Re: Finch appeal

Can I edit the list of the blogs I've read?

Hello Guest

• Login
• Register…
• Start blog

• Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels

• Polls
• Avatars
• Interests

• Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search

• Search
• Games
• Tests
• GYXU

• Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online

GYXU > F1, Indy, Nascar, Rally > Re: Finch appeal 27 April 2005 20:27:42

Recent blog posts:

pipiska!!!upja4ka!!!pshli…
pipiska!!!upja4ka!!!pshli nax!!!

UPJA4KA!!!
TUTSJAPI6!!PI6!ZEPJ EBRILO!!!!!ZAZA!!!TELOIDI, DA! MY – EBANULISJ!!!PI6! PI6! PI6! OJAEBU!!I…

Hi!
Hi! I am Kate from Ukraine! I don't now, everything about this website. Also I dodn't know english very…

...
http://gyxu.com/p/login.cgi?r=http://www.winxclub.com/

ONOTOLE NEGODUE
Blin, nu zaipali trabli s ssilkami.Zaxozu kuda to - BAZ! i ja snova gostj.Vxozu i vse norma,no…

4to za xerj ?
Menja 4asto vikidivaet !!!X-(

Sri Lanka Vs West Indies
Sri Lanka won the first match by more than 100 runs…this is first in West Indies. .unfortunately after…

...
gfgdgd

Fs:,Iphone 8Gb,Nokia…
BUY 2 GET 1 FREE We Are Importer And Exporter Of All Kinds Of Mobile Phones Games,And All…

Blog Feed
http://feeds.feedburner.com/TumbleweedRealtyMaui

Forums:

topic feeds

• GYXU all topics, blogs and comments

• General

• F1, Indy, Nascar, Rally

• Baseball

• Basketball

• Boxing

• Football

• Soccer

• Hockey

• Rugby

• Tennis

• Pro Wrestling

• Billiard

• Cycling

• Boats

• Kites, widsurfing, waterski

• Diving

• Skiing

• Cricket

• Golf

• Skating

• Buy / Sell

• Anonymous

Discuss:

Woohoo!
The best there ever was and the best there ever will be. Jeff Gordon

Re: ExcuseFest 2009
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:15:28 -0800 (PST), sterling <sterlingla@aol.com> wrote: There is…

Recent forum topics:

Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
Does any of our Scandinavian friends know about Christian Hoffman being recently banned from racing for…

Steel bolts and nuts for Ultima…
The now discontinued Jackson Ultima Matrix mounts (for removable figure skating blade runners) held the…

Stockholm-Falun scoring system…
Kowalczyk overcame Majdic to win the overall WC title because she got the 200 bonus points for the…

Worn Rotefella Boots
Dear All, just back from an excellent trip to Norway. One problem, in heavy snow, very difficult to…

Recent forum comments:

RE: BIC longboards
Sorry I should also say that we normally have 4-11 knot winds in our area with the emphasis around 6-8…

RE: Macho macho man Dave Strang of…
ROTFL He was actually hide the REAL reason why he got mad . It is because Virginia Sung twiddled her…

RE: Re: Day 8 Results
On Mar 22, 11:50pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote: See his post for day 6. In…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
On Mar 23, 3:11pm, Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> wrote: Thanks Terje…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
ADK Skier wrote: The real problem wasn't a high hemo value, but the wrong ratio between what I…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
I'll stay out of that one. Some February lab test results - in the midst of races - showed my…

RE: Hoffman's High Hemologin Values
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:49:37 -0700 (PDT), ADK Skier <lgsumr@yahoo.com> wrote: Kikkan Randall…

RE: Stockholm-Falun scoring system…
"Professional" sports mean money. People or more liekly, organizations, are paying and…

RE: Worn Rotefella Boots
Thanks for the suggestion. Looking at the boot tip in the cold light of day, the rubber is worn and the…

RE: sintered bases, radioactive wax…
On Mar 17, 8:58am, lo....@free.fr wrote: Is there a cheap equivalent substitute metal scraper? Cabinet…

Модератор:

