> "jwilson54" <j_owil...@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:hn61e3$lqk$1@news.eternal-september.org... >> They have no balls and are ruled strictly by the money.Carl Edwards only >> got a three race PROBATION.
> Sounds to me like they are standing by what they said before the season > and letting the drivers sort it out themselves.
Really does. And from the many different angles I saw the incident replayed at it really looked like Carl was following his usual line around the track. Especially if you watch the rubber marks on the pavement. At no point did I see him turn sharply into Keslowski. Earlier in that race Keslowski refused to whoa up and ley Carl in. On that lap Edwards refused to do the same. As to deliberately flipping...Come on! There is a point at which any car going backwards will have more air going under it than over it. That is where they leave the ground. The COT's wing does seem to help that along which is poor design (Y'all listening at NASCAR HQ??) and going to be remedied with the return of the spoiler. The cars will still flip. Just not as easily as having that wing grabbing and forcing air under it causing lift. I doubt Carl tried to get Brad airborn....but after Carl's sub orbital flight last year...well perhaps he feels they are about even now.
>> "jwilson54" <j_owil...@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:hn61e3$lqk$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>> They have no balls and are ruled strictly by the money.Carl Edwards >>> only got a three race PROBATION.
>> Sounds to me like they are standing by what they said before the >> season and letting the drivers sort it out themselves.
> Really does. And from the many different angles I saw the incident > replayed at it really looked like Carl was following his usual line > around the track. Especially if you watch the rubber marks on the > pavement. At no point did I see him turn sharply into Keslowski.
You obviously haven't seen the replay through CE' windshield where you can clearly see his hands turning right.
> Earlier in that race Keslowski refused to whoa up and ley Carl in. On > that lap Edwards refused to do the same.
Let BK in? They were the only 2 cars in that area of the track.
>>> "jwilson54" <j_owil...@comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:hn61e3$lqk$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>>> They have no balls and are ruled strictly by the money.Carl Edwards >>>> only got a three race PROBATION.
>>> Sounds to me like they are standing by what they said before the season >>> and letting the drivers sort it out themselves.
>> Really does. And from the many different angles I saw the incident >> replayed at it really looked like Carl was following his usual line >> around the track. Especially if you watch the rubber marks on the >> pavement. At no point did I see him turn sharply into Keslowski.
> You obviously haven't seen the replay through CE' windshield where you can > clearly see his hands turning right.
No I haven't...but if he was turning right (as you report) he was trying to avoid Keslowski. Keslowski was inside him or to the left on that turn from all the replays I see. If he was turning right that would be away from Keslowski. A right turn could also indicate he was chasing his car up the hill due to a loose condition.
>> Earlier in that race Keslowski refused to whoa up and ley Carl in. On >> that lap Edwards refused to do the same.
> Let BK in? They were the only 2 cars in that area of the track.
Exactly my point. BK was running the track in a different "lane" that took him into Edwards "lane" Seeing him coming and realizing he (BK) was on the lead lap is the only reason Edwards should have yielded at all.
>>>> "jwilson54" <j_owil...@comcast.net> wrote in message >>>> news:hn61e3$lqk$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> They have no balls and are ruled strictly by the money.Carl Edwards >>>>> only got a three race PROBATION.
>>>> Sounds to me like they are standing by what they said before the >>>> season and letting the drivers sort it out themselves.
>>> Really does. And from the many different angles I saw the incident >>> replayed at it really looked like Carl was following his usual line >>> around the track. Especially if you watch the rubber marks on the >>> pavement. At no point did I see him turn sharply into Keslowski.
>> You obviously haven't seen the replay through CE' windshield where you >> can clearly see his hands turning right.
> No I haven't...but if he was turning right (as you report) he was trying > to avoid Keslowski. Keslowski was inside him or to the left on that > turn from all the replays I see. If he was turning right that would be > away from Keslowski. A right turn could also indicate he was chasing > his car up the hill due to a loose condition.
What in the hell are you talking about? He turned *right* into BK and wrecked him.
