hold them off and try to get to the end. That's what you have to do, otherwise they would have just ate me up and I would have finished further back in the field. (The penalty) is a shame. It was rough driving, but I'll take that finish and go with it."
Put in Leffler's situation, Junior would've used similar strategy. As I said, it's part of restrictor-plate procedure. But if Junior were to accidentally misjudge and subsequently cause an accident, would he be penalized 11 positions?
Hypothetical as it is, I deemed it a worthy question. So I asked several crew chiefs and drivers, and the unanimous answer was no.
Third, sponsorship.
This one baffles me, as well. So you're telling me Daytona International Speedway can promote Crown Royal as it's "official whiskey," yet Jeff Burton can't run the brand on his hood? How's that work?
NASCAR says DIS promotions are an International Speedway Corp. deal, that the two are separate companies and therefore have separate policies regarding sponsorships.
Fair enough. I would be more than accepting of that explanation were the higher-ups at ISC and NASCAR not of the same bloodline, nor NASCAR the sanctioning body at 13 ISC venues.
I've seen no contracts, but it's hard to fathom that NASCAR isn't in some way benefiting financially from Crown Royal's involvement with ISC. If I'm Jack Roush, Geoff Smith or Jeff Burton, I'm seething.
And don't pull the IROC card, either. I understand that Crown Royal is the series sponsor of the International Race of Champions, which holds one of its four races at ISC-owned Daytona International Speedway. That makes the signage viable on track grounds.
But don't Cup cars run on that track, which boasts Crown Royal as it's "official whiskey," as well? Isn't there a possibility that that signage could end up on Nextel Cup network broadcasts, as well? Sure. So isn't it odd that Brian France said just last week that television relationships are a large aspect of the decision?
With such a long list of discrepancies, I had to know why NASCAR refuses to allow Burton to run the brand on his sponsorship-starved Ford Taurus.
"NASCAR has a long-standing policy prohibiting spirits and our recent internal discussions relate to that policy overall rather than specifically to a team or car such as the No. 99," spokesman Mike Zizzo said.
"This is a policy that dates more than 30 years in our history and there are a lot of factors and circumstances that must be considered as we have those internal discussions.
"Although we understand the sponsorship situation with the No. 99 entry, it is very unlikely at this time that we would change such a long-standing policy for this instance. We don't feel the timing is right at this juncture in time."
Chairman France was posed the hard liquor vs. beer question last week. His response was as follows:
"What's at issue here is a long standing rule going back into the '70s, of a cooperation that the network television partners would have when it comes to hard liquor and spirits, and you know, a lot of our events, 80 percent of them, are on network television. That's a different challenge than other motorsports series have or other people might have.
"So, we have to understand that we've got to be in step, and that's not to say that our television partners are for or against allowing spirits. That's one thing that we've got to understand as we go along. Another is the hard liquor and cars have another element that you have to consider.
"And timing of such a thing, we're all going through now, the incident at the Super Bowl and other incidents where there's a real crackdown of what's, you know, broadcast on national television, how it's treated, how it's presented.
"There's a lot we have to consider before we just throw out a 30-year policy. And that's what we did consider. We looked at all of the circumstances that we thought Roush could provide. They did a nice job of laying out some things in the end. We think the timing is just not right now, and we're going to leave it at that and we'll review it down the road."
Hopefully sooner rather than later.
Burton deserves the sponsorship and many great things could come from it. If there is concern about any stigma that might coincide with "hard liquor," run alcohol awareness PSAs. Promote the importance of designated drivers.
Turn that stigma into an educational tool. Obviously, Crown Royal's parent company, Diageo, is more than willing. They've done awareness advertisements with Matt Kenseth, whose Ford carries Diageo's Smirnoff Ice brand in several races throughout the season.
NASCAR must begin to spread the wealth and help its teams financially.
It'd be a significant step in the right direction, one deserving of positive reinforcement rather than analytical cynicism.
Marty Smith is a senior writer for NASCAR.COM. His column appears weekly.
