Turn 3

Who are those guys, really?

By DAVID GREEN

To start with, let me state that I don't know either Carl Edwards or Kyle Busch personally. I got off the Cup Series rollercoaster before either of them arrived. All I know about them is kind of like Tom Cruise's line in "Days of Thunder" revealing what the Cole Trickle character knew about stock car racing: "I've seen them on ESPN." And Fox, and Speed, and TNT, et cetera.

So, for all of us who don't hang out with Carl and Kyle on a semi-regular basis, image is all we have to go on. I have to admit, I'm a little confused by the negative reaction to Carl Edwards' image as a nice guy. For all we know, that's really who he is -- a nice guy.

OK, we know Leo Durocher wouldn't have like that (if you don't get that reference, look it up) and we know why. But why do so many others believe that Edwards' persona is a fake?

Sure, he has faults. One of them is a temper that can be just as volatile as Tony Stewart's. (Leo would have loved Stewart, and would have used him as an example to support the Durocher theory of sports success.)

Remember the Busch Series race at Michigan in 2006 when Edwards came steaming out of the pits after a tangle with Dale Earnhardt Jr. and gave Junior the mechanical equivalent of a sucker punch? Cousin Carl got a $20,000 fine and six-race probation for that one.

Remember last year at Martinsville, when Edwards had problems with his Fenway Roush teammate Matt Kenseth?

As far as I'm concerned, those and other well-publicized incidents merely demonstrate that Edwards is imperfect, not that he's posing as a nice guy and is really, underneath that Nomex and that big grin, an evil person. Until I see concrete evidence to the contrary, I'm not going to accept the "Eddie Haskell" characterization of Edwards.

Conversely, it seems pretty obvious that Kyle Busch's image is that of an arrogant punk, regardless of what he really may be. He makes me think of something my grandmother used to say: "I'd like to buy him for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth."

Kyle may have a nice side to him. He doesn't show it very often, at least not as reported by the media.

The only NASCAR legend I can think of who truly evokes a comparison with Busch is Darrell Waltrip. Over the years, the driver Cale Yarborough nicknamed "Jaws" mellowed a good bit. I'm not sure that DW's present-day image of down-home country boy is completely genuine, but he's come a long way.

As for Edwards and his supposed "image" of good guy, I recall another driver who had a big, 32-tooth smile and an "aw shucks" attitude most of the time. I've spent a few hours around him, and as far as I can tell, that's no image. It's who he really is.

In his time, he was more likely to be compared to Sheriff Andy Taylor of Mayberry than to Eddie Haskell. He had his flaws, too, and his share of run-ins on and off the track with other drivers (one of them a civilian who was driving too slowly in the left lane of Interstate 85 one evening and got bump-drafted for his sin).

I wonder what today's hard-bitten fans would think of a contemporary Richard Petty. Have things gotten so bad that we don't even want a nice person driving a racecar?

One thing that is clear to anybody who's paying attention -- both Carl and Kyle can flat-out drive.

It's almost as if we don't even care about that too much anymore.

Sensationalism sells

By DAVID GREEN

I wholeheartedly agree with Michael Waltrip when he asks, in reaction to the Clint Bowyer quote from Bristol, "Why did ESPN do that?"

MW's question is intended to be a rhetorical one, obviously, intended to provoke philosophical thought and not so much to get a literal reply. The literal, the real-world answer is, to quote troubadour Bruce Hornsby, "that's just the way it is." That's the way modern, technological journalism operates. It emphasizes the sensational, not only over the mundane, but over the less sensational.

The deeper issue is why would they select a recorded sound bite, in contrast to a spontaneous, live blurting out of an emotional reaction, which would prove to be based on an erroneous perception of something that had happened? The one is inarguably premeditated and purposeful, while the other is avoidable only by a time delay and an on-his-toes director.

It's a very good question. Why, indeed -- except to make both drivers look bad and stir controversy?

