Great Nascar "cheating" comment.

[Bill C]

http://tinyurl.com/ysfdo6

And if NASCAR had changed the rules, disqualified Edwards and declared
Earnhardt the winner last Sunday?

"It wouldn't matter to me because that wouldn't be a great way to win
one," Earnhardt said. "I wouldn't find happiness or pride in that, so
it makes no difference to me. When it comes down to it, you line them
up and you race and the guy that crosses the finish line first is the
winner. If you got out-cheated, you didn't do your homework -- you know
what I mean? You didn't do your homework."


Bill C

[Michael Baldwin]

>And if NASCAR had changed the rules, disqualified Edwards and
>declared Earnhardt the winner last Sunday?
>"It wouldn't matter to me because that wouldn't be a
>great way to win one," Earnhardt said. "I wouldn't find
>happiness or pride in that, so it makes no difference
>to me. When it comes down to it, you line
>them up and you race and the guy that crosses
>the finish line first is the winner. If you got
>out-cheated, you didn't do your homework -- you know what
>I mean? You didn't do your homework."
>Bill C&v

Yep, Junior's right. I raced a short track series that had a engine
claim rule. Simple rule. Protester puts up cash and his engine in
exchange for yours.
One night, the local hammerhead claimed our engine. We got his $1200
dollars and 355 roller cam engine. He got our 305 smog motor. Had he
done his "homework" he would have known he was getting beat by geometry
_not_ horsepower.
The bad thing was, after this incident _everyone_ was convinced we were
bending the rules "somewhere". Not at all unlike the Lance Armstrong
syndrome.
There's an old adage in stockcar racing, "It ain't cheat'in till y'all
get caught." Rule book interpretation is just another aspect of
motorsport racing. Real racers just line'em up & go like Junior says.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[bar]

On Mar 8, 10:10*am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >And if NASCAR had changed the rules, disqualified Edwards and
> >declared Earnhardt the winner last Sunday?
> >"It wouldn't matter to me because that wouldn't be a
> >great way to win one," Earnhardt said. "I wouldn't find
> >happiness or pride in that, so it makes no difference
> >to me. When it comes down to it, you line
> >them up and you race and the guy that crosses
> >the finish line first is the winner. If you got
> >out-cheated, you didn't do your homework -- you know what
> >I mean? You didn't do your homework."
> >Bill C&v
>
> *Yep, Junior's right. *I raced a short track series that had a engine
> claim rule. *Simple rule. Protester puts up cash and his engine in
> exchange for yours. *
> * One night, the local hammerhead *claimed our engine. *We got his $1200
> dollars and 355 roller cam engine. *He got our 305 smog motor. *Had he
> done his "homework" he would have known he was getting beat by geometry
> _not_ horsepower. *
> *The bad thing was, after this incident _everyone_ was convinced we were
> bending the rules "somewhere". *Not at all unlike the Lance Armstrong
> syndrome.
> * There's an old adage in stockcar racing, "It ain't cheat'in till y'all
> get caught." *Rule book interpretation is just another aspect of
> motorsport racing. *Real racers just line'em up & go like Junior says.
>
> Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

The word "nascar" is getting used *way* too much in here ... next
thing you know, you dumbasses will be talking about drinking Busch

[bar]

On Mar 8, 2:33*pm, Colin Campbell > wrote:
> bar wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 10:10 am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >>> And if NASCAR had changed the rules, disqualified Edwards and
> >>> declared Earnhardt the winner last Sunday?
> >>> "It wouldn't matter to me because that wouldn't be a
> >>> great way to win one," Earnhardt said. "I wouldn't find
> >>> happiness or pride in that, so it makes no difference
> >>> to me. When it comes down to it, you line
> >>> them up and you race and the guy that crosses
> >>> the finish line first is the winner. If you got
> >>> out-cheated, you didn't do your homework -- you know what
> >>> I mean? You didn't do your homework."
> >>> Bill C&v
> >> *Yep, Junior's right. *I raced a short track series that had a engine
> >> claim rule. *Simple rule. Protester puts up cash and his engine in
> >> exchange for yours. *
> >> * One night, the local hammerhead *claimed our engine. *We got his $1200
> >> dollars and 355 roller cam engine. *He got our 305 smog motor. *Had he
> >> done his "homework" he would have known he was getting beat by geometry
> >> _not_ horsepower. *
> >> *The bad thing was, after this incident _everyone_ was convinced we were
> >> bending the rules "somewhere". *Not at all unlike the Lance Armstrong
> >> syndrome.
> >> * There's an old adage in stockcar racing, "It ain't cheat'in till y'all
> >> get caught." *Rule book interpretation is just another aspect of
> >> motorsport racing. *Real racers just line'em up & go like Junior says..
>
> >> Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
>
> > The word "nascar" is getting used *way* too much in here ... next
> > thing you know, you dumbasses will be talking about drinking Busch
>
> Busch is no longer associated with NASCAR; the series they used to
> sponsor is now the Nationwide (an insurance company) Series.
>
> So it's just cell phones and insurance policies, no cigarettes and no beer..

referring to Busch as 'beer' is a stretch methinks. Hooegarden it
ain't.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 9:32*pm, Colin Campbell > wrote:
> bar wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 2:33 pm, Colin Campbell > wrote:
> >> bar wrote:
> >>> On Mar 8, 10:10 am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >>>>> And if NASCAR had changed the rules, disqualified Edwards and
> >>>>> declared Earnhardt the winner last Sunday?
> >>>>> "It wouldn't matter to me because that wouldn't be a
> >>>>> great way to win one," Earnhardt said. "I wouldn't find
> >>>>> happiness or pride in that, so it makes no difference
> >>>>> to me. When it comes down to it, you line
> >>>>> them up and you race and the guy that crosses
> >>>>> the finish line first is the winner. If you got
> >>>>> out-cheated, you didn't do your homework -- you know what
> >>>>> I mean? You didn't do your homework."
> >>>>> Bill C&v
> >>>> *Yep, Junior's right. *I raced a short track series that had a engine
> >>>> claim rule. *Simple rule. Protester puts up cash and his engine in
> >>>> exchange for yours. *
> >>>> * One night, the local hammerhead *claimed our engine. *We got his $1200
> >>>> dollars and 355 roller cam engine. *He got our 305 smog motor. *Had he
> >>>> done his "homework" he would have known he was getting beat by geometry
> >>>> _not_ horsepower. *
> >>>> *The bad thing was, after this incident _everyone_ was convinced we were
> >>>> bending the rules "somewhere". *Not at all unlike the Lance Armstrong
> >>>> syndrome.
> >>>> * There's an old adage in stockcar racing, "It ain't cheat'in till y'all
> >>>> get caught." *Rule book interpretation is just another aspect of
> >>>> motorsport racing. *Real racers just line'em up & go like Junior says.
> >>>> Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
> >>> The word "nascar" is getting used *way* too much in here ... next
> >>> thing you know, you dumbasses will be talking about drinking Busch
> >> Busch is no longer associated with NASCAR; the series they used to
> >> sponsor is now the Nationwide (an insurance company) Series.
>
> >> So it's just cell phones and insurance policies, no cigarettes and no beer.
>
> > referring to Busch as 'beer' is a stretch methinks. *Hooegarden it
> > ain't.
>
> Sorry, I've never tried it, so maybe I mis-characterized it. *All the
> beer I've ever sipped tasted like p__s to me, though.

And you know this how?

Joseph

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
(Michael Baldwin) wrote:

> >And if NASCAR had changed the rules, disqualified Edwards and
> >declared Earnhardt the winner last Sunday?
> >"It wouldn't matter to me because that wouldn't be a
> >great way to win one," Earnhardt said. "I wouldn't find
> >happiness or pride in that, so it makes no difference
> >to me. When it comes down to it, you line
> >them up and you race and the guy that crosses
> >the finish line first is the winner. If you got
> >out-cheated, you didn't do your homework -- you know what
> >I mean? You didn't do your homework."
> >Bill C&v
>
> Yep, Junior's right. I raced a short track series that had a engine
> claim rule. Simple rule. Protester puts up cash and his engine in
> exchange for yours.
> One night, the local hammerhead claimed our engine. We got his $1200
> dollars and 355 roller cam engine. He got our 305 smog motor. Had he
> done his "homework" he would have known he was getting beat by geometry
> _not_ horsepower.
> The bad thing was, after this incident _everyone_ was convinced we were
> bending the rules "somewhere". Not at all unlike the Lance Armstrong
> syndrome.
> There's an old adage in stockcar racing, "It ain't cheat'in till y'all
> get caught." Rule book interpretation is just another aspect of
> motorsport racing. Real racers just line'em up & go like Junior says.
>
> Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

I totally agree with this, but in racing (especially claiming racing,
which is an awful lot of beer league racing) the rules on how cheating
is enforced are pretty straightforward.

