<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Precedent Means Nothing To NASCAR</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2010/03/11/precedent-means-nothing-to-nascar/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2010/03/11/precedent-means-nothing-to-nascar/</link>
	<description>A blog by insiders for outsiders</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:03:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Journo</title>
		<link>http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2010/03/11/precedent-means-nothing-to-nascar/comment-page-1/#comment-24958</link>
		<dc:creator>Journo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:33:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/?p=2681#comment-24958</guid>
		<description>Bobby- hahaha. I wouldn&#039;t call NASCAR fans hypocrites, it&#039;s just the nature of sports that people let their allegiances color their opinions of things. While I certainly don&#039;t agree with everything NASCAR does, I don&#039;t believe there is some conspiracy to help funded drivers over unfunded drivers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bobby- hahaha. I wouldn&#8217;t call NASCAR fans hypocrites, it&#8217;s just the nature of sports that people let their allegiances color their opinions of things. While I certainly don&#8217;t agree with everything NASCAR does, I don&#8217;t believe there is some conspiracy to help funded drivers over unfunded drivers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2010/03/11/precedent-means-nothing-to-nascar/comment-page-1/#comment-24955</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:35:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/?p=2681#comment-24955</guid>
		<description>Sr. had more pull with the powers that be than any other driver of his time. remember at Indy when they black flagged him for the lug nut? its still the only time I know of when nascar admitted a mistake and stopped a race to try to correct it.

the argument for the MW and CL engine penalties doesn&#039;t really work for you, they happened in relative close time periods. we aren&#039;t talking about 1984 when the kings engine was big at the 400(like huge,377ci iirc)
but there is a distinct difference, the jet fuel was a power &#039;adder&#039; vs cubic inches which is add-on vs internal. 

the two passes below the line are an interesting comparison. both have video, only  in DR&#039;s case even TS admitted he drove him down there and that DR had position. where as in Jr&#039;s case I do not recall MK saying anything of the sort.

I&#039;m interested with where this will go from here, as far as pay backs. if it&#039;s ok now to sit for 1-2hrs then go and wreck a top 10 car, where exactly is the line?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sr. had more pull with the powers that be than any other driver of his time. remember at Indy when they black flagged him for the lug nut? its still the only time I know of when nascar admitted a mistake and stopped a race to try to correct it.</p>
<p>the argument for the MW and CL engine penalties doesn&#8217;t really work for you, they happened in relative close time periods. we aren&#8217;t talking about 1984 when the kings engine was big at the 400(like huge,377ci iirc)<br />
but there is a distinct difference, the jet fuel was a power &#8216;adder&#8217; vs cubic inches which is add-on vs internal. </p>
<p>the two passes below the line are an interesting comparison. both have video, only  in DR&#8217;s case even TS admitted he drove him down there and that DR had position. where as in Jr&#8217;s case I do not recall MK saying anything of the sort.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m interested with where this will go from here, as far as pay backs. if it&#8217;s ok now to sit for 1-2hrs then go and wreck a top 10 car, where exactly is the line?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bobby#7Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2010/03/11/precedent-means-nothing-to-nascar/comment-page-1/#comment-24954</link>
		<dc:creator>Bobby#7Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:02:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/?p=2681#comment-24954</guid>
		<description>Journo, a buddy of mine was at that Richmond race listening on a scanner.  Dale Sr. called in he had a tire going down and pulled out of line to pit.  Nascar waved off the green and gave no reason for doing so.  I was and still am a HUGE Dale Sr. fan, so this was fine with me.  When it comes down to it, Nascar fans are all hypocrites.

