Suspension Lifted for Kurt Busch - Chase Waiver Granted

Reck said:
Is there a reason why he's not starting with minus points? I don't think it's all that fair to the guys whose competed the last 3 races and have garner at least some points. That has to count for something.

Kurt can just race and in one race posibly even jump Stewart.

Drivers who miss the start of a season and consequently the following races should be made to make up points from the minus. If you miss 1 race, you ought to be one full race out of the points. And so on.
Click to expand...
He's starting with zero points. Those who have already raced the first three have points. Why should he have negative points? That makes no sense.
 
Reck said:
3 Races>47 points per= -141
Click to expand...
You're saying to dock him 141 points? That's ridiculous. Why? There are some drivers in the points standings who have only raced in one or two races .. should they have been docked points too? 47 a race? Did they dock Denny points last year when he missed a bunch of races?
 
Zeck said:
1, but technically he never needed a waiver since last year, you had to qualify for all events, and Denny did just that at Fontana.
---
Since Kurt only missed a mere 3 races, and is almost a win's worth of points outside the top 30, I would have granted him eligibility.
Click to expand...
I didn't think they had to do a waiver for Denny but I remember discussion about one for Tony, if he had won a race.
 
Lin said:
He's starting with zero points. Those who have already raced the first three have points. Why should he have negative points? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Because the system itself is broken.

It says a lot that you can miss a handful of races and still leap frog 10-15 other drivers in one race.

Someone mentioned earlier it was Tony's fault for not running good. Well, at least he's running the races. The fact he's running poorly doesn't have anything to do with how the points are.

I'll go one step further and involve Gordon in this. He's been running in the top 10 in all of the 3 races when he was taken out. He finished in the 30s twice and got like 10 points. Who's fault is that? Gordon's or the point format?

I'm just saying its abit disproportionate.
 
Reck said:
Because the system itself is broken.

It says a lot that you can miss a handful of races and still leap frog 10-15 other drivers in one race.

Someone mentioned earlier it was Tony's fault for not running good. Well, at least he's running the races. The fact he's running poorly doesn't have anything to do with how the points are.

I'll go one step further and involve Gordon in this. He's been running in the top 10 in all of the 3 races when he was taken out. He finished in the 30s twice and got like 10 points. Who's fault is that? Gordon's or the point format?

I'm just saying its abit disproportionate.
Click to expand...
That's not even the points format. It's how it is... even under the old system.. you could lead the whole race, and then get taken out at the end.. like Junior and Jimmie did at Talladega in 06. They only got points for a 20th and 21st place finishes. That's just how it is. For each race, you get anywhere from about 3 to 48 points. Because Kurt did not race, he gets zero points for each of the first 3. Gordon, Tony, and whomever, get what they earned based on their finish. They are still ahead of Kurt. If Kurt leap frogs them, so be it. If Kurt wins, he's entitled to those 47 or 48 points. And if he's ahead of those guys, it's not his fault they are finishing in the 30s every week. There are drivers who've only done 2 races and they are ahead of Tony. Should they have been docked points? Heck no. Did you know that a couple of years ago, Mark Martin finished ahead of Danica in points even though she raced all 36 and he raced in maybe 30 or less. Should he have been given negative points for the races he was not in? I don't think so.
 
Lin said:
That's not even the points format. It's how it is... even under the old system.. you could lead the whole race, and then get taken out at the end.. like Junior and Jimmie did at Talladega in 06. They only got points for a 20th and 21st place finishes. That's just how it is. For each race, you get anywhere from about 3 to 48 points. Because Kurt did not race, he gets zero points for each of the first 3. Gordon, Tony, and whomever, get what they earned based on their finish. They are still ahead of Kurt. If Kurt leap frogs them, so be it. If Kurt wins, he's entitled to those 47 or 48 points. And if he's ahead of those guys, it's not his fault they are finishing in the 30s every week. There are drivers who've only done 2 races and they are ahead of Tony. Should they have been docked points? Heck no. Did you know that a couple of years ago, Mark Martin finished ahead of Danica in points even though she raced all 36 and he raced in maybe 30 or less. Should he have been given negative points for the races he was not in? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Finishing 20th or even 40th in the old points gave you around 100 to 40 points respectively. That's not even comparable to how it is now.

