The View from Here: The Business of NASCAR

With the recent revelation by Aaron Fike that he had used heroin while competing in a Craftsman Truck Series race, many NASCAR drivers are coming forward requesting NASCAR take a more proactive stance on random drug testing. However, NASCAR’s upper management believes that the current policy is “working” (my quotation marks). NASCAR feels that the tiered approach to drug testing — owners and teams doing their own random testing — allows NASCAR to continue its policy of testing only for “reasonable suspicion”.

Now, I’m not one in the “know”, but it appears to me that NASCAR believes “reasonable suspicion” exists for every team when it comes to setting up their car, using illegal parts, etc. How else can NASCAR explain its extremely invasive inspections prior to qualifying and immediately after a race? There must be some reason, other than “reasonable suspicion”, for these inspections. Right? It’s because NASCAR knows how much teams “stretch” the rules. If NASCAR assumes the stretching of rules because it finds such things happening, shouldn’t NASCAR assume drug abuse by drivers or pit crew members in light of the fairly well-known incidents over the past couple of years with substance abuse by drivers?

The real issue for me isn’t whether a driver is “high” when on the track. The issue is the safety of the other drivers given how quickly accidents can happen at 180 mph. Heaven forbid that an accident occurs and it’s found later than one of those involved was “using” and no one in NASCAR had “reasonable suspicion”.

That’s the view from here.

Jon

Posted by at 2:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

After several years at the helm of NASCAR, Brian France said last Monday that NASCAR will minimize the number of changes it makes this year. His rationale was that NASCAR needed to bring back lost fans. I (and others) couldn’t agree more that the rapid changes he instituted did dampen the enthusiasm of many fans toward the sport they love(d).

However, there should be one change instituted as quickly as possible — the elimination of the “top 35 rule.” Joe Menzer in his NASCAR.com column on Tuesday called for the rule to be eliminated. Jeff Burton has indicated that sponsors for teams outside the top 35 are few and far between since there is no guarantee their teams will make the race. Even Darrell Waltrip was quoted in Menzer's article acknowledging that the “top 35 rule” has drawbacks as well as benefits to the sport.

Last year I wrote that the “top 35 rule” was patently unfair and in effect was creating “franchises."

If we’re not going to eliminate the rule entirely, how’s this for a compromise: top 12 must qualify on time (with so many past champions probably in the top 12, the chances of those drivers not making it are miniscule), positions 13-25 are guaranteed starting spots, and 26-42 (26-43 if no past champion’s provisional is used) qualify on time. That gives teams that have faster times than those in positions 13-25 a much better chance of making the race and not having to pack it in for the weekend at great expense.

Then again, I’m probably “spitting into the wind” on this one!

Jon

Posted by at 3:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

“I heard the voices of friends vanished and gone”
Bruce Springsteen

This is a timely blog. Read it in the daylight.

Ghosts. Do you believe in them? Have you ever felt a chill down your neck or the hairs raise on your arm? If so, I wonder what the chill nighttime must feel like around graveyards* with such names as:

Darlington (The Lady in Black)

Greenville-Pickens

Hickory

Nashville (now Music City Motorplex)

North Carolina Speedway (Rockingham)

North Wilkesboro

Road America

South Boston

A legion of others……

I wonder what the pits are like in the deadlights of the moon. Do surreal crew members appear from the mist and then vanish with the first rays of the sun? Do fenders grind in the night as cars run as if possessed?

We have the “Car of Tomorrow,” but where is yesterday?

I have a modest proposal for NASCAR. Let’s resurrect yesterday.

Each year choose one or two (old) track(s) for a special ‘rewind of time’ race. You can work out the details. After all our roots run deep, don’t they?

The moon is rising so I must vanish. For now.

That’s the view from 1963….

Michael

*Yes, I know some still run either a partial NEXTEL schedule or other NASCAR events.

Posted by at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Prior to the Daytona 500, and then again heading into the California race this past week, several media reporters suggested that NASCAR (and Brian France) had its head in the sand by stating that NASCAR’s off year in 2006 was a glitch.

Well, let’s look at what’s happened so far. Daytona’s TV viewership was down from last year (10.1 rating in ’07 vs. 11.3 rating in ’06) but was still one of the top five ratings in the race's history.

Again there was no sell-out in the stands for last week’s California race — NASCAR estimated the crowd at 87,000 while California can seat 92,000 plus the suites and 2,000 RV spots (sixth race in a row that was not a sell-out) — but California officials are pleased with the crowd size, especially given the weather on Sunday.

Nielsen reports that TV ratings for California were tied with last year’s ratings (6.2 rating) but lower than 2005.

So where does that leave NASCAR? Too soon to tell but Las Vegas might be a better barometer of NASCAR’s performance.

Here’s a thought to ponder: My colleague Mike suggested that NASCAR consider moving one race each year to a track that no longer has a Nextel race — rotating once every three to four years as needed. Might spark some new interest, especially in those areas that have lost their race(s) to other tracks.
— Jon

Posted by at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Top 10 Fearless (but not ones we are betting any cash on ) Predictions for 2007:

10. Staten Island - DOA; Hello, Seattle!

9. The rising cost of attending a race drives fans away.

8. Introduction of Toyota--what will be the reaction, one like Jack Roush or more like Brian France? (We know, we know, it is more of a question than a prediction)

7. New demographics-- Montoya's entree into Nextel and Busch's points race in Canada lead to new viewers

6. COT confuses fans who don’t want IROC-style racing.

5. JPM finishes well and two more F1/INDY drivers follow.

4. New Busch Series Sponsor -- big deal or non-story, and will there be a "target" on the new sponsor?

3. The fines just keep on a coming

2. Toyota wins by seventh race. (Ensuing controversy good for solving item # 9).

1. No one can replace Benny.

Big stories of the Week:
"Just in time for Valentines...The Candymen deliver"

1. David and Lazarus are appropriate monikers for the front row holders of this year's Daytona 500. By providing Yates Racing and Masterfoods, Inc., the front row for this Sunday's classic, perhaps the folks at Snickers can place into their rearview mirror their strange Super Bowl commercial.

2. The only question left to be answered is the "water into wine" miracle for Michael Waltrip (perhaps we should say "mystery liquid into 'oil' "). Hey Matt, that should show you that a few misplaced holes are not that exciting.

3. On the other front we are guaranteed that for the first time since 1963 -- when Smokey Cook ran an MG (yes, you read that correctly) at Bowman-Gray stadium in a 200 lap event won by Junior Johnson -- a foreign entry will run in a NASCAR points race. Wonder what took them so long?

4. James Hylton age 72 looking relaxed and ... well, need we say more ?

5. New life for Chip Gnassi !

Overall: Score a -3 for the Toyotas and a +1 for candy.

--- Jon and Mike

Posted by at 9:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)