When U.S. District Court Judge Graham Mullen issued a temporary injunction against NASCAR’s suspension of Jeremy Mayfield yesterday I have to say I was among those who were surprised. Like many people I thought this part of the lawsuit would come and go without any major story. I was wrong.
I was also surprised by the language used by the judge. As I later heard ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson say the judge made it sound like he knew more about the drug test than the experts in the case. I don’t see how there could have been a determination of the validity of the test based on the information so far presented to the court. I’m no legal expert though.
Munson said he was surprised NASCAR had not appealed the decision yet and I was a little surprised too. This could be forthcoming though.
Staying away from Mayfield’s guilt or innocence here, I think it sets a very dangerous precedent not just for NASCAR but for sports as a whole for a judge to lift a suspension on any athlete who tested positive for an illegal substance. Allowing an athlete who failed a drug test administered by a sports body to sue and be allowed back to play undermines the authority of said body. While I know many of you think NASCAR is too overbearing, having an impotent sanctioning body is not good for anybody.
If all it takes is a lawsuit to get your way, you can expect everybody to start filing suit against NASCAR. This is also setting up a precedent for suspended crew members to start suing NASCAR too. That is not something that is going to improve the sport.
All of the above being said I think the testing needs to be fair. While I do think NASCAR does need to make some changes, I don’t think it is the flawed policy Mayfield’s attorneys would have you believe.
Undeniably whether he wins this case or not, Jeremy Mayfield is a marked man. No sponsor wants to be connected with him and most owners are going to think twice about working with him (if you want proof of that look at the response from owners with open seats this weekend). The latter is true for any employees who may come back to Mayfield Motorsports. Nobody wants to work for a laughing stock. On top of all this is his admittedly weak financial state. The odds are against him.
Ultimately this is not the last we have heard from this case. Remember this temporary injunction does not signify innocence anymore then it does guilt.
In a similar case last year a judge granted a temporary injunction to five NFL players after they had failed a drug test. A couple of months ago the judge ultimately ruled in favor of the NFL and threw out most of the case.
While the injunction is temporarily a good thing for Mayfield, this is not necessarily the indicator of how this case is going to go. Also remember NASCAR has the right to appeal this ruling to the United States Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit. Given what transpired on Wednesday I wouldn’t be surprised if that is something they do.
Loading ...
on Jul 2nd, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Specking in general and not on “said driver”, I am surprised that a court would let a driver or sports figure get back on the field or in this case back on a racetrack after testing positive, its all alleged of course, however we are talking in this case about driving a racecar around a racetrack at 200MPH, this requires so much skill and if anybody is off by just alittle bit, the results could be a huge wreck.
Now I will say that it is one thing for a judge to issued a temporary injunction against a suspension, but in this case, it should have been owner only, not driving. Now what will the drivers do?
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 am
What I think will be interesting is what kinda $ Mayfield could get if he wins the case against Nascar. The damage done to him is HUGE. No one wants to sponsor him, car owners are not very likely to give him a ride, and his character has been damaged.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 am
This judge does his homework — perhaps one of the best on the District bench. Second, NASCAR has been arrogant in the past and this time lost. They made two bad decisions 1. Not modeling their program like that of MLB or the NFL. 2. Letting Bill Diehl intimidate them to go from state court to Federal court.
The extremely poor NASCAR lawyer thought they would be better off but North Carolina’s attitude toward being an at will state and giving more authority to an owner to set the standards would have probably seen a different result. IF and I say IF NASCAR is smart, they would best take this, improve the policy and get better legar advise.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 3:54 am
I am not a fan of people that use lawyers, courts, and legal loop holes to fix “stupid actions” . This has become accepted practice by too many IMO . I was raised with this saying ” If you start the fire, you have to take the heat”. That was back in 50’s and 60’s when there wes not 2 lawyers for each kid looking to rescue them from stupid actions.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 6:40 am
I agree with you completely. The danger to the other drivers and pit crew members is substantial enough to keep the suspension in place while the case moves through the court system. This policy has to have teeth or they might as well suspend testing completely.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 7:39 am
Enough with the hyperbole already! It sets no dangerous precedent except to damage NASCAR’s nearly unbroken streak of bullying its drivers and crews. Its really not been a good month for the despotic leaders of racing leagues worldwide hasn’t it? Eccelstone, Mosley, Tony George and now Brian France have have discovered that their antics from the past are no longer being tolerated by the teams, drivers, manufacturers and perhaps, the fans.
Everyone wants safe drivers on the track but where were the Jeff Gordon’s and Jimmy Johnson’s a few years ago when NASCAR had NO drug testing policy? I don’t recall any driver refusing to take to the track because he feared that the driver in the next car might be stoned?
NASCAR waited so long to start testing, you think that they would have gotten it right the first time! But noooooooooo. . .
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 7:50 am
The only dangerous precedent I see being set here is that a governing body announces a ‘drug testing policy’ without determining a list of unapproved substances. That governing body can decide what they can punish their ‘workers’ for having in their system at will and without consistency. That gives them ultimate power to decide who can and who can’t compete in their sport. They want a driver out, say he ‘failed’ a drug test but not reveal the drug he had in his system. NASCAR never mentioned the drug until all the legal action, and neither Mayfield nor his lawyer said they were told the results until AFTER NASCAR announced it to the world. It could be dangerous recreational drugs (meth, cocaine, heroin), but by the same token it could be high levels of vitamin C or caffeine.
Remember- Mayfield said he -never- seen the samples closed and sealed in front of him. By not having a tightly ran sample collection procedure, a test is invalid. Re-testing opened samples (as NASCAR wanted the labs to do) makes a test invalid. It’s far too easy to contaminate samples to get the ‘desired’ result if you want someone out of your sport.
Think about this- if you have a drug testing policy at work, would you want it to be fair and above board for everyone, or would you want it to be able to be manipulated to produce results the ‘company’ wanted? NASCAR wants everyone to think their system is fair, but the loopholes they let slide put their entire system in question.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 7:55 am
does it really matter if Jeremy got an injunction,we all know that his car would never pass inspection!he’d get hit with fines and suspensions for whatever NASCAR “caught” him doing to his car.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 8:32 am
This man is supposed to innocent until proven guilty. I hope that when he is found innocent, he sue’s the living hell out of NASCAR and every media outlet that blackballed him.
