Here's my picks for the NASCAR Hall of Fame Class of 2011

   Next week, those with much more say than I have will make their selections to determine the next five members that will be inducted in NASCAR's Hall of Fame in May 2011. Since I have no vote in the "official" process, I decided to get a jump and tell you what my own five-member class would be.
  
   Bobby Allison - A native of Miami, Allison uprooted to Hueytown, Ala., and became the leader of the heralded "Alabama Gang." He scored 84 career wins in what is know called the Sprint Cup series, tying him for third on the all-time win list. He won 57 poles, three Daytona 500s and the 1983 Cup championship.

   Red Byron - All the focus these days in NASCAR is on the Cup champion and Byron was NASCAR's first, becoming the then-Grand National stock car racing’s first points champion in 1949. He also won the first NASCAR-sanctioned race on Feb. 15, 1948 in a Dodge prepared by Red Vogt. Byron won the Modified championship in 1948 after winning 11 races and finishing second five times.

   David Pearson - Pearson won three Cup championships and 105 races, ranking him second on the all-time list. He is the all-time leading pole winner on superspeedways with 64, including at least one every year from 1963 to 1982. He won a record 11 consecutive poles at Charlotte Motor Speedway. His best Cup season came in 1968 when he won 16 races and finished in the top five 36 times in 48 starts.

   Darrell Waltrip - One of nine drivers to win three or more Cup championships (1981-82, ’85), Waltrip won 84 times in 809 starts. He is tied with Bobby Allison for third place on the all-time win list. He was named one of NASCAR’s 50 Greatest Drivers as part of the sport's 50th anniversary celebration and is now a TV commentator for Fox Sports.

   Cale Yarborough - Yarborough was the first driver to capture three successive Cup championships (1976-78). He retired in 1988 with 83 race wins, 198 poles and more than $5 million in winnings. Among his 50 superspeedway victories were five Southern 500s and four Daytona 500s. He drove legendary owners the Wood Brothers, Harry Ranier and Junior Johnson.

   That's my Class of 2011. What's yours?

Richard Childress Racing statement on Bowyer appeal being denied

The following is a statement from Richard Childress, president and chief executive officer of Richard Childress Racing, regarding the September 29 decision of the NASCAR appeals committee to uphold the penalty on the No. 33 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series team following the September 19 race at New Hampshire Motor Speedway:
 
"I am disappointed but not surprised by the decision knowing how the appeal system is structured. We proved beyond a reasonable doubt how the car was found to be out of tolerance after the race. Knowing how the system works, I brought a check with me to cover the cost of the appeal hearing and we have already submitted our request to appeal to the chief appellate officer. That being said, we will not let this be a distraction to the primary goal of one of our teams winning the Sprint Cup Series championship. We owe it to our fans and our sponsors to stay focused and bring the championship back to RCR. We will have no further comment on the matter until the appeal is final."

Full statement by National Stock Car Racing Commission on Bowyer appeal

On September 29, 2010, the National Stock Car Racing Appeals Panel heard and considered the appeal of Richard Childress Racing regarding four penalties issued by NASCAR relative to the #33 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series car.  This stemmed from post-race inspection following a NASCAR Sprint Cup Series event at New Hampshire Motor Raceway on September 21, 2010.

The penalties concern Section 12-1 of the NASCAR Rule Book “Actions detrimental to stock car racing.”; Section 12-4-J: “Any determination by NASCAR Officials that the Race Equipment used in the Event does not conform to NASCAR Rules”; and Section 20-3: “The car body location specifications in reference to the certified chassis does not meet the NASCAR-approved specifications.”

The penalties assessed were:

-Loss of 150 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Championship Car Owner points for owner, Richard Childress

-Loss of 150 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Championship Driver points for driver, Clint Bowyer

-$150,000 fine; suspension from the next six (6) NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Championship Events; suspension from NASCAR until November 3, 2010; and probation until December 31, 2010 for crew chief Shane Wilson

            - Suspension from the next six (6) NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Championship Events; suspension from NASCAR until November 3, 2010; and probation until December 31, 2010 for crew member Chad Haney

The Appellants requested and were granted a deferral of the suspensions and fine until such time as this hearing could be convened.

