40 replies to this topic

[Jim Thurman]

A recent thread drifted off topic into the area of "fixing" or "rigging" races and I thought it worth examining from a historical perspective.

Of course, the most infamous example is the 1933 Tripoli Grand Prix with allegations that Achille Varzi won in a "fix". Some historians disagree with this assessment.

But there have been others. To cite some examples...

Short track oval promoters in the U.S. were known to "tamper" with the races, particularly in the Jalopy racing days. Anything from paying a driver to drive through a fence or roll a car to "liven things up", having leaders slow down to insure a close finish...to having a driver paid a bit extra to crash out the leader (Andy Granatelli employed this in the races at Soldier Field in Chicago). This is not to say the majority of the races themselves weren't on the up and up, but there certainly were some of highly dubious result.

There has been a lot of discussion that the IMCA group "hippodromed" in certain races. From interviews with some IMCA car owners and drivers from the time, this seemed to happen at smaller fairgrounds on the circuit, often with poor track conditions, usually shortly before a major race at one of the larger fairgrounds that made up the IMCA circuit. I don't know of anyone who has questioned the outcome of major races on the IMCA circuit.

In an interview, NASCAR crew chief Harry Hyde said that in his driving days he ran with John Marcum's circuit (Marcum was the founder of ARCA) and said that if you weren't one of Marcum's "regular boys" that they always managed to miss a lap during scoring. He said he won some of those races, but was usually listed in 4th or 6th, one lap down. In my opinion, most scoring errors are honest mistakes, but there have been some that raise eyebrows on smaller circuits.

Then there are some of the incredulous performances in recent years on the NASCAR circuit. Some writers have even weighed in on this, listing some of the dubious results along with corroborating comments from some on the inside. There are several good examples that cast aspersion on NASCAR.

Ok...there's a laundy list, have at it folks


Jim Thurman

[Zawed]

There was a non championship GP where in a poorly contested race in the 60s(?? Syracuse GP???) where the works Ferraris that were entered dead heated at the finish to provide an exciting finish to a race...Can't remember the drivers involved.

[Don Capps]

Try 1967 -- Parkes and Scarfiotti honoring Bandini.

[Don Capps]

Of course, the most infamous example is the 1933 Tripoli Grand Prix with allegations that Achille Varzi won in a "fix". Some historians disagree with this assessment.

I think I am familiar with the case...

[Buford]

The IMCA Sprint car series that ran fairgrounds in the American Midwest in the 1950's and 1960s used to fix races. Closest I ever noticed in my personal experience was at a Sprint Car race in 1979 when they told us at the driver's meeting, "Boys, we have a short car count tonight so everybody is going to make the feature and everybody is going home with a check. Don't tear up your equipment in the heat races. Just go out and make some noise for the fans."

[Jim Thurman]

Originally posted by Don Capps


I think I am familiar with the case...

Umm, yes...Don, I think you are quite familiar with it

Sorry I hadn't gotten around to reading your RVM article. And the discussion came the week before I finally discovered TNF.

The post was just for a discussion point anyway

Very good article on Tripoli. Of course, when one looks at the current state of reporting, it's understandble how much worse that sort of thing is going to be in the future.

A humbled and slightly embarrassed Jim Thurman

[Barry Boor]

I have the soap ready to wash my mouth out after saying this, but...

I consider several races every season to be 'fixed' - by the CART organisers. How often do we see a yellow put out about 10 laps from the end in order to ensure a closer finish? O.K, sometimes it's because someone is in the wall; fair enough. But then again there is often no more than a sweet wrapper or similar on the track, and some poor so-and-so who has worked hard to build up a winning lead, loses it all and gets mugged on the last lap.

To me that is a contrived and unwanted situation.

P.S. It might happen in NASCAR too......

[Mohican]

Fixed races ? Try Monaco '84...

We are also getting very close to the question of team orders here. Everybody is getting very upset about Schumacher and Barrichello at the moment - but it was really much worse when the second guy was really much faster but had to accept team orders. Try the Andretti/Peterson and Scheckter/Villeneuve situations in 78-79, for instance.

[FEV]

Barry,

I can only dissagree with you on CART races being fixed. I cannot remember any CART sanctionned race where a yellow was put out 10 laps from the end with no one in the wall or no debris on the track. Do you ?

For NASCAR it's another story. Weren't they talking last year about introducing "TV Cautions" (putting the yellow out just for that TV ads do not prevent viewers from missing crucial racing moments) ? People who can do that (or even just think about it) to a race can do anything...

To me the greatest difference beetwen CART and NASCAR is that in first one the bosses are the teams themselves (and so I don't see one agreeing to let another one win). In NASCAR teams are just the employes of the France family Barnum. And they just follow orders.

But I think that in American Racing history we have seen even worse than fixed races: fixed championships. Remember the absurdious (does this word exist in english ?? ) bann of turbo cars in Can-Am at the end of 1973. The guys just shot themselves in the foot and killed this great series. But they didn't want any Porsche domination anymore so... And what about IMSA. Remember the year (around 96) when at the Daytona 24 Hours tests in early January the new Porsche set incredible times. IMSA's answer: banning of the turbo cars just 3 weeks before the race!!

I also remember how Don Panoz decided to buy IMSA to make it PSCR. During a practice session in Road Atlanta, Andy Evans (then owner of IMSA) and his prototype (R&S or 333SP I forgot) couldn't pass Panoz's Roadster. So he simply changed the weight rules to slow the Batmobile down.

[Don Capps]

Bira tells me that sometime soon the revised article on Tripoli will finally appear here at Atlas F1. Also, Rob Young is planning to run a variant of the article -- which he is helping with -- in Classic Car Africa in the October timeframe.

If Karl Ludvigsen has a few pictures from the 1933 GP di Tripoli he would like to offer to CCA for the article, it would be appreciated...;)

[bobdar]

I suppose it seems unfair and contrived to yellow flag a race to re-group the cars and create some excitement. This is really common in NASCAR, but I haven't seen it so blatantly in CART. When you consider how incredibly dull some of the F1 races have been lately, maybe NASCAR's yellow flag policy makes sense. Certainly makes the finish more interesting, and maybe CART should try it.

[John B]

Periodically articles appear about NASCAR giving certain teams a break on key weekends. Richard Petty's 200th win at Daytona, and Jeff Gordon's at the 1994 Brickyard are the most often mentioned. Sometimes teams on the brink of gaining/losing a high profile sponsor have been rumored to have been given a little slack, not necessarly to win races but to run better (specifically, McDonalds/Junior Johnson in 1994 was not explictly mentioned but the hints - a Ford team which won 2 restrictor races - was obvious). It should be noted that the sources are always anonymous and who knows whether they may be out to get at NASCAR.

On the CART front I can't think of too many races that have been robbed by a late yellow, though one does come to mind. At Cleveland in 1995, Gil de Ferran was destroying the field all day in Jim Hall's car. A yellow came out for some obscure reason, and after the restart De Ferran was taken out by Scott Pruett, who was a lap down but the restart enabled him to try to get a lap back. GDF was obviously furious, and the race wound up a wild finish with Andretti, Gordon, Herta all havin a chance to win but Villeneuve sneaking by on the last lap after a local yellow. What would have been a boring race is remembered as one of the most unbeliveable. Ironically GDF got a win the next year ahead of Zanardi in large part due to pit strategy.

[Jim Thurman]

Originally posted by John B
Periodically articles appear about NASCAR giving certain teams a break on key weekends. Richard Petty's 200th win at Daytona, and Jeff Gordon's at the 1994 Brickyard are the most often mentioned. Sometimes teams on the brink of gaining/losing a high profile sponsor have been rumored to have been given a little slack, not necessarly to win races but to run better (specifically, McDonalds/Junior Johnson in 1994 was not explictly mentioned but the hints - a Ford team which won 2 restrictor races - was obvious). It should be noted that the sources are always anonymous and who knows whether they may be out to get at NASCAR.

That's a good point, but this one of those situations where the sources (if within NASCAR teams) would *have* to remain anonymous.

Some other golden examples:

Ricky Craven winning his first career pole at what is his "home" track...after returning from serious injury.

A Bodine brother (I believe it was Todd), winning the pole at Watkins Glen after turning a practice time only good enough for 43rd. Curiously, the timing came right after a sponsor announcement.

Hut Stricklin winning a career first pole the day after his sponsor announces they will be leaving at the end of the year.

Cale Yarborough's struggling team winning the pole likewise after their sponsor announces they will be leaving at the end of the year.

There are more, these "stories" happen (or I should say, have happened) far too often.

The Gordon win in the Brickyard 400 does come up a lot...ironically, that was the last NASCAR event I bothered to watch, and it's because things just didn't seem right to me. That was several months before the first article on "The Call" came out, so I made up my mind on my own without influence of the article In fact, I was wondering what took so long for someone to figure it out.

I also find it particularly interesting that these very dubious moments are heavily concentrated after NASCAR races turned up on the betting lines in Las Vegas. Hmmmm.

As far as CART...I can see where anyone in Europe would feel that way about yellow flags bunching up the cars, but for oval racing, it's a necessity. At least it is except when it's done like some of NASCAR's

Jim Thurman

[Pete Stanley]

Yeah, I remember Mr. Ervin's "flat tire."

And Buddy Baker's "snake oil" comment at Phoenix two years ago, on Terry Labonte's "flat tire", which allowed the points fight to go on to the last race of the year.

But it seems to me that it's usually in qualifying instead of entire races - it's easier. Earnhardt's pole at the Glen, the week after he broke his sternum and clavicle at Talladega.

[Jim Thurman]

Originally posted by Pete Stanley
Yeah, I remember Mr. Ervin's "flat tire."

