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

Dont forget that Jason called Brian and he said he would get back with him.. just want to throw that in there..So Myers is caught cheating i think 2 years ago and isnt slapped with anything but ok to slap Jason with a huge fine?? Come on.. So its ok to cheat? Keyboard commandos as you sit there and type your story? So what are u a keyboard saint?

We Support Jason Sides against World Racing Group.

This facebook page started yesterday and has well over 1200 memebers already.

With this being said. At $35.00 a ticket, I'll crunch the numbers for you Brian Carter, $42,000.

Now you have time to make a call!

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.

WRG is suppose to allow a driver attend a banquet so he can get up front of everyone and bad mouth the product , not going to happen. Agree or disagree with them stiffing him the money he did make a decision based on a assumption. I believe they should pay him the money but not to hurt any one's feeling Jason Sides does not put butts in the seats.

When TSR and Kahne motorsports appear at non WoO events it sells tickets to WoO events.

Also, do not kid yourselves, if WoO away goes the next group in will require the same no compete clauses. It's good business.

I don't know about you but I don't go see WOO races because of TSR or Kahne Motorsports or any other owner, mechanic or sponsor. I go to the races to see 1. Steve Kinser 2. Sammy Swindell 3. Joey Saldana 4. Jason Meyers 5. Jason Sides/Donnie Schatz/Paul McMahon & others.

I could care less about the team or car owners and owners DON'T put anyone in the seats!

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.

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.

WRG, after reading this you may want to get the gear grease ready!

A young cowboy sitting in a saloon one Saturday night recognized an elderly man standing at the bar who, in his day, had been the fastest gun in the West.

The cowboy took a place next to the old-timer, bought him a drink and told him of his great ambition to be a great shot...

'Could you give me some tips?' he asked.

The old man said, 'Well, for one thing, you're wearing your gun too high - tie the holster a little lower down on your leg.'

'Will that make me a better gunfighter?'

'Sure will '

The young man did as he was told, stood up, whipped out his .44 and shot the bow tie off the piano player.

'That's terrific!' said the cowboy. 'Got any more tips?'

'Yep,' said the old man. 'Cut a notch out of your holster where the hammer hits it - that'll give you a smoother draw'

'Will that make me a better gunfighter?' asked the young man.

'You bet it will,' said the old-timer.

The young man took out his knife, cut the notch, stood up, drew his gun in a blur, and then shot a cufflink off the piano player.

'Wow!' exclaimed the cowboy 'I'm learnin' somethin' here. Got any more tips?'

The old man pointed to a large can in a corner of the saloon. 'See that axle grease over there? Coat your gun with it.'

The young man smeared some of the grease on the barrel of his gun.

'No,' said the old-timer, 'I mean smear it all over the gun, handle and all.'

'Will that make me a better gunfighter?' asked the young man.

'No,' said the old-timer, 'but when Wyatt Earp gets done playing the piano, he's gonna shove that gun up your A*s and it won't hurt as much.