NASCAR has essentially that attitude about rules-bending as well, though
they have become much more transparent about how they enforce and test
rules violations.

http://www.gnextinc.com/nascar/news/fines.html

And the fines are pretty high.

They also come down much more heavily on violations with a safety
element to them.

I don't think of doping as fundamentally a "homework" violation, though.
I think of doping as most fundamentally a safety violation, and one that
can have pernicious consequences. It's bad if your doping gives you
health problems; it's worse if your doping induces formerly clean racers
to either dope or drop out of racing.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Michael Baldwin]

Ryan writes

>I don't think of doping as fundamentally a "homework" violation,
>though. I think of doping as most fundamentally a safety
>violation, and one that can have pernicious consequences. It's bad
>if your doping gives you health problems; it's worse if
>your doping induces formerly clean racers to either dope or
>drop out of racing.

I agree with your safety aspect and the erosion factor as well.

Not like blood doping but...back in the early 80's a local guy was
tearing up the dirt sprint car tracks with a phenomenal flat foot style.
Seems he was snorting a line or two just before the start of each 30
lap feature. As word circulated regarding this practice, more and more
competitors were refusing to race with him. Through the course of the
season as fellow racer entries dropped off, so did spectator attendance.
Track owners and promotors finally confronted the guy about his habit,
now turned addiction.
Today, now in his 50's this guy is a huge anti-drug advocate for local
youth groups.
It's been said here before. Pro cyclists own the doping problem.
Even the clean racers who turned a blind eye regarding dopers. It's
about leadership or in this case the lack of.
That's what I find so mysterious about pro athletes and performance
enhancing drugs. You'd think they be the last group in society to
tolerate and condone the practice.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
(Michael Baldwin) wrote:

> Ryan writes
>
> >I don't think of doping as fundamentally a "homework" violation,
> >though. I think of doping as most fundamentally a safety
> >violation, and one that can have pernicious consequences. It's bad
> >if your doping gives you health problems; it's worse if
> >your doping induces formerly clean racers to either dope or
> >drop out of racing.
>
> I agree with your safety aspect and the erosion factor as well.
>
> Not like blood doping but...back in the early 80's a local guy was
> tearing up the dirt sprint car tracks with a phenomenal flat foot style.
> Seems he was snorting a line or two just before the start of each 30
> lap feature. As word circulated regarding this practice, more and more
> competitors were refusing to race with him. Through the course of the
> season as fellow racer entries dropped off, so did spectator attendance.
> Track owners and promotors finally confronted the guy about his habit,
> now turned addiction.
> Today, now in his 50's this guy is a huge anti-drug advocate for local
> youth groups.
> It's been said here before. Pro cyclists own the doping problem.
> Even the clean racers who turned a blind eye regarding dopers. It's
> about leadership or in this case the lack of.
> That's what I find so mysterious about pro athletes and performance
> enhancing drugs. You'd think they be the last group in society to
> tolerate and condone the practice.

Pro athletes almost never make it to The Show based on their wisdom.
Indeed, the process of becoming a pro athlete (and I say this as
someone, who, if I could have a do-over, would totally start bike racing
in my teens and try to make it as far as I could) may select against
wisdom and proportionality. After all, you have to think that getting
the ball/puck/bike into the net/goal/finish is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
IN THE WORLD in order to become great.

I also think that there's a certain sense of invincibility and cockiness
that is fairly natural to a kind of personality that is common in elite
athletes.

