There have been stories published, radio interviews done and lots of TV shows produced since the Edwards vs. Keselowski incident Sunday at the Atlanta Motor Speedway. Tuesday, NASCAR announced the penalty for Edwards. As many predicted, Edwards was simply put on probation with no other sanctions.
Amid the debate about penalties, there seems to be something missing. TV viewers saw Carl Edwards speaking after the first incident early in the Atlanta race. Initially upset with Keselowski, Edwards changed moods quickly after being shown a replay of the incident. The TV screen told the tale.
These words were broadcast into millions of homes across the nation. "It looked like it wasn't as malicious as I thought," said Edwards on camera. "We both had a part in it and it’s not his fault," Edwards later added from the garage. When FOX viewers last saw Edwards, he had taken responsibility for his own involvement.
Eventually, the story of the race began to unfold. Topics like tire issues, Junior struggling and Montoya surging were the focus of the telecast. The normal scenario of crucial pitstops, tire decisions and race strategy was being played out. Goodyear seemed to be having a problem, but that was not the TV reality. There were other things being discussed.
Carl Edwards was not one of those other things. He was not even a blip on the TV radar. As a team running for points, it was assumed his car was being repaired in the garage. His story was not updated because the action on the track was outstanding.
Even after the NASCAR on FOX team gasped as one and then showed us pictures of the crumpled red car, Edwards was not in the scenario. It was only when the TV replays began that the true picture of what happened was revealed. The next time viewers heard from Edwards he was humming a very different tune.
"At the end of the day, Brad and I have had a lot of things go on," said Edwards to ESPN. "That was pretty wild. No one could have predicted that, but I think we probably won't have as many run-ins now as we have had in the past and that's a good thing. Both of us will probably be better off."
Edwards comments to FOX, ESPN and SPEED after the accident were repeated many times on NASCAR-related shows. His comments that he was partially to blame for the original incident were never repeated. The focus of the media, especially TV, was the accident and the aftermath.
So, what happened to Edwards between the time he took personal responsibility for the original accident and his return to the track? What happened that changed this person from someone almost embarrassed about the situation to an avenging angel representing personal justice?
No one seems to be able to fill in this time gap. Did Edwards become more and more enraged in his own motorhome? Did he meet with his crew chief and/or owner? Who or what were the influences that caused this dramatic and significant change? If this was a group decision, then maybe Jack Roush should speak up.
Asking the TV audience and NASCAR fans to believe that this was single-handedly an Edwards idea is ridiculous. Did his crew return to pit road to watch him take-out Keselowski? Did his crew chief return to the pit box? Did his spotter help him find the offending car on the track? The NASCAR Media Group seems to have audio from everyone behind the scenes. We will be hearing the Edwards team dial him in for the kill?
Tuesday evening on SPEED's Race Hub, Jeff Hammond offered the following into the mindset of Edwards.
"I talked to Carl about it," said Hammond. "He felt like Brad Keselowski had run into him four times, two of those times Brad went to Victory Lane. He said it needed to stop here at Atlanta and he went out and let Brad know that I'm done, it's over with now and we are even."
That certainly is not what Edwards told FOX and other TV outlets as he walked away after seeing the original accident. What really brought this All-American boy back to the track to end the top ten run of a Penske team with only a few laps left in the event? Rage? Politics? Public Relations?
Despite the fact that the penalty has been announced and most of the media have moved on, perhaps someday the truth about what really happened between the original incident and the payback heard around the world will be revealed.
TDP welcomes your comments on this topic. To add your opinion, just click on the comments button below. This is a family-friendly website, please keep that in mind when hosting. Thanks for taking the time to stop by The Daly Planet.
71 comments:
I've seen no one in the media mention it, but how do you tell when Carl is being truthful?
At least about 2 hours ago there was nothing on Carl's website about his mugging Brad.
And where is Jack Roush? I haven't seen anything in the press indicating anyone has tried to get any sort of statement from media favorite Jack Roush.