And Buddy Baker's "snake oil" comment at Phoenix two years ago, on Terry Labonte's "flat tire", which allowed the points fight to go on to the last race of the year.

But it seems to me that it's usually in qualifying instead of entire races - it's easier. Earnhardt's pole at the Glen, the week after he broke his sternum and clavicle at Talladega.

Yes, I agree that qualifying has produced the most obvious questionable results, but my point is that these sort of events in qualifying casts doubts on the races as well. Once one starts going down that road...

To me, over the last year or so there has been some uncontested passes and some passes that look for all the world like the other driver is simply letting the lead be taken. Not to mention "close finishes" that always seem to feature the leader mysteriously going high in the last corner.

Jim Thurman

[fines]

Why does noone remember the most blatant one, the 1999 Malaysian GP. You remember, both Ferraris were disqualified but later reinstated to keep the championship alive. And the 1998 British GP, were the stewards 'forgot' about a 10"-stop-and-go for Michael Schumacher until it was too late!

[Wolf]

Come to think of it, Fines there was also a case of race winner in an illegal McLaren, who kept his points to keep him in contention... It's same type of mistake like yesterday with Ralf crossing the pitlane exit line. Except somebody turned their blind eye, like in cases You mentioned.;)

[Joe Fan]

An anonymous source has informed me that Jim Thurman only changes his underwear once a month. I cannot reveal who told me this because these type of sources always have to remain anonymous. ;)

See what kind of trap you can fall into here Jim? Really, the only thing close to rigged races in the major motorsports series occurs in F1 when team orders are implemented to affect the points or through Mickey Mouse rules and penalties the FIA draw up that when enforced, can affect the outcome of races or final results. You know, you have too much wear on your floor board, you crossed this white line, you drove past the car in front of you and the parade lap or your barge board is one nanometer bigger than the rule book states. In many of these cases, huge fines to the drivers or teams would be a better penalty and would not affect the race or the World Championship.

As far as the extraordinary qualifying performances that occur in NASCAR, it is very explainable. Most of the time when a team gets a new sponsor, they want to make their presence known very quickly. So when the new sponsor signs on and supplies the team with some much needed funds, they go out and buy a top notch qualifying engine. These engines are cheaper than a top notch race engine because they are only built to last a few laps before they blow, especially in the qualifying environment (i.e. where teams tape up the front grill to improve aerodynamics which overheats the engine). They are made with lightweight components to produce extra horsepower. So a team will practice with a regular motor to get their set-up and then install this special qualifying motor. Then boom, there on the pole and the sponsor gets the logo displayed at least on the first few laps of the race. This is probably the cheapest way to get some airtime for your sponsor because if a struggling team wins the pole, the announcers are going to make special note of that in the pre-race talk.

Another factor that plays into the qualifying issue is that starting position is relatively meaningless in most NASCAR races. The races are long enough that you can make up the positions on the track. So drivers usually just try to get in some consistent fast laps during qualifying but will not press it and risk tearing up a good car. In contrast F1, starting position means everything so qualifying is much more important.

Back to the anonymous source issue, if you don't have a name to attach to a serious allegation, then you cannot evaluate the vaility of the claim. For all we know, someone is making it up to for the purpose of a good story or they have a hard one for party it is aimed at.

[Joe Fan]

FEV and Jim, just so you know, I expect that Dale Jr will finally get his first win of the season at Daytona this Saturday night, at the track that bite his father. And no, it won't be rigged. All of DEI's cars ran well at Daytona in the 500 and Dale Jr. freight-trained Michael Waltrip home to give him his first Winston Cup win. I expect both cars to run well there again and I expect Michael will repay Dale Jr. and give him the push that he would need by staying behind him in the last few laps. Also, if Dale Jr. gets in front towards the end, I cannot see any driver willing to risk becoming the most unpopular driver and subject to thunderous boos from the crowd by taking a win away from Dale Jr. in that situation. Especially with everything he has been through this year and since he was gentlemanly enough to freight-train home Michael. So if Dale Jr and Michael are there in the mix late in the race, I see this becoming a reality. Just have your tissues ready.

[Joe Fan]

Speaking of rigged NASCAR races, did anyone catch the fact that the NASCAR Busch Grand National is not going to race at Watkins Glen next year? I guess NASCAR got tired of and couldn't prevent the rigged outcome of the "Ron Fellows 200."

[John B]

I was thinking of this thread when watching the end of the Sonoma race last weekend

To keep drivers branded as "road course specialists" from winning Cup races, Harvick knocks Robby Gordon out of the lead. He was given a "penalty" to get fresh tires and do the deed, then allowed back on the lead lap for the final restart. Partial payback from his team for the win at Atlanta.

Whatta think, good enough to send to Jayski's NASCAR rumors page?

[Joe Fan]

John B, Robby Gordon was his own worst enemy again at the Sears Point race. He chose to keep Harvick as a buffer between himself and Jeff Gordon/Tony Stewart, instead of doing the smart thing and let the harrassing obviously faster car on new tires by. Robby could have made a deal to let him by but if Harvick held him up in any way, he would punt him. Instead, a deal was made later to let him by if a yellow came out.