A good description of this is in Michael "Moneyball" Lewis' latest book,
"The Blind Side." He spends a fair bit of that book describing the
career of supremely talented and confident linebacker Lawrence Taylor,
who was a coke-head. For LT, according to the book, cocaine was
essentially something he liked and was confident he could control.

"For me, crazy as it seems, there is a real relationship between wild,
reckless, and abandoned off the field and being that way on the field."

Here's an excerpt from "The Blind Side" which describes the most famous
play of LT's career, when he hits all-star quarterback Joe Theismann so
hard he breaks his leg and ends his career:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6241687

And if that description isn't enough for you, heeere's YouTube!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH8SZOqc6Pk

That weird click you hear at the moment of the tackle is two of
Theismann's leg bones breaking. The reverse angle shows the break
clearly.

I strongly recommend the book.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Michael Baldwin]

Ryan writes;

>And if that description isn't enough for you, heeere's YouTube!
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH8SZOqc6Pk
>That weird click you hear at the moment of the
>tackle is two of Theismann's leg bones breaking. The reverse
>angle shows the break clearly.

yep, I was watching via good'ol analog TV.

Well back on point. I appreciate your insight and input.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 11:10*am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> *I raced a short track series that had a engine
> claim rule. *

Mike,

In your experience do folks claim the motor more often because they
think the other guy is cheating or as a way to disrupt a team that has
been winning? I used to follow Modifieds and SKs back in the late
1980s and costs were getting out of control. Have always thought that
claims racing is a neat way to get a handle on racing costs.

Can you imagine how much fun this would be in a local crit series?

"Here's $1000 for your bike. Thanks for the $6000 wheelset. Dumbass".

Mark

[Michael Baldwin]

Mark asks

>Mike,
>In your experience do folks claim the motor more often
>because they think the other guy is cheating or as
>a way to disrupt a team that has been winning?
>I used to follow Modifieds and SKs back in the
>late 1980s and costs were getting out of control. Have
>always thought that claims racing is a neat way to
>get a handle on racing costs.
>Can you imagine how much fun this would be in
>a local crit series?
>"Here's $1000 for your bike. Thanks for the $6000 wheelset.
>Dumbass".
>Mark

Insightful question Mark. The hammerhead really thought claiming our
engine would _disrupt_ our season. The irony was hammerhead's roller
cam engine was _not_ legal!
We had gotten word earlier in the week that hammerhead was going to
claim us. We swapped out engines, did a _ton_ of carb tuning and
managed to finish 3rd in the feature, the last claimable position. After
the engines were pulled and hammerhead realized he'd screwed himself, he
threw a wrench clean through the sheetmetal siding of the tech building!
I've always thought the best way to contain racing costs has been the
"track" tire rule. That rule allows any competitor from another region
to come in with what they run week in and week out. They buy the
"track" tire (new or used) and go racing. The IMCA series is a success
I think because of their tire rule. More so than their engine claim.
(IMCA has both)
And I think your last point ($1000 claim for a $6000 wheelset) makes
my point. I don't care what "it" is. If "it" has tires and wheels,
_that's_ were the costs emanate from. Wanna make a good bike great?
It's in the wheels ($$$$). Wanna limit racing / engine costs, use a
track tire. Ya know power to the ground and all that.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[[email protected]]

On Mar 9, 6:44*pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

> If "it" has tires and wheels, _that's_ were the costs emanate from.

Yes indeed. Thanks for the reply Mike. At least you had the fun of
seeing your racing 'colleague' get what he deserved when you pulled
the motor out. Great story.

Mark

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 9:53 am, Bill C > wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/ysfdo6
>
> And if NASCAR had changed the rules, disqualified Edwards and declared
> Earnhardt the winner last Sunday?
>
> "It wouldn't matter to me because that wouldn't be a great way to win
> one," Earnhardt said. "I wouldn't find happiness or pride in that, so
> it makes no difference to me.

dumbass,

rooks said pretty much the same thing when delagado tested positive
for probenacid. so what's your point ? that in most sports there's
tacit approval of some sorts of cheating/rule-bending ?