Has a driver ever started a race 1 lap down even before the race even began? The answer is yes.

When you apply the same reasoning to not even starting a race, you should, in theory be way behind.
 
Reck said:
Finishing 20th or even 40th in the old points gave you around 100 to 40 points respectively. That's not even comparable to how it is now.

Has a driver ever started a race 1 lap down even before the race even began? The answer is yes.

When you apply the same reasoning to not even starting a race, you should, in theory be way behind.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter... you get fewer points now but it's all relative Kurt missing 3 races puts him in a hole. He's behind everyone. There's no reason to give him negative points.. because he got ZERO points for the first 3 races. And yes, he will likely leap over the back markers.... just like Mark Martin leaped over quite a few back markers even though he only raced 25 or 30 instead of 36. And there was no need, in my opinion, to give Mark negative points for those races he didn't race in. He got ZERO points for those.
 
Mickey Walslap started the 2008 season with a negative point value and carried it forward for several races.

He earned it.
 
aunty dive said:
Mickey Walslap started the 2008 season with a negative point value and carried it forward for several races.

He earned it.
Click to expand...

It was until the mid summer. I remember boasting that I had more points than Michael Waltrip.

But Waltrip was adding illegal fuel additives. He got off pretty lightly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lin
Glad Kurt is back, when I first heard about the suspension, I thought he was done. Shows what I know.



It's bull**** that he's "eligible" for a "championship" though.
 
Reck said:
You newbies coming in here puffing your chests. It's an opinion. Go and read my first post about it.

Operative word there being "I think it isn't fair."

Mind you, NASCAR suspended Kurt on alligations on beating someone. That is a penalty in the most basic sense.
Click to expand...
No need to start with name calling and such. I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. No chest puffing. What you're saying makes no sense, so I'm not interested in discussing this with you further.
 
StandOnIt said:
but he did get penalized IMO, not to mention his team.
Click to expand...
But not for cheating or messing with the car or anything.. but in a sense, yes.. because he had to sit out 3 races and thereby did not earn points for those 3 races. It's like in 2012 (or was it 13?) when Junior sat out 2 races during the chase as a result of his concussion. He did not earn points for those races which set him back in the chase standings so he ended up 11th instead of 10th or something like that. It was a penalty in that sense.
 
NASCAR's Road to Recovery is so awesome. It taught Dinger not to take candy from strangers, and it's teaching Kurt that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. Don't try this at home--NASCAR has hired experts to do this. A complete embarrassment. I hope they don't truly believe that they handled this well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lin
Revman said:
NASCAR's Road to Recovery is so awesome. It taught Dinger not to take candy from strangers, and it's teaching Kurt that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. Don't try this at home--NASCAR has hired experts to do this. A complete embarrassment. I hope they don't truly believe that they handled this well.
Click to expand...

Kurt will be just fine now. No more "outlaw"
upload_2015-3-11_23-0-17.jpeg
 
Revman said:
NASCAR's Road to Recovery is so awesome. It taught Dinger not to take candy from strangers, and it's teaching Kurt that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. Don't try this at home--NASCAR has hired experts to do this. A complete embarrassment. I hope they don't truly believe that they handled this well.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be too hard on them. It's likely the first time one of the manly men competing in their testosterone-fired sport has been discovered naked and sobbing on the floor.
 
This must fry Driscoll's fine little ass, I think everyone (except the idiot judge who ruled for Driscoll) is seeing what her real intent is here. I don't believe for one second that she was abused, she was just out to destroy Kurt. In fact, those who have never liked Kurt (like me) are most likely starting to like the guy, and those who liked Driscoll, are most likely going to start disliking her. (like me).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lin said:
Yes but that's all based on one person's "judgment" based on a preponderance of evidence.. which is a guess that something more likely than not happened. It also was the easy way out so they could cover their own butts in case something did happen. It's not an indication of any kind of guilt.
Click to expand...