And to NASCAR, yes indeed you are under Federal law as far as workers rights go. Just because NASCAR is a “private” entity doesn’t exclude it from Federally mandated worker rights, rules and regulations. Most for profit businesses in this country are “private”
NASCAR doesn’t make law, all’s it’s doing is losing longtime fans like myself and many of my friends with their strong arm tactics. It’s turning into F-1 with all this crap and lately, the ARCA and ASA races have been a ton more exciting.
Dale Sr must be turning over in his grave.
You listening France ?
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 am
I ,of course, don’t have all the facts, but it looks more and more like NASCAR has bungled this case. If true, it could get quite expensive for them due to the asterisk under Jeremy’s name. I don’t think they realized what a can of worms they opened, and now it’s probably too late. My take is if NASCAR is going to be the “all knowing, all ruling sanctioning body”, they had better get it right or pay the price.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
I was in a program for many years that required random drug testing of me and my crew. During that period I had several people test positive. All claimed inocence. Following our procedures, retests and other methods, in the end all positives were upheld. While all were presumed innocent and received full compensation during those periods, I had the authority to and exercised it to remove them from positions of responsibility.
Here is where Jeremy is different. His test was positive. He denied any wrongful use. A second test was conducted on his “B” sample by the same lab. This confirmed the first test. He was suspended. He sued. NASCAR counter-sued. The Judge ruled that the harm to Jeremy was worse than the hard to NASCAR. He stopped the suspension till all the facts are in and a final ruling is issued.
REALITY: What sponsor or owner is going to put him in a car for a race. If he brings his car to the race it will be on his dime and I will be surprised if the panels are not blank. He has all ready stated he is broke. If this is just a case of combining prescribed and over the counter drugs then he has paid a high price for a lack of good judgement.
It will take a long time for this to sort out in the courts. It would be nice if it would not be a media circus, but we know better.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
This is one of the problems with NASCAR not having a ‘driver’s union’
If the drivers had a union, we could have come to this same place, with Mayfield reinstated, without the need for legal precedent.
I’m not saying Mayfield should race again. I’m just saying, without a driver’s union in place, NASCAR has no way to settle these things oustside of a courtroom.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 12:41 pm
How is Jeremy in any way dangering the competetors? Nascar said they would test him before he goes on track to make sure he’s clean.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Justin- I never said Mayfield being on track was endangering his competitors. Other people certainly have. I though am confident he will be thoroughly tested before he is allowed on track.
What I said was dangerous was the precedent allowing a driver who fails a drug test back sets.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Based on his statements, Jeremy has repeatedly said he would re-take a drug test. NASCAR has said again and again the only samples they want to retest is the 2 already in their possession (that tested positive both times).
If it is a false positive, based on a combination of the two drugs, the chance that Mayfield is a ‘danger’ to the other drivers is probably negligible. False positives happen. A nursing home in my home town had about half of their patients test positive for marijuana usage, but it was Protonics they were taking for stomach illness giving the false positive. Did that mean these senior citizens were all giggling with the munchies? No, it doesn’t.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Journo,
Why didn’t NASCAR have the “B” sample sent to a different lab?
This precedent is not bad, it’s good. What happens if their lab flunks a Chase driver? They suspend him and make him miss races and then find out later that it was a false-positive…
OOOPS… SORRY! Meanwhile his shot at the Chase is gone. And not just his, but everyone on the team loses their chance at the Cup.
West Coast Kenny
Alameda, California
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
“(if you want proof of that look at the response from owners with open seats this weekend). ”
Which owners? I don’t know what media idiots decided to start this story up, but why the hell would Joe Nemechek get out of his own car that he prepared himself for this race to let, ANYONE, Jeremy Mayfield included, get in it.
I don’t see any stories making a big deal about Joe Nememeck not letting Boris Said drive his car this week.
Why? Because its got nothing to do with Mayfield. It has to do with the fact that there were no OPEN SEATS. It was THURSDAY. Practice was starting THAT DAY. The drivers were fitted and ready to go.
Any author, yourself included, that contends that Mayfield was refused an open seat in the race is just a plain idiot, fair and simple.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Kenny- I don’t work for NASCAR nor Dr. Black, nor am I an expert on drug tests. That being said from what I know, have read and have heard it is not at all uncommon for organizations to have a positive test retested at the same lab. Feel free to read up on it if you like. Mayfield also agreed to have said test retested. The facts as we know them are that Mayfield tested positive for a very illegal drug, perhaps it was a false positive, but until that is proven otherwise he has no business on the race track. The same is true for any other driver, in the Chase or not. What this is setting up is a situation where NASCAR’s drug test no matter the circumstances is emasculated. In other sports being on a drug is not necessarily dangerous for fellow athletes and fans, it is very dangerous here. I think Ramsey Poston said it best:
And he is very right. If Mayfield wins this becomes precedent in the sports world and opens everyone up to lawsuits. NASCAR needs to be able to drug test the drivers and suspend them if they fail those tests. On top of that is a potential for increased situations where anybody and everybody is suing NASCAR because they do not agree with a policy.
