November 7, 2002

Was it a case of spring forward or fall back for Mark Martin and Roush Racing?

The recent penalty accessed by NASCAR the sanctioning body for the Winston Cup series appears unjust on the surface of discussion but, upon further review it is clear that this penalty will stand.

Mark Martin and Jack Roush were hit hard with 25 points being erased from their season tallies. An infraction for the use of what NASCAR calls the use of parts and/or equipment that do not conform to NASCAR rules.

Yes we have all heard about the coil spring which was supplied by a NASCAR approved vendor and placed on the No.6 Ford Taurus on the morning of the race. We also heard how the spring didn’t conform but, let’s take this a step further and look at some history.

Our first example of why Roush Racing doesn’t have a leg to stand on in a NASCAR Commission appeal involves the No. 29 Craftsman Truck Ford F-150 driven by Terry Cook and, crew chief Bob Keselowski.

The No. 29 CTS team was fined $10,000 and, both the driver and owner saw 100 points each dissolved into thin air this season after the heads of the Ernie Elliott supplied engine were found to be out of spec.

There was an appeal filed with the NASCAR Appeal Commission in which the No. 29 CTS team offered up a reasonable explanation for what transpired. It was suggested that Bob Keselowski and the owner of the truck, Kay Keselowski could not have known of the unapproved part due to the fact that an outside vendor supplied the engine heads used that day.

Ernie Elliott supplied the engine heads for the No. 29 team. It was found that Ernie had bored the holes for the ports .032 off center. Ernie Elliott clearly showed the Appeal Commission that in no way could the shifting of the ports enhance the power of the motor and, it was a machining error.

The penalty was not reversed by the Commission due to fact that by the rule book and every entry coupon the owner, driver and crew chief are ultimately responsible for presenting a legal race truck including any components supplied by third party vendors.

Let’s look at another example of why the penalty for the Viagra Ford will stand.

On September 9, 2000 Jeff Gordon won the Monte Carlo 400 at Richmond International Raceway. During a post race inspection it was found that the Dupont Monte Carlo had an intake manifold that was found to be cast from magnesium instead of aluminum.

Jeff Gordon and Rick Hendrick were stripped of 100 points respectively with Robby Loomis being fined $25,000 for the infraction.

There was an appeal filed by Hendrick Motor Sports in which the basis of claim pointed to the rule book. It was suggested that the rule book offered no mention of materials in regard to the production of intake manifolds and, a third party (GM) designed and supplied the part in question thus, how could Jeff and Rick know of its makeup.

General Motors released a statement in which they claim that in no way would the magnesium intake offer an increase in horse power as compared to the aluminum version. GM further claimed that NASCAR knew clearly that this manifold was being used and that the part on several occasions was pronounced satisfactory upon inspection.

In a familiar ring the Commission ruled that the race team that officially enters the car in a NASCAR race and, competes with that race car is ultimately accountable for that race cars conformance to all rules.

With these two examples of infraction in the books it is clear that Mark Martin and Jack Roush don’t really have a case when it comes to appeal before the Commission.

It is a shame that an infraction against Mark Martin had to be considered in the first place. There was no advantage gained by the Roush Team by running this spring.

We truly believe that this infraction will change history in regard to the Winston Cup title for 2002. I for one don’t care for this type of policing by the sanctioning body whereas the outcome of a Championship is changed due to rule policy in which no racing advantage was gained.

At this time we are not sure if an appeal will even be filed with the Commission but, past history shows clearly that suggesting a third party vendor is to blame for an infraction will carry little weight and is a proven moot point with the Commission..

You can contact Joe at: Insider Racing News