I doubt Brad thinks they're even, since in at least two of the four incidents (Talladega, the first incident at Atlanta), the accident was clearly Carl's fault, for coming down on him when he wasn't clear.
But if I were Brad, I wouldn't be getting payback any time soon, I'd wait and see, if Carl's on the bubble come the last few races before the chase, that's when payback should happen.
Was it team orders? Of course it was, but I doubt they were dumb enough to put it on the radio.
Where were Nascar's spotters/eyes on the track when for 3-4 laps several spotters and drivers had been made aware that the 99 was trying to wreck the 12 who was in 3rd place no less?
Its not like Nascar hasnt slapped Jack Roush on the wrist in the past(see the oil cooler cover missing at Vegas 08) for incidents that other teams would have gotten hammered for. Besides Jack Roush cried that Hendrick was too powerful so now we have 4 car team limits, and he also cried Hendrick was too rich and could out test everyone so now we have no testing(so good for the sport as you could tell), you might also recall the 2009 Daytona 500 that wasnt raining (eventhough it was for laps already) until Matt Kenseth took the lead?
If this was Harvick, Tony or a Hendrick car we would have had anywhere from a 2-10 race suspension being handed out.
Is it possible that after Edwards returned to the track that BK did something else to get the 99 mad and nobody caught it? I mean, nobody's going to be looking at a car 150 whatever laps down towards the end of a race that had as many stories going as this one did. A bit of rubbing, a gesture made as he passed Carl...
I mean, it's not like Carl didn't have something to gain by going out so many laps down. If he had finished he would have had 9 more points.
Good column JD. I was wondering a bit about Bob Osborne's part in this. In previous races, if something like a spin by a driver, the tv follows that driver and sometimes we have heard over the radio by the crew chief, don't hit him, don't get near him, you'll get into trouble but we never saw or heard anything like that from Osborne or Roush. I think we will see MORE retalation on the track even though Helton said otherwise. I just worry that a driver will get hurt before Nascar does something about some drivers. I wish Ray Evernham has a segment on why the driver's compartment collapsed down so much too.
Gotta give credit to Mike Helton>
His years working for Bill France jr is paying off.
He addressed the issue, put Edwards (and probably Keselowski) on a short rope, and sets the stage for a "steel cage grudge match" at the next race!
NASCAR has had more media attention from non-sports radio and televsision in the last 2 days then they've had since the death of Dale Earnhardt.
FOX must be doing backflips over anticipated ratings-particularly with 2 weeks to promote the next race!
Somewhere, Bill jr is smiling that wry smile. This was brilliantly played by Helton. Brilliant
Bray Kroter
I think Edward's penalty was a message to Brad and others who needlessly wreck other drivers. Brad doesn't have to worry about Carl for several races but he is on notice to not mess with other drivers and expect it to go unpunished.
I think the call by NA$CAR was appropriate. The severity of the wreck was caused by NA$CAR's use of the wing. Without the wing, there probably would have been a minor accident or even just a spin.
I wonder if Carl isn't trying to build a "bad boy" image. That certainly doesn't seem to fit the role his sponsors wanted when they bought in.
If he weren't, I can't help but think he'd do what Big E used to do--never admit he did in on purpose, just say he was trying to "rattle Brad's cage" or whatever.
I wondered the same thing but didn't hear any more about it so thought maybe I had misinterpretated the first interview. ?? Thanks for going back and setting the record straight. I was dumbfounded when Carl went after BK on the track and hit him. Would love to have this mystery solved.
Jeff Hammond's description of the mindset of Edwards is probably as good as we will get. Brad Keselowski has made a living as an "aggressive" driver. Hopefully Carl's message has been received and Brad will be more cautious about using his bumper whenever it suits him. If Carl had done that to any other driver I think NASCAR would have suspended him. NASCAR was sending a message to BOTH Drivers with only the probation sanction.