The Appellants did not contest that the car measured out of specifications upon inspection.

The Appellants argued that, having received a warning about the car body of the #33 car being “too close” following the Richmond race, that it was inconceivable that they would bring a non-conforming car to New Hampshire. 

They argued that the left rear frame member was actually bent upward as a result of the car being pushed towards Victory Lane by a wrecker after the post-race burnouts, which resulted in the left rear measurement “hard point” being too high.  To this end, they also presented an accident reconstruction specialist to demonstrate that a wrecker might bend up the left rear strut in the trunk under certain conditions.  The specialists, however, indicated that such an occurrence would strictly affect the left rear because of the match-up between the wrecker pushbar and the angle of the racecar’s rear bumper.  He went on to say that the corresponding right rear measurements should not be affected, in his view, nor the frame member deformed as a team representative had alleged.

The Appellants also contested the severity and timing of the penalty.

Claims that the wrecker caused the infraction were negated by the telemetry from the car which did not show a sharp impact spike; by the fact that the rear template still fit snugly across the entire rear of the car; by a visual inspection of the rear of the car which showed nothing of note in the way of damage; and a visual review of the videotape of post race assistance tendered by the wrecker which appeared as relatively gentle pushing.

Of significance to the Panel were some additional facts which came to light during the hearing.  Particularly of note were the facts that both rear hard points, left and right, were high, and that the rear of the body was offset on the frame.

The Panel found that the penalties were consistent for infractions of this magnitude.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the National Stock Car Racing Appeals Panel to uphold the original penalties.

The periods of suspension shall be adjusted from the date of the hearing.

The Appellants have the right under Section 15 of the Rule Book to appeal this decision to the National Stock Car Racing Chief Appellate Officer.  The Appellants submitted such a request and the fee immediately after the conclusion of the hearing.

John Capels

Lyn St James

Waddell Wilson

George Silbermann - Appellate Administrator and non-voting member

Where have all the cautions gone?

   Has anyone else noticed what has not been occurring lately, particularly since the Chase for the Sprint Cup started?

   First of all, there have been fewer wrecks of late but also far fewer cautions in general. At Richmond - which set the field for the Chase - there were three. Last weekend at New Hampshire, there were eight. But Sunday here at Dover, there were four.

   The common denominator seems to be it takes a piece of debris the size of a car to get a caution called of late. You don't think NASCAR has gotten sensitive to all the complaints about "phantom cautions" do you?

   The long green-flag runs give teams with problems little chance to fix them and I believe that's why you are seeing a lot of good cars falling off the lead lap more quickly. With fewer pit stops under yellow, there is much less time to work on cars without losing position on the track.

   Perhaps all the drivers and fans complaining about “phantom” cautions got exactly what they asked for – at a price. Like it or not, cautions actually help produce better racing in many respects.

   Don't get me wrong. I'm all about fast-paced races and certainly on long green-flag runs the best in the field rises to the top.

   But I go back to that old saying, "Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it."

Denny Hamlin isn't buying the Bowyer tow truck argument

   In his media availability at Dover on Friday, Denny Hamlin went out of his way to question some of Clint Bowyer's assertions from earlier in the day during his spirited defense of his team.

   In whole, Hamlin said, "Our car came back and it was correct, but it wasn’t built incorrect and that’s one thing that their car was -- was built incorrectly. You can talk about how small the thing was off and you can really try to say that 60-thousandths didn’t help him (Clint Bowyer) perform any better -- that is a crock.  Let me tell you something, that helps a lot. I know when we gain five points of downforce our car runs a ton better. He wasn’t speeding on pit road by a half-a-mile per hour he was speeding by 5.5 miles-per-hour.