The criticism of Waltrip as "the worst driver in NASCAR" was clearly over-the-top and rooted in spontaneous anger and frustration as much as in Bowyer's honest assessment of Michael Waltrip's abilities. Not only did it besmirch a driver who has won more races than his critic (two of them fairly important events), but it made Bowyer appear to be severely lacking in grace and propriety.

Neither image is true. Waltrip is obviously not the worst driver ever to compete in NASCAR, nor is Bowyer a complete boor.

So why would a media entity want to air something such as Bowyer's comment?

Again, it was recorded, not live. ESPN knew of it only because technology permits the media to eavesdrop on private conversations.

Yes, drivers and other team members know the Fourth Estate is monitoring, and they should be well aware that whatever they say can and, without any doubt, will be used against them. But airing a monitored radio transmission from driver to crew is not the same as something a driver says when a reporter is sticking a microphone under his nose.

I would suggest Bowyer ought to be even angrier with ESPN than Waltrip is. The sound bite added nothing except sensationalism to ESPN's coverage of the event.

Bruce Hornsby was right: "That's just the way it is," indeed.

ESPN and other news managers perhaps ought to remember the next line of the famous song's lyrics -- "But don't you believe them."

Just Shut Up Kyle.......Carl Is Coming.

By Mark Young

OK, the dust has settled and I have watched the race from Bristol twice now.  I have listened to Kyle complain about how bad Carl hit him to pass for the lead.  I listened to Carl talk about how he wasn't sorry and that he would do it again.  I have heard friends and fans talk about the race and how they thought it wasn't that bad.  I have just three words to say to Kyle...JUST SHUT UP.

U WANT SOME?

The move Carl Edwards put on Kyle Bush was nothing compared to the Earnhardt vs. LaBonte or the Jeff Gordon vs. Rusty Wallace passes I have seen from Bristol in the past and they were much worse.  Kyle needs to worry a little more about the Chase and the fact that Carl Edwards is the hottest thing in NASCAR right now more than a little touch in turn one at Bristol.  Hell there wasn't any sheet metal bent during the deal until Kyle decided to get aggressive AFTER ther race.

I am not the biggest fan of wither driver so my judgement is easier to hand out than if it were any other one so don't give me crap about being biased.  In three weeks that 212 point lead will dwindle significantly and Kyle will need to worry about things.  Carl is peaking at just the right time and if you add in the fact the Jimmie is doing well as is Denny (when he isn't throwing his team under the bus), this season is far from over.

Kyle Bush needs to shut up and drive.  Drive like he has all year, dominate laps, take as many points as he can, and act like someone who wants to be a Champion.  Not someon who thinks everyone should treat him like the King.

Chase V My Yearly Diatribe

By Keith Ott 

Yes, it is that time of year where I wax poetic about the evil NASCAR event. First, in case anyone is in doubt about my position on the (ugh, and I hate to type it) Chase. I just did a quick self check, and yep, I’m against it. It’s a bad format for racing. All the reasons wherein one might need a playoff are moot, as far as racing is concerned. The Playoff will never become a must see racing event, and as far as I know, no-one ever plans a Chase party, so it’s not really much of a fan event either. 

- Who needs a playoff? : The NFL, NBA, NHL, Baseball, and the SWNVL (Swedish Women Naked Volleyball League) need playoffs because they all can’t play each other at the same time under equal conditions. A playoff equalizes those factors, and okay, the SWNVL needs a playoff because there’s nothing else to do in Sweden, and it gets lots of votes. This isn’t so in NASCAR, or racing in general. Every team plays every other team, every week.  There are no easy schedules or home team advantages. They see each other every week. They earned the spots they’re in. If you’re #12 you’re there because after 26 races that’s the effort your team put out. I don’t care if your name is Earnhardt, Allison or Petty, if you’re #12, you don’t deserve a shot at #1.

