It's a Scandal! It's a Outrage!
NASCAR’s decree of “Have at It Boys!” continues to provide fodder for discussion. A subplot of this is in the distinction of when, if ever, to draw the line on retaliation. As Dustin Long wrote, “in the ego-driven world of racing, a lot of times guys are going to get other people back for incidents.” The point of this blog is to ascertain to what degree such paybacks should be allowed and secondarily, is there a statute of limitations for such frontier justice?
Everyone is entitled to his opinion. This happens to be mine.
Last year and at the beginning of this year Brad Keselowski oft times found himself in situations where his driving skills did not align with his intentions. Several drivers found themselves involved in his lessons at the hands of the driving Mercies resulting in torn up race cars, thwarted finishes and roiled emotions. Denny Hamlin fell victim to such indignities enough times to eventually reach the limit of his forbearance and vowed to ‘take care of it’ at a coming race. In the Nationwide finale at Homestead last year Hamlin made good on his vow and spun Keselowski. A good part of both the NASCAR fandom and the NASCAR garage cheered as the brash pretender was given his comeuppance.
Did I cheer? Honestly, yes. Was Hamlin right to exact revenge for past wrongdoings at a different race? Probably, no.
At yet another Nationwide race, this time at Dover last May, on a restart Hamlin spun Clint Bowyer out of second place. The ensuing melee triggered a nine-car, red flag provoking accident. Once the caution flag flew, Bowyer drove out from pit exit and lambasted the side of Hamlin’s car. NASCAR instantly parked Bowyer, sending him to the garage.
Was I astounded? Yes, completely flummoxed. Was Bowyer right to exact what he genuinely believed was his pound of flesh from Hamlin at the first opportune moment? Under NASCAR’s “Have at It Boys” policy, probably yes.
The infamous Carl Edwards/Brad Keselowski simmering feud that erupted into what could have been absolute mayhem? Sorry, Carl. As much as I was rooting for you to ‘pay the little twerp back and teach him a lesson he wouldn’t soon forget’, your method was completely inappropriate. Edwards spent a sizable chunk of laps brooding in the garage as his wounded race car was cobbled together with spare parts and pieces. When he returned to the track he navigated the circuit like a malicious vulture just waiting for his opportunity to ambush Keselowski. His premeditation was palpable...and unacceptable.
Kevin Harvick took exception to remarks Denny Hamlin made about the Richard Childress Racing (RCR) #33 car’s illegality and resultant penalties. He exacted penance from Hamlin by bashing Hamlin’s bumper as both cars were beginning their first laps of practice at Dover this fall. Expected? It’s Harvick - not necessarily expected, but surprised, no. Accepted/allowable? Borderline. Questionable tactic? Absolutely. Potential for Chase-crushing damage to either car? Intolerable.
Brad Keselowski and Kyle Busch were in the midst of a hard fought Nationwide race at Bristol this August when Busch slid up in front of Keselowski coming down the back stretch. Keselowski was not inclined to lift and fenced Busch. Recovering control of his race car if not his temper, Busch put on a clinic on instantaneous retribution as the two cars exited Turn 4, “I went down on the next corner and dumped him. He does it to everybody else, so why can’t I do that to him.” Busch sailed past to win the race, with Keselowski having to pit and finishing 14th.
I’m a Kyle Busch fan. I should take a pass on rating this one, but I won’t. That whole tangle was done in less than 30 seconds. If you blinked you had to wait for the replay. No apparent rancor or malice, just bam, bam, bam - you did that, so I must do this. Over and done with, let’s move on. Unless of course you wanna call me an ass in front of millions of people tomorrow. The reaction and payback were done in the ‘heat of the moment’. Can’t fault a driver for that in this particular case.
