number 8's fine

[bubbles]

from NOL:

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- NASCAR officials announced that Tony Eury Sr., crew chief of the No. 8 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, received a $25,000 fine for a rule violation found during an inspection following Sunday's EA Sports 500 at Talladega (Ala.) Superspeedway.

Eury Sr. was penalized under Section 12-4-T in the 2001 NASCAR Winston Cup Series rule book, "Any car that is found to be under the specified height requirement after the completion… of the race."

The minimum height requirement is 51 inches -- the No. 8 car was 1/8 of an inch under this requirement.

note: this was the same fine Mayfield's crew chief got for the same infraction before, so at least Nascar is consistent!

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: bubbles ]

[DaveL]

When I tell others who are not fans that NASCAR has let, and continues to let, wins by illegal cars stand in the books, the response I get every single time is, "You've gotta be kidding!"

Even a non-racing fan has the common sense to know that a participant should be disqualified if it broke the rules to win.

If the sponsor is willing to pay the fine, what reason would there be to follow the rules if the win stands and the driver keeps his points?

[Racewriter]

The only thing that amazes me is that we haven't seen some examples of really BIG cheating, such as a too-large engine. Why not? If you keep the win, and the sponsor gets the publicity, who gives a rat's butt about a fine?

[DaveL]

Originally posted by Racewriter:
The only thing that amazes me is that we haven't seen some examples of really BIG cheating, such as a too-large engine.

Been there. Done that. Richard Petty in 1983.

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: DaveL ]

[Lee Roy]

NASCAR could have gone a long way to silencing critics today by docking Earnhardt, Jr. a lap. They let a golden opportunity go by.

[DaveL]

Originally posted by Lee Roy:
NASCAR could have gone a long way to silencing critics today by docking Earnhardt, Jr. a lap. They let a golden opportunity go by.

Lee Roy, with all due respect, if an illegal car participates in a race, should that car not be disqualified?

Letting an illegal car win, and therefore cheaters win, is an affront to organized sports. I resented it in 1983 when Petty was allowed to win, and I resent it now. It is a disgrace.

No other racing series in existance, or professional sports organization for that matter, would allow a cheater to win. Earnhardt is a member of the team. The team cheated. Earnhardt should be disqualified along with the team.

Period.

[IndyIRLman]

I cannot figure out why they would let him keep the win. Isn't this just saying to everyone it is o.k. to cheat. Jr. won a million bucks, he can pay the fine, with plenty to spare.

[Lucky161]

Dave, I too resented it when Petty was allowed to keep his win. I also was very disappointed that he left his own brother out on a limb to take the blame for the big motor. OK, maybe he didn't know the motor was too big, but every driver interviewed said there was NO way he could not have known that he had left side tires on the right side, giving him a huge advantage.

[dog-ring]

Follow the rules or get disqualified. Period. Of course it ain't cheatin unless you get caught!

[Lee Roy]

Originally posted by DaveL:
<STRONG>

Lee Roy, with all due respect, if an illegal car participates in a race, should that car not be disqualified?

Period.</STRONG>

Like CART disqualified all of those cars running illegal motors?

[DaveL]

Originally posted by Lee Roy:
Like CART disqualified all of those cars running illegal motors?

That would be when, Lee Roy?

And yes, CART has dq'd cars that failed post race tech. Why you have to make this into a CART/NASCAR pissing contest is beyond me.

Please present a decent argument that justifies letting an illegal car keep a win and not be disqualified like it would in any other series rather than deflect the thread to another topic.

[nitrofan]

well what's the big deal about a 1/4 of an inch what durn difrence could that make?

and pete rose shouldn't be in the hall of fame either. so there.

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by IndyIRLman:
<STRONG>I cannot figure out why they would let him keep the win. Isn't this just saying to everyone it is o.k. to cheat. Jr. won a million bucks, he can pay the fine, with plenty to spare.</STRONG>

The same reason why FIA backed down on their disqualificaiton of Ferrari a couple of years ago for an illegal barge board that was supposedly 5mm out of spec. At the end of the day, the infraction wasn't that big of a deal. Shock wear from the bumpiness of the Daytona track could have caused the ride height to lower. And beside, they don't cut your hand off for stealing a pen from the bank do they?