I am not really a fan of Edwards, but I believe Nascar got the punishment right.  If it had been Johnson or Kyle Busch that wrecked the 12 I&#039;d have been screaming for them to be suspended for life.  We are all hypocrites, I just admit that I am.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Journo, a buddy of mine was at that Richmond race listening on a scanner.  Dale Sr. called in he had a tire going down and pulled out of line to pit.  Nascar waved off the green and gave no reason for doing so.  I was and still am a HUGE Dale Sr. fan, so this was fine with me.  When it comes down to it, Nascar fans are all hypocrites.</p>
<p>I am not really a fan of Edwards, but I believe Nascar got the punishment right.  If it had been Johnson or Kyle Busch that wrecked the 12 I&#8217;d have been screaming for them to be suspended for life.  We are all hypocrites, I just admit that I am.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Journo</title>
		<link>http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2010/03/11/precedent-means-nothing-to-nascar/comment-page-1/#comment-24952</link>
		<dc:creator>Journo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:59:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/?p=2681#comment-24952</guid>
		<description>Bobby- Jr. doesn&#039;t have five straight at Talladega, he has four straight. The incident you bring up occurred in 2003 and NASCAR maintained Jr. had already taken the spot before he went below the yellow line and therefore did not improve his position. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5c2dz_2003-talladega-4-in-a-rowdale-jr_sport&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Check out the video&lt;/a&gt;, it was very close. At the end of the day, like any other sport, NASCAR is there to officiate and that&#039;s what they did. Sometimes we agree with the decisions, sometimes we don&#039;t. In the case of Regan Smith though he very clearly crossed the yellow and improved his position. There is room for discussion in one incident, and not in the other. This is not at all proof that NASCAR favors anyone. 

I can&#039;t say I&#039;m familiar with the Dale Sr. incident but do you have proof NASCAR held the yellow for a few more laps, or is that just speculation?

I still don&#039;t see a history of incidents. I see people who are letting their allegiances cloud their judgement of situations. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bobby- Jr. doesn&#8217;t have five straight at Talladega, he has four straight. The incident you bring up occurred in 2003 and NASCAR maintained Jr. had already taken the spot before he went below the yellow line and therefore did not improve his position. <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5c2dz_2003-talladega-4-in-a-rowdale-jr_sport" rel="nofollow">Check out the video</a>, it was very close. At the end of the day, like any other sport, NASCAR is there to officiate and that&#8217;s what they did. Sometimes we agree with the decisions, sometimes we don&#8217;t. In the case of Regan Smith though he very clearly crossed the yellow and improved his position. There is room for discussion in one incident, and not in the other. This is not at all proof that NASCAR favors anyone. </p>
<p>I can&#8217;t say I&#8217;m familiar with the Dale Sr. incident but do you have proof NASCAR held the yellow for a few more laps, or is that just speculation?</p>
<p>I still don&#8217;t see a history of incidents. I see people who are letting their allegiances cloud their judgement of situations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bobby#7Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2010/03/11/precedent-means-nothing-to-nascar/comment-page-1/#comment-24950</link>
		<dc:creator>Bobby#7Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:07:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/?p=2681#comment-24950</guid>
		<description>Journo, I guess I should have offered a few more examples.  I am not trying to change the topic, just trying to make a point. 

How about Dale Jr. passing Kenseth under the yellow line at Talladega going for the win and a record 5 straight at the track.  Nascar ignored it, he won.  Few years later Regan Smith does the same thing and crosses the line first, Nascar declares Tony Stewart the winner.

Richmond late 90&#039;s getting ready to go green.  Dale Sr radios in with a flat time, Nascar holds yellow for a few more laps so go does not go in under green.