They give you a grace period. NASCAR has been very, very lenient I feel like on this car and they’ve given those guys chances. It’s not Richmond. I think that they should just be happy that they’re in the Chase at this point. They were warned and they were warned before Richmond. Everyone in the garage knows that.  They’re the ones who wanted to press the issue and get all they could to make sure they got in the Chase.  They got in it and then they were busted. They kept going with it.”

Clint Bowyer's opening salvo at Dover media availability

TALK ABOUT YOUR WEEK

You always want to win races. You're very proud to win races and I'm still proud of that win. I don't believe that we did anything wrong. I guess I'll go on record and say that, first and foremost, in my opinion. I want my fans to know that. There is a lot of integrity that goes into this sport. I'm damn proud of being a part of this sport. I love this sport and I wouldn't cheat to win a race in this sport. We have a lot more integrity for myself and our race team at RCR. Hopefully I only have to do this once.

I woke up about 6 o'clock this morning, which is uncharacteristic for me. I just grabbed a notebook and wanted to make some notes. You know, for myself and for you guys. I know a lot of you guys have a lot of questions; trust me; there are a hell of a lot of questions that I have too. And I'm going to go through them. I like to have facts when something like this comes down. I've got a timeline of facts.

I'm going to start with number one: We were warned after Richmond that the car was too close to tolerances. Number two: We were told by NASCAR they were taking the car after New Hampshire, no matter what; first or 43^rd. Number three: The car passed pre and post-race inspections at the race track. Number four: Monday, the rumors started about all this and in my opinion, forced NASCAR's hand to do something about it. Number five: Wednesday came and it was a 150-point fine. And the sixth thing, and at least an answer, you know, I'm looking for answers too. There are several things but one of them is a two-ton wrecker pushed me to victory lane. I'm going to elaborate on them. I think the first one (is) we were warned that both sides of the car were high after Richmond. Both sides. After the race in New Hampshire, after it got back to the Tech Center or whatever they call that place, just the left side was high. I think this shows that we definitely had it fixed; something within that race happened.

Number two: after being told that they were taking the car, we made double-sure before it went to New Hampshire that that car was right. Who in their right mind, knowing that they're going to take that car, wouldn't have made triple sure that thing was right before it went to the race track? I could have hit the wall doing a burnout, I could have done a lot of things that other drivers have done and that other teams have done in a post-race celebration this year. I didn't. We didn't want to push that in NASCAR's face. We appreciated them warning us on the fact and we tried to fix the situation. They told us about that situation Wednesday. Wednesday the car leaves. We had about two hours to jump on that car and make sure that thing was right.

And number three:  The car passed pre and post-race inspection, and three days later get such a huge fine? They take the car apart, completely apart to measure this thing and in my opinion that's not the way the car was raced on the race track. I think that's something to be said. Number four: Once the rumors started it wasn't long before the penalty. I think NASCAR has a lot of problems with a lot of cars on the race track being out of the box and I think they needed to set an example with something. Number five: I don't think the penalty fits the crime. Sixty-thousandths of an inch, folks. Grab a quarter out of your pocket (holds up a quarter). That's sixty-five thousandths of an inch thick. Less than the thickness of that quarter right there resulted in a 150-point fine. Before or after this, grab that and ask yourself if that was a performance-enhancing thing right there.

And the last thing, my question is, is it possible that a two-ton wrecker could bend the quarter panel of this thing sixty thousandths of an inch? You have to ask yourself that. I got hit during the race, turned a couple of times; racing is tough. Now if this thing was knocked out a half of an inch, I could see something being made. But if it passed the height sticks afterwards, the very height sticks the No. 48 (Jimmie Johnson) and the No. 11 (Denny Hamlin) did not pass, then miraculously enough when that same pit crew pushed it back around after 20 minutes it passed, that was pretty amazing. You know it passed those same sticks.