However, Harvick got cold feet whenever Stewart passed Jeff Gordon for second place. Why? The deal made above is only good if you are still in position to take advantage of it. I am sure Harvick felt he needed to get by while he still had the tires to do so or else he could have become the victim of the lead lap cars and slowly slid backwards once his tires became worn. The bottom line, Robby gambled and lost. Harvick was aggressive and went from 30th to finish 14th. Harvick also has to race Jeff Gordon and Tony Stewart every week, not Robby. I am sure they would remember Kevin if he played cover man for Robby and killing their chance at a win. Advice to Robby, use the gray matter more and play some checkers.

[John B]

I felt bad for the team, opportunities to win don't come very often to those operations and the crew chief did instruct Gordon to let Harvick pass. Interestingly, looking at a couple Harvick quotes in a report, there seems to be a contradiction. First, he says he was clearly faster and on new tires and that Gordon should have recognized that; he even used some term like "bright light" sarcastically. Then he says in a separate quote "I don't trust people and wouldn't give anyone a lap back." Either way, it wouldn't have affected Gordon, who is not competing with Harvick for anything this year. Harvick's charge in the final laps was nice but there was no way he was going to get anywhere near the leaders. Jeff Gordon agreed that Robby should have backed off and lost the race by not doing so. With Stewart and Robby going for a win there was all kinds of potential for entertainment there but no big incident...

[Jim Thurman]

Originally posted by Joe Fan
An anonymous source has informed me that Jim Thurman only changes his underwear once a month. I cannot reveal who told me this because these type of sources always have to remain anonymous. ;)

See what kind of trap you can fall into here Jim? Really, the only thing close to rigged races in the major motorsports series occurs in F1 when team orders are implemented to affect the points or through Mickey Mouse rules and penalties the FIA draw up that when enforced, can affect the outcome of races or final results. You know, you have too much wear on your floor board, you crossed this white line, you drove past the car in front of you and the parade lap or your barge board is one nanometer bigger than the rule book states. In many of these cases, huge fines to the drivers or teams would be a better penalty and would not affect the race or the World Championship.

Back to the anonymous source issue, if you don't have a name to attach to a serious allegation, then you cannot evaluate the vaility of the claim. For all we know, someone is making it up to for the purpose of a good story or they have a hard one for party it is aimed at.

Hey, your sources are pretty good...not as good as the NASCAR sources, but close. There are mitigating circumstances though

Seriously, in the off-topic wandering that spawned this thread you wrote: "All in all, I think a lot of these "rigging" stories are generated by those who are: 1) jealous of the series, 2) don't follow it and therefore, 3) lack knowledge of the series to draw such conclusions."

While I believe this could be true in some cases, the ones I put creedence in are long time NASCAR writers (some have covered the sport 30 years). So they definitely don't fit 2) or 3).

I, also didn't fit under 2) or 3) either...I only became 2) after the repeated dubious outcomes caused me to lose interest in hippodroming.

Since I haven't followed NASCAR as closely since '94 (when it became obvious to me, before anyone even broached this subject), I can't make the "predicitions" that were so easy in earlier years. I knew exactly when and where Gordon and Stewart would win along with several others. These can't ALL be lucky guesses. I'm not *that* good

What happened was ESPN's rpm2night blatantly telegraphed who was going to win. This was at it's worst in 1999, when the ESPN crew would preview the next race by telling you who they "thought was the driver to beat". Hey, guess what?...they were never wrong!. Whoever they went on about came through. No matter if they had been terribly uncompetitive in previous weeks. They backed off from being so glaringly obvious last year, at least throwing two or three names out each week (word from above perhaps?). So it wasn't so easy for me to "predict" the outcomes. I haven't watched Fox to see if they've done that, although I did catch a Fox Sports report on Sears Point where the announcer (Chris Myers) was praising Larry McReynolds for saying Tony Stewart was going to win the race the week before it was held!. This was routine in the ESPN days. Figure in that ESPN hyped the bloody hell out of Gordon and Stewart from their first appearances on TV (when they had *no* credentials of real consequence) AND the fact that ESPN employees were the first managers of these two drivers and conflict of interest comes to mind - but, that's for a different topic (again!)

The Sporting News - never known for it's racing coverage - jumped onto the NASCAR bandwagon a few years ago. Their racing columnist did a piece on charges that races had been rigged or fixed by saying that he wanted proof and that it "wasn't possible to rig or fix an auto race". I'll agree that it isn't a dead cinch guarantee, but giving someone an oversized motor or underweight chassis can help a long way.