Overall I think everyone needs to take a step back and let this case play itself out. We have just barely scratched the surface of the lawsuit. Saying NASCAR made a mistake here is just like saying Jeremy Mayfield is a meth head. At this point lets let the court decide what is fact and what is fiction. I caution everyone not to draw conclusions from this temporary injunction. We still have a long way to go.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Lance – Outside of Joe Nemechek, Tommy Baldwin called him a marked man and said he wouldn’t be putting him in one of his cars and Larry Gunselman said he couldn’t put Mayfield in his car because his sponsor didn’t want him. Phil Parsons said they were sticking with Dave Blaney. Those are the only potential open seats for him big guy (they have all rotated through drivers all season). Hence why those owners were asked. As far as Nemechek goes, he has on several occassions sold his ride to Red Bull after qualifying for Scott Speed, that is why he was asked. Larry Gunselman is a potential in the future but I am guessing unless he has a sponsor Mayfield would only be starting and parking that car. More than anything Lance this was a pretty good gauge of how these independent owners, the only owners that could potentially field him, feel about his situation and the future. Please do research before you call people idiots, it’s very crude and does nothing to strengthen your argument. Feel free to read the quotes in this AP story http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hRA8vV-U39pJjRPEUWVwi_0TEoXgD996FN7G0
I think the bigger and perhaps better question here is why would these owners pull their drivers who have been qualifying for races out of their seats for Mayfield who only made 5 of 11 races he attempted this season.
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
In Nascar’s presentation to the judge, didn’t they submit signed statements from several drivers, including Jimmie Johnson & Jeff Gordon. If I remeber correctly, both drivers stated that they were concerned for their safety on the track if there was a driver who was under the influence of drugs. What would happen if one of the main drivers stated that they were concerned for their safety if Mayfield was in the feild? Would NASCAR be able to take any action legally, such as parking the alleged drug user? Can a driver refuse to race?
on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
I think the whole situation is a glowing example of sloppy and frequently slanted reporting by the so-called NASCAR media. The only comparison I have seen by the media to another major sport is an article by David Newton of ESPN in which he said that the NFL’s program has the B sample tested in the same lab as the A sample if the A sample tests positive. I have to believe NASCAR’s program stacks up pretty well with other major sports or the media would be trumpetting the differences. It seems to me that there is a feeling in the NASCAR media that bashing NASCAR sells. If the NASCAR program is so clearly flawed, where was the reporting of such when the program was announced last fall? In my opinion the media is much more concerned with sales and hits than whether those misusing drugs are kept out of places where they could injure themselves or others.
The World Anti-Doping Assn. list of prohibited substances is an 8 page list of chemicals, the last page of which identifies illegal substances. Except for the illegal drugs, the WADA list appears to me to be just performance enhancing substances and masking agents – nothing about performance inhibiting agents or drug combinations that might inhibit performance. In other words, a list for auto racing could run many more than 8 pages. NASCAR has stated that it did provide teams with 1 or maybe 2 memos before the season began of prohibited substances that it had to test crew members for, and I have not seen any reports saying that such was not true.
If NASCAR’s program is so clearly flawed, why did Mayfield not challenge the suspension of one of his crewmen early this season? I have read that Mayfield’s response to the failed drug test was to fire the crewman.
I see nothing wrong with NASCAR’s drug testing program prohibiting any substance, or combination, that might endanger competitors, race officials, or fans, which is what the policy provides. Someone should not be able to get away with taking a performance inhibiting substance just because it was not put on a published list before he or she was tested.
Maybe the testing of Mayfield’s samples was faulty, and, if so, then he deserves to be reinstated, compensated, and the testing procedures improved – but that will not be known until the case goes back to court.
It amazes me that the NASCAR media finds the NASCAR program full of faults, while the general sports media has crucified Sammy Sosa based on alleged evidence of a failed drug test 6 or 7 years ago without any questioning of the accuracy of the test – and with no mention whatsoever by the NASCAR media of the Sosa situation and why its testing regimen would be superior to that of NASCAR.
I do not know who is right about Mayfield’s drug test – but I am convinced that NASCAR’s drug testing program is much better than the vast majority of the reporting about it.
on Jul 4th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Journo, I wasn’t responding to anything in the article, I was responding to a comment posted by ella.
on Jul 4th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Charlie – “They made two bad decisions 1. Not modeling their program like that of MLB or the NFL. 2. Letting Bill Diehl intimidate them to go from state court to Federal court.”
Why should NASCAR “model” their program based on other programs? Obviously NASCAR is very unique as they contest the sport at upwards of 200mph. And BTW the NFL’s testing program does not follow Fed guidelines assuming that’s why you broached the subject.
Did Bill Diehl intimidate NASCAR to change venues to a Fed court? Surely you have some type of proof of that.
on Jul 4th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
brian – “This man is supposed to innocent until proven guilty. I hope that when he is found innocent, he sue’s the living hell out of NASCAR and every media outlet that blackballed him.”
You can hope all you want, in fact there’s a saying that goes something like “hope springs eternal.” ( many times just “springs a leak.”)
That said, just what media outlets “blackballed him?” What friggin’ part of the universe do you live in that has missed the wall-to-wall MSM coverage of this story.
Geebus, even non-NASCAR and non-sports outlets have highlighted the Mayfield case.
on Jul 4th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
F1Ferrari – You have been very quick at offering your “legal advice” to NASCAR and suggest they get better advice and or lawyers.
Puzzle me this:
Mayfield’s attorney has claimed NASCAR’s program did not meet federal guidelines because Mayfield was not given an opportunity to challenge the results.
The same lab tested both his “A” and backup “B” samples, and Bill Diehl argued Mayfield should have been able to take the sealed “B” sample to an independent lab for his own test.
This is a prime example of a shyster, er I mean a lawyer wanting things both ways.
First he argues NASCAR must follow Fed guidelines. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration sets policy and guidelines for fed regulated testing programs.
Go ahead, follow the link provided and quote where it’s a requirement for a privately run testing program such as NASCARs to use the SAMHSA guidelines.
(as a friend, I’ll save you a bit of time, in two hours [and counting] looking I didn’t see squat requiring it, Gov programs and those companies operating under gov contracts only)
Secondly Diehl suggests the “A” and “B” samples should have been tested by two separate and independent labs.
Well then, Diehl needs to look at the provided link also, that isn’t required by the SAMHSA even if NASCAR did fall under their purview.