Then there’s the June Pocono race...Harvick and Joey Logano have a close encounter to spawn thousands of sales of “I Wear the Firesuit” t-shirts. (It may be happenstance but Harvick easily wears the mantle of enforcer, a reputation he inherited from his intimidating predecessor at RCR. Rarely does he shy from flexing his Mr. Hyde persona on the racetrack; a complete role-reversal from the Dr. Jekyll seen cuddling chihuahua Lo in pre-race Twitter picture postings.) As the laps wound down that June, Logano had an honest opportunity to make the race a 1-2-3 finish for Joe Gibbs Racing (JGR). Harvick chose to scupper any such chances by deliberately turning Logano. His explanation was lame. "I just got in there and we just wound up getting together. Just two cars going to the same space at one time." This was an instance of pure animosity. Premeditated. Done because he could. Beware though, young Joe grew some stones that day and there’s a long future ahead for payback...
...which brings us to today. Kyle Busch got into the left rear quarter panel of David Reutimann. Reutimann went for a spin as Busch sailed on past. Following a trip to the pits for a tire change necessitated by the spin, Reutimann went back on the track. There he lurked. Waiting in ambush. Waiting for his chance to bushwhack the #18. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist that one.) Was it unexpected? To a degree it was. Busch is in the Chase. Reutimann isn’t. Surely no one would take it upon themselves to intentionally ruin someone’s chance for a Championship because of an error in judgment. Surely not? Busch’s spotter was taking no chances as he relayed the information to his driver. "You're coming up on the wounded 00. Just be wary." Words that were quickly responded to by Busch with “Car's destroyed!!!!!!” Busch reported that Reutimann turned right into him. (We television viewers were away at commercial break so I only heard the exchange.) Busch wanted a swift and sure punishment of Reutimann from NASCAR and let it be known that if nothing was forthcoming he wanted a meeting with them after the race. There was none and Reutimann for all his bother ended up hoist with his own petard. By race’s end Busch was giving a calm, thoughtful interview while Reutimann’s eyes flitted everywhere but the interviewer’s face and camera lens.
Reutimann was upset and under pressure from his crew to retaliate. He did. Under “Have at It Boys” precedent he’s allowed to. Should he have? I think not. Much as teams would like us to believe that Chasers are not raced differently just because they’re in the Chase, don’t you believe it! There is no way that a non-Chase contender should have the power to affect the potential outcome of the Championship. Harken back to that Harvick/Logano tiff at Pocono. Where’s the safeguard to prevent Logano from wresting a Championship title from Harvick at Homestead? What’s to stop Roush Fenway Racing from sending David Ragan on a suicide mission to destroy the Hendrick boys’ shot? Or what’s to stop owner/driver/contender Tony Stewart from siccing a Rocket of redemption on a Busch brother or two? Gentlemen’s honor. Well, we saw how far that went today.
Two songs come to mind.
..
NASCAR’s ”The Battle Hymn of the Republic”
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
or
The drivers’ “It’s a Scandal! It’s a Outrage!” from “Oklahoma!”
Trapped!
Tricked!
Hoodblinked!
Hambushed!
Which will it be when all is said and done?
There’s a line to be recognized and drawn. A distinction between the legal term for an exception to the hearsay rule called “excited utterances” and “lying in wait.”
Spontaneity of the declarant is a key to admissibility. An excited utterance does not have to be made at time of the startling event, but must be made while the declarant is still in a state of surprise or shock from the incident. The declarant's reflective powers must be stilled, meaning that, while making the statement, the declarant would not have had a chance to reflect upon the startling event, fabricate a purposefully false statement, and then say it. If the declarant is believed to have had time to reflect on the situation before making the statement, the statement would not be spontaneous and thus not an excited utterance. However, under certain circumstances, it is possible for days to have passed before the declarant fully reflects on the event, and "unstills" his or her reflective powers.
Spontaneity is established by the declarant's demeanor, time lapse, and content of the statement. Declarant's appearance of calmness at time statement lessens admissibility. Time lapse between the startling event and the statement is a factor for both admissibility and weight. (Wikipedia)
Certainly if lawyers can figure this stuff out, then NASCAR can. I propose that if any “Having at It” fits the excited utterance definition it shall be permissible (exceptions always a rule) while any reflection, premeditation type payback be punishable.
It’s complicated and still can vary on a case by case basis.
