Does NASCAR’s appeals process need an overhaul?
Despite the National Stock Car Commission’s decision to overturn the No. 48 Hendrick Motorsports team’s penalties on Tuesday, NASCAR President Mike Helton doesn’t expect the appellate process or inspection procedures to change.
However, questions have arisen as to whether this latest decision regarding Jimmie Johnson’s team harms the integrity of NASCAR's appeal process.
NASCAR issued penalties to the No. 48 Lowe’s team on Feb. 29 after illegal C-posts were discovered on the car prior to inspection for the Daytona 500 12 days earlier. A three-man panel heard the initial appeal on March 13 and let stand NASCAR’s original penalties of 25 driver/owner points plus a $100,000 fine and six-week suspension for crew chief Chad Knaus and six-week suspension for car chief Ron Malec.
But team owner Rick Hendrick said from the get-go that he was “looking forward to having the decision reversed” and appealed a second and final time to chief appellate officer John Middlebrook, a former General Motors vice president and general manager of Chevrolet’s Motor Division.
Middlebrook reversed the points and suspension penalties, but upheld the $100,000 fine for Knaus, which muddied the waters even more. If Middlebrook rescinded NASCAR’s original penalities, why did the fine stand?
“I don’t feel vindicated because I feel like everything should have been overturned,” Johnson said Friday. “Pleased that things went our way, but don’t feel vindicated.”
Throughout the appellate process, Hendrick stood firm that since the car had not been through the actual inspection process and raced “at every restrictor-plate race in 2011 and it’s been to the tech center a couple of times,” there was no reason why the car would not be within the rules again.
Still, Helton insists the inspection process begins the moment the cars roll off the transporters at the track. And while NASCAR has attempted to eliminate the gray areas surrounding the construction of the cars by being “more clear, more precise about rules and regulations in the event that ... something isn't correct in the inspection process” according to Helton, obviously something was amiss through the course of the procedure.
“The way NASCAR inspects the cars, they do a very good job and they inspect much differently than a lot of the other series,” Knaus said following Tuesday’s decision. “They inspect all the cars pre-competition, which is not the norm in motorsports. So, I felt like they made a mistake.
“Obviously, with the information that was put out there, it was determined that they had, and it was just a small breakdown in the system. And I think that after what we’ve done ... some of that is going to get cleared up and make it better and easier for everybody honestly."
Helton added that there are “different ways to interpret things.”
“We take, obviously, very seriously our responsibility to regulate the sport. But if you're going to regulate it, you also have to enforce it,” Helton said. “Every rule in the rule book has a story behind it or an experience to it. That's how the rule book has been developed over the years, and (we) will continue to do it that way. We'll learn every week something that will be applied to us being more relevant and more precise and more accurate.”
Helton believes that Middlebrook’s decision to maintain the monetary fine “supports the inspection process” and proves NASCAR’s inspectors “did their job correctly.”
Helton continued to defend the stock car racing commission panel and added the “appellate group is reviewed every year.” And through NASCAR’s due process, which involves an appeal panel and a chief appellate officer, competitors “have another ear outside of the competition of NASCAR if they don't agree with our findings or our rulings,” according to Helton.
“We defend our actions,” Helton said. “We're proud of our inspectors. But we're also proud of our professionalism when it comes to having a due process system that acts as a check and balance. That process and that whole activity is now complete and we're ready to move on.”
Still, many were stunned over Middlebrook’s verdict. And others were more perplexed by his inaccessibility to the media following the decision considering that he had the final word. However, Helton added that Middlebrook is “not obligated to explain (his) decision” so we might never know why the penalties were overturned and the fine was not.
But don’t expect driver Kevin Harvick to lose any sleep over the matter. When it comes to the appeals process, Harvick believes “it’s fine.”
“It’s a platform for everybody to state your case,” Harvick said. “Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose just like in the court of law. It’s really no different than that.
“It’s no different than watching a case like O.J. (Simpson), and watching O.J. go free. Watching that case, there’s no way you thought that was going to happen. Then you see the verdict, and then it happens. It’s very similar to that. Sometimes you think something is cut and dry and you think this is going to be the verdict, and the next thing you know, it’s not. You move on and you go to the next one.”
Brad Keselowski offered a simple solution for avoiding the appellate process altogether --- work within the rules. Certainly, crew chiefs are encouraged by owners to push the ingenuity envelope, but if a team works within the rules, it will never have to risk the possibility of being busted.
“I’ve got an owner by the name of Roger Penske who has a saying that ‘he’s not in favor of robbing the bank,'" Keselowski said. “He’s got a great reputation – not just in the motorsports industry but within all aspects of his life for the way that he does business and the way he conducts it. He’s adamant about not pushing things to the point where you can get into trouble.
“The emphasis that we put on things at Penske Racing is to do it right the first time than it is questioning the process of what to do when you get caught.”
