Subscribe to this blog's feed« A Podium Finish for RCR | Main | A Return To Old School Racing »
March 22, 2008
Fascination with violence
By DAVID GREEN
Not surprisingly, the top-rated story on TR.com this morning is the one about the New Hampshire stock car racer who was convicted on a charge stemming from an on-track incident in which he intentionally slammed into another driver's car.
We are all fascinated with violence. When we were kids, most of us gathered to watch when there was a schoolyard fight. Most of the the ones who didn't watch were probably involved in the fight.
Much of the attention on sports violence has been focused on hockey. The joke "I went to a fight last night and a hockey game broke out" is probably a lot older than I am. This is the sport that leads the way in the dubious history of criminal charges that resulted from incidents that occurred during games.
But it isn't only morbid curiousity that causes those of us who love racing to read the New Hampshire news item. In recent years, auto racing has seen a number of incidents that have brought the wrong kind of attention to the sport.
One incident that stands out is the one at Michigan in which an angry Carl Edwards roared off pit road and pretty violently sideswiped Dale Earnhardt Jr. during a caution-flag period. But there have been plenty of other occurrences, the most alarming being the pit-road demolition derbies. In those incidents, the drivers are pretty well protected, but there are unprotected innocent bystanders in harm's way.
And, yes -- despite the safety measures incorporated into modern racing cars, a deliberate ramming of somebody else's car could result in an injury. The one in New Hampshire did not, and the very brief story posted on TR.com offers almost no context. It doesn't state whether the offended driver preferred charges, or if track management initiated criminal action, or if someone in the law enforcement or legal professions might have been trying to make political hay.
It's well documented what a violent society we live in, and as standards of civil behavior continue to slide downward, it stands to reason that the level of violence and the number of incidents will rise. Of course there will always be those who insist that we should "do something about it" when these things happen.
So, competitors at all levels, be advised: Use your racecar as a battering ram at your own risk.
March 22, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
David,
NASCAR has an obligation to protect its participants from harm. There are also inherent dangers in being a NASCAR participant. NASCAR has done a great job minimizing these risks using safer barriers, safer cars, personal equipment etc. NASCAR has been less than adequate in minimizing the use of a 3800 pound hunk of steel as a weapon of retribution.
An example would be pit road. Since I've seen both, I would argue that pit road is even more dangerous to personnel than a full night launch/recovery on an aircraft carrier. The latter is a coordinated, precision exercise in safety and efficiency. The former is chaos run amok. There's no need to tolerate childish behavior that puts lives at risk. Busch's "almost" hitting a crewman is not only an adverb for a close call. It's a wake up call to NASCAR. If that "almost" becomes a fatality, because NASCAR did little or nothing to control it, then NASCAR opens itself up to lawsuits and outside enforcement. They need to clamp down hard on pit road. None of their pansy fines, etc. How about a DQ and a 2 race suspension?
BTW, nice post
Posted by: Keith | Mar 22, 2008 10:38:50 AM
I suppose I'm not like a lot of sports fans in that I don't go to hockey games to see fights, I go to see the players move the puck, shoot the puck, and score goals. A good example came last night in AHL action in Worcester as the W-Sharks hosted the Bridgeport Sound Tigers; there were no fights (the closest came when the Tigers' Kip Brennen got tossed for kneecapping the W-Sharks' Riley Armstrong) but a wild finish to regulation as the Tigers scored an empty-net goal with a minute to go for a 4-2 lead, then the W-Sharks tied the game with two goals in the final twenty seconds; the Tigers won in the final minute of OT 5-4.
That was a game worth enjoying without gratuitous violence.
I go to races to see passing and sidedrafting up front; I don't go to see wrecks. My hatred of Dale Earnhardt stems from his deliberate intent to hurt other drivers in wrecks. It was true of other racers over the years like Ernie Irvan and presently Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson. Unlike some others, I'm not particularly fascinated by gratuitous violence; I'm fascinated by hard competition.