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
(Michael Baldwin) wrote:

> I've always thought the best way to contain racing costs has been the
> "track" tire rule. That rule allows any competitor from another region
> to come in with what they run week in and week out. They buy the
> "track" tire (new or used) and go racing. The IMCA series is a success
> I think because of their tire rule. More so than their engine claim.
> (IMCA has both)

Well, to a degree, I agree with this, but my experience was sprint cars and one of
the local hotshots was also a distributor of the tires. Funny thing, his 'spec' tires
didn't always look like everyone else's and they got yanked off the car and tossed in
the trailer mighty fast after a race. The sanctioning body was more of the head of
his mutual admiration society. Annoying, to say the least.

> And I think your last point ($1000 claim for a $6000 wheelset) makes
> my point. I don't care what "it" is. If "it" has tires and wheels,
> _that's_ were the costs emanate from. Wanna make a good bike great?
> It's in the wheels ($$$$). Wanna limit racing / engine costs, use a
> track tire. Ya know power to the ground and all that.

As you well know, claiming rules are sort of designed to prevent people from
spending a ton of money on stuff like that because of the fear of having it claimed.
In AMA raacing, they have claiming rules, but they're rarely used by anyone.
Privateers are afraid to use them because the people whose stuff they might claim are
often the suppliers of parts the privateers need.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Bill C]

On Mar 9, 9:33*pm, " >
wrote:
> On Mar 8, 9:53 am, Bill C > wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/ysfdo6
>
> > And if NASCAR had changed the rules, disqualified Edwards and declared
> > Earnhardt the winner last Sunday?
>
> > "It wouldn't matter to me because that wouldn't be a great way to win
> > one," Earnhardt said. "I wouldn't find happiness or pride in that, so
> > it makes no difference to me.
>
> dumbass,
>
> rooks said pretty much the same thing when delagado tested positive
> for probenacid. so what's your point ? that in *most sports there's
> tacit approval of some sorts of cheating/rule-bending ?

Yeah, pretty much. They haven't self destructed on the issue the way
cycling has. Nascar is a special case because "cheating" has always
been a huge part of the game, and has helped make the cars better. Now
they've gone stupid.
Baseball the same to a slightly lesser extent. There are some pretty
amusing books out there documenting the "cheating", etc..in the3
history of baseball, and how most of it was either winked at, or
celebrated. ie spitballs...
One of the few big "no-no"s in Nascar is messing with the fuel
though. It's still just a fine and suspension for the crew chief
though.
Look at the stupidity going on with the NFL, Specter, and friggin'
class action lawsuits now. If we held politicians to the same standard
we'd be shooting all the *******s.
Time for a little reality check. There's always going to be some
cheating, of some sort, in everything. There was that survey, years
ago, about trading 10 years off your life to be able to compete in the
Olympics, and lots of people said "Hell Yeah! Where do I sign up?".
Since there's no "point system" in cycling fine 'em, take the win,
and give both the rider and DS a couple of race suspension. Build from
there.
The BS of the "olympic purity and ethic" is garbage, and always has
been. The IOC is as crooked as Haliburton and KBR ever was, and have
been longer.
Bill C

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
Bill C > wrote:

> The BS of the "olympic purity and ethic" is garbage, and always has
> been. The IOC is as crooked as Haliburton and KBR ever was, and have
> been longer.

Nothing to add. Simply repeating.

--
Michael Press

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Mar 8, 11:10*am, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> > *I raced a short track series that had a engine
> > claim rule. *
>
> Mike,
>
> In your experience do folks claim the motor more often because they
> think the other guy is cheating or as a way to disrupt a team that has
> been winning? I used to follow Modifieds and SKs back in the late
> 1980s and costs were getting out of control. Have always thought that
> claims racing is a neat way to get a handle on racing costs.

> Can you imagine how much fun this would be in a local crit series?
>
> "Here's $1000 for your bike. Thanks for the $6000 wheelset. Dumbass".

Dumbass:

This would only work if you could claim the other guy's cardiovascular
system. That will have to wait until The Singularity.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[[email protected]]

On Mar 10, 11:29*pm, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> > "Here's $1000 for your bike. Thanks for the $6000 wheelset. Dumbass".
>
> Dumbass:
>
> This would only work if you could claim the other guy's cardiovascular
> system. That will have to wait until The Singularity.

Since we already have pros using each others blood you may be on to
something...

Mark