Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, July 8, 1993 TAG: 9307080062
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: B1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: BOB ZELLER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
In the wake of the cheating scandal involving Ken Schrader's Hendrick Motorsports team, we heard a lot about the so-called autonomy of the National Stock Car Racing Commission, a NASCAR-created body that handles appeals from teams penalized for violating NASCAR rules.
But how can you believe a commission has any real power when it belches a heavy cloud of exhaust smoke to obscure the issue it is considering?
The irony is that the controversy was handled remarkably above board until the commission got its hands on it.
After NASCAR inspectors found illegal engine parts on Schrader's car July 1 at Daytona International Speedway, Winston Cup Director Gary Nelson explained in detail why NASCAR had levied four-race suspensions against Schrader and car owner Joe Hendrick.
The next day, Schrader and key members of Hendrick Motorsports told their story. Their explanation was a lot to swallow, but believable or not, it was made public.
Then the controversy fell into the black hole of the appeals process. When the commission decided Tuesday to rescind the suspensions and levy slap-on-the-wrist $5,000 fines, the announcement came as a bare-bones, three-paragraph release from NASCAR.
So I thought I'd have a chat with Martinsville Speedway President Clay Campbell on Wednesday morning to find out what went on behind those closed doors. Campbell was one of the commission members who heard the appeal.
NASCAR's rules say the commission is only supposed to rule on the correctness of the decision, not the penalty.
Did the commission believe Nelson had erred? What was its rationale in rescinding the suspensions? What does NASCAR need to do to make its rulings stick?
"I can't help you," Campbell said. "We can't talk about it. I will say this: Judging from the facts presented on both sides, there's not a doubt in my mind we made the right decision."
Campbell, a recent appointee to the 21-person commission, admitted being "new to this," so he agreed to double-check with the commission chairman to see what he could say, if anything.
When Campbell called me back, he said, "Everything is confidential. That's the policy of the commission. Members cannot say anything."
Who can blame Campbell? How independent would you be if the continued growth and stability of your family-owned track depended on the race dates granted to you by NASCAR President Bill France Jr., the man who appointed you to the commission?
And just who is the commission chairman who put the gag on Campbell? His name is Bob E. Smith. He also happens to be the director of business affairs for NASCAR.
So much for autonomy.
But it's not quite that simple.
The last major commission hearing was two years ago, when Junior Johnson appealed the 12-week suspensions NASCAR gave him, crew chief Tim Brewer and driver Tommy Ellis for using an oversized engine in The Winston.
That three-member panel was tough. While it rescinded the suspension of Ellis (who had been substituting for injured Geoff Bodine), it didn't budge on Johnson and Brewer.
And the commission members talked about it afterward.
Panelist Bill Taylor acknowledged that a 12-week suspension was severe, but said, "There's no way to reduce that because you would set a precedent. You're just opening a can of worms. If you reduce it, then at [the next race] you could have half the field with big engines."
The suspensions of Johnson and Brewer eventually were reduced to four races, but only after a further appeal to a retired Detroit auto executive named Semon E. Knudsen, who holds the title of National Stock Car Racing Commissioner.
So what is going on here?
If you believe the worst, you believe that France controls this sport like a puppeteer controls puppets and if you buck him, as Johnson often does, you'll be punished. And he'll use the commission to do the dirty work. But if you're cooperative and pliant, like Schrader and Hendrick Motorsports, you'll get a break.
If you believe the best, you believe that this commission panel acted in good faith and, at worst, it simply was lenient.
In any case, the episode adds fresh fuel to the age-old rap against NASCAR - inconsistency and a lack of fairness.
All of this adds up to the inescapable conclusion that despite its monumental growth and its many successes, NASCAR often still acts like an old-style political machine rather than a modern, multimillion-dollar corporation.
Keywords:
AUTO RACING
by CNB