Edwards only looks like an "all-american boy". I think Tony Stewart's assessment of him as Eddie Haskell is pretty accurate. This isnt' the first time that Edwards has shown some anger issues. This wasn't a heat of the moment deal - it had thought behind it. Not sure who was doing the "thinking" but Edwards was the one doing the driving. Obviously NASCAR thinks this kind of payback is OK since a 3 race probation was barely a slap on the hand.
I still think it is very interesting that Jack Roush who is NEVER at a loss for words has had NOTHING to say.
Makes for good theatre and since no one was killed, all the buzz probably makes NASCAR very happy.
Great column JD. Fox announcers
are not going to ruffle NA$CARS
feathers. They want to keep their
"Shoot Out Style" credentials.
ESPN had Blount vs Wallace yesterday. You can see it on ESPN.com and guess which side the
car owner took. Hammond was also
dribbling the Kool Aid last night
on Hub. Interesting that there
was no conjecture on Scotts being
the Bristol sponsor until after
the "sentence" was handed down.
We talked about this in great length on RaceTalkRadio.com the last two nights. The Good Carl/Bad Carl scenario is not new either. Let's not forget his ramming of Dale Jr after a race or his attempted punch of teammate Matt Kenseth after a race.
Excellent article!
Dennis Michelsen
RaceTalkRadio.com
I think the column addresses an issue that has been hiding under the radar so to speak.
Just a quick search resulted in...
Edwards and Jr @ Michigan
Edwards and Kennseth Martinsville
Edwards and Harvick Lowes
Edwards and Kyle Busch Bristol
Edwards and Kesolowski Atlanta
I'm sure there's more.
Pattern here?
Dave in Milwaukee
I don't get it. Everyone seems to want drivers to be more aggresive, yet everyone is saying Kesolowski deserved this because he is "too aggressive"
In watching a highlight from last year's Nationwide race, Hamlin was moaning about how Kesolowski isn't as experienced as Cup drivers and blah, blah, blah...no kidding nitwit, that's why he was racing in the Nationwide Series, one in which Cup drivers shouldn't be in anyways.
Hamlin retaliated at Homestead by spinning Kesolowski and not Edwards has flipped him over. Haven't those two been doing the same thing as Kesolowski anyways?
JD, What everyone is missing is that when Carl was shown the original replay, he was told, like the rest of the TV viewers that the 12 did NOT make contact with him. However, when the 12 car pitted after that incident, it did have damage to the right front, confirming that there was indeed contact. Carl was informed later of that damage.
My point is that the TV coverage just did not add up where the Edwards incident was concerned.
He left with his tail between his legs for something he helped to cause and returned to wreck the sixth place car with two laps to go.
What happened between the first accident and the payback?
Joe, he knew Kes hit him. He said it was just not as malicious as he originally thought. I used the quote in my column.
Nancy in NC
I feel like NA$CAR's decision for probation is setting a dangerous tone. Great article JD!! Where did that anger come from after 150-60 laps in the garage. You got Carl fake punching matt K. a while back, Cale choking harvick in the garage, spinning Kyle B. out going into the pits, about taking Jr's arm off raming into him. Carl is just scarey to me. I mean he drove down pit road backwards, what if someone had been coming out of the garage?? We shall see how this decision efects the racing. NA$CAR spent several years breaking harvick down from aggresive driving, I mean broke him down good. But it is all OK now, wth?? Thanks for letting me vent JD!! :)
Four incidents? I can only think of three and he only has a legitimate gripe with one of those and that is the Memphis Nationwide race.
Maybe the fourth incident is the Daytona Nationwide race? If so, that was 60% his fault because he made an abrupt right hand turn.
It amazes me that he is all of a sudden blaming Brad for last years Dega incident. That is just irresponsible.
I agree 100% with NASCAR's decision, under the new policy which was actually the original policy before they began sticking their long noses into drivers and teams' business, when out of fear they started imposing ridiculous penalties a few years back.