- It’s a 36 race season:  But, hey, let’s just throw away those first 26 weeks. Why do we even have a season? We know at the start of the season, or pretty much so, who the best 10 or so teams are. Why waste all that time and gas on 26 races we don’t need?  Now, it seems to me that some sort of ratio of Wins/Consistency is what NASCAR fans want for a Champion. Then why a playoff? The #24 had all that, and a huge point lead going into the Chase last year. So, and no I really don’t like him, his consistency and winning gave him about a 700 pt lead at one time, but no, not with the playoff. Inconsistent, during the early 26, JJ came on with late wins and had a solid Chase. So, Gordon’s solid 26 weeks was trumped by Johnsons late run. Of course if NASCAR hadn’t adjusted the points, the guy who earned the title would have won. Twenty-six weeks of solid racing thrown into the dumpster. A NASCAR racing Champion should be someone who has shown, throughout ALL 36 weeks, I repeat, throughout ALL 36 weeks, that he/she has been there, with the team, and they got it done with wins and consistency. A NASCAR Champion isn’t a ten week wonder, or, IMO, it shouldn’t be.

 

-   A Playoff with no consequences: Getting into the playoffs is an honor, I suppose. But, we all know that there are not 12 guys that belong there. The 12^th place guy will garner over $1million more than the 13^th placed guy, even if he squeaked into 12th by just a point. #12 can then suck butt the rest of the season and still have that cool million. That, my friend,  is pure BS. Stewart missed the playoff in 2006, raced hard, and, in real points, would have finished the season in 6^th, I believe. The very premise of a playoff involves consequences. You win or you don’t go on. If they want a playoff then they need to whittle down the opportunities, so that at the end only the best, and I’m going with 5, are there. Them thar other pretenders lose their fake NASCAR points and are thrown back into the reality shark pit with the points they actually earned.

 

- Road races in the Playoff: Sure, why not? I’m for it, with a caveat. No “Ringers.” The regular season is over and road races were a part of it. A Road course can be part of the playoffs also, but I think the drivers should have participated in at least 80% of the regular season’s races to qualify. The playoff is no time for a veteran road racer to audition for a NASCAR ride possibly at the expense of influencing a Championship. Road racers may be, okay are, excellent drivers, but this is our playoff, our championship stretch, and part timers should not be allowed.

 

- A no win Champion: While Matt may have set the bar for a consistency championship, he did have a win. If you want to see how much fans love this Chase, let a non-winner take the title. NASCAR has never had one, but the Chase makes it more likely.

 

 

NASCAR’s Chase has no business in racing. Its purpose was solely to inflate TV ratings and put more green in the wallet. Race fans aren’t stupid and NASCAR, try as it does, isn’t the WWF. Get over the State Fair/Carnival attitude, NASCAR. You’re not a Mom and Pop operation any longer, and if you continue to steer this course, pushing the sport/entertainment envelope, you will lose fans. All sports are entertainment, but all entertainments are not sports. Again, JMO, and you might have a different one. What,  and I put a few ideas in there, would you do to fix it? Then again, you might not think it’s broken. You feel free to tell me to STFU, but be ready for an answer. You all have a fine NAVY day!

Note: Tomorrow my first girl is poppin’ out my first little grandsailor/rugrat. I have to hit sporting good stores, and I have to buy masks to change diapers. Posting will be sporadic.

 

Situation ethics on the racetrack

By DAVID GREEN

Class, today's phrase for discussion is "situation ethics." You may have heard it before. It's a middle ground between an amoral, anarchistic system of no constant ethical rules or laws and a strict, "by the book" approach to regulating behavior.

Basically, it means, "Well, I don't like to do this sort of thing, but in this case, I'll make an exception." It's the end justifying the means.

It's what Carl Edwards used to explain his bump-and-run pass of Kyle Busch last night at Bristol.

Joseph Fletcher's 1966 book, "Situation Ethics: The New Morality," was both hailed as a commonsense acknowledgement that one size does not fit all in judging when behavior is right or wrong and condemned as a tool by which just about any kind of behavior can be justified. As is often the case, both arguments have merit.

