 |
| Dover CEO Dennis McGlynn |
McGlynn explained that
decision to reporters at Dover, saying he and his fellow members of
the National Stock Car Racing Commission appeals panel felt NASCAR’s sanctions
were overly severe and did not fit the crime.
"The penalty was so severe for what was,
in our opinion, a minor infraction," said McGlynn, adding that he and
fellow commission members Mark Arute and Jack Housby were "thinking with
more flexibility" in the aftermath of a similar ruling by chief appellate
officer John Middlebrook the previous week, in favor of Penske Racing.
NASCAR levied severe penalties against
Kenseth, Joe Gibbs Racing, crew chief Jason Ratcliff and Toyota Racing
Development after a connecting rod in their Kansas-winning engine was found to
be three grams too light in a post-race inspection.
"The engine was out of spec very, very
marginally," explained McGlynn. "There were three independent
affidavits or personal testimony from engine builders who testified that
infraction gave no advantage to the team. In fact, the other push rods were all
overweight.
“We felt that since the crew chiefs… are
ultimately responsible (for) anything that occurs with the car, we had to leave
(Ratcliff’s) $200,000 fine in place to get NASCAR's back and reinforce the
notion that these guys are, in fact, ultimately responsible.”
McGlynn said he regrets
allowing Kenseth’s victory to count toward eligibility for the 2012 Chase for
the NASCAR Sprint Cup, and would reverse that decision if he had it to do again.
While admittedly unhappy with the ruling,
NASCAR Chairman Brian France said the sanctioning body remains determined to
toe a hard line when it comes to rule violations. "We're usually
disappointed when we think we have made a good case for a particular penalty,''
said France, “but that's what you have when you have a true appellate way to
resolve differences. That's the system that we have.''
Dave, my apologies for nitpicking, but in the fifth paragraph you mentioned "push rods." First, my spell checker thinks it should be "pushrods." Secondly, and more to the point, should we assume you really meant "connecting rods?"
ReplyDeleteI identified them as connecting rods in the fourth paragraph. However, Mr. McGlynn referred to them as "push rods" in his quote, which I cited verbatim in the following graph.
Delete