Posted by: Mike Daly | Mar 22, 2008 1:05:25 PM
WE'RE DONE AS A SOCIETY...That was my thought on the story, I literally grew up on skates! Now I don't remember when the "Occurance" was but...let's just say it was the late 80's when the Police got involed in an on Ice altercation in Toronto or Montreal...and then I thought what in theh samhell?!...Where do these people come from?! Are we gonna see Assualt Charges brought up in Heavy Weight Boxing?...In any given sport there are consequences of human emotion...It's just the way it is!
David you kmow as well as I that "Donnybrooks" could erupt at any given moment in the pits...with us it was fisticuffs...But I heard tell of tire Irons and guns as well...My track promotor put me and my advisary right NEXT to each other in the pits...so we HAVE to play nice together.
Now I don't condone a "Days of Thunder/Dale Jr Carl Edwards" typle of retalliation...When the Sanctioning Body needs to bring in local Law enforcement...It's the end of the world as we know it! (quit singing it I KNOW you are)
Posted by: Fan #5 | Mar 22, 2008 5:41:47 PM
Chief: Good observations. I'd love to have had an opportunity to witness carrier operations. The Naval aviators and flight deck crew have all my respect.
Mike: I'm sure there are plenty of hockey fans and race fans like you (and me). I think you exaggerate the menace of Earnhardt and the others. I see those guys as aggressive and ruthless, often carrying it to extremes, but their racing is comparable to a hard foul in basketball, not to a criminal offense.
#5: My thoughts exactly. My confidence in the ability of various social institutions to consistently effect meaningful change is minimal. When an intervention by a bureaucratic agency is necessary, it's probably a lost cause already.
Posted by: David Green | Mar 23, 2008 1:06:18 PM
This is a tough one. Sure, by participating you run the risk of being in a collison, but what if the collision is en route to the garage after the race? If you play baseball, you run the risk of being in a violent collision with the catcher at the plate, but what if the catcher punches you in the face as you slide? A hockey player who comes at you from behind and smashes you in the head with his stick? After the whistle blows? There's a point - very hard to define - where conduct passes beyond the outer limit of what is acceptable in a given sport and enters the realm of socially unacceptable conduct, even criminal conduct.
Take the incident last year between the 2 and 20 on pit road. I forget who came in and who was already there, but assume that the car coming in did so at 80 MPH and slammed into the sitting car without braking, and a crewmember died. Should the driver face criminal penalties?
Stuff to think about...
Posted by: Doug in CA | Mar 24, 2008 11:23:16 AM
Hi David--
I am looking to purchase one of your old Slim Jim cars, maybe the one in which you won the Busch series in 1994. I would really like to talk with you about it, but don't know how to contact you. Could you email me at: us@50stars.us
Thanks,
Dan
Posted by: Dan E | Mar 24, 2008 4:25:08 PM
Doug,
I'm with you. In sports there are inherent dangers. The governing bodies, of those sports, are tasked with controlling and limiting them. They do a decent, unenviable, job. However, once in a while, during sporting events, we have transgressions that not only violate the rules of the game, but go to the extreme and violate the law of the land. They go beyond the game.
Being a sport doesn't make you special under the law, although there are dispensations. Boxing isn't treated as an assault case; Hockey gets its fights in; Nascar has its banging and bumping. However, acts occur where a fine or suspension don't satisfy the crime. Not to pick on Busch, there's lots of fingers to point, but say he had intentionally hit Stewart, on pit road, and caused loss
of life...that goes beyond all the rules and IMO becomes criminal. Sports don't make you above the law.
Disclaimer: If the law needs to be involved to clarify rules to avoid another tragedy, that's fine with me. However, any politician jumping on a bandwagon to gain fame, or to further a political agenda, by wasting my tax dollars, on kangaroo courts, to make a name, by serving subpoenas on major stars can kiss my ass. 4000 dead in Iraq, Home foreclosures, Gas prices etc. would seem to be enough on their plates to keep them busy. But, I guess those debates don't get TV time.
Posted by: Keith | Mar 24, 2008 8:15:43 PM
Hey David,
Enjoyed your read.
Chief, you got it right.