[Lee Roy]

Thanks Joe Fan, my sentiments exactly. Dave L, please see above.

To further explain the posistion (well my rationalization anyway), the car passed pre-race inspection. I'm sure that NASCAR probably inspected the car after it failed post-race inspection to see if there were any illegal "lowering" devices or tricks pieces on the car. If they found none, then it must be due to the wear or forces exerted during the race. I might have done more to them if I were NASCAR, but then I'm not.

DaveL, the illegal engines I'm referring to were the ones CART decided to negate with the pop-off valve spacer. If they were all legal, the spacer would not have been necessary.

[DaveL]

Originally posted by Lee Roy:
DaveL, the illegal engines I'm referring to were the ones CART decided to negate with the pop-off valve spacer. If they were all legal, the spacer would not have been necessary.

The spacer controversy was born out of the mfgs skirting the rule book by doing things that the rule book did not address. It was not illegal because no specific rule was broken, but it couldn't be said that it was legal because the rule book made no provision for it.

Now, if a team was running an engine that displaced 2.85L, or was running 45" of boost straight up, that would be illegal and the car would be disqualified from the race and the result erased from the record book. By the same token, if an IRL team ran a 4.0L engine instead of the 3.5L, it too would be disqualified. But when Richard Petty runs an engine several cubic inches over the limit, or when an Earhnhardt has bodywork that is too low the win stands, the driver gets the points, and crew chief gets a fine that is pocket change to a team spending $15 million a season.

As for the wear and tear during the race, if Earnhardt's roof was lowered by an eigth of an inch, which is not a small amount when you consider the speeds and the potential drag reduction, it would stand to reason that many other cars would suffer the same effect. If it is common for the forces during the race to have that effect on a car, NASCAR's rule book should have an accomidation for it. But as far as I know there is no accomidation. The roof was too low. The car was illegal. Any other series disqualifies illegal cars.

[Lee Roy]

Originally posted by DaveL:
<STRONG>

The spacer controversy was born out of the mfgs skirting the rule book by doing things that the rule book did not address. It was not illegal because no specific rule was broken, but it couldn't be said that it was legal because the rule book made no provision for it.</STRONG>

I've seen knowledgable [sp] people on forums say otherwise. But I'm no expert in that area.

<STRONG>Now, if a team was running an engine that displaced 2.85L, or was running 45" of boost straight up, that would be illegal and the car would be disqualified from the race and the result erased from the record book. By the same token, if an IRL team ran a 4.0L engine instead of the 3.5L, it too would be disqualified. But when Richard Petty runs an engine several cubic inches over the limit, or when an Earhnhardt has bodywork that is too low the win stands, the driver gets the points, and crew chief gets a fine that is pocket change to a team spending $15 million a season.

As for the wear and tear during the race, if Earnhardt's roof was lowered by an eigth of an inch, which is not a small amount when you consider the speeds and the potential drag reduction, it would stand to reason that many other cars would suffer the same effect. If it is common for the forces during the race to have that effect on a car, NASCAR's rule book should have an accomidation for it. But as far as I know there is no accomidation. The roof was too low. The car was illegal. Any other series disqualifies illegal cars.</STRONG>

I know Dave, for some unknown reason you want a version of harsh Sharia law for NASCAR, and the convienient dodge of rule book ambiguities for other series.

As for an unfortunate incident that happened 18 years ago, sometime, you've just got to let it go Dave.

[DaveL]

Originally posted by Lee Roy:
I know Dave, for some unknown reason you want a version of harsh Sharia law for NASCAR, and the convienient dodge of rule book ambiguities for other series.

No Lee Roy, I would like it if NASCAR acted like any other sports organization. Any other sports organization disqualifies teams that break the rules. College and high school sports teams forfeit games when ineligible players are used. Pitchers are ejected from baseball games for doctoring baseballs and hitters are declared out and the result of the at bat nullified for using illegal bats. In every form of auto racing, illegal cars are disqualified from competition if the there is no ambiguity in the nature of the infraction (like a low roof or oversized engine). Wanting NASCAR to function like any other sport on the planet is not asking much.

As for an unfortunate incident that happened 18 years ago, sometime, you've just got to let it go Dave.

That would be easier to do if NASCAR started to disqualify cheaters, but they don't. Nothing has changed in those 18 years. Cheaters still get to keep wins so 1983 doesn't seem like it's really that long ago. If we were talking about a bygone era where illegal cars were allowed to keep their results but no longer are today, that would be one thing. But we aren't.

The day NASCAR announces that a car has been disqualfied for rules infractions is the day I, and the others who share the same opinion as me, will shut up about it. But as long as NASCAR still allows illegal cars to win it will remain a disgrace.

[StatMan]

I've usually (but by no means always) supported NASCAR, and I am a big Dale Jr fan, but I've got to side with the basic point of DaveL's argument. In virtually every other sport, an entire team can suffer disqualification for the actions of one member. If an ineligible player plays 5 minutes of basketball game in which his team wins by 20, they'll probably automatically forfeit. Andreaa Raaducin (sp) in the most recents Summer Olympics, got disqualified for an illegal substance. It wasn't even her fault, it was some minor ingredient in a cold medicine her trainer gave here, but she was d.q.'ed nonetheless. NASCAR has got to be stricter about this kind of stuff.

-StatMan

[Lee Roy]

>>>>No Lee Roy, I would like it if NASCAR acted like any other sports organization.<<<<

Well then, I recommend they develop a rule book as ambiguous as CART's. A rule book that the competitors refer to as the "grey book". That would make life much simpler.

[mnkywrch]

I was just curious as to why NASCAR didn't take Earnhardt's car to the chassis dyno they had on site.

Seeing as how, you know, IT WON THE RACE.

NASCAR has plenty of opportunities to at least look competent from a rules perspective. It's their failure to do so that makes one shake their head.

They won't put a car a lot of people have doubts about on the chassis dyno when it's REAL EASY for them to do so, but they put a PVC gate up so winning drivers can't climb on the roof.

[DaveL]

Originally posted by Lee Roy:
Well then, I recommend they develop a rule book as ambiguous as CART's. A rule book that the competitors refer to as the "grey book". That would make life much simpler.

Again you resort to attacking one series rather than try to write a decent defense of another. Justifying NASCAR's allowance of illegal cars winning by stating that CART's rule book has ambiguity hardly buttresses your point.

Tell us Lee Roy, what message does NASCAR send to its younger fans by letting cheaters win? Is having a fan "know who won when they leave the track on Sunday" (per Mr. Hunter) more important than saying that one must play by the rules and win fair and square?

I would love to hear the conversation between a young fan and his parent. I don't know if you have young kids, but if so, how would you explain to young boy who is big NASCAR fan that it is important to always play by the rules and never cheat to win? At least those were the values I was always taught.

[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: DaveL ]

[Grover]

When I was a little kid I watched pro "Rasslin'" (Dick the Bruiser, Bobo Brazil, etc.). When the "Bad guys" would cheat and win, it frustrated me, "How can the official not see he's cheating..."

Eventually, I figured out it was just a scripted show and the "competition" was fake. I also stopped watching...

I try to believe that Penske, Foyt, Ganassi, Gibbs, etc. wouldn't participate in a race where others were given an unfair advantage, but when the officials even admit that they DO see the cheating and refuse to act, it becomes harder and harder for me to keep watching this as a legitimate sport.

And when a "Northerner/Yankee/New Bad Guy in Town" like Stewart gets penalized 20 positions for being forced under a yellow line to avoid "the big one", I don't think it would be too much to ask that a "Good ole boy" receives some sort of punishment/penalty for cheating (especially after getting caught) instead of this silly slap on the wrist.

[Lee Roy]

First, DaveL, I should appologize. I lurk over at 7th Gear sometimes and I see the hateful things you say about NASCAR and it's fans, and then come over here for a "discussion". But I should take you at face here, and not cloud my judgement with pre-conceptions. I appologize.

Second. What would I say to a child about cheating? First, if I were Osama Ben Lauden, I would speak to him about Sharia law and how anyone who is caught doing something that I see as wrong, then he should be dealt with in the harshest way.

But, I am me. I would tell him that he should use judgement in deteminging violations, and he should look into someones heart to see if that person had broken an infraction of a rule through some kind of oversight, or did he do it on purpose.

I would use the example of the baseball player who had pine tar (or whatever the substance was) more that 12 inches down his bat. Now was that a significant enough infraction to alter the outcome of a baseball game? Hey, the proof of that is how the opposing manager used the infraction. If it was causing him to lose the game, he would have said something immediately, but he waited until he could cause trouble with it. But that's just me.

What would I tell him the just thing would be to do in the Earnhardt, Jr. incident? First, since the car did pass pre-race inspection, I check to see if there were somekind of an illegal device to lower the car. If that was not found, I would take 12 to 15 cars that finished undamaged and measure them to see if excessive "wear" caused any, and how many, to also be too low. If I found that this happened to others, then that would pretty much indicate that there was no intent for cheating on Earnhardt's part, and that the cars that were chasing him, were also "illegal".

If I didn't find any other cars that suffered from this malady, then I would have to presume that it was a problem with the preparation of the car, and would lower the boom on the team. In other words this at least would show shoddy preparation, and at worst, an outright intent to cheat. And the penalty that I gave them would range from a lap penalty in scoring to outright disqualification.

Also, I would look to see if this is a consistent problem. Do teams regularly have this happen? Or is it a fluke? If it is a consistent problem, then I'm going to lower the boom on the whole bunch of them until I get things back under control. The example of the drug testing that someone used above is a good example. It is also an example of how over-zealousness can almost ruin a sport.

I can see the point of the people who want swift and sure punishment for any infraction. But again, I'm a little different.

[DaveL]

Originally posted by Lee Roy:
First, DaveL, I should appologize. I lurk over at 7th Gear sometimes and I see the hateful things you say about NASCAR and it's fans, and then come over here for a "discussion".

Everything I have said on this topic at 7g has been posted here and visa versa. I called this a disgrace at 7g and I'm saying the same thing here. And if you can refer me to a post in which I say "hateful" things about NASCAR fans I would like to read it.

But, I am me. I would tell him that he should use judgement in deteminging violations, and he should look into someones heart to see if that person had broken an infraction of a rule through some kind of oversight, or did he do it on purpose.

And then you can explain why it was alright for Dale Earnhardt to intentionally send Labonte into the wall at Bristol and not be penalized when Nadeau was penalized in the same race for a bump that Jarrett said was his fault alone, and not Nadeau's. You can also explain why Stewart was docked 20 positions at Daytona for trying to avoid a huge accident with no intent on violating the yellow line rule in either the letter or intent.

I would use the example of the baseball player who had pine tar (or whatever the substance was) more that 12 inches down his bat.

The rule is 18", but ok, I'll let you make your point.

Now was that a significant enough infraction to alter the outcome of a baseball game? Hey, the proof of that is how the opposing manager used the infraction. If it was causing him to lose the game, he would have said something immediately, but he waited until he could cause trouble with it. But that's just me.

I refer you to the "pine tar" game in which George Brett hit a game winning home run and was ruled out because the tar went too far up the bat. The Commissioner overruled the umps and let the home run stand the game was continued from that point on. While the rule was broken, it in no way impacted the game and the infraction was not due to malicious intent on Brett's part.

If that was not found, I would take 12 to 15 cars that finished undamaged and measure them to see if excessive "wear" caused any, and how many, to also be too low. If I found that this happened to others, then that would pretty much indicate that there was no intent for cheating on Earnhardt's part, and that the cars that were chasing him, were also "illegal".

Fair enough, but we can assume that NASCAR does post race inspections on the all of the top finishers and no one else was sited for being too low. If other teams can prepare cars that remain as legal after ther race as they were prior, then DEI should as well.

If I didn't find any other cars that suffered from this malady, then I would have to presume that it was a problem with the preparation of the car, and would lower the boom on the team. In other words this at least would show shoddy preparation, and at worst, an outright intent to cheat. And the penalty that I gave them would range from a lap penalty in scoring to outright disqualification.