Once again, the history is there, just look for it.  It&#039;s a long list, these are just a few examples.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Journo, I guess I should have offered a few more examples.  I am not trying to change the topic, just trying to make a point. </p>
<p>How about Dale Jr. passing Kenseth under the yellow line at Talladega going for the win and a record 5 straight at the track.  Nascar ignored it, he won.  Few years later Regan Smith does the same thing and crosses the line first, Nascar declares Tony Stewart the winner.</p>
<p>Richmond late 90&#8242;s getting ready to go green.  Dale Sr radios in with a flat time, Nascar holds yellow for a few more laps so go does not go in under green.</p>
<p>Once again, the history is there, just look for it.  It&#8217;s a long list, these are just a few examples.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Journo</title>
		<link>http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2010/03/11/precedent-means-nothing-to-nascar/comment-page-1/#comment-24949</link>
		<dc:creator>Journo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:06:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/?p=2681#comment-24949</guid>
		<description>Bobby- This idea is completely ridiculous. You say there is &quot;a history of evidence&quot; and only point to the Carl Long incident. A history of evidence? NASCAR has said through the last few years that they would be ramping up penalties for things that have always been off limits (fuel, tires, engine) and that&#039;s exactly what they did. An engine being a &quot;little bit too big&quot; is a huge deal. If this had been any other team you and every other person would have screaming. Because it&#039;s underfunded Carl Long, it&#039;s a big conspiracy. This situation we find ourselves in right now, just like the Carl Long incident, is yet another example of people being blinded by their allegiances. &lt;em&gt;(As a disclaimer, I know I mentioned Carl Long here, but this is not going to turn into a Carl Long forum; remember off topic comments will be deleted).&lt;/em&gt;

Bill- You had a lot of responses, but really never answered any of the questions thrown back at you. It&#039;s easy to talk around things isn&#039;t it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bobby- This idea is completely ridiculous. You say there is &#8220;a history of evidence&#8221; and only point to the Carl Long incident. A history of evidence? NASCAR has said through the last few years that they would be ramping up penalties for things that have always been off limits (fuel, tires, engine) and that&#8217;s exactly what they did. An engine being a &#8220;little bit too big&#8221; is a huge deal. If this had been any other team you and every other person would have screaming. Because it&#8217;s underfunded Carl Long, it&#8217;s a big conspiracy. This situation we find ourselves in right now, just like the Carl Long incident, is yet another example of people being blinded by their allegiances. <em>(As a disclaimer, I know I mentioned Carl Long here, but this is not going to turn into a Carl Long forum; remember off topic comments will be deleted).</em></p>
<p>Bill- You had a lot of responses, but really never answered any of the questions thrown back at you. It&#8217;s easy to talk around things isn&#8217;t it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neon</title>
		<link>http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2010/03/11/precedent-means-nothing-to-nascar/comment-page-1/#comment-24948</link>
		<dc:creator>Neon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:14:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/?p=2681#comment-24948</guid>
		<description>Nice post TC. This week has been fun. I agree, to a point, that incidents are case-by-case. I also agree that BK actually getting airborne made for more conversation then would have been otherwise.

But really that&#039;s where I have a beef. BK getting airborne was really irrelevant in my book. What &quot;is&quot; relavant is that Cousin Carl tries to block BK, or jump into the inside lane between 1 and 2 early in the race. Which ever motive you choose to believe, the bottom line is Cousin Carl plain and simple screwed up. A rookie move by a self-proclaimed veteran. Unfortunately, CE ruined Lagano&#039;s day and no one seems to be discussing that.

Then, then...rather than CE accepting his own mistake in it&#039;s entirety he decides to stink up the show by taking out someone who, by his own admission on TV, &quot;didn&#039;t actually make as malicious of a move as he first thought.&quot;

So what am I missing here? Carl seeks revenge on BK for an ill-timed move that was of his own making? Hmmmm?

If I am &quot;any&quot; member of the #99 camp and Carl is half as approachable as appears to be, I go to Carl and say &quot;dude, let&#039;s talk for a minute. Ok I work for Roush Fenway, just like you and 500 of our co-workers do. We are trying to win races here and possibly a championship. If “we” do that, “you” will get a big ol trophy and a bunch of loot. The rest of us will get a nice bonus to feed our families and the satisfaction of a job well done. Now on the other hand, if you go out and trash our equipment, plough into everyone and everything that you feel has wronged you, well Dude…we get nothing but a big ol wad of squat. Now Carl get with the game and drive and act like a professional.”