Who among us, for example, has not crossed over to the left side of the road to avoid hitting a pedestrian who wasn't smart enough to get out of the way of an oncoming two-ton motor vehicle? That's a violation of a basic traffic law, but it's obviously the right thing to do -- as long as there's no oncoming car that will be menaced by your actions.

In that situation, violating the left-of-center law is clearly the defensible and right thing to do.

How difficult is it to apply that to Edwards' race-winning tactics?

As quoted in David Poole's race report:

"I couldn't get by him and I couldn't get by him," Edwards said. " ... I just kind of ran into him. ...I just had to ask myself, 'Would he do that do me?' And he has before. That's the way it goes."

Busch's sullen remarks afterward were typical of the attitude the talented young driver has exhibited many times before, but the thing is, NOBODY is ever happy after getting knocked out of the way deliberately by an opponent.

Give Busch credit. All he did was verbally pout. Contrast that to the way bump-and-run ace Jeff Gordon acted toward Matt Kenseth at this same Bristol track not so long ago when it was Gordon who was on the business end of the B&R.

Does the end justify the means? Do the situational ethical considerations ("I just had to ask myself, 'Would he do that do me?' And he has before.") make what Edwards did OK instead of wrong?

I have to admit, when I see someone who's an admitted practitioner of the B&R get dumped, it's more than a little bit satisfying. And when they rage or pout, it underscores my contention that the bump-and-run is a cheap shot, not a legitimate racing tactic.

I don't condone what Carl Edwards did. But if he's going to do it...

Magnetgate and JGR

By DAVID GREEN

How much, if any, will the Magnetgate scandal affect Joe Gibbs Racing through the remainder of the season and beyond?

Not only in terms of how the team members perform in the aftermath of the attempt to cheat the NASCAR chassis dyno, but in terms of perception of the team by competitors and fans?

Two points are in the favor of the team -- one, the team owner's own track record as a straight-up, ethical guy; and two, the team's unequivocal stance regarding the penalties. Gibbs' only complaint was that driver points were deducted.

It can be rightly pointed out that the incident involved Nationwide Series teams and components, not Sprint Cup. But anything that happens to an organization, good or bad, is likely to have wide-ranging effects throughout that organization.

Some people are going to see the chassis dyno incident as something that smears the Gibbs team and all that it has accomplished or will accomplish this season. That perception may be accurate or inaccurate; I don't pretend to know. It may be fair or unfair to people such as Kyle Busch, who has put together an amazing record of race victories and is -- or was -- quite clearly the favorite to win the Cup Series title this year.

One thing is certain -- I've been a harsh critic of NASCAR for making such big deals out of "crimes" that were largely inconsequential and very likely were accidental, not deliberate attempts to circumvent rules. However, this one is just as clearly a purposeful and meaningful offense, and a harsh penalty was most definitely warranted.

The only question about it is whether NASCAR was hard enough on the offenders. Opinions will vary, but will be largely centered on whether the individual is a fan or a critic of Joe Gibbs Racing.

Not quite so clear is the residual effect on the team. We'll have to watch and see to determine that.

Will Bristol Be Better Than Recent Races?

By Mark Young

What up my fellow blog-heads?  This weekend is generally my second favorite one of the race season.....BRISTOL!!  Just saying it reminds me of days gone by where the racing action was actually decent.  Where Earnhardt made bone-headed moves.  Where Rusty and Gordon always seemed to battle.  Recently though the night race at Bristol has, well to be honest, sucked.  Ever since the Chase there has been far too much conservatism from teams afraid to push it for the fear of falling out of the Chase.  Perhaps this weekend will be different?

U WANT SOME?

I think that with so many teams clumped together fighting for a spot in the Chase that we will see some solid racing.  Combined with the huge deficit the guys who are already assured spots are facing because of Kyle's 8 wins I think everyone is going to go out there and actually race.