>>> Earlier in that race Keslowski refused to whoa up and ley Carl in. >>> On that lap Edwards refused to do the same.
>> Let BK in? They were the only 2 cars in that area of the track.
> Exactly my point. BK was running the track in a different "lane" that > took him into Edwards "lane" Seeing him coming and realizing he (BK) > was on the lead lap is the only reason Edwards should have yielded at all.
>>>>> "jwilson54" <j_owil...@comcast.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:hn61e3$lqk$1@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>> They have no balls and are ruled strictly by the money.Carl Edwards >>>>>> only got a three race PROBATION.
>>>>> Sounds to me like they are standing by what they said before the >>>>> season and letting the drivers sort it out themselves.
>>>> Really does. And from the many different angles I saw the incident >>>> replayed at it really looked like Carl was following his usual line >>>> around the track. Especially if you watch the rubber marks on the >>>> pavement. At no point did I see him turn sharply into Keslowski.
>>> You obviously haven't seen the replay through CE' windshield where you >>> can clearly see his hands turning right.
>> No I haven't...but if he was turning right (as you report) he was trying >> to avoid Keslowski. Keslowski was inside him or to the left on that turn >> from all the replays I see. If he was turning right that would be away >> from Keslowski. A right turn could also indicate he was chasing his car >> up the hill due to a loose condition.
> What in the hell are you talking about? He turned *right* into BK and > wrecked him.
>>>> Earlier in that race Keslowski refused to whoa up and ley Carl in. On >>>> that lap Edwards refused to do the same.
>>> Let BK in? They were the only 2 cars in that area of the track.
>> Exactly my point. BK was running the track in a different "lane" that >> took him into Edwards "lane" Seeing him coming and realizing he (BK) >> was on the lead lap is the only reason Edwards should have yielded at >> all.
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:41:08 -0500, "armpit" <armarmpit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"jwilson54" <j_owil...@comcast.net> wrote in message >news:hn61e3$lqk$1@news.eternal-september.org... >> They have no balls and are ruled strictly by the money.Carl Edwards only >> got a three race PROBATION.
>Sounds to me like they are standing by what they said before the season and >letting the drivers sort it out themselves.
That's just total bullshit in the cars. Unless it's let little pussies be little pussies. If these drivers wan't to sort it out among themselves, Nascar should turn the other way and tell the drivers to grow some balls and sort it out in the garage or infield. NOT on the track where they can get other people killed.
> That's just total bullshit in the cars. Unless it's let little pussies be > little pussies. If these drivers wan't to sort it out among themselves, > Nascar should turn the other way and tell the drivers to grow some balls and > sort it out in the garage or infield. NOT on the track where they can get > other people killed.
You have a point, but you also need to remember how hard it is for teams to find and keep sponsors in these economic times....Nascar would be very loudly criticized if they parked a driver like Carl Edwards which might cause his team to lose its sponsor(s) - not driving? Not being seen on TV and not being interviewed - the sponsor is getting nothing for his big buck investment.
Nancy2 wrote: >> That's just total bullshit in the cars. Unless it's let little pussies be >> little pussies. If these drivers wan't to sort it out among themselves, >> Nascar should turn the other way and tell the drivers to grow some balls and >> sort it out in the garage or infield. NOT on the track where they can get >> other people killed.
> You have a point, but you also need to remember how hard it is for > teams to find and keep sponsors in these economic times....Nascar > would be very loudly criticized if they parked a driver like Carl > Edwards which might cause his team to lose its sponsor(s) - not > driving? Not being seen on TV and not being interviewed - the sponsor > is getting nothing for his big buck investment.
> N.
Well if you think about it,they might get more exposure as the announcers would be following that car and whatever driver was in it ,to compare with Edwards.Either way it went would be big news and get plenty of exposure.
> Not being seen on TV and not being interviewed - the sponsor > is getting nothing for his big buck investment.