You know, my dad owns a towing business and has since I was born in 1979. I know a little something about wreckers. About 15 years ago they took them push bumpers off the front of them for this very reason. I remember back when people used to come (during) a snow storm and (say) please, push me out of the snow bank. You push them out of the snow bank and two days later they'd show up with a body shop bill in their hand, wanting you to pay the body shop bill for the damage you did to the back of their car. This could happen. That's the only question I had for you guys (media) is to ask yourselves if it is possible for that to happen. That's all I've got to say.

WHERE DO YOU THINK THOSE RUMORS BEGAN AND HOW DID THEY GET OUT AND ARE YOU ANGRY ABOUT THAT?

I'm angry about the whole thing. This tarnished my win. It's something you're very proud of. I'm very angry about it. I'm angry for my fans for our sponsors. I'm angry about it. I think that there are a lot of things a lot of people don't know about, media included, and I don't understand it about as much as you do. So I found myself all week, instead of celebrating a win, trying to figure out what the hell they were talking about. The rumors, in my opinion, I truly believe that these rumors forced their hand in making a decision.

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE CARS ARE ILLEGAL EACH WEEKEND? HOW DO YOU RESOLVE THAT ISSUE?

I think NASCAR does a great job of policing and maintaining common ground. Look at the racing. Now last year and the last two years, when an organization was as dominant as they were, do you think they had something up on the competition? This year it's as close as it's ever been. I think it's pretty damn good racing on the race track. I think it's the best as we've had since this car was put into inception. So, I think they do do a good job. I respect the fact that what they have to look at each and every week. My personal opinion, I don't like the R&D Center. I think what you bring to the race track is what they inspect. And, you know? Three days later the car the car (is) completely taken apart from something that you haven't even raced. I mean it's a completely different vehicle, you know? You take the suspension off the thing; these are all components that bolt on. It ain't a decal you took off. These things are bolted on and could interrupt the way the car is measured. How can that possibly be kept in the same box? 

So I think there is a lot of cars that are close to being on the out of the box side. I think that's what crew members and crew chiefs are paid to do and you know, yeah; I do think there are a lot of cars that are very close. I think they do a good job. I appreciated the fact that they warned us, you know? That's why we tried to fix the thing. That's why we did fix the thing before it went to New Hampshire so this wouldn't happen. Not to rub it in their face and say well you know what you're talking about, we're going to continue to do this and don't think you're going to do anything about it. I mean you've got to appreciate this sport and respect the sport and we darn sure did and it bit us in the rear for it.

How can you enjoy a sport if you believe nothing is ever right or wrong?

   There is an interesting quagmire that encompasses a lot of discussions in NASCAR lately and it showed up again this week when NASCAR levied some harsh penalties on the team of Clint Bowyer, who won last weekend’s Sprint Cup race at New Hampshire.

   NASCAR really seems to raise the ire of fans whenever it makes a ruling on one of many issues covering some of the “gray areas” of the sport.

   The issues range from ruling whether someone was in the “act of passing,” or whether an on-track incident was “intentional” or not.

   Whether fans agree or disagree, most in those circumstances lament NASCAR having to make judgment decisions, often preferring more things in the sport were more “black and white.”

   That doesn’t sound like a bad idea, actually. But then fast forward to when NASCAR does issue black-and-white rulings, like how Bowyer’s New Hampshire car failed a post-race inspection under scrutiny at the research and development center.

   In this case, the car was outside, not only the initial measurements, but also the tolerance area NASCAR grants as well.

   You would think a clear cut case here, right? Nope.

   Instead, we hear about how “it was the smallest of margins,” or explanations – some plausible, some not – about how something else could have caused this measurement or that to be “slightly out of tolerance.”

   In either case, NASCAR can’t win.

   There will always be judgment calls in sports – it’s what produces some of the best fan arguments in sports.

   But when you also start questioning the legitimacy of black-and-white calls, or instead produce excuses for each and every one, you begin to proffer the theory that no one is ever right or wrong.

   It’s hard to see how anyone could enjoy a sport where none of the outcomes are ever accepted.