Like art & porn, I can’t describe it, but I know it when I see it!
ASCAR’s decree of “Have at It Boys!” continues to provide fodder for discussion. A subplot of this is in the distinction of when, if ever, to draw the line on retaliation. As Dustin Long wrote, “in the ego-driven world of racing, a lot of times guys are going to get other people back for incidents.” The point of this blog is to ascertain to what degree such paybacks should be allowed and secondarily, is there a statute of limitations for such frontier justice?
Everyone is entitled to his opinion. This happens to be mine.
Last year and at the beginning of this year Brad Keselowski oft times found himself in situations where his driving skills did not align with his intentions. Several drivers found themselves involved in his lessons at the hands of the driving Mercies resulting in torn up race cars, thwarted finishes and roiled emotions. Denny Hamlin fell victim to such indignities enough times to eventually reach the limit of his forbearance and vowed to ‘take care of it’ at a coming race. In the Nationwide finale at Homestead last year Hamlin made good on his vow and spun Keselowski. A good part of both the NASCAR fandom and the NASCAR garage cheered as the brash pretender was given his comeuppance.
Did I cheer? Honestly, yes. Was Hamlin right to exact revenge for past wrongdoings at a different race? Probably, no.
At yet another Nationwide race, this time at Dover last May, on a restart Hamlin spun Clint Bowyer out of second place. The ensuing melee triggered a nine-car, red flag provoking accident. Once the caution flag flew, Bowyer drove out from pit exit and lambasted the side of Hamlin’s car. NASCAR instantly parked Bowyer, sending him to the garage.
Was I astounded? Yes, completely flummoxed. Was Bowyer right to exact what he genuinely believed was his pound of flesh from Hamlin at the first opportune moment? Under NASCAR’s “Have at It Boys” policy, probably yes.
The infamous Carl Edwards/Brad Keselowski simmering feud that erupted into what could have been absolute mayhem? Sorry, Carl. As much as I was rooting for you to ‘pay the little twerp back and teach him a lesson he wouldn’t soon forget’, your method was completely inappropriate. Edwards spent a sizable chunk of laps brooding in the garage as his wounded race car was cobbled together with spare parts and pieces. When he returned to the track he navigated the circuit like a malicious vulture just waiting for his opportunity to ambush Keselowski. His premeditation was palpable...and unacceptable.
Kevin Harvick took exception to remarks Denny Hamlin made about the Richard Childress Racing (RCR) #33 car’s illegality and resultant penalties. He exacted penance from Hamlin by bashing Hamlin’s bumper as both cars were beginning their first laps of practice at Dover this fall. Expected? It’s Harvick - not necessarily expected, but surprised, no. Accepted/allowable? Borderline. Questionable tactic? Absolutely. Potential for Chase-crushing damage to either car? Intolerable.
Brad Keselowski and Kyle Busch were in the midst of a hard fought Nationwide race at Bristol this August when Busch slid up in front of Keselowski coming down the back stretch. Keselowski was not inclined to lift and fenced Busch. Recovering control of his race car if not his temper, Busch put on a clinic on instantaneous retribution as the two cars exited Turn 4, “I went down on the next corner and dumped him. He does it to everybody else, so why can’t I do that to him.” Busch sailed past to win the race, with Keselowski having to pit and finishing 14th.
I’m a Kyle Busch fan. I should take a pass on rating this one, but I won’t. That whole tangle was done in less than 30 seconds. If you blinked you had to wait for the replay. No apparent rancor or malice, just bam, bam, bam - you did that, so I must do this. Over and done with, let’s move on. Unless of course you wanna call me an ass in front of millions of people tomorrow. The reaction and payback were done in the ‘heat of the moment’. Can’t fault a driver for that in this particular case.
