It’s Not Always What You Say, But How You Say It

April 3, 2008

By Brian Watkins

Brian Watkins

How many times did you hear that growing up? From your tone of voice to your body language, the delivery of your comment, complaint, retort or reply can convey far beyond the words you bring forth.

Take the recent comments made about Goodyear following the Atlanta race. Tony Stewart, Jeff Gordon, Junior and several other drivers all conveyed the same thing: “The tires were bad and it made the racing bad- I hope they fix it”. The way that message was delivered in both tone and wording however, was far from the same. While Gordon and Earnhardt chose more civilized and far more subtle expressions, Stewart’s delivery of “That’s the most pathetic racing tire I’ve ever been on in my professional career” had a much stronger impact, as did the following 49 seconds of his rail against the tire manufacturer. While some took offense at the comments and the way they were delivered, the effect was a broad based discussion from the stands to the haulers to the Goodyear corporate offices. Had he simply said he was unhappy with the tires and left it at that, the powers that be most definitely wouldn’t have taken as much notice.

Honestly though, that wasn’t a great analogy. No matter what tone he used or body language he exhibited, there’s really no confusing his message.

Maybe I should find a better situation to represent my point, a hypothetical situation perhaps?

Okay, let’s say for the sake of argument that one team felt they had been wronged by another team. Instead of either handling it with that team directly or using NASCAR as a mediator, a representative of that team, in this case let’s say it was the owner, makes an “off hand” remark to a national media publication accusing another unnamed team of unbecoming behavior. Then let’s say that the spokesman for the wronged team further muddies the water by offering cryptic clues and comments that escalate the incident and cast a shadow of suspicion over every team that runs for a specific manufacturer. Wait, I don’t have to make up a hypothetical- I can just use Jack Roush!

A lot has been said about whether what happened with the RFR sway bar was or wasn’t intentional. A lot has been said about if the part in question did or didn’t fall into the “secret squirrel” category. Not so much has been said specifically about how the situation was handled. The only undisputed fact is that a RFR sway bar ended up in the MWR camp. The details on how it got there, why it was there, and what exactly was done to and with it while it was there are still unknown. Roush has said what he believes happened and Michael Waltrip has said what he believes to be the case. But I’m not here to write about the details or what should be done to the offenders if offend they truly did. My issue is that it’s not what Jack said, but rather how he said it.

There were several ways he could have handled the situation and not come out looking like “Crazy Uncle Jack”. Unfortunately, he didn’t choose any of them. Instead he let his unadulterated hatred for Toyota and his grudge against TRD Senior VP and GM Lee White cloud his, um, better judgment. He initially spoke of scandal and thievery and purposely portrayed each and every Toyota team as a den of thieves.

When he spoke to ESPN The Magazine about the incident, he could have given details and been a better representative of his organization for it. Instead of pointing out his suspect in a line up, he indicted everyone in the room. Even as he continued his diatribe later in the week, it was Michael Waltrip who said “It was us”, when it should have been Jack who said “it was them”. If he truly was interested in justice, he would have either publicly fingered the alleged culprits right off the line, gone directly to NASCAR for redress or both.

In a statement to the press regarding the now-named “partgate” matter shortly before Waltrip’s “confession” Roush still refused to name the team he claimed stole the part, answering simply “I don’t have to respond to that and I won’t”. Then when questioned about the possibility of his team doing anything similar to what he was accusing another team of doing, he said that “I didn’t say my team wouldn’t do that”, though he did qualify the statement by saying that he wouldn’t approve of it if they did.

Between his initial comment to the press and his most recent statements, it’s clear that while he may indeed feel wronged, he is also taking an immature position on it, or at least portraying himself, and thus his organization, in an immature manner. If any other owner was making these allegations, one would expect clear charges and calls for a clear resolution and if things escalated, clear legal action. With Roush it appears the next step might just be sneaking out late at night and peeing on door handles in the TRD parking lot.

I’m sure I’ll get plenty of comments from readers telling me how unfair I’m being. Feel free to send the complaints my way. I can almost guarantee that my response will include the ridiculousness of how he delivered his accusations not two weeks after his team received an uncontested fine and suspension combo by NASCAR for cheating.

As to NASCAR’s role in the matter? A look at the front pages of both NASCAR.com and the NASCAR media website show 0 stories on the matter. A deeper search of both sites returns only one mention. I think that classifies it as a non-issue in the eyes of the sanctioning body, and I’ll wager by the time the cars are back in their haulers at Texas, it will be a non-issue with everyone else as well. Everyone except our crazy uncle Jack.

The thoughts and ideas expressed by this writer or any other writer on Insider Racing News, are not necessarily the views of the staff and/or management of IRN.

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web Insiderracingnews.com