And BTW F1Ferrari, you do know NASCAR did test both “A” and “B” samples with a second and independent lab with the same meth positive result don’t you?
on Jul 4th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
The NASCAR drug program is a joke. If a person is found with certain substances (not specified) in their system, they are subject to a suspension of indeterminate length, which could be a lifetime suspension on its first occurance but will certainly be a lifetime suspension on its third occurrence. This is supposedly done for safety concerns, but there isn’t even a breathalyzer test for drivers before they get into their race cars. I somehow doubt that the test includes a ban on Budweiser. The test includes random testing of approximately two drivers per race, which means that when Mayfield tested positive, the positive test rate for Sprint Cup was about 3% for the year.
So what is the dangerous precedent with getting a temporary injunction? You cited the NFL case, but has that created any major repecussions? No. Nor have other injunctions against the NCAA and other ruling bodies which merely slowed down the process to insure that individual rights were protected while the underlying program is reviewed.
The bigger question is why not add specificity to the program. Make the list of banned substances and testing protocols public. Most people won’t be interested, but if you want to know you can find out. If you think you need flexibility, develop a process for revising the list or retroactive testing, but make those criteria public.
Standardize the penalties. This doesn’t mean that the penalty has to be the same for crew and drivers alike, or even for all drug violations. But it does mean that if the violation is for a particular substance at a particular level, any driver, whether the points leader or a one-time sub, the penalty will be the same. In baseball, the penalty for steroids is fifty games for a violation; in football it is four games plus more frequent testing; in track it is a two year ban. NASCAR would be well served to have a well-known, publicized penalty structure so that it is not perceived as arbitrary.
A last point to Journo. In comment 18, you say that that everyone needs to take a step back and wait for the case to play out. I disagree. NASCAR should be looking at the weaknesses of their program right now. The fact that Mayfield won an injunction should already signal that the drug policy has problems, even if it is ultimately upheld. NASCAR should take steps right now to ensure that the program is clear and fair, and not subject to arbitrary application and enforcement.
For once they should be proactive in detailing all aspects of the policy publicly so that any future enforcement is not seen as potentially arbitrary.
on Jul 5th, 2009 at 2:26 am
Bear- First of all I wrote this entire case COULD set a dangerous precedent, not that the temporary injunction would set a dangerous precedent. Second there is a procedure for getting back on track if you fail a drug test, that includes treatment for whatever you tested positive for. So no you couldn’t be have a permanent ban with your first failed test (look at Shane Hmiel). Third you make a lot of assumptions about NASCAR’s drug testing program. I assure you alcohol is not an OK thing to have in your system. Finally where do you get the statistics you cite? By the time Mayfield had failed a test in Richmond every single driver had been tested at least once randomly through the system (a well documented fact). But Mayfield’s failed test is not indicator of failure rates in other driver’s tests.
To your last point, I would counter that NASCAR has made some changes to their program. There were several stories out about it this week. Do I think its full proof or the best program in sports? Not for me to answer. I can tell you they are very comfortable with their system though. At the end of the day though everyone does need to take a step back and not assume the test was a false positive and in the same breath not assume Mayfield is a meth head.
on Jul 5th, 2009 at 6:46 am
Marc-
I’m not disputing anything you’ve argued, but as someone familiar with drug testing (as my family has been in the medical laboratory field for nearly 40 years) I do know a few things about the process.
Once an unopened sample has been opened for testing (the FIRST test), it is looked at as a contaminated sample. That sample should not be used again, especially at a second lab. This applies to both Mayfield’s A and B sample. There is no way of proving an opened, USED sample is ‘clean’ for use at a second lab. Mayfield has repeatedly offered to take tests, but NASCAR is consistent on only testing the two samples they know will fail.
All samples for drug testing should be sealed in plain view of the person being tested. Mayfield has routinely said he never saw the samples closed, and this is an important point. If the person being tested is not allowed to see the sample closed, sealed, and initial the sample as such, all kinds of doubt can be put into the system.
Adderall will show up as dextroamphetamine in a drug test. It is a derivative of amphetamines which has the probability of giving a false positive result. Mayfield should have told NASCAR he was taking this medicine, but it’s possible he forgot, or didn’t think it would show up as ‘meth’.
My stance on this is both parties are at fault. NASCAR’s drug test procedure has some serious opportunity for improvement and Mayfield should have been forthcoming with what he was putting into his body. I wouldn’t want a drugged up driver tooling around Daytona at 185 mph, but then again I definitely don’t want civil liberties and the chance to be ‘innocent until PROVEN guilty’ removed by one governing body’s ‘holier than thou’ attitude.
on Jul 5th, 2009 at 7:22 am
To be absolutely clear, you state in your article that, “I think it sets a very dangerous precedent not just for NASCAR but for sports as a whole for a judge to lift a suspension on any athlete who tested positive for an illegal substance.” No could or might in this statement.
Second, the comment about the lifetime ban for a first failed test as well as the two drivers being tested randomly each race come directly from Nascar’s announcement of the program last fall. The following are specific quotes from an article by Dave Rodman on nascar.com from September 20, 2008, the most comprehensive report on the policy I have seen.
“NASCAR’s announcement reiterated the policy that, “while it is possible that a competitor could receive a lifetime ban for just one violation, a third violation will automatically result in a lifetime ban.”
“[NASCAR vice president of racing operations Steve] O’Donnell said in a typical weekend, an average of two drivers per series would be tested.”
While it is true that all drivers were tested in preseason, that is not a random test.
If there was a subsequent change that made it so that there were more random tests, I missed that announcement. More to the point I am not in any way asserting Mayfield’s innocence. I have no problem with a very strict testing program. What concerns me is that NASCAR is unwilling to be open about all aspects of the policy in such a way as to assure that the program is being administered fairly. The laboratory must have procedures as to what substances are being tested for and in what concentrations but NASCAR refuses to release that information.
In a recent statement Bill France Jr. said “We know we came up with a very good policy. People frequently test positive for one thing or another. It happens very, very frequently. It’s very rare, though, that we do a suspension, because that’s a very serious matter.” So why not make the policy for distinguishing between positive tests and suspendible activities clear.