That's sorta the entire point of a suspension. You want the drivers to think that there's a negative consequence to certain actions (e.g. purposefully wrecking and endangering another competitor). Pissing off the sponsor is about the biggest negative consequence there is - put that idea in every drivers mind, and you can be sure they'd have second thoughts about chasing down and wrecking someone.
As it is tho, all the drivers now know there's no penalty for causing an intentional wreck. Somebody does you wrong? Just ram them, saunter over to the NASCAR trailer and nod your head when they give you "probation", and then back to your normal deal.
Proof again that NASCAR has no ability to think thru the consequences of the decisions they make.
jwilson54 wrote: > Nancy2 wrote: >>> That's just total bullshit in the cars. Unless it's let little >>> pussies be >>> little pussies. If these drivers wan't to sort it out among themselves, >>> Nascar should turn the other way and tell the drivers to grow some >>> balls and >>> sort it out in the garage or infield. NOT on the track where they >>> can get >>> other people killed.
>> You have a point, but you also need to remember how hard it is for >> teams to find and keep sponsors in these economic times....Nascar >> would be very loudly criticized if they parked a driver like Carl >> Edwards which might cause his team to lose its sponsor(s) - not >> driving? Not being seen on TV and not being interviewed - the sponsor >> is getting nothing for his big buck investment.
>> N. > Well if you think about it,they might get more exposure as the > announcers would be following that car and whatever driver was in it ,to > compare with Edwards.Either way it went would be big news and get plenty > of exposure.
> You have a point, but you also need to remember how hard it is for > teams to find and keep sponsors in these economic times....Nascar > would be very loudly criticized if they parked a driver like Carl > Edwards which might cause his team to lose its sponsor(s) - not > driving? Not being seen on TV and not being interviewed - the sponsor > is getting nothing for his big buck investment.
I do not think that getting parked would cost a team its sponsor - especially a top rank team. If Edwards lost a sponsor - big deal. It would be his fault and not NASCAR's. I'm sure people would decry NASCAR, but that's only because there is that group out there that just loves to bitch about everything NASCAR.
"John McCoy" <igop...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > As it is tho, all the drivers now know there's no penalty for > causing an intentional wreck. Somebody does you wrong? Just > ram > them, saunter over to the NASCAR trailer and nod your head when > they give you "probation", and then back to your normal deal. > John
I strongly disagree with that, John. If another incident happens like this past one, there will be a major penalty. Probably the docking of points variety.
IMO, as I've said before, NASCAR painted themselves into a small corner earlier by not being too specific about how far the drivers could "handle things themselves". That was a mistake, we all, and they, know that, now. If they had been extreme with the penalty, then the drivers/public would say "that's so NASCAR". "Said they were going to let the drivers be drivers, and look"..
Now they have said, okay, this is the line. Where before it was pretty vague. You can be drivers, just not crazy drivers.
If it happens at a short track, I don't see much happening. If it happens at a speedway, I think it will be a different ballgame.
Nobody would have said shit, if the car hadn't lifted.
Anna Khonda wrote: > "John McCoy" <igop...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> As it is tho, all the drivers now know there's no penalty for >> causing an intentional wreck. Somebody does you wrong? Just >> ram >> them, saunter over to the NASCAR trailer and nod your head when >> they give you "probation", and then back to your normal deal.
>> John
> I strongly disagree with that, John. > If another incident happens like this past one, > there will be a major penalty. > Probably the docking of points variety.
So, does the car have to get airborne next time for the driver to get a major penalty? If the car hadn't gotten airborne we wouldn't even be talking about this.
> Anna Khonda wrote: >> "John McCoy" <igop...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>> As it is tho, all the drivers now know there's no penalty for >>> causing an intentional wreck. Somebody does you wrong? Just >>> ram >>> them, saunter over to the NASCAR trailer and nod your head >>> when >>> they give you "probation", and then back to your normal deal.
>>> John
>> I strongly disagree with that, John. >> If another incident happens like this past one, >> there will be a major penalty. >> Probably the docking of points variety.
> So, does the car have to get airborne next time for the driver > to get a major penalty?