TC-If you happen to be on the #99 crew, can you have this chat w/ Carl? If so, I suspect he will get back to his winnings ways pretty quick. Thanks in advance.

BTW Robby’s Montreal gig was really stupid, but comical none the less. At least Robby didn’t have 2 hrs in the garage area to cool off before pulling his stunt. Robby’s was textbook “red mist”, Carl’s was premeditated. Which one is worse?

Time for me to move on. F1 is on the horizon!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post TC. This week has been fun. I agree, to a point, that incidents are case-by-case. I also agree that BK actually getting airborne made for more conversation then would have been otherwise.</p>
<p>But really that&#8217;s where I have a beef. BK getting airborne was really irrelevant in my book. What &#8220;is&#8221; relavant is that Cousin Carl tries to block BK, or jump into the inside lane between 1 and 2 early in the race. Which ever motive you choose to believe, the bottom line is Cousin Carl plain and simple screwed up. A rookie move by a self-proclaimed veteran. Unfortunately, CE ruined Lagano&#8217;s day and no one seems to be discussing that.</p>
<p>Then, then&#8230;rather than CE accepting his own mistake in it&#8217;s entirety he decides to stink up the show by taking out someone who, by his own admission on TV, &#8220;didn&#8217;t actually make as malicious of a move as he first thought.&#8221;</p>
<p>So what am I missing here? Carl seeks revenge on BK for an ill-timed move that was of his own making? Hmmmm?</p>
<p>If I am &#8220;any&#8221; member of the #99 camp and Carl is half as approachable as appears to be, I go to Carl and say &#8220;dude, let&#8217;s talk for a minute. Ok I work for Roush Fenway, just like you and 500 of our co-workers do. We are trying to win races here and possibly a championship. If “we” do that, “you” will get a big ol trophy and a bunch of loot. The rest of us will get a nice bonus to feed our families and the satisfaction of a job well done. Now on the other hand, if you go out and trash our equipment, plough into everyone and everything that you feel has wronged you, well Dude…we get nothing but a big ol wad of squat. Now Carl get with the game and drive and act like a professional.”</p>
<p>TC-If you happen to be on the #99 crew, can you have this chat w/ Carl? If so, I suspect he will get back to his winnings ways pretty quick. Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>BTW Robby’s Montreal gig was really stupid, but comical none the less. At least Robby didn’t have 2 hrs in the garage area to cool off before pulling his stunt. Robby’s was textbook “red mist”, Carl’s was premeditated. Which one is worse?</p>
<p>Time for me to move on. F1 is on the horizon!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bobby#7Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2010/03/11/precedent-means-nothing-to-nascar/comment-page-1/#comment-24947</link>
		<dc:creator>Bobby#7Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/?p=2681#comment-24947</guid>
		<description>T.C. I respect you and your opinions, however when you say &quot;where&#039;s the evidence&quot; just take a look back through Nascar history.  Their is a history of Nascar looking out for the big name drivers and crapping on the little guys.  

Can you seriously tell me that Michael Waltrip and his jet fuel engine at Daytona wa not a WAY worse and intentional infraction than Carl Long&#039;s engine being a little bit to big, and as I recall it was proven not to be an advantage in any way.  

Now lets talk a look at the fines.  Waltrip&#039;s crew chief was fined $100,000 and Michael was fines 100 points.

Carl Long&#039;s crew chief was fined $200,000.  Long was penalized 200 points and suspended for the next 12 races.  