If NASCAR has a “very good policy” why don’t they just let the world know what it is. Then we could all make a much better judgment about it.
on Jul 5th, 2009 at 7:26 am
A quick correction. I referred to Bill France Jr. instead of Brian France in the prior post. Sorry for the error.
on Jul 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Bear- First of all I was referring to the case as a whole, not to the injunction when I wrote what I wrote. At the end of the day if Mayfield does win this case, that is exactly what will happen, his suspension will be lifted. I apologize if that wasn’t clear. I did refer in that same paragraph to the sanctioning body becoming impotent and I don’t think that has happened with this temporary injunction. It could happen though if Mayfield wins his case. I also titled the blog post “Mayfield Case COULD Set a Dangerous Precedent.”
I didn’t dispute the two tests per race what I did question was the number of failed tests you cite. There is a well documented procedure for getting back on the track. Steve O’Donnell does not exactly make clear what situation could result in an automatic lifetime ban, but everyone who has ever failed a NASCAR drug test has been given the opportunity to return (Shane Hmiel, Kevin Grubb, Jeremy Mayfield etc.) if they completed the a rehab program and agreed to increased testing.
As far as why NASCAR doesn’t make their testing policy more public, I think they have made the policy pretty public. Beyond that though I don’t really understand the need to make this a publicly transparent program. I’m not affected by NASCAR’s drug testing policy and neither are you. As long as the drivers, owners and crew members are clear, I honestly believe that’s all that matters. Could they do a little better job of that? Absolutely. On the driver’s end if they have any question about any substance they are taking, they can call Dr. Black and ask him. He is very responsive.
What Brian France is referring to are situations where a driver has a prescription in his system and fails the test because of that, but the drug is known to them and to David Black.
on Jul 5th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
F1Ferrari – Considering you felt the need to tout you testing credentials – which I don’t doubt BTW – I should say I don’t come to the debate unarmed.
In my 20 years of U.S. Naval service a very large majority was time was spent directly involved in both the collection of mandated samples and also as witness in UCMJ trails involving drugs and as both a ship-board and ashore drug councilor.
As to this – “Once an unopened sample has been opened for testing (the FIRST test), it is looked at as a contaminated sample. That sample should not be used again, especially at a second lab. This applies to both Mayfield’s A and B sample.”
Well I got a newsflash for ya, that may be the way you and your family via your business has operated but it’s not a requirement when operating under Fed guidelines.
Example the Navy’s samples are given in a single cup, it is tested and if positive for an illegal/banned substance the remaining portion of that sample is tested again.
There is no “A” and “B” sample, there is only a single sample split into two for testing purposes. Needless to say the Navy’s program operates under the Fed guidelines being a part of the Gov.
Next – “Adderall will show up as dextroamphetamine in a drug test. It is a derivative of amphetamines which has the probability of giving a false positive result. Mayfield should have told NASCAR he was taking this medicine, but it’s possible he forgot, or didn’t think it would show up as ‘meth’.”
Already covered here, but for clarification: Possible but not very likely because of the chemical makeup of meth.
As an aside to you conspiracy nuts who swallowed hook line and sinker some radio kook’s stunt of taking Claritin and Adderall then testing himself positive for Meth… damn fools you are to think a home testing kit can come close to the effectiveness of a full-fledged laboratory specifically designed for such work.
F1Ferrari – As you your point about Mayfield making the claim he didn’t see his sample closed etc… it may have happened it may not have I’ve never argued either way.
But given Mayfield’s past history during the Ray Evernham case and some of the ludicrous actions in this case to this point, busting his suspension immediately getting it, refusing rehab and claiming he took a hair follicle test to name few examples, I’ll have to see it to believe it.
on Jul 5th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
the Bear – “The fact that Mayfield won an injunction should already signal that the drug policy has problems, even if it is ultimately upheld.”
Does it?
Or is it possible the judge looked at both sides and made the decision based on the possibility of test errors and the potential effects on Mayfield’s career?
Remember this was a hearing on the injunction not the actual merits of the case, this hearing only lasted a couple hours there is no way in hell the judge heard all the details from both sides he only received a cursory sample of the facts and took the logical way out considering Mayfield’s rights and allowed him back on track.
“the Bear” you’ve made the same mistake many have by putting FAR too much weight on this ruling, in reality it means jack-s**t in the larger picture.
on Jul 5th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Journo.
Those are not open seats.
An open seat is when a team doesn’t have a driver. When a driver leaves a team, the seat is open. When Scott Riggs left the 36 team, that seat was open. It’s not open anymore.
To suggest that a team is going to tell a perfectly capable driver to bugger off on the day practice is set to begin, go through the trouble of changing over seats and acclimating themselves with a new crew is absolutely retarded.
Anyone, yourself included, that insinuates that the reason that these owners didn’t put Mayfield in their car at Daytona had anything to do with his situation is simply retarded. Bottom line.
Would they have put him in the car if they really did have an open seat? Who knows. But there were no open seats at Daytona. Tell me which team filled out the entry form with “TBD” on the driver sheet? You reported that there were. It’s you that needs to check your facts, not me.
on Jul 5th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Lance: A team doesn’t have to have an open seat, as you defined it, for them to put another driver in the car. Nemechek has given up his seat at least twice this season to Scott Speed after he didn’t make races in his own 82. Those owners were talked to and about because they are the only ones that have any flexibility in terms of making a driver change. And if you think a seat is changed and an “acclimation” period is necessary every time a driver switch happens, then you are confused. And I don’t believe Journo ever said there was a team on the entry list with “TBD” listed as driver…
on Jul 5th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Journo – “This is also setting up a precedent for suspended crew members to start suing NASCAR too. That is not something that is going to improve the sport.”
I don’t think this is about improving the sport. This is about not ruining someone’s life.
First, let’s go to one thing the Judge said, “the likelihood of a false positive in this case is quite substantial.” Some folks in this thread would like us all to believe that there is no way Jeremy could have returned a false positive. I am assuming since the judge has actually seen evidence his opinion is based on the facts of the case vs speculation.
Second, if a driver, crewmember, official or whatever has a false positive, do you think they should just rollover and live with being branded a drug user? Lose their job? Lose their career? Do you assume anyone that returns a positive test is guilty?