I truly believe that Bristol should be one of the tracks in the Chase anyways.  Give Loudon the boot and put Bristol in there.  Make the race have even more meaning.

Regardless, I am jacked up and ready to roll on Saturday night.  What do you guys think?

This Is NASCAR's Fault

By Mark Young

In case you haven't heard, Joe Gibbs Racing got caught cheating on Saturday.  Now I know that seems odd considering the Gibbs' family background but yes it is true.  Following the Nationwide Series race at Michigan International Speedway on Saturday NASCAR grabbed 10 cars to be tested on the chassis dyno.  What happened next was completely out of character for the Gibbs organization, they got caught cheating.....but I am not putting all of the blame on them.

U WANT SOME?

Yes, they cheated.  The cars were found to have had shims placed between the gas pedal and the floor board thus limiting the potential output of the car, clearly an attempt to hide an evident advantage of horsepower.  While J.D. Gibbs has claimed to not know about this attempt to pull the wool over NASCAR's eyes, the fact of the matter is that they deceived NASCAR, and for that they should be penalized.  The reason why they deceived NASCAR is not their fault.

For years NASCAR, and racing in general, was to be the one who gets to the finish line the fastest while staying within the rules.  Toyota has found a way to create more horsepower with the engine package THAT NASCAR APPROVED!!!  Back at Indianapolis the Toyota teams were forced to put on a spacer plate between the carberateur and intake manifold to reduce the horsepower advantage they had found..........what a load of crap.

Back in the day (with the exception of the HEMI and the Super Bird that followed) NASCAR always told manufacturers that complained of an unfair playing field to "build a better mouse trap".  A perfect case was in the mid-90's when Chevrolet designed the new Monte Carlo specifically for NASCAR.  Jack Rousch and the Ford contingent screamed that it was unfair and Bill France Jr. told them to build a new car......The Frod Taurus was not the answer.

Jump ahead to 2008.  Toyota, working on and engine platform that NASCAR approved, has found more horsepower than the other manufacturers and they are being penalized.  That is complete bull-chit!!  If Toyota has found more power, the job is for Chevy, Ford, and Dodge to catch up.  Not for Pope Brian to take away the hours of hard work people have put out to be faster.  This isn't how racing should be.

Though I think what the people at Gibbs Racing did is wrong, NASCAR asked for this.  Racing should be about getting to the finish line first while staying within the rules.  Toyota and Gibbs Racing did that and will now pay the price for protecting it

Contents of the race fan's pocket

By DAVID GREEN

I guess my fellow bloggers have been as busy as I have this past week. I was thrashing through the first full week of school and working on vintage stock cars for Kentucky Vintage Racing Association's event tonight at Clayhill Motorsports in Atwood, Tenn., and didn't have much time to check the Internet. Now that I'm taking time, it looks like I didn't miss all that much, at least not in Turn 3.

Maybe that helps explain sagging television ratings and attendance for NASCAR Sprint Cup Series races. Everybody is too busy.

My sophomores read Jack Finney's short story "Contents of the Dead Man's Pocket" this week. It's a tale about a young man's realization that he has been focusing too much on work and has neglected other things in his life that are important to him. We discussed in class how it's not easy to balance and find time for the things in life that you want to do, need to do, have to do.

But I don't think "we're too busy" is the full explanation for NASCAR's dilemma. 

I think part of it is overexposure. There's just an incredible volume of NASCAR, and I don't mean the kind that's measured in decibels. Everything from the number of races to the duration of the season to the variety of television and radio programs dedicated to the subject to the burgeoning stadiums where the races are staged is full tilt overload.

There's no respite, no moderation. Add more races. Raise the prize money. Raise the (supposed) value of sponsorship. Create reality shows (an oxymoron, by the way), game shows and all sorts of magazine-type programming. Build bigger grandstands. Televise practice and qualifying. More more more more more more more more more more more.