A court is a court, I'm afraid . But using that logic , could a man ever be prosecuted for rape ,child abuse or spousal abuse without a witness?
 
ted@economy said:
A court is a court, I'm afraid . But using that logic , could a man ever be prosecuted for rape ,child abuse or spousal abuse without a witness?
Click to expand...
Yes.. there's other kinds of evidence.

But going by a post someone made above..re Kurt's case.... anyone can charge someone with a crime and request a restraining order, whether their claim has any real basis or not... and nowadays most courts will grant the restraining order to err on the side of caution because there are too many cases where they didn't and something horrible..... and rememeber, they only have to do this by a prepoderance.
 
Lin said:
Yes.. there's other kinds of evidence.

But going by a post someone made above..re Kurt's case.... anyone can charge someone with a crime and request a restraining order, whether their claim has any real basis or not... and nowadays most courts will grant the restraining order to err on the side of caution because there are too many cases where they didn't and something horrible..... and rememeber, they only have to do this by a prepoderance.
Click to expand...

Maybe , but first you have the believe the kids claim that courts will grant a restraining order if there is no real basis for it . That's garbage . Second , a preponderance of evidence means there is evidence . No videotape , but there is evidence . Not having enough evidence to have a realistic chance for a conviction is quite common .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pat
ted@economy said:
Maybe , but first you have the believe the kids claim that courts will grant a restraining order if there is no real basis for it . That's garbage . Second , a preponderance of evidence means there is evidence . No videotape , but there is evidence . Not having enough evidence to have a realistic chance for a conviction is quite common .
Click to expand...
In abuse cases, I think they lean toward granting restraining orders and then let the legal issues work themselves out in court. I doubt the "evidence" has to be too much at all. Remember so much about this Driscoll case makes no sense. If she was afraid, then why go to his RV at all? With her kid? Because a bus driver told her she needed to because Kurt was depressed or whatever? As if he had no support system there at the track like family, friends, teammates,crew? I'm not a big Kurt fan but I do believe he was railroaded. But whatever.... it is what it is.... hopefully everything works out for him.
 
Lin said:
In abuse cases, I think they lean toward granting restraining orders and then let the legal issues work themselves out in court. I doubt the "evidence" has to be too much at all. Remember so much about this Driscoll case makes no sense. If she was afraid, then why go to his RV at all? With her kid? Because a bus driver told her she needed to because Kurt was depressed or whatever? As if he had no support system there at the track like family, friends, teammates,crew? I'm not a big Kurt fan but I do believe he was railroaded. But whatever.... it is what it is.... hopefully everything works out for him.
Click to expand...

I hope it works out for him too . He is one of the best drivers out there . Can he get away from his outlaw persona ? Don't know ,but he'd better start .
 
Good morning,this Kurt thing has been building up.You could see it coming to a head soon because I'm sure he has needed some help with his temper for a while.It has helped many before him and I love to see him drive his arse off on the track.
 
ted@economy said:
I hope it works out for him too . He is one of the best drivers out there . Can he get away from his outlaw persona ? Don't know ,but he'd better start .
Click to expand...
Yes.. I think he has. Apparently he's taken the nick name "outlaw" off from above his window on his car. Good move.
 
Team Penske said:
The outlaw was part of the biatches promotion of Kurt.
The evidence that was considered " a ponderence of" was the biatches testimony.
Click to expand...

Well the outlaw beach hisself did the "outlaw" cryumentary about how he was just misunderstood, on FS1 last year. Amazingly there was no tears on the floor about the nickname at the time, sounds like a consenting partner to me.

But maybe you are right, after all Kurt was the submissive in the relationship. Probably knew he had best just shut up and like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom