Jump to content


Photo

Pat Flaherty race ban


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 7,813 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 May 2015 - 12:57

In the German wikipedia I've read that Pat Flaherty was banned for racing for two years by AAA after an argument. Are there any details about that?



Advertisement

#2 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,124 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 03 May 2015 - 15:55

No big deal: in the fall of 1950, Flaherty competed in several hot-rod and (modified) stock car races for an "outlaw" organisation - I'm pretty sure it was the Granatelli's "Hurricane Racing Association" (or similar), but others may be more competent to answer that. At the time, AAA protected its turf and promoters by banning drivers who competed for rival clubs. The ban could be easily overridden by the paying of a fine, which was usually scaled according to the (monetary) success of the respective driver, i.e. if the driver was doing well, he was going to have to pay more than if he wasn't. Flaherty won his fair share of outlaw races, and since he hadn't been doing particularly well in AAA, hopping from ride to ride, he chose not to pay the fine, and continue with the independent club until he found a steady Sprint car ride again in 1953. Jim Rathmann, for example, did exactly the same, except for returning in 1952 already.

#3 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 03 May 2015 - 17:57

No big deal: in the fall of 1950, Flaherty competed in several hot-rod and (modified) stock car races for an "outlaw" organisation - I'm pretty sure it was the Granatelli's "Hurricane Racing Association" (or similar), but others may be more competent to answer that. At the time, AAA protected its turf and promoters by banning drivers who competed for rival clubs. The ban could be easily overridden by the paying of a fine, which was usually scaled according to the (monetary) success of the respective driver, i.e. if the driver was doing well, he was going to have to pay more than if he wasn't. Flaherty won his fair share of outlaw races, and since he hadn't been doing particularly well in AAA, hopping from ride to ride, he chose not to pay the fine, and continue with the independent club until he found a steady Sprint car ride again in 1953. Jim Rathmann, for example, did exactly the same, except for returning in 1952 already.

 

 

Michael,

 

 

Maybe you can some share some light on this.

 

I know of more drivers who were fined/banned for drinving outside AAA sanction.  (Bill Holland being another prominent name)

But I have always wondered and never found answers for it: But what were the reasons foor AAA to come down so hard on drivers who had gone outside AAA? Do you or nyone else know a little more on that?

I can only think about AAA loosing income related with providing driver's licences etc and for which they were obliged to pay a percentage of the prize money they won.

 

Thanks to you or anyone else who can fill me in on this.

 

Henri



#4 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 7,813 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 04 May 2015 - 07:43

I'm also very thankful to Michael!



#5 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,124 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 04 May 2015 - 18:17

The Contest Board of the AAA was a non-profit organisation, so monetary considerations did not enter the equation - at least not AAA's money, that is! Essentially, it was a matter of keeping race promoters happy (and loyal!). As of today, and even back in the fifties, it may seem like an anachronism, but you have to look at it historically: when the AAA started out in the business of race sanctioning, it was basically a rock in a stormy sea - in the first decade of the 20th century, (dirt) track racing was in constant danger of becoming a part of the entertainment business, much like professional wrestling (the type of which they show on late night TV). The "mission" of both the Contest Board and its mother organisation was to serve the "motorist", i.e. the emerging type of "ordinary" day-by-day driver, and with regard to racing that meant to further the development of the engineering standards, hence it was paramount to establish rules for the manufacturers (and for the competitors to further safety).

Unlike Europe, where races were usually organised by local clubs (for the good of the "cause"), in America it was soon becoming a profitable business for on-the-fly entrepreneurs, who couldn't care less about AAA's principles - good ole' hippodroming made for better gates without much hassle. And so it was necessary for the AAA to throw in a boon for its own promoters, and that was the "name driver". Basically, drivers could only become nationally known by competing in the big AAA events, and by preventing those name drivers from competing in non-AAA events, the promoters of smaller AAA track events had a big advantage over the independents, enticing them to tow the AAA party line.

Until this policy became a victim of right-to-work legislations in the seventies, it experienced many ups and downs, which would certainly make for a fascinating read - alas, researching it is much like going through a stack of hay in the hope of finding gold dust! Most "historians" (i.e. journalists who write about history) take the easy way out and condemn the "dictatorial practice" (as an aside, I once even read a book which went as far as calling it "AAA Nazi politics"!!), but I personally much prefer this somewhat hard-handed approach over today's "show-up" or "appearance points", which serve the same objective and make most US championships a farce these days.

#6 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 May 2015 - 18:29

Michael,

 

Thank you very much.

 

Henri



#7 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Administrator

  • 41,742 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 04 May 2015 - 19:06

Searching for individual promoters or local sanctioning boards - and even for NASCAR - in the entertainment magazine Billboard (available through Google Books - use the magazine search option and specify Billboard in the title field) can sometimes throw up some interesting stuff regarding the way racing was sold as a package around state and county fairs.



#8 Jim Thurman

Jim Thurman
  • Member

  • 7,199 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 06 May 2015 - 16:43

Well, what Michael presents is one side or one way of looking at it. I can perfectly understand sanctioning bodies doing this and taking action against drivers participating in unsanctioned events taking place on the same day (or even same weekend) as a sanctioned event to protect promoters from advertising drivers that might not (or would not) appear. But, that isn't how they enforced it. They would threaten drivers with lengthy suspensions (even "lifetime bans") if they participated in races with other sanctioning bodies months after the season ended! That sort of action seemed more punitive and more about control than "protecting promoters" by the 1950s, let alone the 60s and early 70s. Perhaps not Nazi-like, but far closer to that than allowing someone to make a living or giving them freedom of choice.

 

It reached the height of absurdity at a 1963 Riverside NASCAR race when several drivers were threatened with bans by USAC after they'd qualified, despite no conflicting USAC Championship race. All of them stepped out of their cars aside from Paul Goldsmith, who filed a lawsuit that helped change things. By that point, it was ridiculous, but that sort of strong arming still continued. Peter Revson was banned by USAC from competing in the 1968 Indianapolis 500 because he participated in a sports car race on the same day as a Championship race. At least that was a same day situation. Echoing the 1963 Riverside race, USAC again threatened its' Championship drivers away from competing in a 1971 NASCAR race at Texas World Speedway after they'd qualified.

 

NASCAR was guilty of the same thing, particularly in the 1950s with Marshall Teague and Ray Duhigg being just a couple that ran afoul. But, that probably doesn't matter to Michael, since that involves "taxicabs"  ;)



#9 Tom Glowacki

Tom Glowacki
  • Member

  • 522 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 06 May 2015 - 17:31

Well, what Michael presents is one side or one way of looking at it. I can perfectly understand sanctioning bodies doing this and taking action against drivers participating in unsanctioned events taking place on the same day (or even same weekend) as a sanctioned event to protect promoters from advertising drivers that might not (or would not) appear. But, that isn't how they enforced it. They would threaten drivers with lengthy suspensions (even "lifetime bans") if they participated in races with other sanctioning bodies months after the season ended! That sort of action seemed more punitive and more about control than "protecting promoters" by the 1950s, let alone the 60s and early 70s. Perhaps not Nazi-like, but far closer to that than allowing someone to make a living or giving them freedom of choice.

 

It reached the height of absurdity at a 1963 Riverside NASCAR race when several drivers were threatened with bans by USAC after they'd qualified, despite no conflicting USAC Championship race. All of them stepped out of their cars aside from Paul Goldsmith, who filed a lawsuit that helped change things. By that point, it was ridiculous, but that sort of strong arming still continued. Peter Revson was banned by USAC from competing in the 1968 Indianapolis 500 because he participated in a sports car race on the same day as a Championship race. At least that was a same day situation. Echoing the 1963 Riverside race, USAC again threatened its' Championship drivers away from competing in a 1971 NASCAR race at Texas World Speedway after they'd qualified.

 

NASCAR was guilty of the same thing, particularly in the 1950s with Marshall Teague and Ray Duhigg being just a couple that ran afoul. But, that probably doesn't matter to Michael, since that involves "taxicabs"  ;)

That is similar to what all major professional sports were doing back then.  No free agency in the NFL, the NBA, or major league baseball.  Once a team had the rights to a player, the player was owned lock, stock, and barrel by the team and either played for the team or did not play at all.



#10 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,124 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 07 May 2015 - 13:40

Oh, taxi cabs matter to me, too, even though I hate watching them race. You're right, NASCAR was as bad as USAC in this, and so was the IMCA. Generally, the bigger a club the more restrictive it was - must be something to it, then, no? But even the small clubs could do it, take the Central Pennsylvania Racing Association in 1936, in only its second year of existence as a local club of not-even-statewide relevance: Ted Nyquist took the points title with a couple of races still to go, then took a shot at AAA and was promptly disqualified and stripped of his title!

Most fans only see through the eyes of the drivers, very few are able to understand owner's actions. But when it comes to the politics of sanctioning bodies, most everybody just blanks out. America was (and still is) a very competitive market for clubs, and for every successful organisation that survives five years or more, there are dozens that don't. It's not as dramatic as drivers trying to make a living, but hey, how many drivers actually starve because of having no opportunity to race? And by the way, I'm still waiting for even one example of a "lifetime ban", that just didn't happen. People hear "banned indefintely" and come to false conclusions, that's all. In reality, things were usually dealt with in a very relaxed and adult manner. From what I can see, AAA fines were never paid in full, they were mostly just a deterrent. And indefinite bans could always be overridden, other bans with a fixed time span were pretty rare.

And don't think people were stupid in the past: USAC tried an open policy in 1956, and quickly regretted it after looking at empty schedules for 1957. History is full of successful and unsuccessful experiments: there were local rules, affiliations, temporary permits and so on and so on. Like I said, it would make for a fascinating read but details are scarce, and interest of readers (other than the usual myths) non-existant.

#11 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 3,003 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 12 May 2015 - 15:10

If you want to see how bad it got look up Curtis Turner and NASCAR.


Edited by Bob Riebe, 12 May 2015 - 15:10.


#12 Jim Thurman

Jim Thurman
  • Member

  • 7,199 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 12 May 2015 - 15:57

That is similar to what all major professional sports were doing back then.  No free agency in the NFL, the NBA, or major league baseball.  Once a team had the rights to a player, the player was owned lock, stock, and barrel by the team and either played for the team or did not play at all.

 

That's a great point and in some regards motorsports wound up slightly ahead of the other pro sports in the states thanks to Paul Goldsmith's lawsuit over the Riverside incident. But, if "taxicabs" can make Michael's eyes glaze over, you should see what happens when ball sports come up :D (even though there are parallels, like the unwritten rule not allowing black participants)  As a related aside, I refer to Paul Goldsmith as "The Curt Flood of Motorsports"


Edited by Jim Thurman, 12 May 2015 - 16:07.


#13 Jim Thurman

Jim Thurman
  • Member

  • 7,199 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 12 May 2015 - 16:06

Oh, taxi cabs matter to me, too, even though I hate watching them race. You're right, NASCAR was as bad as USAC in this, and so was the IMCA. Generally, the bigger a club the more restrictive it was - must be something to it, then, no? But even the small clubs could do it, take the Central Pennsylvania Racing Association in 1936, in only its second year of existence as a local club of not-even-statewide relevance: Ted Nyquist took the points title with a couple of races still to go, then took a shot at AAA and was promptly disqualified and stripped of his title!

Most fans only see through the eyes of the drivers, very few are able to understand owner's actions. But when it comes to the politics of sanctioning bodies, most everybody just blanks out. America was (and still is) a very competitive market for clubs, and for every successful organisation that survives five years or more, there are dozens that don't. It's not as dramatic as drivers trying to make a living, but hey, how many drivers actually starve because of having no opportunity to race? And by the way, I'm still waiting for even one example of a "lifetime ban", that just didn't happen. People hear "banned indefintely" and come to false conclusions, that's all. In reality, things were usually dealt with in a very relaxed and adult manner. From what I can see, AAA fines were never paid in full, they were mostly just a deterrent. And indefinite bans could always be overridden, other bans with a fixed time span were pretty rare.

And don't think people were stupid in the past: USAC tried an open policy in 1956, and quickly regretted it after looking at empty schedules for 1957. History is full of successful and unsuccessful experiments: there were local rules, affiliations, temporary permits and so on and so on. Like I said, it would make for a fascinating read but details are scarce, and interest of readers (other than the usual myths) non-existant.

 

Good points Michael. I'm well aware of this going on even with local and regional clubs into the 80s. The explanation you gave is why I used quotes around "lifetime ban." But, can you come up with any compelling reason for the actions of USAC in the incidents at the NASCAR races at Riverside in 1963 and Texas World in 1971? That is even with your siding with officialdom the majority of the time  ;)

 

I do agree the history and twists and turns of this would make for an interesting read.



#14 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 15 May 2015 - 09:31

Any chance of a Chuck Hulse thread?  Everyone has a story and it's brilliant that we're getting his here.  Sometimes there is a lot more interest in someone struggling to make a living than with the superstars up the front.



#15 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Administrator

  • 41,742 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 15 May 2015 - 09:45

Any chance of a Chuck Hulse thread?  Everyone has a story and it's brilliant that we're getting his here.  Sometimes there is a lot more interest in someone struggling to make a living than with the superstars up the front.

Done. Continue here: http://forums.autosp...herty-race-ban/



#16 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 79,955 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 15 May 2015 - 13:17

A parallel situation, I guess, existed in Australia...

The CAMS was formed in 1954, taking over motor sport administration from... who was it? The RACA?... and set about making it difficult for anyone to compete outside the CAMS kingdom and to come within that kingdom.

Speedway was outside of CAMS and drivers who wanted to move from speedway to road racing had to drop speedway altogether. Except that in the fifties there was a lot of people who competed at some of the 'outside' tracks under assumed names.

The boom really fell when one of the Round-Australia Trials was held without sanction from the CAMS. Various of the top officials received lifetime bans, some of the drivers had time bans if I recall correctly.

The CAMS continued trying to rule with this 'iron fist' through into the 2000s, despite Bob Jane taking them to the Supreme Court to show that they couldn't avoid the provisions of the Trade Practices Act of 1973 (or '74?). This all led to the birth of the AASA, which operates in opposition to the CAMS today and has taken a lot of their business.

#17 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,883 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 15 May 2015 - 17:16

Others may recall the details, but I am sure the UK had a similar spat between the RACMSA and the short oval promoters (mainly Spedeworth) in the 1970s.  Some RAC licence holders got in trouble for racing on Spedeworth tracks.



#18 Supersox

Supersox
  • Member

  • 105 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 18 May 2015 - 13:41

Eventually AAA decided not to be in motor sport sanctioning at all , which left a short term void but ended with the totally pragmatic solution that all the major sanctioning race organisations-SCCA, NASCAR, IMSA, NHRDA etc got together and formed ACCUS-Automobile Competition Committee  of the US- which in turn joined the FIA as a single reprsentative body, but led to the unique situation worldwide ( I beleive) where the FIA affiliated ASN does not have a unified safety/regulatory role.



#19 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,124 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 20 May 2015 - 18:57

Yeah, the ACCUS dilemma/desaster/joke/[insert appropriate expletive here]... Maybe for another thread?

There was another aspect that is usually/often forgotten these days, the problem of "cherry picking". Smaller clubs were usually happy that prominent clubs did not allow their drivers to enter events other than their own: "class A" drivers and teams would often "cherry pick" lesser events, and carry off all the loot. "Class B" promoters would welcome them with open arms, since they could use them for advertising, and to them it didn't matter who took away the purse. But the smaller clubs were almost always officiated by their own men, i.e. drivers and owners, who didn't particularly care for fighting over bread crumbs. Their whole raison d'ĂȘtre was growing nice and fruitful cherry trees for their own use, not for intruding passers-by. That suddenly became a problem in the sixties and seventies.