And throwing a few well placed yellows can't hurt either ;)

As far as the '400' (it will always be the Firecracker 400 to me), I'm picking a Dodge (I would have said Elliott, but maybe it will be Marlin - good story angle). They qualified well in February, so it's not as suspicious. I don't think they'll give it to Dale Jr....I think that might be too obvious even for them, but who knows, they've been pretty obvious in the past

A long time NASCAR writer previewed the '400' by saying "who knows what scripts NASCAR has in their vault"

In some cases, anonymous sources are all one has to go by (insiders fearing reprisal, etc.), so they shouldn't be so simply dismissed. I made up my mind before any "anonymous source" came forward. They had no influence. My decision that NASCAR isn't kosher came after years of watching races that were!

Jim Thurman

[Don Capps]

A long time NASCAR writer previewed the '400' by saying "who knows what scripts NASCAR has in their vault"

After watching the Daytona race tonight....

The real mystery to me, Jim, is how do they do it? It really makes the WWF pale by comparison. Even I figured that if NASCAR could pick one person to win the race, it was the young fella in car # 8....

Speaking of rigged races, I think there might be something worth reading in the near future over on the magazine side of the house.

[Pirelli]

Heh, ever since Feb I kind of became a #8 fan. Earnhardt Jr. is kind of an exciting driver and personality and he drives clean.... which is something his father was not known for.

However, I too have to wonder what was up tonight. I really don't think Earnhardt's car was rigged. It was strong tonight, heck it was strong back in February at the 500. I just think that the boys gave Jr. some leeway tonight. I would not want to be the driver that passed Jr. in the end of that race. But no doubt the DEI cars were strong tonight.

[Don Capps]

If they are somehow fixing the results, knowing how they do is important since the teams are pretty competitive and will drop a dime on each other in a skinny minute -- how do you think Gerry Nelson finds 99% of the things he finds on the cars? Although I realize that most of the teams aren't cheap, but can be had -- how do they keep these they've bought to stay bought? With the financial health of some of the teams, it makes me wonder.

One loud deafing silence convinces me that although NASCAR would dearly love to have more control over the action on the stage, it is most daydreams and a fun to speculate activity: Junior Johnson hasn't said squat about it. Say what you may, Junior is the sort that will say what NASCAR doesn't necessarily want to be said.

NASCAR is a poorer place without Junior.

BTW, I think the # 8 won because it was flat out a good car, without any WWF scripting help.

There are times when I am convince F1 would be better off if they "fixed" a few races each season to let the Minardi or Prost or other spear carrier teams pick up the odd win and podium positions. Last "fluke" win was Panis and you have to go way back for the previous one. Whatever faults Formula Super Ford had in the 70s, Penske and Shadow managed victories.

[Pirelli]

Don't get me wrong I don't neccesarily think it was a "fix". I do think that the other drivers in the top 10 were a little less aggressive around him. I don't think Johnny Benson would have made a run on Jr. like he did on Tony Stewart. I was listening to the scanner broadcast over the internet, the last few laps were chaotic as hell for the drivers and spotters. Jr. also had the help of some friends (Waltrip and Sadler) who pushed him to the front.

The #8 car has been strong this year it was strong at Daytona where it finished second. It OWNED Texas this year. I cursed Tony Eury's name at that race. I was pitside at Texas Motor Speedway this year when I watched them make the poor call of taking on 4 new tires and then flub the pitstop, only to let the second best car coast to the win after that tactical error. The #8 car came back from two laps down to finish 3rd at Fontana and it was strong at Dover. Its easy to say it was a fix because it is a great story. Its hard to back up however when you look at the fact that the car has been strong this year and was due a win anyway.

[Jim Thurman]

Originally posted by Don Capps


After watching the Daytona race tonight....

The real mystery to me, Jim, is how do they do it? It really makes the WWF pale by comparison. Even I figured that if NASCAR could pick one person to win the race, it was the young fella in car # 8....

Speaking of rigged races, I think there might be something worth reading in the near future over on the magazine side of the house.

Even I didn't think they would be this obvious!

In the stories that have come out about "The Call", (reportedly) it's because the other teams know they will get "The Call". Obviously, this doesn't happen. I think it's more along the lines of share the wealth, don't rock the boat.

You also get into a true dilemma here. If someone does "blow the whistle"...it's an end to their (and many others) way of making a living. So it's, keep quiet for the greater good and be thrown a bone once in a while

And knowing the media in the U.S. and their inabilities to separate and diferrentiate between forms of racing, undoubtedly leave *ALL* forms of Auto Racing with a tainted perception akin that of the WWF or Roller Derby. Of course, in this scenario, the honest racing taken down with NASCAR should sue the bloody heck out of ISC and the France family...and they'd have great grounds to do so.

The outsiders in NASCAR are quickly pushed to the outside. One could ask why NASCAR made sure to rid themselves of the little teams and one off racers, which curiously (through "rule" changes and added provisionals) also happened around the time the NASCAR odds hit the Vegas lines. If someone is kept on the outside, they can't become insiders.

I have a surefire way to do this...someone infiltrate NASCAR posing as a new, financially secure owner. But, someone will have to give me a few million dollars first

Don, this magazine article...would it be on the Tripoli GP?

