Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: dirtonly  /  dmantx  /  hosehead

Above all else, I want to say that I am reminded once again of the passion that sprint car fans bring to this 'sport'. Regardless of the side of this debate you choose, you seem to do it with passion and commitment...that's commendable. Long live the First Amendment !(That's the one that says in this country everyone is entitled to 'freedom of speech'....so have at it !) Now to the good stuff. I am a lawyer...or at least I played one on a sitcom once...dropped after two seasons! I hate NBC ! Anyway, I have a few questions for y'all to ponder, and on a variety of issues I've read about on here.

1. If the sworn testimony and admissible evidence in this case proves that Sides DID call Mr. Carter and ask for permission to run the Fargo race, and Mr. Carter told him he was busy right then and would call back the next morning...but did not... and that Sides DID try twice more to reach Mr. Carter, without a response...would it surprise you that in virtually every state the law imposes upon all parties to all contracts a 'duty of good faith', and that the jury will be instructed that they are entitled to find that Mr. Carter and the WRG had a legal duty to respond to Sides' request, and if they find that the WRG breached that duty to deal in good faith by not responding to him, the jury can award him his damages.

2. Would you be offended, or find it out of line, if the law in virtually every state is that sanctioning bodies in even voluntary associations are obligated by law to refrain from 'arbitray and capricious' dispensation of 'penalties' in those instances in which they choose to 'punish' a perceived violation of their rules? Is that concept offensive to you? If so, you need to contact your legislator and have them change the law in your state...because that's the law.

3. Would it make any difference to you in this debate if the evidence is that: the #9 team asked for permission to run the Fargo race (with Brad Sweet in the seat, who had not signed the Platinum Agreement, even though the #9 Owner had signed the agreement and was obligated to have its driver sign it too), and the WRG said in substance 'yeah, technically Brad can run the race, but do not run the actual #9 car, and do not take the Red Bull tow rig into the pits....only to have that team put a 4 on the "9" car and, in fact, bring the Red Bull rig into the pits? And what if the WRG chose not to 'penalize' the #9 owner despite what some might view as not

just running without permission, but running in direct contravention of prohibitions from the WRG ?

4. What if it turns out that Cody Darrah in another KKR car did not run the Antioch race (despite a Platinum Agreement that required the team to run ALL WoO shows) because Cody was 'sick'... but it turns out he was not sick; rather maybe the team just didn't want to run 'cause the next race was in their sponsor's back yard and they were saving equipment...and what if the WRG was shown those facts and chose not to punish the driver or team at all? Or, what if after the Sides 'penalty' started causing so much consternation, the WRG decided it should show some nondiscrimination in handing out penalties, and decided to deprive Cody of Rookie of the Year honors...offer the Rookie award to Bill Rose, only to have Bill tell them that it should go to Cody !!! (Dang, it is good to know there are honorable men and women in this sport !!)

5. And what if you are tired of reading all these 'what ifs' and would rather just have your opinion regardless of the facts...one way or the other...in favor of the WRG's 'penalty' imposed on Sides, or against it? And what if you want to speak that opinion with conviction to anyone that will listen?

I know the answer to the last question: this is still America, and I pray to God that you never give up your right to speak your mind...right or wrong...informed or knee jerk...trained in the law or a novice. Speak your mind ! And remember this: if you enter into a contract, you are obligated by law to act toward the other party in good faith. And if you are a sanctioning body, you need to remember that you are not now nor will you ever be entitled to impose penalties in an arbitrary and capricious manner. You can't arbitrarily punish some, but not others. You can't arbitrarily set penalties and arbitrarily refuse to pay contract benefits otherwise due. Jurors have a very keen sense of the distinction between right and wrong, lawful and not. Grown men are entitled to differ. That's why we need juries : to settle differences between parties when the parties can't. The Sixth Amendment gives litigants the right to trial by jury. In this dispute, I strongly suspect that someday a judge is going to ask: "Ladies and gentlemen, have you reached a verdict.........?" And they will have done just that.

Excellent discussion by "chicocheapo"!

Excellent discussion by "chicocheapo"!

Im not hopping on the bandwagon just cause but im supporting Sides because as a fan i dont like the new Woo. They have done nothing but look out for themselves. They try to take $ from the drivers by taking away their tshirt sales (until us fans blew up about that) and many other things. If there was a split today i wouldnt be behind them like i was in 06. Good luck to Jason.

Hey WRG, we make things difficult and complicated for ourselves when we deceive others. Lies cost a lot to maintain, the truth is free.

Remember in 2003 when Jeff Shepard was rookie of the year? He was suppose to get $30,000 dollars. He opens up his envelope and only has $15,000. This is just another one of WRGs screw the driver. I'm working on a list of drivers and money that they were screwed out of by WRG, it's huge, I will post it in detail later. All drivers need to come forward if you ever been screwed by WRG.

Lol, Shepard won it in 2001, long before WRG took over. Make sure you get your dates right for your big story.