As for what happened with Carl's team in the missing interval, I do fault FOX TV for not keeping a reporter on the situation in the garage, when it became apparent that the 99 was being fixed to return to the track. Carl does have a temper, and if things weren't discussed before action I'd be surprised. Not that he'd tell a reporter- but who knows? Hamlin didn't make any secret of his intentions.
As for Brad, every lap and incident gives him experience on how to handle things next time, and there will be a "next time" with the full expectation of equal treatment from NASCAR if necessary. I sure don't expect, or want, him to be any less competitive than he's been.
Hammonds, Jimmy Spencer, Rusty and some writer that appeared during the round table discussion on Monday are all carryin' the water for nascar. I'm amazed how often I hear Edwards didn't mean for the car to flip up into the air....gee that is why paybacks should be at short tracks. And to admit it, that used to be a big time no-no. And nascar must think we are all a bunch of dumb@$$es, telling us that by them parking edwards during the race was a significant part of the penalty. gee park a car that is 150 laps down and with about 3 laps remaining. Don't they realize how dumb that sounded?
I think it's funny that Earnhardt drove down pit road backwards at Texas in 1998 and it wasn't considered a big deal.
Looking for your thoughts on the issues associated with the lack of coverage of Edwards between the time he gave his original interview and the time he returned to the track and flippled BK.
You can also address this issue by talking about the many interviews and TV shows produced since the original race telecast.
For comments about the rivalry or team/driver issues, you can head over to SBNation for Jeff Gluck's fan blog.
Thanks!
JD
I too wondered why Carl came back out for those few laps. Now we know.
I find it odd that we didn't see the crew working feverishly fixing the car. Normally we see this in full screen during green flag racing.
I really hope that those 3-6 points Carl could've gotten, are just enough to keep him out of the Chase.
DewCr3w88? You've got that entire scenario backwards. If it was a Hendrick driver, the penalty likely would have been even less.
Once again the NASCAR media fails to dig and find out what the story is. Only blogs are asking the questions.
Seems like a reporter for the AP or USA Today would be more curious. They were plenty curious about issues in other sports like the NFL or MLB. I think it just illustrates even more that NASCAR is not perceived as a legitimate sport on par with football, baseball or basketball.
@ Anon, 9:50am...
Edwards and Jarrett, '05 Coca-Cola 600 too. They went after each other under caution for a little while (then again, everyone was after each other in that race).
JD, I think the answer to the lack of coverage is simply that FOX had no reason showing a car 150+ laps down on the TV. Furthermore, I think if Carl and Bob or Jack came on over the radio shortly after the wreck or even when Carl was back out on the track talking about retaliation, the guys in the FOX truck would have most likely picked up on it and would've had a camera on the 99 and the 12 every time they were within two seconds of each other. In my opinion, I think that any talks of retaliation were done while Carl was out of his car, talking in his motor home with Jack or Bob, or other crew members.
I just want to say this about the penalty. I think it's a fair penalty, only because of what NASCAR said in January. They're big selling point was to get "back to basics" and let the drivers "have at it." They certainly did at Atlanta, unfortunately with dangerous circumstances. However, I believe if it weren't for the wing, Keselowski's car would not have turned over. I realize the principle of the entire deal--it's a 6th place car vs. a car 150+ laps down, but just realize how that car many, many laps down got that way (at least that's what Carl is probably thinking).
I agree with many of the comments, and I think Jack from PA has it right--why in the world would FOX think there was any need to follow up until Carl returned to the track? He said he was okay with it and that was that. What are they gonna do, stalk him around the garage/motor home?
As for the comment "Asking the TV audience and NASCAR fans to believe that this was single-handedly an Edwards idea is ridiculous"...