Administrator


Re: Finch appeal
Chuck Steak 27 April 2005 00:48:43
	In article <1114547484.311556.223940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Daniel" <sabot120mm@hotmail.com> wrote: What a load of crap. NASCAR screwed up and the team pays for it again. The team cheated, I'd say they are the ones that really screwed up. Dan ---------------------------------------------- The biggest difference between marriage and a car battery, is that the battery has a positive side....
		Add comment


Mark Cook 27 April 2005 01:31:19 [ permanent link ]
	"Daniel" <sabot120mm@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1114547484.311556.223940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> ndoo...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:> > Wow, I guess we didn't hear the whole story - the appeals board> denied> > the unapproved carburetor appeal and additionally added on a $25K> fine.> > I believe this is the second time that Finch has had a penalty added> > when he appealed.> > N.> What a load of crap. NASCAR screwed up and the team pays for it again. It is the team's responsibility to present a legal car. Just because an inspector missed something does not relieve Finch of his responsibility.
		Add comment


Zenit 27 April 2005 06:24:07 [ permanent link ]
	On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:48:43 -0500, Chuck_Steak@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) had to open a new box of zerones to say: In article <1114547484.311556.223940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,> "Daniel" <sabot120mm@hotmail.com> wrote:> What a load of crap. NASCAR screwed up and the team pays for it again.> The team cheated, >I'd say they are the ones that really screwed up.> Dan If the part in question was presented to NASCAR pre-race inspectors and cleared, which is apparently what happened, how can they be held up as cheaters...? I don't think the whole story's been told... <! -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > zenit
		Add comment


Mike Marlow 27 April 2005 16:10:10 [ permanent link ]
	"Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:Hqybe.629$Cp6.275@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...> "Daniel" <sabot120mm@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:1114547484.311556.223940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> > ndoo...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:> > > Wow, I guess we didn't hear the whole story - the appeals board> > denied> > > the unapproved carburetor appeal and additionally added on a $25K> > fine.> > > I believe this is the second time that Finch has had a penalty added> > > when he appealed.> > > N.> > What a load of crap. NASCAR screwed up and the team pays for it again.> It is the team's responsibility to present a legal car. Just because an> inspector missed something does not relieve Finch of his responsibility.> C'mon Mark... It's easy to parrot NASCAR's words on that but how many times have we all seen NASCAR pull some arbitrary interpretation out of their butt? Hell, they're famous for it. How could a team be held accountable to presenting a legal car under those conditions? Not suggesting that Finch wasn't going for a little something underhanded, but NASCAR's line about team responsibility is pure bull. -- -Mike- mmarlow@alltel.net
		Add comment


Chuck Steak 27 April 2005 16:28:04 [ permanent link ]
	In article <vhtt61pnlin5e6v6volvv2lt94d9ednsd7@4ax.com>, zenit <zenit@seozark.usa> wrote: Chuck_Steak@nospam.com (Chuck Steak) The team cheated, >>I'd say they are the ones that really screwed up. Dan If the part in question was presented to NASCAR pre-race inspectors>and cleared, which is apparently what happened, how can they be held>up as cheaters...? I don't think the whole story's been told...> <! -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- >>zenit I think you are correct about the whole story... It seems like the carb was just a flat out obvious cheater carb. Nothing subtle. There is some talk that there was some "David Copperfield" action going on, meaning that the carb was actually swapped. No matter what anyone wants to believe though, the bottom line is, as Mark pointed out, you are responsible for racing a legal car. If passing "pre" race inspection, meant you were legal, there would be no "post" race inspection.... I mean, what would be the point? Think about it... There isn't a guy, actively involved in racing, that does not know the difference between a legal carb, and a big honkin' illegal carb. Dan ---------------------------------------------- The biggest difference between marriage and a car battery, is that the battery has a positive side....
		Add comment


WildWeasel 27 April 2005 16:52:16 [ permanent link ]
	"Mark Cook" wrote ...> It is the team's responsibility to present a legal car. Just because an> inspector missed something does not relieve Finch of his responsibility.> This is true, but, you don't think nascar is above "missing" something in pre-race so that they can catch it in post-race and send a message, do you? nascar isn't that pure-white-as-the-driven-snow, IMO. "But what if nascar got caught?", you ask. Get caught? HOW? and even if there is a question, like here - deny deny deny, smoke screen and then change the subject ala jAlan - and it's their game - p-e-r-i-o-d. This, for example, was a GREAT way to demonstrate to ALL that nascar WILL, infact, take away a win and make your entire day disappear in a puff of smoke - poof! You think that message was lost on anyone? They still don't know what will drive nascar to do that, well, they know one thing, but what else will push them over the edge? And against whom? What if JJ gets too far ahead? By knocking him down 100 points the "or within 400 points of the leader" would currently grab 9 more drivers into the chase and wouldn't hurt JJ once the chase starts and they set the stagger to 5 points, so what's the harm - in nascars' eyes (I believe) - none. If it makes for a better show (and makes sure an important car/sponsor/entity gets into the chase). And maybe it'll just make the 48 SO careful that they loose 100 points over 10 races just by not taking any excessive chances. Either way, nascar gets the desired results.
		Add comment


Mark Cook 27 April 2005 18:17:23 [ permanent link ]
	"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message news:cd3b$426f80e4$a22701e6$30108@ALLTEL.NET...> "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message> news:Hqybe.629$Cp6.275@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...> > "Daniel" <sabot120mm@hotmail.com> wrote in message> > news:1114547484.311556.223940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> > > ndoo...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:> > > > Wow, I guess we didn't hear the whole story - the appeals board> > > denied> > > > the unapproved carburetor appeal and additionally added on a $25K> > > fine.> > > > I believe this is the second time that Finch has had a penalty added> > > > when he appealed.> > > > N.> > > What a load of crap. NASCAR screwed up and the team pays for it again.> > It is the team's responsibility to present a legal car. Just because an> > inspector missed something does not relieve Finch of his responsibility.> > C'mon Mark... It's easy to parrot NASCAR's words on that but how many times> have we all seen NASCAR pull some arbitrary interpretation out of their> butt? Hell, they're famous for it. How could a team be held accountable presenting a legal car under those conditions? Not suggesting that Finch> wasn't going for a little something underhanded, but NASCAR's line about> team responsibility is pure bull. Having raced on the local level, I have seen this trick several times. Present an illegal car before the race, run the race, and then get caught after the race is over. It is a calculated risk on the teams part. They fooled the inspector before the race, thus it gives them the confidence that they will not get caught afterwards. Finch tried it and got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. --> -Mike-> mmarlow@alltel.net>
		Add comment


Mark Cook 27 April 2005 18:27:15 [ permanent link ]
	"Daniel" <sabot120mm@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1114585206.916634.40180@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> Mark Cook wrote:> > "Daniel" <sabot120mm@hotmail.com> wrote in message> > news:1114547484.311556.223940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> > > ndoo...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:> > > > Wow, I guess we didn't hear the whole story - the appeals board> > > denied> > > > the unapproved carburetor appeal and additionally added on a $25K> > > fine.> > > > I believe this is the second time that Finch has had a penalty> added> > > > when he appealed.> > > > N.> > > What a load of crap. NASCAR screwed up and the team pays for it> again.> > It is the team's responsibility to present a legal car. Just because> an> > inspector missed something does not relieve Finch of his> responsibility.> If the team asked the inspector for a ruling and were ignored, it most> certainly is NASCAR's fault. You are using a false premise. Finch does not make the claim that they asked for a ruling and they were ignored.
		Add comment


WildWeasel 27 April 2005 19:19:31 [ permanent link ]
	"Mark Cook" wrote ...>> If the team asked the inspector for a ruling and were ignored, it most>> certainly is NASCAR's fault.> You are using a false premise. Finch does not make the claim that they asked> for a ruling and they were ignored.> Not ignored but approved. He did say just that on TV. He said they showed the carb to nascar and specifically asked them to make sure it was OK because they knew it was 'close' (not sure if that was the exact word). They (nascar) put it on the car and sealed it. By that action Finch assumed it was checked and approved, I guess. That's what he said on tv at least once. Not sure that's what he presented at the appeal or what happened, but I saw the interview.
		Add comment


H . B . Elkins 27 April 2005 19:24:12 [ permanent link ]
	On 26 Apr 2005 09:09:34 -0700, ndooley@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote: Wow, I guess we didn't hear the whole story - the appeals board denied>the unapproved carburetor appeal and additionally added on a $25K fine.> I believe this is the second time that Finch has had a penalty added>when he appealed. What I haven't gotten is the firing of the NASCAR official over the whole deal -- I'm guessing that this official approved the carb before the race, and that's why he had to fall on the sword. Any ideas or thoughts from anyone? -- To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
		Add comment


H . B . Elkins 27 April 2005 19:27:55 [ permanent link ]
	On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:31:19 GMT, Mark Cook wrote: It is the team's responsibility to present a legal car. Just because an>inspector missed something does not relieve Finch of his responsibility. Yes, but from what I understand, they specifically asked for and got approval of the carb. Why else would an official be fired unless he approved something that was not proper? -- To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
		Add comment


H . B . Elkins 27 April 2005 19:33:38 [ permanent link ]
	On 27 Apr 2005 00:00:06 -0700, Daniel wrote: If the team asked the inspector for a ruling and were ignored, it most>certainly is NASCAR's fault. "When in doubt, leave it out." If I had any questions as to the legality of something and had not gotten a definitive answer, then I wouldn't do it. If Finch had any questions as to whether the part was legal or not, and they had not been answered by NASCAR, he should not have used it. That's just good common sense. -- To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
		Add comment


Mark Cook 27 April 2005 19:54:11 [ permanent link ]
	"WildWeasel" <wweasel_24@HooYah.com> wrote in message news:l6icnc9hzsMVMPLfUSdV9g@ptd.net...> "Mark Cook" wrote ...> >> If the team asked the inspector for a ruling and were ignored, it most> >> certainly is NASCAR's fault.> > You are using a false premise. Finch does not make the claim that they asked> > for a ruling and they were ignored.> > Not ignored but approved. He did say just that on TV. He said they showed> the carb to nascar and specifically asked them to make sure it was OK because> they knew it was 'close' (not sure if that was the exact word). They (nascar)> put it on the car and sealed it. By that action Finch assumed it was checked> and approved, I guess.> That's what he said on tv at least once. Not sure that's what he presented at> the appeal or what happened, but I saw the interview. As I understand, Finch presented the carb at Bristol. The inspector found the carb to be ILLEGAL because of the booster bars. Finch sent the carb out to have those parts changed. Then carb was shipped to Texas and installed on the car. The problem with was it was too big, i.e. flowed more than 350 cfm. The question is, did the inspector stop checking the carb once he found it to be illegal? Did Finch assume that the inspector checked everything and the ONLY problem that he found was the booster bars? It is not clear to me that NASCAR ever "approved" this carb. Getting a part passed tech, and having a part approved, are two different issues.
		Add comment


Mark Cook 27 April 2005 20:27:42 [ permanent link ]
	"H.B. Elkins" <hbelkins@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote in message news:d4ob1r0de8@drn.newsguy.com...> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:31:19 GMT, Mark Cook wrote:> It is the team's responsibility to present a legal car. Just because an> >inspector missed something does not relieve Finch of his responsibility.> Yes, but from what I understand, they specifically asked for and got approval of> the carb. That is not clear. As I understand, Finch presented the carb at Bristol. The inspector found the carb to be ILLEGAL because of the booster bars. Finch sent the carb out to have those parts changed. Then carb was shipped to Texas and installed on the car. Why else would an official be fired unless he approved something that> was not proper? Woody Neese, the inspector who was fired, was part of the post-race inspection, not the pre-race. It is not clear why he was fired. --> To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
		Add comment


Mark Cook 27 April 2005 20:32:12 [ permanent link ]
	"H.B. Elkins" <hbelkins@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote in message news:d4oaqs0cl8@drn.newsguy.com...> On 26 Apr 2005 09:09:34 -0700, ndooley@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:> Wow, I guess we didn't hear the whole story - the appeals board denied> >the unapproved carburetor appeal and additionally added on a $25K fine.> > I believe this is the second time that Finch has had a penalty added> >when he appealed.> What I haven't gotten is the firing of the NASCAR official over the whole deal> -- I'm guessing that this official approved the carb before the race, and that's> why he had to fall on the sword.> Any ideas or thoughts from anyone? I don't quite understand it either. Woody Neese was part of the post race inspection team, not the pre-race, i.e. he had nothing to do with approving the carb. "Neese was not the official who checked the carburetor on opening day inspection, sources confirmed. Neese was involved in the post-race inspection process." http://www.thatsracin.com/mld/thatsracin/11444646.htm --> To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
		Add comment


Mike Marlow 27 April 2005 21:26:50 [ permanent link ]
	"Chuck Steak" <Chuck_Steak@nospam.com> wrote in message news:TZGdnVH9OfnJGPLfRVn-qQ@rcn.net...> No matter what anyone wants to believe though, the bottom line> is, as Mark pointed out, you are responsible for racing a legal car.> If passing "pre" race inspection, meant you were legal,> there would be no "post" race inspection....> I mean, what would be the point? Think about it...> Sure there would - as long as teams have the chance to work on the cars after the pre-race inspection then the post race inspection makes perfect sense. However... when they impound the cars, it's a different story. There isn't a guy, actively involved in racing,> that does not know the difference between a legal carb,> and a big honkin' illegal carb.> Which "does not seem to be the case here", at least from what's been revealed so far. -- -Mike- mmarlow@alltel.net
		Add comment


Mike Marlow 27 April 2005 21:30:36 [ permanent link ]
	"Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:T9Nbe.126$2f2.55@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...> > > C'mon Mark... It's easy to parrot NASCAR's words on that but how many> times> > have we all seen NASCAR pull some arbitrary interpretation out of their> > butt? Hell, they're famous for it. How could a team be held accountable> to> > presenting a legal car under those conditions? Not suggesting that Finch> > wasn't going for a little something underhanded, but NASCAR's line about> > team responsibility is pure bull.> Having raced on the local level, I have seen this trick several times.> Present an illegal car before the race, run the race, and then get caught> after the race is over. It is a calculated risk on the teams part. They> fooled the inspector before the race, thus it gives them the confidence that> they will not get caught afterwards. Finch tried it and got caught with hand in the cookie jar.> Fine - but that still makes it the responsibility of the sanctioning body to make sure they do their jobs up front. Pass the car in the pre-race, then it's a legal car. -- -Mike- mmarlow@alltel.net
		Add comment


Zenit 27 April 2005 21:54:26 [ permanent link ]
	On 27 Apr 2005 09:57:56 -0700, ndooley@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu had to open a new box of zerones to say: zenit wrote:>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:48:43 -0500,>> Chuck_Steak@nospam.com (Chuck Steak)>> had to open a new box of zerones to say:>> In article <1114547484.311556.223940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,>> > "Daniel" <sabot120mm@hotmail.com> wrote:>> > What a load of crap. NASCAR screwed up and the team pays for it>again.>> > The team cheated,>> >I'd say they are the ones that really screwed up.>> > If the part in question was presented to NASCAR pre-race inspectors>> and cleared, which is apparently what happened, how can they be held>> up as cheaters...? I don't think the whole story's been told...>> <! -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- >>> zenit> Did you read the statement from the appeals board? They said NASCAR's>position is made very clear: a piece may or may not be actually>inspected pre-Q, or pre-race, and if the car is passed by the>inspectors, that doesn't mean that every single piece passed inspection>- just those parts scrutinized at that time. Therefore, if post-race>inspection finds an illegal part, it's entirely probable that that>particular part wasn't measured or inspected pre-race, and is no reason>not to pursue penalties.> N. I understand all that but how come the inspector involved is now working for Perdue looking for pin feathers...? <! -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > zenit
		Add comment


WildWeasel 27 April 2005 22:39:00 [ permanent link ]
	"Mike Marlow" wrote ...> "Chuck Steak" wrote ...>> If passing "pre" race inspection, meant you were legal,>> there would be no "post" race inspection....>> I mean, what would be the point? Think about it...>> Sure there would - as long as teams have the chance to work on the cars> after the pre-race inspection then the post race inspection makes perfect> sense. However... when they impound the cars, it's a different story.> Not as long as they can work on cars during the race, it's not. Then you still need post-race to make sure they didn't "work" them into illegal land.
		Add comment