BTW, none of this is ever to imply Dale Jr. or Jeff Gordon or whoever aren't capable of winning on their own...I just don't know if they have!

Jim Thurman

[Joe Fan]

Jim and others conspiracy theorists who think that NASACR rigs races or gives drivers "the call" ought to read this article which centers around the most recent Dale Earnhardt Jr. win:

http://www.kcstar.co...cd213.713,.html

Also, oddly enough, Eddie Cheever was quite upset with the suggestion that Dale Jr's win was staged. He and other IRL drivers sound off on the concept of rigged races:
http://www.tennessea...ment_ID=6530515

Really, do you think CART and IRL owners Roger Penske, Chip Ganassi, Carl Haas, Cal Wells, and A. J. Foyt, all high ranking officials in their respective series, would get involved as owners in NASCAR if the series wasn't on the up and up? If so, then I think it casts a cloud on the credibility of those series as well because it would mean the money would be more important to them than integrity.

[marion5drsn]

THE FAIRY TALE FOUR HUNDRED. My paranoia is at full swing and I am in my most skeptical mood of flood tide and I can’t help but have some doubt about the legitimacy of the outcome. Seeing as how NASCAR is so capable of manipulating the out come for the makes of car that dominant the parking lot. There are just too many decisions made that don’t seem to be justified be the statements made by people in power at NASCAR. Just how many people do the statements about D. Earnharts seat belts satisfy? What about the non-playing of the tapes at the NASCAR investigation, at which the police were absent! I haven’t heard the reason for that one. For an explanation of how easy it would be to “stage” the race read “dkelly”at Speed vision. A 1/32” would be plenty if the plate were opened up on all four bores. Jr. would be walking thru the field as he did in the race. Only one person would need to know and that is the person who handed out the plate to engine builder. Not even Jr. Were the plates inspected after the race? If you don’t think it easy to fix a race just look how many things are picked up each year in NASCAR inspection, it would be easy to do the opposite. Remember Smokey! M.L. Anderson

[Joe Fan]

Marion, apparently you didn't read the article I posted a link to above. It stated in the article that the restrictor plates are handed out in random order and that after each race, other teams (usually those in the championship hunt) witness the post-race inspection tear down of the winning car.

[marion5drsn]

Joe Fan; Yes I read your statement. However I will stick with my version as the plate is not the only place that the deviation could be applied. As I stated shades of Smokey. To me it's still the,
"FAIRY TALE FOUR HUNDRED". If you can explain how he just "Walked " thru the field on the last laps I'll listen. Still the very skeptical one, Marion L. Anderson

[Joe Fan]

Marion,

First of all, Dale Jr drives for DEI Inc and all of the DEI cars were strong at Daytona for the 500 where they finished 1-2. Why? Because of RAD, which stands for Richard (for Richard Childress owner of Kevin Harvick's #29 car [old #3 Dale Sr car] and Mike SKinner's #31 car), Andy (for Andy Petree owner of Joe Nemechek's #33 car and Bobby Hamilton's #55 car) and Dale (for Dale Earnhardt owner of Dale Junior's #8 car, Michael Waltrip's #15 car and Steve Park's #1 car). These owners teamed up to share aerodynamic info for the restrictor-plate tracks (ie Daytona and Talladega).

Consequently, these teams are usually near the front at those tracks. Note the sharing of information more than likely helped get Bobby Hamilton a win in the Talladega race this spring for Andy Petree. And that car had never won before so why wasn't this win questioned so heavily by the media? Because it wasn't as good as a story as Junior winning at his return to the track that his father was killed at. Personally myself, if NASCAR was in the script writing business a Dale Jr's win on Father's Day, "Jr wins it for Dad," would have been a better story.

So, there should have been no surprise that these DEI cars would be strong again at Daytona just like it isn't a surprise that Ferrari targets and runs strong at Monza.


If you watched the race, what won it for Junior was the oil line breaking on Jeff Gordon's car with 10 laps to go and Michael Waltrip getting in behind him with a couple laps to go due to help from Elliott Sadler. The oil line break brought out a caution which put lapped cars to the rear of the field since a caution with less than 10 to go results in a single file restart. Junior also got four fresh tires when he pitted for this caution and the other cars ahead of him only had two fresh tires or fairly fresh tires since they pitted under green before the earlier caution due to the big one. So it shouldn't have been a surprise that a strong car with the advantage of four fresh tires would move towards the front on a restrictor-plate track with the aid of drafting help.

Had this last caution not have come out, I doubt Jr. would have won because the lapped cars running on the inside groove would have made it too difficult for him to pass the six cars ahead of them with that few of laps to go. And anyone who would say that NASCAR threw out the caution unnecessarily is an idiot because Gordon's oil line break was spewing oil on the track and you cannot chance racing at speeds over 190mph on a slippery track.

