Fontana, Stafford, and the Junior Controversy
"After the high drama on Sunday in Alabama, this weekend’s race at
California Speedway will likely be another snoozer….In part, that’s because
the speeds are too fast….The action might be considerably better if NASCAR cut
speeds here by 10 to 15 MPH, but there are no indications that that is going to
happen."
MIGHT be considerably better if NASCAR cut speeds at Fontana by 15 MPH?
So wrote Mike
Mulhern, and he’s right on that score. Fontana has proven to be a
rip-roaring track for Indy cars, but other than the Trucks’ 1998 shootout, has
been a dud for stockers. The fendered classes are indeed too fast, but speeds
need to come down by more than 15 MPH – more in the range of 25 MPH, to the low
160s. The Indy cars are of course a lot faster – and should not be above 190 –
but they have so much better grip that it isn’t funny, and the CART cars’
Hanford rail blasts open the air, so the draft kicks in.
But there are no indications it will change. But the more it is pointed out
that Fontana and most of the other tracks need changes to the cars so the racing
becomes better – more like CART’s last two California 500s that saw a combined
130 lead changes – the more likely that NASCAR will finally get the hint – after
all, the seats got to be full over the years by great racing, and the sport
can’t count on fans still coming as the racing keeps deteriorating.
Of course the objection will be raised, "what about the big
wrecks?" What about them? Where did Tony Stewart get seriously banged up?
Not at Daytona or Talladega. And so forth. Contrary to Jimmy
Makar – who ought to know better – there is little serious risk of a death
in a "big one" at Daytona or Talladega – it is at Rockingham, Atlanta,
Darlington, Bristol, Fontana, and so forth that the real risk of injury lay – as
we all saw in Casey Atwood’s ugly hits at The Rock, Tony Stewart’s pile-drive at
Darlington, and so forth. And contrary to Kyle Petty, Bristol and Martinsville
regularly match Talladega wreckage in total numbers of cars; they just didn’t
match it this time around.
Makar whines about how ISC supposedly cares more for TV ratings than good
racing – as if Talladega racing, superior to anything ever seen with stock cars
at Fontana, isn’t good. Three abreast up front on back IS good racing. The only
good racing at Fontana was in the very early laps, on restarts outside the top
six, and that lap in the final quarter when the Yates team, Kurt Busch, and
Jimmie Johnson raced two by two for the lead – otherwise Fontana was a typically
terminal bore.
Makar advocates either lower banking – ignoring that it will not eliminate
the need for restrictor plates – or drastic shaving of spoiler – the
long-discredited 5&5 rule again. Either Makar is just plain stupid or he is
dishonest. Drivers won’t lift with a smaller spoiler – they didn’t under the
5&5 rule – and such a rule will only make cars crash by themselves; thus the
lie is put to the "one mistake caused a big wreck" nonsense – it was
boneheaded driving that cause these crashes now.
Makar claims Daytona and Talladega can handle 200 MPH, but above 190 isn’t
safe. Again, he is either stupid or he is dishonest – either way he is wrong.
Period.
The only problem at Talladega right now – and it is a problem everywhere else
– is the ineffectiveness of the draft without the roof spoiler. So the real
solution, Jimmy Makar and Mike Mulhern, is to go back to the 2001 aero anchor
package and expand on it.
While Fontana cranks up, on the other side of the country the Mod Tour was
supposed to re-ignite its engines at Stafford Motor Speedway. The 31st annual
Spring Sizzler gets the weekly racing up in the northeast going in a big way,
and gets the Mod Tour going again after a three-week hiatus.
Unfortunately (country chick CD plug warning) The Whole Shebang will have to
wait another week due to the arch-enemy of racing – rain.
Stafford tends to bring in some pretty big names for its marque events, and
scheduled for this running is Sarah Fisher as Grand Marshall. The Arute family
owns the Stafford track and have done a good job of promoting the IRL as well as
NASCAR there. Whether the week delay will affect Sarah Fisher’s availability
with Indy time trials due soon will have to wait.
Late Models, SK Modifieds – Jack Arute, Sr’s most important legacy – and the
Tour’s 200-lapper are the Sizzler’s main attractions, and have seen some rowdy
moments in the past.
Controversy has recently erupted over Paul Finebaum’s pre-Talladega column in
the Mobile Register belittling Dale Earnhardt Jr’s lifestyle. Finebaum writes
that Junior’s antics are making Senior roll over in his grave. Among those
antics were Junior’s Playboy interview supposedly boasting of his sexual prowess
and a Newsweek interview where he supposedly boasted that when he drinks, he
downs enough to get wasted. Finebaum also asserts that Junior is reckless in use
of vulgarity in non-TV media interviews, and concludes that while Senior was a
throwback to a simpler time and the ultimate blue-collar hero, Junior represents
grunge and filth and believes "he is heading toward self-destruction – a
veritable time bomb ticking."
The response to Finebaum has been predictable and enormous – and requires a
slightly different take.
Finebaum is hardly the first to assert that Junior’s lifestyle has him on
people’s Dead Pool sheets – I remember Mike Mulhern comparing Junior to NASCAR’s
most famous party animal Curtis Turner. Junior boasts of his sexual prowess in
Playboy – similar prowess sure did Tim Richmond a lot of good, didn’t it?
Junior’s binge drinking is a more complex area, for one has to wonder just
how often he and his buddies engage in binges to get drunk – it stands to reason
that he would temper his binging enough to race, since sobriety is a
prerequisite to such. And yet there is certainly validity in Finebaum’s
criticism, for realistically no one should be more than a social drinker, if one
needs to imbibe alcohol in the first place – it is, after all, possible to have
a roaring good time while abstaining from alcohol; it’s usually more fun as
well.
Junior’s reported vulgarity is another where Finebaum has a point. The use of
profanities, particularly with the frequency used by Junior, is a sign of
intellectual deficiency. It is just plain lazy to use harsh vulgarities to make
a point, especially when they are used with regularity. There really isn’t any
right to swear.
Patten Fuqua claims Finebaum’s claims are inaccurate, though he doesn’t
provide any details. In any event, similar criticism have poured into Finebaum’s
coffers and he delights in singling out some of the dumber ones for ridicule,
such as Sara’s note asserting that Generation X is a very outspoken generation,
as if the self-importance of the ’60s generation never happened.
There is a consistency to the defenses of Junior I’ve come across – none even
touch the core of Finebaum’s criticisms. SHOULD race drivers be binge drinkers,
sex addicts, and vulgarians? No. If what Finebaum attributes to Junior is
inaccurate, then by all means provide a substantive defense in that regard. But
if you wish to criticize Finebaum solely for criticizing Junior, then his
ridicule of responses is something I can agree with.
So far I’ve found just one defense of Junior that tries to take on Finebaum’s
core criticisms – Richard
Huff’s piece.
But Huff’s defense isn’t much better – To the criticism of Junior’s claim
that he drinks to get drunk, Huff counters, "Who doesn’t?"
Quite a few people, in fact. And a lot of them used to binge to get drunk –
and wound up almost getting killed because of it. Social drinking exercises
restraint, and restraint never killed anyone.
Race drivers should never be immune from criticism that is valid, reasoned,
and accurate. And it does not serve race fans well to rabidly defend drivers for
the sake of defending them.