Let’s make this really personal for you. Let’s assume TC is tested and returns a false positive. He could 1) as has been suggested by some for Jeremy – take his suspension like a man, admit guilt, enter a rehab program, have his suspension lifted by NASCAR and likely never work in the sport again – career over or 2) sue NASCAR and hope to have his name cleared.
Assuming you two are friends, I hope you are the kind of friend that would fight for his right to sue NASCAR and not have his life completely ruined.
on Jul 5th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Knobcreekfan- I didn’t say Jeremy didn’t have a right to sue. Never did I say that. And honestly any crew member has the right to sue too. In the case of crew members though the drug testing process is much more like the one I’m sure your employer uses. There are a list of drugs that you can not be on. You are tested, you know you if you have something in your system you could be fired for it. I think Jeremy has every right to sue and deserves his day in court, but I think until it is proven this was a false positive he should be tested multiple times during the week and there should be no concern that he is on something. A crew member being on something is not endangering anyone’s life, but a driver on something is.
All that being said, I don’t think everyone filing suit against the sanctioning body is a good thing. I do think that sets a very bad precedent. This could lead to lawsuits in other areas too, which is what I meant to point out with the piece that you cut out. Apparently I’m not being clear enough. I said suspended crew members, not crew members suspended for failing drug tests. That could mean any number of things and I apologize.
Again I say this to you too, we all need to wait to see how this pans out before we start placing blame. The only thing presented to the judge were affidavits which are accessible through several media outlets and testimony by the attorneys on each side. There were no revelations that came out of the hearing and there was not a whole lot of evidence to go off of. That will come when the actual lawsuit is heard by the judge. Again please do not assume this was a false-positive anymore then one would assume Mayfield is a meth head. By assuming one or the other you are doing exactly what you accuse NASCAR of doing, and that is railroading.
on Jul 5th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Lance- I don’t think you understand how these teams work. Drivers for these teams don’t have contracts, they have verbal agreements. If the owner decides they want someone else in the car, they will tell them to “bugger off.” So in that sense they are open seats, wide open. If one of these guys decided they had wanted to have Mayfield in their car at Daytona they could have very easily done that. Again no contracts, just verbal agreements and sometimes not even that. Again I ask you to do a little research before attacking my fact checking. If you don’t understand how things work, like in this situation for instance, don’t attack people or call them idiots. It’s unnecessary and very crude.
on Jul 6th, 2009 at 12:14 am
A driver, crewman, or NASCAR official could endanger their life by misusing prescription medications, such as by overmedicating or by using medicine in the wrong combinations. I don’t know how readily available it was before, but the NASCAR program is now public as it was included as an attachment to Mayfield’s original suit. If NASCAR’s program is so clearly faulty, I am still waiting to see someone in the media demonstrate such by doing a comparison of NASCAR’s program to that of the IRL, F1, NHRA, NFL, NBA, or MLB – and since I have not seen anyone in the media do such, I have to assume that NASCAR’s program in fact stacks up pretty well. The only comparison at all that I have seen is in an article by David Newton where he states that the NFL has the A and B samples tested by the same lab, like NASCAR does.
on Jul 6th, 2009 at 4:15 am
I will attack you Journo because its low quality, misleading journalism.
If you want to say that “No owner decided to replace the driver they intended to race at Daytona with Jeremy Mayfield”
Thats fine. Because its true.
But there were no open seats. The way you, the ap story you linked, and 3 or 4 other writers presented it is to make a big to-do about nothing. IE: Make people think that Mayfield can’t even get a ride with a team that doesnt have a driver.
Thats bollocks. Tommy Baldwin might only have a verbal agreement with Patrick Carpentier – but its a damn agreement. Key word. Agreement. Thats not an open seat. Thats an occupied seat. It might be easier to change a driver out if you want to, but calling it an open seat is deliberately misleading journalism.
I guarantee you Joe Nemechek prefers himself in his own race car over any driver. He’s not buying his equipment and parts from Jeremy Mayfield, so why would he let him drive the car? So don’t compare Scott Speed with Mayfield because, for someone that apparently does so much research, you should know the reason why that swap has been made.
You haven’t seen Joe Nemecheck get out of his own car for Max Papis this weekend did you?
Why didn’t the 66 car put Max in the car? He’s clearly outperformed the drivers of the 66 car.
And how about this for a thought. Why the hell would Jeremy Mayfield even WANT to drive the 66, 64 etc.
Mayfield has completed more laps in the 5 races he has run so far than these cars have combined in EIGHTEEN RACES.
Maybe before making a big eye-catching article about how start-and park owners with existing agreements with drivers didn’t opt to put Jeremy Mayfield in their car instead this week, you should have asked yourself the question “Would Jeremy Mayfield even want to drive this car?”
The answer is no. When Jeremy Mayfield shows up to a race, he is there to race. I guess the same can be said for Scott Riggs, who has made a much more quiet exit from the series this season, but I don’t see your article slagging on Scott Riggs about his not deciding to race one of these cars in Daytona.
on Jul 6th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Lance: If you want to believe it’s “low quality, misleading journalism” that’s fine. We’ll just go ahead and agree to disagree on this one.
on Jul 6th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Lance – “An open seat is when a team doesn’t have a driver. When a driver leaves a team, the seat is open. When Scott Riggs left the 36 team, that seat was open. It’s not open anymore.”
For the sake of argument lets stipulate that’s true, there were no “open seats”.
What is also true one seat could have been open but, one sponsor said not now, and I’m guessing probably never, would they put Jeremy in a car they sponsored.
Lance – “To suggest that a team is going to tell a perfectly capable driver to bugger off on the day practice is set to begin, go through the trouble of changing over seats and acclimating themselves with a new crew is absolutely retarded.”
Really, don’t think so?
Then you should recall what the then new owners did to Kyle Petty at Watkins Glen. He was not only set to drive that weekend but was in his firesuit ready for practice and the owners pulled him from the car and did exactly what you suggest is “retarded.”
on Jul 6th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
knobcreekfan – “First, let’s go to one thing the Judge said, “the likelihood of a false positive in this case is quite substantial.” Some folks in this thread would like us all to believe that there is no way Jeremy could have returned a false positive. I am assuming since the judge has actually seen evidence his opinion is based on the facts of the case vs speculation.”