Then there’s the June Pocono race...Harvick and Joey Logano have a close encounter to spawn thousands of sales of “I Wear the Firesuit” t-shirts. (It may be happenstance but Harvick easily wears the mantle of enforcer, a reputation he inherited from his intimidating predecessor at RCR. Rarely does he shy from flexing his Mr. Hyde persona on the racetrack; a complete role-reversal from the Dr. Jekyll seen cuddling chihuahua Lo in pre-race Twitter picture postings.) As the laps wound down that June, Logano had an honest opportunity to make the race a 1-2-3 finish for Joe Gibbs Racing (JGR). Harvick chose to scupper any such chances by deliberately turning Logano. His explanation was lame. "I just got in there and we just wound up getting together. Just two cars going to the same space at one time." This was an instance of pure animosity. Premeditated. Done because he could. Beware though, young Joe grew some stones that day and there’s a long future ahead for payback...
...which brings us to today. Kyle Busch got into the left rear quarter panel of David Reutimann. Reutimann went for a spin as Busch sailed on past. Following a trip to the pits for a tire change necessitated by the spin, Reutimann went back on the track. There he lurked. Waiting in ambush. Waiting for his chance to bushwhack the #18. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist that one.) Was it unexpected? To a degree it was. Busch is in the Chase. Reutimann isn’t. Surely no one would take it upon themselves to intentionally ruin someone’s chance for a Championship because of an error in judgment. Surely not? Busch’s spotter was taking no chances as he relayed the information to his driver. "You're coming up on the wounded 00. Just be wary." Words that were quickly responded to by Busch with “Car's destroyed!!!!!!” Busch reported that Reutimann turned right into him. (We television viewers were away at commercial break so I only heard the exchange.) Busch wanted a swift and sure punishment of Reutimann from NASCAR and let it be known that if nothing was forthcoming he wanted a meeting with them after the race. There was none and Reutimann for all his bother ended up hoist with his own petard. By race’s end Busch was giving a calm, thoughtful interview while Reutimann’s eyes flitted everywhere but the interviewer’s face and camera lens.
Reutimann was upset and under pressure from his crew to retaliate. He did. Under “Have at It Boys” precedent he’s allowed to. Should he have? I think not. Much as teams would like us to believe that Chasers are not raced differently just because they’re in the Chase, don’t you believe it! There is no way that a non-Chase contender should have the power to affect the potential outcome of the Championship. Harken back to that Harvick/Logano tiff at Pocono. Where’s the safeguard to prevent Logano from wresting a Championship title from Harvick at Homestead? What’s to stop Roush Fenway Racing from sending David Ragan on a suicide mission to destroy the Hendrick boys’ shot? Or what’s to stop owner/driver/contender Tony Stewart from siccing a Rocket of redemption on a Busch brother or two? Gentlemen’s honor. Well, we saw how far that went today.
Two songs come to mind.
..
NASCAR’s ”The Battle Hymn of the Republic”
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
or
The drivers’ “It’s a Scandal! It’s a Outrage!” from “Oklahoma!”
Trapped!
Tricked!
Hoodblinked!
Hambushed!
Which will it be when all is said and done?
There’s a line to be recognized and drawn. A distinction between the legal term for an exception to the hearsay rule called “excited utterances” and “lying in wait.”
Spontaneity of the declarant is a key to admissibility. An excited utterance does not have to be made at time of the startling event, but must be made while the declarant is still in a state of surprise or shock from the incident. The declarant's reflective powers must be stilled, meaning that, while making the statement, the declarant would not have had a chance to reflect upon the startling event, fabricate a purposefully false statement, and then say it. If the declarant is believed to have had time to reflect on the situation before making the statement, the statement would not be spontaneous and thus not an excited utterance. However, under certain circumstances, it is possible for days to have passed before the declarant fully reflects on the event, and "unstills" his or her reflective powers.
Spontaneity is established by the declarant's demeanor, time lapse, and content of the statement. Declarant's appearance of calmness at time statement lessens admissibility. Time lapse between the startling event and the statement is a factor for both admissibility and weight.
Certainly if lawyers can figure this stuff out, then NASCAR can. I propose that if any “Having at It” fits the excited utterance definition it shall be permissible (exceptions always a rule) while any reflection, premeditation type payback be punishable.
It’s complicated and still can vary on a case by case basis.
Like art & porn, I can’t describe it, but I know it when I see it!