No. "incident" meaning an intentional root. The blowover is optional.
>If the car hadn't gotten airborne we wouldn't even be talking >about this.
DAVe wrote: > On Mar 11, 6:16 pm, "Anna Khonda" <Anna_Kho...@nospam.com> wrote: >> "EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message >>> sort it out in the garage or infield. NOT on the track where they >>> can get other people killed.
>> Yeah, over the years there sure have been a lot of people killed >> from pissed drivers bumping each other. >> What's the tally up to now, zero?
> Dale Sr was killed by Sterling Marlin's bump. Don't know how pissed he > was when delivering it.
Yeahbut now we have drivers smart enough to wear proper restraints.
Mike Marlow wrote: > DAVe wrote: >> On Mar 11, 6:16 pm, "Anna Khonda" <Anna_Kho...@nospam.com> wrote: >>> "EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message >>>> sort it out in the garage or infield. NOT on the track where they >>>> can get other people killed. >>> Yeah, over the years there sure have been a lot of people killed >>> from pissed drivers bumping each other. >>> What's the tally up to now, zero? >> Dale Sr was killed by Sterling Marlin's bump. Don't know how pissed he >> was when delivering it.
> Yeahbut now we have drivers smart enough to wear proper restraints.
TS02_05champ wrote: > Mike Marlow wrote: >> DAVe wrote: >>> On Mar 11, 6:16 pm, "Anna Khonda" <Anna_Kho...@nospam.com> wrote: >>>> "EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message >>>>> sort it out in the garage or infield. NOT on the track where they >>>>> can get other people killed. >>>> Yeah, over the years there sure have been a lot of people killed >>>> from pissed drivers bumping each other. >>>> What's the tally up to now, zero? >>> Dale Sr was killed by Sterling Marlin's bump. Don't know how pissed >>> he was when delivering it.
>> Yeahbut now we have drivers smart enough to wear proper restraints.
>> sort it out in the garage or infield. NOT on the track where they can get >> other people killed.
>Yeah, over the years there sure have been a lot of people killed >from pissed drivers bumping each other. >What's the tally up to now, zero?
People have been seriously hurt and even killed when cars go airborne. As I said, if they want to get physical, hows about the little pussy drivers do it without the cars? They don't want to get their uniforms dirty?
"EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message > People have been seriously hurt and even killed when cars go > airborne.
Life's a bitch.
> I said, if they want to get physical, hows about the little > pussy drivers do > it without the cars? They don't want to get their uniforms > dirty?
How long would BK have lasted with Carl? 2-1/2 seconds?
If the friction started with cars, settle it with cars. If it starts with fists, settle it with fists.
This is 'race cars', it isn't 'kick boxing'.
If you're worried about getting hurt at a race, you shouldn't go. People need to start realizing that life has risks every day. This 'life threatening danger to the fans' is old. You're more likely to get hurt driving to the race, than getting hit by a flying stock car. You have a better chance of spraining your ankle, walking down the stands, than you do getting hit by a flying race car. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning, than getting hit by a flying race car. You have a much greater chance of getting hit with a baseball at a MLB game. Or a hockey puck at theNHL. Just stay home, in the house, and don't do anything at all. That way, you won't get hurt.
>> People have been seriously hurt and even killed when cars go >> airborne.
>Life's a bitch.
Apparently
>> I said, if they want to get physical, hows about the little >> pussy drivers do >> it without the cars? They don't want to get their uniforms >> dirty?
>How long would BK have lasted with Carl? >2-1/2 seconds?
Who cares? Maybe if they settled it that way BK would thing twice about wrecking others next time behind the protection of 3000 plus pounds of metal. I repeat, their pussies for using their cars.
>If the friction started with cars, settle it with cars. >If it starts with fists, settle it with fists.
>This is 'race cars', it isn't 'kick boxing'.
Tell that to drivers of the past like Yarborough and the Allisons.