Ridiculous? I totally disagree. This is a guy who has a history of rather odd 'anger management' incidents (see the previous post about Tony's 'Eddie Haskell' remark)--leaving Matt a strange voice mail (which Matt then shared with teammates), pretending he was going to hit Matt, leaving a threatening note in Kevin Harvick's plane...I'm guessing he was just stewing and decide to go after him. Could his crew have egged him on? Possibly, maybe likely, but I haven't seen any evidence of that, and it's no big stretch for me to think this was Carl being Carl. I think this part of it is a non-story. And overall, I think the networks did a fair job at showing both sides. I thought the ESPN debate quite interesting. I'm not surprised to hear the old school guys saying 'have at it' and I'm not surprised that others think had the parties been different it might have had a different punishment. But this is a 'new' NASCAR and time will tell if this is how it's going to be from now on.
Your article brought out questions I hadn't considered but make sense and need to be answered. I'll take it one step farther. After reading comments DW posted on his FOX board, I believe he mentioned watching the previous lap (or two) how Carl tried but missed. They were watching this transpire but said nothing about it on the broadcast at that time. Did they know in advance that it was going to happen? Like you stated, what happened in that hour Carl sat and waited for his car to be repaired. Well, a little bump and a spin might really fuel a rivalry and maybe fill seats and improve TV ratings. Really got me thinking who would benefit the most. It's really starting to not pass the smell test and makes me wonder if Carl had some help thinking of what clearly a reasonable person would not have done. I am today sending a letter to James S Hagedorn, CEO at Scotts Miracle-Gro to make sure he is aware of how the car his company sponsors was used.
Anon 12:19PM,
Thank you for addressing that issue so that I can clarify.
What I meant was that Edwards could simply not return to the track with only two laps remaining in the event without his team and owner knowing exactly why he was doing it.
Perhaps, what role Jack Roush played in this will be revealed tonight on Sirius when he talks to Claire B Lang.
JD
I know you will delete this comment, but why are you trying so hard to stir something up?
Carl is definately not the first driver to premeditate retaliation. He may have just been trying to give an "aw shucks" robot interview after the first incident. He may not have known he was going to be able to get back out at that point.
This is all just speculation. I think it's time to move on...
Trying so hard to stir something up? Perhaps we have different opinions on the relationship between a professional sport and the professional media covering it.
If I remember correctly, Carl did gain a spot by going back out, before the incident.
I could be wrong, but I think that is the reason he went back out. he had the oppurtunity to gain a spot.
I find it amazing the media is not inquiring about this issue. As alredy noted, Carl admitted guilt. But took him out anyway. Why? Race Hub didn't touch it last night. Didn't watch it Monday so hopefully they covered it then. I've read no answers though. What got him angry in the garage? Another question I have is, how did a wrecked car catch, then spin out Brad in the first place? Is a wrecked car with fresh tires that good it can hunt down a car in 3rd place? Maybe, but there has been no intellectual curiosity from the main stream media including Fox, Speed, Espn, USA Today or anywhere.
Oh, I was so excited about a Nascar official being at Race Hub I could not wait for it to come on. Even after knowing of Edwards lack of any penality I was excited for information about racing in general. Wow, was I blown away. They had a clip of Helton that I had already seen 6 1/2hr earlier.
Woopie Do!
ah, JD, I see your point about coming back out--I just assumed that he had an opportunity to gain a spot or two like they usually do, and if Kevin is correct, he may have.
I wouldn't overestimate Jack's role in it though. I've been a fan of Roush drivers over the years, and I don't recall him getting involved in this sort of stuff much. Of course, there are always exceptions.
Brings to mind, some years back McMurray (then first with Ganassi) got turned by Matt K, and Chip himself got on the radio and said 'go get him'. J Mac was fined & got probation, but basically, I don't think anyone made a big deal that Chip had given him the okay to do it...in fact McMurray laughed about it afterwards, saying he knew Chip would pay for it. Funny how they (NASCAR) don't pay much attention to the owners. Just something to think about.