So, Junior on four fresh tires, with a single file restart, in a strong car and with help from Michael Waltrip is what won him the race. Once Michael (with the aid from Elliott Sadler) was able to get past Bobby Labonte, it was a Dale Earnhardt Junior win because Michael was going to freight-train home Junior like he did for him in the 500. Why? Because Junior stayed in line and didn't try to pass Michael at the earlier Daytona 500 since it was Michael's first chance at a Winston Cup win in four hundred starts. Also, if Michael tried to pass, he could have hung himself and Dale Jr out to dry because Bobby Labonte could have gained momemtum from a draft and passed them both.


Another thing I want to share with everyone is regarding the post-race inspections. At our new Kansas Speedway, which was built by ISC (which is a corporation owned by NASCAR), in the pit area you cannot get back to the garage area unless you have a media/team pass but, they have the tech inspection area set up so that fans (with a purchase of a $15 fan walk pass) can stand and watch the pre-race and post-race inspection process in the infield pit. I watched some of the pre-race inspection of the IRL cars. There were two cars side by side while I was there, one was being inspected and the other sitting beside it which I could have reached out and touched--that is how close you can get to this area. So, it isn't like these inspections are a secret. Some teams send some of their members to witness the tear down of the winning car. So, what is there to hide? Can fans and teams witness the inspection process of F1 cars? If not, seems to me that F1 would lend itself more to scripting and masking it in the name of retaining competitive secrets.

Also would CART and IRL owners, Roger Penske, Chip Ganassi, Carl Haas, Cal Wells, and A.J. Foyt get involved in a stock car series that wasn't on the up and up? If so, then it should cast the same skepticism in those series if they are apart of something staged and kept their mouths shut.

All of these conspiracy claims are coming from ignorant jealous fans who do not like NASCAR, nor follow it. It is really a shame that one of NASCAR's finest moments had to be clouded by stupidity from fans and media. Dale Junior deserved better than this.

[Ross Stonefeld]

My perception of Daytona was tha the rest of the field didnt give Dale Jr all they had, which to me is actually worse than if NASCAR said "dont pass him"

Whats funny is Robin Miller said Jimmy Spencer will have problems in Tech inspection for a few races now. Suddenly Jimmy Spencer is on the front row at the next race. Just seems oddly fishy. And just to add to the conspiracy perhaps they scripted it so the easiest defense is "well his teammate did well too"

NASCAR isnt racing, its marketing. They arent taken seriously or favorably within the industry

[Joe Fan]

Ross, what is really funny though was that Shawna Robinson, who was being sponsored by Tropicana and was even shown in Tropicana commercials during the race, failed to qualify for this Sunday's race--the Tropicana 400.

Oh where or where was that 'little bit under the hood' that NASCAR supposedly gives teams in need or rewards new sponsors with?

[Joe Fan]

For those who still believe that NASCAR scripts races, well how about this weekend's potential great story. Kyle Petty returns to Loudon to race for the first time since his son Adam's death. If Kyle won, there wouldn't be a dry eye anywhere and this would be another one of those great stories.

So, now where are all the conspiracy theorists making bold predictions that Kyle will win the race? They are nowhere now becaue they all know that Kyle has no chance in hell in winning that race and that NASCAR isn't really rigged. It was easy to make those claims after they happen to help tear down the reputation of NASCAR and it is also easy to make these claims when a driver is a favorite to win in a situation where it would also be a popular win.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I was only talking about Dale Jr and Daytona, not 'the call' in general

That every race isnt rigged is a poor defense against some being affected before hand by the governing body

There's just an awful lot of 'good feeling' coincidence races without a lot of evidence to make you think everything was on the up and up

[Jim Thurman]

Originally posted by Joe Fan


First of all, Dale Jr drives for DEI Inc and all of the DEI cars were strong at Daytona for the 500 where they finished 1-2. Why?

To make it look good To give the true believers something to point to.

[i]
Consequently, these teams are usually near the front at those tracks. Note the sharing of information more than likely helped get Bobby Hamilton a win in the Talladega race this spring for Andy Petree. And that car had never won before so why wasn't this win questioned so heavily by the media? Because it wasn't as good as a story as Junior winning at his return to the track that his father was killed at. Personally myself, if NASCAR was in the script writing business a Dale Jr's win on Father's Day, "Jr wins it for Dad," would have been a better story

.

Better than winning on the same track where his father lost his life?...not to the general media. Hamilton wasn't questioned because it doesn't come off glaringly obvious. In general, the media still isn't questioning anything to do with NASCAR short of the handling of Dale Sr.'s death. And the only ones that have any merit are the ones who have followed and covered racing (and NASCAR racing in particular) for 20-30 years.

[i]
So, Junior on four fresh tires, with a single file restart, in a strong car and with help from Michael Waltrip is what won him the race.

.

Does that explain how Jeff Gordon won at Loudon with only two fresh tires? This is the incident that led to the exchange between Jack Roush and Ray Evernham caught by a camera in the garage area ("it's just air Jack"). Roush questioned the tires, NASCAR inspected them and, surprise, surprise...found nothing wrong with them. No one had been winning with only two fresh tires and it's still rare.

