What should Chads penalty be CHEATING AGAIN?

FenderBumper said:
I guess Chad's penalty gives the other brands an excuse for being beaten by Chevy year after year. Chad reshapes between the hard points and Roush levitates cooler covers and has their crew yank on back windows. Toyota has rocket fuel and Picasso oil pans. No wonder Penske can't win a championship.
Click to expand...
hehehe
 
Could you imagine our Forum Members running a CUP team?

We couldn't get past what make to run, FORD or CHEVY
 
I'm trying to think of when that last time NASCAR heard an Appeal to THE Appeal? Anyone know?
 
mike honcho said:
Just talkin about them sticking to their deny part,not trying to imply that the C-Posts are as aerodynamic as a crack pipe.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But we don't really know the exact basis of the appeal. They may not be denying anything regarding the legality of the pieces but rather the adherence to procedural integrity. Obviously we are all free to engage in any speculations we prefer but only NASCAR, HMS and the appeals board geezers know with any certainty what HMS stance is regarding the appeals.
 
Had a run in with a town cop when I was a teenager. He gave me my first speeding ticket. We fought it and got off. I learned a lesson a month or two later when he caught me again. I don't fight em anymore.
 
Until nascar becomes more transparent on rules enforcement, we'll all have to bear the jokes without too much angst.

I'm still trying to figure where that 'have at it' line is.
 
ted@economy said:
Had a run in with a town cop when I was a teenager. He gave me my first speeding ticket. We fought it and got off. I learned a lesson a month or two later when he caught me again. I don't fight em anymore.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't your lesson have been don't break traffic rules, or don't get caught?
 
Matthew2470 said:
But we don't really know the exact basis of the appeal. They may not be denying anything regarding the legality of the pieces but rather the adherence to procedural integrity. Obviously we are all free to engage in any speculations we prefer but only NASCAR, HMS and the appeals board geezers know with any certainty what HMS stance is regarding the appeals.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:excuse me there your honor.I'll be sure to go out into the hallway to crack a joke next time.:oops:
 
Matthew2470 said:
Not in the literal sense. The implication that HMS' appealing the appeal is somehow paramount to the Mayfield situation is where there was no obvious joke.
Click to expand...

mike honcho said:
Wondering if Rick and Mayfield are sharing the same pipe?DENY,DENY,DENY
Click to expand...

It seemed obvious to me. They did it, everyone knows the did it, but they keep trying to appeal and get a different answer.

I think it was a statement toward the efforts put into a futile endeavor. But that was just me.
 
http://scenedaily.com/article.html#!2012/3/14/Hendrick_Motorsports_has_better_chance_with_appeal_to_NASCARs_chief_appellate_officer


Hendrick Motorsports has better chance with appeal to NASCAR’s chief appellate officer

Published 03/14/12 by Bob Pockrass

So far, John Middlebrook, NASCAR’s chief appellate officer, is 3-for-3.

Three appeals heard. Three penalties reduced.

That should be good news for team owner Rick Hendrick, who predicted when Middlebrook took the “job” as chief appellate officer –the last adjudicator of NASCAR penalty appeals –that his good friend would listen to both sides and issue a fair judgment.

Hendrick will see Middlebrook, a former General Motors executive for nearly a half-century, when his No. 48 team appeals its Daytona 500 penalties to Middlebrook in a hearing most likely to be held next week.

While Middlebrook has never rescinded an entire penalty, all three appeals he has heard have resulted in reduced penalties.

“I’ve known John for probably 20 years,” Hendrick said in 2010 when Middlebrook was named to his current post. “When he was with General Motors, I worked with him on the dealership side and the racing side, and I’ve always found him to be a very fair guy.

“I don’t think NASCAR could’ve gotten anyone who’s more straight forward and level headed.”

Although he didn’t talk about Middlebrook after his initial appeal on Tuesday, Hendrick has in the past emphasized his deep respect for him and indicated that Middlebrook would not take into consideration past friendships when making a ruling.

“There’s just no agenda with him,” Hendrick said about Middlebrook in 2010. “He’s beyond being swayed. John will base decisions on the facts and what he thinks is the right thing –not outside pressure.

“He understands the sport and its issues, and his background and experience give him a unique perspective. He’s made tough calls throughout his career, so he won’t be afraid to do that.”

Middlebrook gets paid $1 annually to serve as NASCAR’s final arbitrator. He will make the decision on whether to uphold the penalties for the illegal C-posts found on Jimmie Johnson’s car during opening inspection at Daytona International Speedway Feb. 17.

NASCAR suspended crew chief Chad Knaus and car chief Ron Malec for six weeks, docked Johnson and the team 25 points and fined Knaus $100,000 for violations involving unapproved aerodynamic modifications.

The C-posts are the sections of the car body that extend from the roof to the rear quarter panel. Hendrick has said he believes NASCAR should have placed templates on the car, which had passed similar inspections in 2011. NASCAR officials said the C-posts did not look right and that they used gauges to confirm the violation and then confiscated the C-posts.

Hendrick said he doesn’t accept the current penalty and wanted to exhaust all appeals with the one final hearing with Middlebrook. Knaus and Malec will be allowed to continue in their roles with Hendrick until the final appeal is heard.

“John Middlebrook was as fair an individual as I’ve ever had any dealings with,” said NASCAR driver Peyton Sellers, who had a suspension reduced by Middlebrook in January. “He really had done his homework.

“He used good, level judgment in everything that he did. … When he reduced the penalty, I felt the truth had come out with my situation. He was 100 percent unbiased.”

Middlebrook will sit at a table with both Hendrick and NASCAR officials, including Sprint Cup Series Director John Darby. That is different than the three-member appeals panel, which met with the participants separately Tuesday before issuing a decision to uphold the penalties.

The final appeals process has resulted in alterations to the three penalties that Middlebrook has adjudicated.

In October 2010, he reduced a suspension for Richard Childress Racing’s crew chief and car chief from six weeks to four weeks and reduced a fine from $150,000 to $100,000 for an illegal car Clint Bowyer drove to the win at New Hampshire. He did not reverse Bowyer’s 150-point penalty (the equivalent of 37 points in the new system).

“He listened to both sides,” Childress said after that hearing. “We could ask John [Darby] questions, John could ask us questions or we could each one comment and hear the other one’s comments.

“That made it very fair. … [This] procedure, if it was done similar to that at the other appeal, we wouldn’t be here today. I would not have appealed if it had been done like today. We heard a little bit of both sides today, and we didn’t get to hear that in the last appeal.”

Also in 2010, Middlebrook reduced a $5,000 fine of Nationwide Series owner Johnny Davis to $2,500 for an altercation with another competitor.

Two months ago, Middlebrook heard the appeal of Sellers, a part-time Nationwide Series driver who was suspended indefinitely from any competition for what NASCAR officials said was an altercation with a NASCAR official at a short-track race.

Middlebrook reinstated Sellers as of March 1.

Sellers said he didn’t expect much before his hearing with Middlebrook, which occurred over the phone. Middlebrook called the witnesses to verify the statements Sellers provided and then made his decision.

“I never for a minute thought any penalty would be overturned because of how the first appeal went,” Sellers said. “The first appeal, the decision was made upon walking into the room.

“On the second appeal, I assumed it would be the same way. I then felt when due diligence was done, the truth shined through.”
Click to expand...
 
Seems like a lotta trouble to go through to get some old guy who likes GM to disagree with everyone else in racing and possibly reduce the penalty.I guess that it will give all the Hendrick fans a reason to get up in the morning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom