I suspect once word got around the sites hit counter would rise faster than the national debt, and NASCAR’s “police force” would swoop in and perp walk the allegedly guilty party.

The only one I recall was the Francis Ferko anti-trust case that resulted in Texas gaining a second race date.

The common misconception in that case was NASCAR lost, actually it was settled out of court, due to some violation of anti-trust law.

Actually it was reveled NASCAR had previously promised a race date to Ferko and the anti-trust portion of the case was never heard.

The existence of a legally binding agreement is why NASCAR can make and enforce rules; it is also why Mayfield can challenge NASCAR’s testing policy. Could NASCAR promulgate a rule requiring specific drivers to drive in specific races with the penalty of losing their license if they did not race? Yes, they could do so because a NASCAR license is an adhesion type contract, which means one party sets the terms and the other party or parties must accept those terms if they wish to be a party to the agreement. Would NASCAR make such a rule? Well, NASCAR has shown a willingness to unilaterally promulgate rather draconian rules, but it would have to tread carefully. Courts have the power to nullify contract terms in an adhesion contract if the court determines that that the disputed term is unconscionable (such as a drug policy that allows the person who tests positive very little recourse to show that the test was inaccurate).

A good resource for what is known publicly about official NASCAR rules is wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASCAR_rules_and_regulations