[i]
Another thing I want to share with everyone is regarding the post-race inspections. At our new Kansas Speedway, which was built by ISC (which is a corporation owned by NASCAR), in the pit area you cannot get back to the garage area unless you have a media/team pass but, they have the tech inspection area set up so that fans (with a purchase of a $15 fan walk pass) can stand and watch the pre-race and post-race inspection process in the infield pit. I watched some of the pre-race inspection of the IRL cars. There were two cars side by side while I was there, one was being inspected and the other sitting beside it which I could have reached out and touched--that is how close you can get to this area. So, it isn't like these inspections are a secret. Some teams send some of their members to witness the tear down of the winning car. So, what is there to hide? Can fans and teams witness the inspection process of F1 cars? If not, seems to me that F1 would lend itself more to scripting and masking it in the name of retaining competitive secrets.

.

That is a nice feature of Kansas Speedway. It's not that way at every facility though.

[i]
All of these conspiracy claims are coming from ignorant jealous fans who do not like NASCAR, nor follow it. It is really a shame that one of NASCAR's finest moments had to be clouded by stupidity from fans and media. Dale Junior deserved better than this.

Hardly. Some, undoubtedbly. But it cannot, and should not be dismissed that easily. One should not dismiss the charges of long time fans and long time NASCAR writers in the same breath as the "Johnny Come Latelys".

Joe, I am hardly an "ignorant jealous fan". I followed NASCAR closely for many years. The kind of things like those mentioned above are why I quit following it. True, I do not like NASCAR now and it's for many reasons. One being their marketing approach which, as a racing historian, I find reprehensible. They've re-written history to serve their marketing.

To prove this, I issue a challenge to you. Come up with NASCAR trivia questions up to the mid-90's, pick a posting time and I will respond quickly without even looking any of them up (the bane of on line trivia quizzes). I only ask that questions like "Who was 11th in the 2001 Tropicana 400" or "He finished 10th in points in 1989 with xxxx number of points" be excluded (the latter would be fine with some other info, just not points alone). Ask about the drivers, tracks, races, incidents. Race sponsors don't sink into my consciousness. I remember when the races had distinctive names connected the locale rather than sponsor names. Pick anything from the mid-1960's through 1994. I am a people person, not a numbers person, though car/team numbers are ok Sponsors pretty much only through the 80's. After that it becomes chaos.

One thing no one ever mentions in all of this (other than me), is NASCAR races appearing on the Vegas betting lines right at the time things get so shaky.

One of the most common things I've read from media sources around the country is how "races can't be fixed". Well, that's semantics really. Yes, there are things that can go wrong, but...

The other cornerstone of their arguments that the '400' wasn't fixed is pointing to other miracles in other sports (New York Mets winning '69 World Series, North Carolina State winning '83 NCAA Basketball title, Lance Armstrong winning Tour de France his first time back after cancer, etc.). What they fail to acknowledge is these "miracles" don't happen nearly week in, week out in other sports. Every sport has moments that could be scripted, but the mere fact they happen so rarely removes them from suspicion.

Of course, these are either motorsports writers (usually newbies) on the defensive or general sports writers that never heard any charges against NASCAR until the '400' and never paid any attention before. Think NASCAR isn't aware of how little general sports writers and sportscasters know about racing and the utter lack of attention they pay to motorsports?


Jim Thurman

[Jim Thurman]

Originally posted by Joe Fan
For those who still believe that NASCAR scripts races, well how about this weekend's potential great story. Kyle Petty returns to Loudon to race for the first time since his son Adam's death. If Kyle won, there wouldn't be a dry eye anywhere and this would be another one of those great stories.

So, now where are all the conspiracy theorists making bold predictions that Kyle will win the race? They are nowhere now becaue they all know that Kyle has no chance in hell in winning that race and that NASCAR isn't really rigged. It was easy to make those claims after they happen to help tear down the reputation of NASCAR and it is also easy to make these claims when a driver is a favorite to win in a situation where it would also be a popular win.

Shouldn't we wait and see first?

Kyle might not even race at Loudon, that's yet to be decided.

You should have asked me who was going to win nearly every race in 1999...I could tell you no later than Wednesday or Thursday because rpm2night often telegraphed the winner by invariably having a "feature" on that driver and discussing how well they thought he'd do in the upcoming race. Not every race, but most.

NASCAR is doing a great job of tearing itself down.


Jim Thurman

[Pikachu Racing]

Can we take a look at Chicagoland NASCAR race?
First time (1) at the track
BGN winner was Jimmie Johnson which ended up his first (1) ever career win in the series
NASCAR winner Kevin Harvick won his second race in his rookie (1) season plus he have one less (-1) a race than most of the field because he was inserted into Dale's car after he was killed.

It's all about the number 1 at Chi-Town.