The proof is everywhere.  You just have to be willing to look at it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>T.C. I respect you and your opinions, however when you say &#8220;where&#8217;s the evidence&#8221; just take a look back through Nascar history.  Their is a history of Nascar looking out for the big name drivers and crapping on the little guys.  </p>
<p>Can you seriously tell me that Michael Waltrip and his jet fuel engine at Daytona wa not a WAY worse and intentional infraction than Carl Long&#8217;s engine being a little bit to big, and as I recall it was proven not to be an advantage in any way.  </p>
<p>Now lets talk a look at the fines.  Waltrip&#8217;s crew chief was fined $100,000 and Michael was fines 100 points.</p>
<p>Carl Long&#8217;s crew chief was fined $200,000.  Long was penalized 200 points and suspended for the next 12 races.  </p>
<p>The proof is everywhere.  You just have to be willing to look at it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2010/03/11/precedent-means-nothing-to-nascar/comment-page-1/#comment-24946</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/?p=2681#comment-24946</guid>
		<description>Here is my issue with this, he came out 153laps down to wreck him. so for over 1hr he thought this out, locked in his mind to wreck a  driver. 

Nascar does seem to show variance in punishment to certain drivers, or organizations.

Case in points
 Carl Long. Not that his engine was illegal, but he got inspected after his engine blew up in practice. It was purchased engine, and the engine builder stated that the walls distorted from the damage. 
at Daytona a few years back a piece of tap came of the inner RR fender well of the 17 during qualifying. 6 race suspension for the crew chief iirc. 
then in the 125&#039;s(same year) J Gordon&#039;s spring mount &quot;wore&quot; it was determined that this happened on the track and was not a performance enhancing trick. result no penalty
If I remember correctly Mark Martin won at Charlotte one year and his car was to low on the LF. the spring failed during the race, and dropping weight of the LF is a no-no(or at least on any car I worked on) result was fine,loss of points iirc.
3 &quot;infractions&quot; that happened during race/qualifying conditions non would help the car. 3 different penalties or lack there of.

the 99 went out 153 laps down with the sole intent of wrecking the 12. that is not &quot;have at it&quot; or &quot;just racing&quot; flip or no flip, a bit more than a shake of the finger was warrented.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is my issue with this, he came out 153laps down to wreck him. so for over 1hr he thought this out, locked in his mind to wreck a  driver. </p>
<p>Nascar does seem to show variance in punishment to certain drivers, or organizations.</p>
<p>Case in points<br />
 Carl Long. Not that his engine was illegal, but he got inspected after his engine blew up in practice. It was purchased engine, and the engine builder stated that the walls distorted from the damage.<br />
at Daytona a few years back a piece of tap came of the inner RR fender well of the 17 during qualifying. 6 race suspension for the crew chief iirc.<br />
then in the 125&#8242;s(same year) J Gordon&#8217;s spring mount &#8220;wore&#8221; it was determined that this happened on the track and was not a performance enhancing trick. result no penalty<br />
If I remember correctly Mark Martin won at Charlotte one year and his car was to low on the LF. the spring failed during the race, and dropping weight of the LF is a no-no(or at least on any car I worked on) result was fine,loss of points iirc.<br />
3 &#8220;infractions&#8221; that happened during race/qualifying conditions non would help the car. 3 different penalties or lack there of.</p>
<p>the 99 went out 153 laps down with the sole intent of wrecking the 12. that is not &#8220;have at it&#8221; or &#8220;just racing&#8221; flip or no flip, a bit more than a shake of the finger was warrented.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: T.C.</title>
		<link>http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2010/03/11/precedent-means-nothing-to-nascar/comment-page-1/#comment-24945</link>
		<dc:creator>T.C.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:25:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/?p=2681#comment-24945</guid>
		<description>Bill: The point was, is that fans get upset over what they perceive to be as bias towards certain drivers.  They get very angry about it, yet cannot point to any evidence nor fact that proves that what they are saying actually exists.  I am all for discussions, but when they are based around conspiracy theories and the presence of &quot;black helicopters&quot; I don&#039;t see a point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill: The point was, is that fans get upset over what they perceive to be as bias towards certain drivers.  They get very angry about it, yet cannot point to any evidence nor fact that proves that what they are saying actually exists.  I am all for discussions, but when they are based around conspiracy theories and the presence of &#8220;black helicopters&#8221; I don&#8217;t see a point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