Ironically, the series of "NASCAR -- how bad have you got it?" commercials may have evoked a negative response in some fans. Like the protagonist of "Contents of the Dead Man's Pocket," they may have been moved to adjust the priorities in their lives.

Part of the slump is very likely the inevitable consequence of the number of trend-chasing bandwagon jumpers who became Cup fans during the sport's big growth surge just before the turn of the century. They had no long-standing interest in the sport, no grassroots connection to it, no history of seeing local competitors make it to the big leagues.

They got their fill, grew tired of this toy, and moved on to the next big thing.

Along the way, those fair-weather fans -- and NASCAR's pandering to them -- chased away a good many of the ones who had a deeper interest in the sport. They weren't vested in the same sense as the investor (or, to use the current buzz word, "stakeholder"); they had invested their hearts and souls.

Some of the veterans who weren't offended so much by the new fans as by the inconvenience their vast numbers created turned back to the local tracks. Some just turned away.

As in every other discussion about this sport, there's an Earnhardt factor here, too. Feb. 18, 2001, was a landmark moment for many fans. This is a guess, not a report of scientific research, but I'd bet that a fairly significant number of race fans lost interest in the sport when Dale Earnhardt died. Likely, we won't hear from any of them in this blog, because they're not reading such things anymore.

All those factors, I think, have contributed to the numbers of empty seats and televisions switched to other channels.

It doesn't mean the end of the sport as we know it. Maybe it just means the sport never was really quite as big as we fancied it to be.

The value of sponsorship

By DAVID GREEN

Those of us old enough to remember the classic "Hee Haw" program probably recall the skit where the quartet of ladies sang, "You'll never hear one of us repeating gossip, so you better be sure and listen close the first time."

Gossip, I suspect, is one of the most popular activities among human beings, even those who look down on it. Sometimes we even attempt to euphemize it by saying, "I don't mean to gossip, I'm just commenting about him (or her)." It's particularly rampant in activities in which people tend to be hyper-interested -- such as racing.

I heard the other day from a source about three or four people removed from the supposed observation that there's some dissatisfaction among NAPA store owners about the auto part corporation's NASCAR sponsorship program. The grumpiness is over two issues -- revenues (supposedly the stores are going to pay a little more to support it in the next-generation contract) and Michael Waltrip.

I have no idea about the specific accuracy of any of that information, and don't really have a great deal of curiosity about it, but it did get me to thinking (no small accomplishment) about the matter of sponsorships in auto racing.

My first attempts to get local sponsorship for my own dirt-track racing efforts were often met with concerns that, "If my name is on your car and it comes off the trailer and hits somebody, they'll sue me." This, long before the litigation plague reached today's pandemic proportions. I'm no lawyer , but I believe they were confusing sponsorship with ownership. I could be wrong about that (help me out here, Doug in CA).

Anyway, nowadays big corporations, fortified with lawyers of their own and apparently unafraid of getting sued, spend huge amounts of money to market their products by putting their brands on racecars and the big tractor-trailer rigs that haul them around the country. I think it's pretty well established that there is some value in doing that.

Just how much, is the question.

And just how important is it that the car and driver have competitive success? No offense to Michael Waltrip and his fans, but MW has not had a whole lot of that, as measured by race victories and championship titles.

He's a great, glib salesman, and it isn't as if he can't drive at all. He has won a couple of Daytona 500s, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

This is no new debate. As recently as -- oh, whenever corporate sponsors began to plow big money into the sport -- there have been snide suggestions ("gossip," let's call it) that "so-and-so got his ride because of his good looks, not because he can drive well."

Of course, that has been carried to new levels as drivers from the distaff side have begun to compete (see "Patrick, Danica" for the latest argument on this note).

I'd offer a summation of this, but to be honest I'm not sure how I feel about it. So, I'll sit back and listen to the comments y'all may have to offer.