While on the subject of assumptions, why do you assume the judge saw and ruled on all available evidence?
That’s just not possible during a hearing that lasted less than hours. In effect what the judge heard was excerpts and key points from both sides.
When the actual case is heard you can bet much more will come out, Diehl has estimated will take upwards of three to five weeks, and then and only then will all involved learn Mayfield’s future.
on Jul 6th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
My biggest probelm with NASCAR is the Holier than Thou with the “safety of the drivers and the fans” regarding the JM issue.
Listen, they let cars back on the track with crush panels gone and they know how carbon monoxide poisoning affects a drivers performance. So BS Nascar,own up on all issues. Put a CO detector hooked up to the transponder and then I believe your “safety” for all crap.
also who was the driver way back when who brought a cup of beer with him in the car and said “Bad Idea”, all it did was foam up because of the bumps in the track?
Safety… yeah right, they went PC and they didn’t even(and still don’t) have a program together with regards to all safety aspects of the drivers and fans involved.
on Jul 7th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Marc – “While on the subject of assumptions, why do you assume the judge saw and ruled on all available evidence?”
marc, stick with what I actually wrote. I never said he “saw and ruled on all available evidence.” I just simply said that he “has actually seen evidence.” The rest of us mere mortals are relying on media reports/outlets/speculation for our information.
on Jul 7th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Journo – “All that being said, I don’t think everyone filing suit against the sanctioning body is a good thing. I do think that sets a very bad precedent.”
I am sure we will have to agree to disagree on this. And let me say I am not a very litigious person. But, assuming they have been TRULY wronged, they stand to suffer significant harm and they cannot resolve the issue via other means, I am fine with people suing NASCAR. Historically NASCAR has taken a “my way or the highway” approach to governing the sport. If you diagree with them your option is to leave the business, change your career, shutter your business, etc. Maybe, just maybe, the threat of lawsuits (and losing lawsuits) from some of their “partners” (teams, crews, drivers, tracks) that all combined make the sport possible will persuade NASCAR to cooperate with them all more.
“I think Jeremy has every right to sue and deserves his day in court, but I think until it is proven this was a false positive he should be tested multiple times during the week and there should be no concern that he is on something.”
I agree with you here, test the heck out of him. As a side note, from what I have seen/heard, Jeremy has offered up to test whenever/wherever NASCAR wants. So that should not be a problem.
“Again please do not assume this was a false-positive anymore then one would assume Mayfield is a meth head. By assuming one or the other you are doing exactly what you accuse NASCAR of doing, and that is railroading.”
With all due respect, I am going to presume it is a false positive. I am simply sticking with a main principal of the American juducial system…presumed innocence.
By default, to (as you say) “not assume this was a false-positive” you are presuming it was a legitimate positive test. If you presume it is a legitimate postive test, then you are presuming his guilt.
I understand this case is different than a typical criminal case where normal presumed innocence and burden of proof rules apply, but the man has proclaimed his innocence. Therefore, let’s treat the man as we would want to be treated and as our Constitution directs us.
on Jul 7th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
knobcreekfan – “marc, stick with what I actually wrote. I never said he “saw and ruled on all available evidence.” I just simply said that he “has actually seen evidence.” The rest of us mere mortals are relying on media reports/outlets/speculation for our information.”
I did, did you see any quote marks around what I wrote? Not to mention it was in the form of a question AND clearly explained why it wasn’t possible for judge Mullen to hear all the available evidence in a short hearing that was not intended to be the be all and end all of the entire case.
on Jul 7th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
vettesnfrets – “and they know how carbon monoxide poisoning affects a drivers performance. So BS Nascar,own up on all issues. Put a CO detector hooked up to the transponder and then I believe your “safety” for all crap.”
Psst, you’re about 6 years behind the NASCAR news cycle, the carbon monoxide problem has been looked and addressed.
1/23/2003 – NASCAR takes action on carbon monoxide fumes.
Example two 2005
vettesnfrets, you were saying what?
on Jul 7th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
marc – “I did”
WHAT?! Maybe I am missing something, but your comment (in the form of a question of course) was “While on the subject of assumptions, why do you assume the judge saw and ruled on all available evidence?” You are explicitly asking me why I assumed something I that did not write or assume. Therefore, you have gone away from what I actually wrote.
What planet are you from? (please note that was in the form of a question)
Also, since I did not assume he saw and ruled on all available evidence, it is irrelevant that you “clearly explained why it wasn’t possible for judge Mullen to hear all the available evidence in a short hearing that was not intended to be the be all and end all of the entire case.” (please note the use of quotation marks)
Further, I fully understand that this procedure was just one step in what will likely be a very lengthy process. I am guessing we will have crowned the 2010 and maybe the 2011 Cup champions before this is through the various rulings and appeals.
on Jul 7th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
knobcreekfan – Well let’s see you ended a para with this “I am assuming since the judge has actually seen evidence his opinion is based on the facts of the case vs speculation.”
You made an assumption that isn’t possible given the length of the hearing. You may feel the judge heard all the pertinate evidence, have at it, but you’re far off the mark.
“Further, I fully understand that this procedure was just one step in what will likely be a very lengthy process.”
Not hardly this “step” is merely a sideshow, the real cases are two lawsuits filed by Mayfield and NASCAR.
And BTW, my home planet is Venus.
P.S. Puzzle me this: In this latest hearing why did judge Mullen discount Mayfield’s own expert who claimed the amount of meth found in all three tests indicated he was a “chronic user?”
on Jul 7th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Knobcreekfan- I wrote, as you quoted ““Again please do not assume this was a false-positive anymore then one would assume Mayfield is a meth head. By assuming one or the other you are doing exactly what you accuse NASCAR of doing, and that is railroading.” That presumes absolutely nothing. If you want to chop the quote up and take it out of context then sure, you can make it mean what you want, but I do not presume anything. Again I encourage you to not speculate on this matter, because that is what you are doing.