Posted by: Larry | Mar 24, 2008 8:29:36 PM
No question, if the scenario Doug described were to transpire, there would be no choice except a criminal investigation. That's why it is so important for racers to keep a reasonable limit on their expressions of anger. They have to keep it where there is no intervention by the government.
Posted by: David Green | Mar 25, 2008 7:03:07 PM
Criminal liability isone thing, but more common are issues of civil liability. Are you liable if your golf ball hits another player? In your group? There's a suit now pending by the heirs of a guy who fell while rock climbing in Yosemite - the heirs claim that the restroom plumbing directed water into an area that weakened and eventually gave way. Do you allow that to go to trial? Or do you throw it out in advance? If I'm right, the trial judge through it out, but the appeals court revived it.
What if our NASCAR driver, instead of slamming the other car at 80, spun out in pit road and a death resulted? If he had just had an on-track run-in with the other car? If there were radio transmissions to the effect of "That SOB's gonna get it!"?
There's a lot of gray out there.
Posted by: Doug in CA | Mar 26, 2008 12:58:14 AM
Doug,
LOL, California courts piss me off. OJ getting off was wrong, even if the low speed chase was kewl, but then, how can they let the civil suit stand? They made an innocent man (cough/hack) pay money.
Spinning out on pit road has occurred and that belongs in the "Inherent danger" section.
As for radio transmissions, I'm agin 'em. Imagine how much more fun NASCAR would be w/o spotters and radios. Now, that, would be going back to NASCAR's roots.
Posted by: Keith | Mar 26, 2008 8:21:15 AM
Jim Rome is burning realy put it on Tony Stewart they call him fat, always crying and eating, and he got his back waxed, now that was funny,you will not hear this on any of these board
Posted by: larry | Mar 26, 2008 5:04:18 PM
Keith, the civil vs criminal thing is a legal distinction that I understand, even though I might not agree with it at times. I won't discuss it onlist, but would happily do so offlist.
Larry, I would expect no more of Jim Rome. Most sports people don't know NASCAR, don't follow NASCAR, don't know the drivers, don't know what they do, so I would expect Rome to ignore and/or ridicule Stewart. Too bad. Tony's a good interview and a personality an audience might like. To his credit, Dan Patrick (the anti-Rome) did interviews with both Jeff Burton and Tony Stewart and treated both as serious professionals, and it was clear that he had done at least minimal research into who these guys were, what they had done, etc. Not surprisingly, both drivers responded well.
Posted by: Doug in CA | Mar 26, 2008 5:13:23 PM
When a sanctioning body only reviews a situation starting with the retaliation, that is the problem. Do not imply that I condone people beating each other with cars or playing games on pit road. My least favorite drivers Harvick and Stewart, were involved in an altercation at Bristol and I was pleasantly supprised at their professionalism. I was racin'. Conveseley at Chicago a couple of years ago when Gordon flat out dumped Kenseth to steal the win. Kenseth was mad but did nothing and Gordons win stands. Additionally when Stewart flew accross the the track at Daytona to demolish Kenseth for getting to close to him causing him to lift. Nothing was done. In either incidence, The initial agressor was given to much latitde. Doug in Ca. you are dead on with this one. Its a slippery slope. If you swing at someone and miss but then get your ass kicked who is at fault? In my world the guy threatning someone has it comming!
Posted by: Bob | Mar 28, 2008 10:25:09 AM
Bob - great point about reviewing situations beginning with retaliation.
NFL Classics reaired the 2002 NFC Wildcard Playoff game between the NY Giants and the Forty-Niners and twice the refs called offsetting penalties on TO and Shaun Williams of the Giants. That illustrates the right way to handle such issues - go after both sides.
Posted by: Mike Daly | Apr 1, 2008 12:52:30 PM
BTW, airing the Giants' playoff meltdown was NFL Network's make-up call for reairing the Patriots' playoff meltdown @ Indianapolis in the 2006 AFC Title Game.
;-)
Posted by: Mike Daly | Apr 1, 2008 12:53:31 PM