So in other words, you would have more integrity in regards to the rules than NASCAR does. Given that, I would hope that you would tell a young fan that what DEI did was wrong, and that NASCAR was wrong for not penalizing the team to the extent that the win was taken away. I've known you on these forums since 1996 and I'm sure that's what you'd say. Why you are taking such a circuitious route to get that point I don't know.

Also, I would look to see if this is a consistent problem. Do teams regularly have this happen? Or is it a fluke?

Given how many years and races NASCAR has run at Dega, I would think they'd have enough data to indicate if this is a fluke or not. If it is a regular issue due to natural wear on the bodywork over 500 miles, they'd have known about that years ago and make accomidations in the rules. For instance, they could specify that the roofline cannot drop below a certain point from where it was prior to the race. But near as I can tell, the roof height rule has no such accomidation that anyone knows about. And the height of the car makes a huge difference at high speeds. That's a lot of drag you're taking away by lowering the roof.

All you've done in your post is say that you'd exercize far more judgement and fairness than NASCAR does which is a critique of NASCAR. But you are quick to defend at any cost and only when pressed up against a wall do you finally admit that NASCAR does not handle things the best way, to put it mildly. If you'd just come out and say why NASCAR is wrong in the first place your level of credibility as an objective poster would not be dragged down to NASCAR's level as an objective sanctioning organization.

[Lee Roy]

Just because I don't agree with someone on things has no effin' impact on my credibility.

[dog-ring]

Keep it civil boys.

[DaveL]

Originally posted by Lee Roy:
Just because I don't agree with someone on things has no effin' impact on my credibility.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with what I wrote but why let that get in the way of a good tirade?

When Castroneves didn't get penalized for what he did in pit lane to Tracy I said it was bull. He should have been at least docked a lap, or disqualified if he clearly intended to take him out. CART blew the call and I said so. See, I can say that because I can call a spade a spade and not try to defend the indefensible. You defend NASCAR first and foremost no matter how legitimate the critique is, and only admit that NASCAR isn't right when left with no other logical alternative. That has nothing to do with credibility based on whether or not you agree with someone.

[Lee Roy]

Originally posted by DaveL:
<STRONG>

You defend NASCAR first and foremost no matter how legitimate the critique is, and only admit that NASCAR isn't right when left with no other logical alternative. That has nothing to do with credibility based on whether or not you agree with someone.</STRONG>

No. I think I was pretty consistent in my argument. My whole argument is that this issue isn't compltetly black and white (at least to me). As I went along I further defined my argument, and pointed out where my judgement on the issue might result in a difference in the severity of the punishment from NASCAR's.

Not all things are defined by absolutes (at least to me).

That's my last on this subject. Enjoy your day.

[Joe Fan]

DaveL,

As I stated earlier, the problem with Earnhardt's car was more than likely shock wear as Daytona has quite a few bumps and imperfections. This explains why the car passed the pre-race inspection and not the post-race one. I think a car that sat higher would punch a bigger hole in the air and would be more beneficial for the car that leads the draft in a restrictor-plate race. A lower roof line benefits the draftees. This is one of the reasons why Ford wanted a lower roofline with the Thunderbird about five years ago because the car qualified great and was good out front but didn't draft behind the Monte Carlos who had a lower roof line.

At any rate, I wouldn't think 1/8th an inch would make a great difference either way. Sterling Marlin said in the post-race interviews that you can take a junk car and run well at the plate races. With that in mind, if you were going to cheat, you would cheat where it is less visible. I also doubt that anyone would cheat in such an easy way to get caught with a million dollars on the line. Ride height and engne teardowns are always done of the first few finishers. And there are always members of other teams viewing the teardowns.

[Lucky161]

JoeFan
It shouldn't matter if the shocks were completely worn out or even removed. Shocks don't hold the car up. And even if that was true, 42 other cars were legal and have a legitimate beef.
It seems to me that nascar is of the opinion that "we made dumb move before, but we have to be consistent and continue making the same dumb move over and over."
It wasn't right with Petty and Allison and it's still not right. Fans, competitors and sponsors have the right to know that the people they are racing against are following the rules and will not be rewarded for breaking them.
If you have found examples where other series or sports have not enforced their rules, it doesn't mean that it is right, just not unheard of.