Mayfield’s attorneys are obligated to prove this was a false positive. Because they filed the suit, the burden lies with them http://www.cochranfirm.com/resources/PersonalInjury/burdenofproof.htm. Feel free to look up burden of proof. As of now they have not done that because this case is in the very early stages. I am assuming they will attempt to do this as the lawsuit moves forward. Remember two things (1) this is a civil case not a criminal case (Mayfield will not be found guilty or innocent) and (2) the burden lies with Mayfield not with NASCAR. Taking what I just said into account and using your logic, NASCAR is actually the one you should consider innocent until proven guilty. It’s a little one sided, but if your interested in some in-depth legal reading about the case, check out NASCAR’s appeal filing with the court: http://media.charlotteobserver.com/static/images/pdf/Mayfielddoc33.pdf.
It is easy to assume based on your observations of someone that they would not do something like this, but as TC wrote a couple of weeks ago perception is not always reality. I assume you are not a close confidant of Jeremy Mayfield. I don’t personally know what the correct answer is on this matter. I can tell you, I hope for Jeremy’s health and well being this somehow was a false positive.
As far as NASCAR being a “my way or the highway” business I wouldn’t want it any other way. I know many in the business who would agree with that. We have predictability and stability that few other sanctioning bodies can offer. You’re of course welcome to disagree if you like.
With the above said, I’ve had my fill of Mayfield for one week. I’m out on this discussion. As Linda Richman would say “Talk amongst yourselves.”
on Jul 8th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Journo – Well said and well done.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can judge things without all of the available facts on hand. That’s not to say everything is on the table in this case, it’s not, but as you point out via your link they are for this appeal to reinstate Mayfield’s suspension.
One of the key points to me is the section that reads the, “court improperly decided without the benefit of any evidence in the record that a reliable and accurate same-day test for methamphetamine exists which can ensure Mayfield’s drug-free participation in upcoming NASCAR events.”
Until, and if, the three tests Mayfield were given are proven to be flawed in some way the default should have been on the side of safety for fans, crew members and drivers with the lifting of the suspension.
Whether the appeal of this decision wins and the suspension is reinstated we’ll have to wait and see, that I suspect will occur sometime in the next two or three days.
on Jul 9th, 2009 at 8:52 am
“It never ceases to amaze me how people can judge things without all of the available facts on hand.”
Coming from you, that has got to be the funniest thing I have ever read. Forgetting some of your wonderful insight on other topics and just sticking with Mayfield; on this site and yours you have proclaimed some wonderful gems including 1) Jeremy is personally responsible for any liability for the TRT lawsuit, 2) he is flat busted broke, 3) a false positive is impossible, 4) Jeremy is a liar, 5) his attorneys are shysters, 6) Judge Mullen assumed when making his ruling that it would be appealed & 7) Diehl is full of sh*t.
As you have said, not all of the evidence has been presented in this case. So, how on Venus can you make such judgements?
on Jul 9th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Journo – You are correct. I am not a close confidant of Jeremy’s. I do know him and have worked with him in the past. Honestly, I really did not like him much, but like you said…for his own health and wellbeing I do hope this is a false positive.
Now I may not have been clear with what I was trying to say…and since I am the current record holder for longest post on TNI and I was trying to not break that record, I was trying to be brief. As you can tell that is hard for me to do.
But, I did say that I knew this was not a normal criminal case and accordingly those rules do not apply. But the intent of those rules is to assume someone is innocent until proven otherwise. So, going back to pretending TC tests positive, I imagine the two of you would want all of us here to assume he was innocent. So let’s treat Jeremy the same way. I am not speculating on any facts of the case and what they may/may not mean. If a hair follicle test exists or not. I have not judged anyone. I have put no weight in injunctions. Etc. Just the good ol’ golden rule.
I know you think I am taking your words out of context, but you would like us to “not assume this was a false-positive anymore then one would assume Mayfield is a meth head.” There are some double negatives here, but to not assume it is false, is to assume it is legitimate positive. You cannot argue that any other way. If we are assuming it is legitimate positive, then we have speculated/judged. Granted, I guess one could argue at what level of meth use one becomes a “meth head” and he could just be a user. But we would have at least assumed he has used meth.
“As far as NASCAR being a “my way or the highway” business I wouldn’t want it any other way. We have predictability and stability that few other sanctioning bodies can offer.”
I do not want to debate what sport has the best sanctioning body because they all have issues…good & bad. But NFL, NBA, MLB all do pretty well and are not law enforcement, prosecutor, judge, jury, court of appeals and executioner all wrapped in one.
I am guessing you have never been on the “wrong side” of NASCAR politics. I have been on a couple of occasions and it is not fun. In one meeting with some NASCAR executives, my employer said something to a NASCAR senior executive that the NASCAR exec did not like. Said NASCAR executive told my employer that he would “ruin him and make sure he never worked in NASCAR again.” A short time later the company was out of business and 65 people lost their jobs.
I understand there is a need for the sanctioning body to be strong & firm, but I also think a little more cooperation would be good. Some folks would say China & Iran are predictable & stable. And that Iraq was more stable under Hussein than now. And as we saw Bernie E thinks Hitler was a good leader because he “got things done.” None of those regimes are/were good, but they are/were predictable and stable.
on Jul 15th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Who in their right mind ,would believe a jealous and broke stepmother that just wants some of his earnings . One ,she isn’t entitled to any of it ,two,She must be blowing someone somehow to try to destroy him !The thing for Nascar to do ,is to let him use a reputable lab ,where there is no possible way that anyone outside would be able to tamper with it ! It seems that Nascvar has something to hide ,because they keep shooting down his choices of labs. Is he innocent until proven guilty by his peers? They have him guilty before they get the results. If he loses his race team,and is not allowed to race again,the guilty ones will come out smelling as roses,but eventually the truth will come out! By then it will be too late !I have been a race fan for over 40 years ,and I don’t like the way Jeremy is being treated !