>If you're worried about getting hurt at a race, >you shouldn't go. People need to start realizing that life has >risks >every day. >This 'life threatening danger to the fans' is old. >You're more likely to get hurt driving to the race, >than getting hit by a flying stock car. >You have a better chance of spraining your ankle, walking down >the >stands, than you do getting hit by a flying race car. >You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning, >than getting hit by a flying race car. >You have a much greater chance of getting hit with a baseball >at a MLB game. >Or a hockey puck at theNHL. >Just stay home, in the house, and don't do anything at all. >That way, you won't get hurt.
Are you being deliberately ignorant or what? By giving Carl nothing but a slap on the wrist, NASCAR has basically sanctioned drivers deliberately wrecking other drivers. How fast do you think the sport would last the first time someone gets seriously hurt or killed once the lawyers start suing? Accidents happen yes, but Edwards admitted doing it on purpose. That's no accident. He said the only thing that surprised him was the car went airborne. Duhhh. What a dumb-fuck.
If a hockey player deliberately hits a puck in to the crowd or a baseball player deliberately throws a fast ball at a fan, they're going to pay for it with a bit more than a slap on the wrist. If the sanctioniong bodies said, oh, go ahead, boys will be boys, what's a few pucks or baseballs thrown at fans on purpose? The team owners and the sport itself would be held liable. The same goes for a baseball player who purposely takes a bat to an opponent.
"EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message > Anna Khonda wrote: >>If the friction started with cars, settle it with cars. >>If it starts with fists, settle it with fists.
>>This is 'race cars', it isn't 'kick boxing'. > Tell that to drivers of the past like Yarborough and the > Allisons.
So you are of the belief of others, that those guys never laid a bumper to anyone, and only knocked the shit out of each other after the races, with brass knuckles, and tire irons. I got news for ya. Doinking people on the rack ain't new. And it wasn't started by the drivers of today.
> Are you being deliberately ignorant or what? By giving Carl > nothing but a > slap on the wrist, NASCAR has basically sanctioned drivers > deliberately > wrecking other drivers.
Not ignorant at all. In fact, so far, I have heard quite a few "experts" say what I have said, and that being that NASCAR had backed themselves into a corner when they told the guys in February, that they could settle their own affairs. They set no paramaters. Now they have them. Now they can penalize accordingly. This is Berggren's opinion as of this morning, and Darrell Waltrip's as of yesterday morning, So I don't really care if you all think it's bullshit. They said, this will not happen again, and go lightly penalized. They also felt that Keselowski had it coming. It was a matter of time. Rusty Wallace said he'd of done the same thing.
> first time someone gets seriously hurt or killed once the > lawyers start > suing? Accidents happen yes, but Edwards admitted doing it on > purpose. > That's no accident. He said the only thing that surprised him > was the car > went airborne. Duhhh. What a dumb-fuck.
And Denny Hamilin said he was going to dump Keselowski last season, a week before the race. He did it, and nothing happened to him. Outcry there? And that was before NASCAR said to handle things amongst yourselves. How were they to handle it this time. Take away the blowover. Nothing would have been said at all, nobody would be talking about it.
> If a hockey player deliberately hits a puck in to the crowd or > a baseball > player deliberately throws a fast ball at a fan, they're going > to pay for it > with a bit more than a slap on the wrist. If the sanctioniong > bodies said, > oh, go ahead, boys will be boys, what's a few pucks or > baseballs thrown at > fans on purpose? The team owners and the sport itself would be > held liable. > The same goes for a baseball player who purposely takes a bat > to an > opponent.
I wasn't talking about doing it intentionally, I was talking about being afraid to go to a race. If you are that afraid of getting hit by a flying race car, you shouldn't go. That's all there is to it. You go to these things, there is a risk involved. Things happen sometimes, that are not supposed to happen. Even if there was a million dollar fine, that doesn't mean that in the heat of the action, a guy with a fuse like Edwards or Stewart, or Busch could do it again. You can't keep talking about "what if a fan got hit". Because it didn't happen. Yo can't talk about a huge fine, because that doesn't carry a guarantee either.
|