Mark Cook 27 April 2005 22:41:36 [ permanent link ]
	"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message news:ecf10$426fcbff$a22701e6$12066@ALLTEL.NET...> "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message> news:T9Nbe.126$2f2.55@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...> > > > C'mon Mark... It's easy to parrot NASCAR's words on that but how many> > times> > > have we all seen NASCAR pull some arbitrary interpretation out of their> > > butt? Hell, they're famous for it. How could a team be held> accountable> > to> > > presenting a legal car under those conditions? Not suggesting that> Finch> > > wasn't going for a little something underhanded, but NASCAR's line about> > > team responsibility is pure bull.> > Having raced on the local level, I have seen this trick several times.> > Present an illegal car before the race, run the race, and then get caught> > after the race is over. It is a calculated risk on the teams part. They> > fooled the inspector before the race, thus it gives them the confidence> that> > they will not get caught afterwards. Finch tried it and got caught with> his> > hand in the cookie jar.> > Fine - but that still makes it the responsibility of the sanctioning body make sure they do their jobs up front. Pass the car in the pre-race, then> it's a legal car. It doesn't work that way. Just because you dupe one inspector, does not mean the car is legal. They all know that they must also pass post race inspection. --> -Mike-> mmarlow@alltel.net>
		Add comment


WildWeasel 27 April 2005 22:42:23 [ permanent link ]
	"zenit" wrote ...> I understand all that but how come the inspector involved is now> working for Perdue looking for pin feathers...?> 'zactly. That's not your typical 'attaboy, way to not inspect all the parts that we are not guaranteeing that we inspect or don't inspect as the case may or may not be'.
		Add comment


Chuck Steak 28 April 2005 05:20:41 [ permanent link ]
	In article <91c65$426fcb1d$a22701e6$11988@ALLTEL.NET>, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote: Sure there would - as long as teams have the chance to work on the cars>after the pre-race inspection then the post race inspection makes perfect>sense. However... when they impound the cars, it's a different story. so when they impound, you are saying they really don't need to inspect? I still say everything that happens PRE race, is just advisory, and nothing official with regard to post race.. Passing PRE is no guaranTEE.... Dan ---------------------------------------------- The biggest difference between marriage and a car battery, is that the battery has a positive side....
		Add comment


Mike Marlow 28 April 2005 06:07:28 [ permanent link ]
	"Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:A1Rbe.1201$6z3.933@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...> "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message> news:ecf10$426fcbff$a22701e6$12066@ALLTEL.NET...> > "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message> > news:T9Nbe.126$2f2.55@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...> > > > > C'mon Mark... It's easy to parrot NASCAR's words on that but how many> > > times> > > > have we all seen NASCAR pull some arbitrary interpretation out of> their> > > > butt? Hell, they're famous for it. How could a team be held> > accountable> > > to> > > > presenting a legal car under those conditions? Not suggesting that> > Finch> > > > wasn't going for a little something underhanded, but NASCAR's line> about> > > > team responsibility is pure bull.> > > Having raced on the local level, I have seen this trick several times.> > > Present an illegal car before the race, run the race, and then get> caught> > > after the race is over. It is a calculated risk on the teams part. They> > > fooled the inspector before the race, thus it gives them the confidence> > that> > > they will not get caught afterwards. Finch tried it and got caught with> > his> > > hand in the cookie jar.> > > Fine - but that still makes it the responsibility of the sanctioning body> to> > make sure they do their jobs up front. Pass the car in the pre-race, then> > it's a legal car.> It doesn't work that way. Just because you dupe one inspector, does not mean> the car is legal. They all know that they must also pass post race> inspection.> Oh, I realize that... I was making a rhetorical, somewhat idealistic statement. -- -Mike- mmarlow@alltel.net
		Add comment


Zenit 28 April 2005 07:00:18 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:07:28 -0400, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> had to open a new box of zerones to say:>Oh, I realize that... I was making a rhetorical, somewhat idealistic>statement. I do that all the time and it's never fooled my wife... <! -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > zenit
		Add comment

GYXU > F1, Indy, Nascar, Rally > Re: Finch appeal 27 April 2005 20:27:42

	see also: GRANDAM: Mid-Ohio: Doran Racing preview IRL: Richmond: Foyt Racing preview		pass tests:		see also: http://demish.gyxu.com/i/temp/2/128... ... ...

Copyright © 2001—2009 GYXU
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.gyxu.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.gyxu.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.gyxu.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:

If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .




Get comments by e-mail Add to favourites

respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

Re: Finch appeal

Add new comment