If the drunk leaving the bar would have driven home without incident instead of crossing the center line at 45 MPH, killing occupant of the car coming the other way, nothing would have been said. Because he didn't get home without incident do we look at and judge his intent or the results. What do most of us teach our children? Think before you act as you will be responsible for what ever comes of your actions. Carl's action created a very dangerous result even if he didn't anticipate it would. My opinion, the penalty did not fit the action.
I guess I'm the one that is going to be the one to say it...'Roid Rage!
I could see team members that aren't in contention being ordered to cause a wreck to bring out the caution, if their teammate is in contention and can't catch the leader at the end of the race. They get 3 tries at green, white, checkers now since they've changed the rules.
trophyguy,
I would slightly disagree. Carl said he had no idea BK would flip, but as batchief said that is an issue all its own.
My TV and media perspective on it is simply what happened during the time between Carl sheephishly saying he might have helped to cause the original incident and him coming back on the track to spin Brad?
In my mind, that is like saying 2+2=10. Fundamentally, something happened to Carl while his car was in the garage to make him come back out with a handful of laps remaining and take out the sixth place car.
That issue seems to have escaped discussion.
I DO agree with trophyguy, you teammates comments have a lot to do with their actions. But, also, Carol at Racing Journal Online, in her Cheer n Jeers column said that Fox had gone to Carl after the initial interview and showed him another camera angle that had Special K punting him after Carl had come down in front. Were they fomenting a fued? So, why didn't we see more of Carl coming back on the track? ESPECIALLY when he was near his antagonist? It seems like an no brainer. The director of this broadcast has missed the mark more times than can be counted. they need to look at the production of the summer series by TNT for a tutorial.
Just thought I would mention that Darrell Waltrip will be on Imus tomorrow at 8:30 AM and will be talking a lot about Carl/Kez incident. I know what side of the fence DW is on though. JD hope you don't mind my bringing that up.
No probs Vicky, Jack Roush is on tonight with Claire.
I am on tonight at the Race Reporters show around 7:30PM.
Use the Spin Doctor link on the TDP mainpage to hear the show live or listen later.
JD
There does clearly appear to be a conflict between Carl's comments to Dick Bergeran after the 1st and 2nd run-ins with Brad K, which would seem to raise a question on Carl's credibility. Could he have been plotting his revenge even as he spoke with Bergeran the first time? In light of Carl's conflicting statements, could there even be some question on whether or not he did intend or expect to flip Brad?
In any event, all the hoorah about Brad's flipping has eliminated any reporting about other things that came out of the race - like what did NASCAR do about the first car out of the race not involved in a wreck. It's easier to write commentary than to do reporting?
Richard, I wondered that too..if Carl just said that so he (potentially) would not get in trouble, as has happened with others who vowed revenge beforehand and then followed through.
But NASCAR did take the 55 McDowell engine to inspect along with the 2, 17 and 83. Don't know if they plan to do anything about it....
Where is all the press when Brad K was hitting drivers needlessly, and getting his atitude!
Why not interview Rick Hendrick, instead of Jack Roush last year about Brads Ego problem! He could get away with it just like Hendrick does with his legal problems!
What else is missing, you need for follow, after Chevy dominated in Nascar for the past years, lost in the Sunday melee, was Nascar carrying engines from team back for testing, not one of the dominate Hendrick cars or Chevy from what I was told went to be examined!!!!!!
Mabe Carl just got a Rick Hendrick pardon, you know what I mean!!!!!!!
Just read that NA$CAR has another
"rassler" to be grand marshall at
Bristol next week. The connection
and image continues to grow. Bet
Hammond will be lustful.
Well, Dave Moody asked Jeff Hammond for his opinion on this and got a pretty good answer.
What Carl might have been watching was the scoreboard. Brad kept climbing up through the field and Hammond suggests that comments from DW during the telecast might have helped to make Carl's mind up to go settle it.
Hammond also said he thought that if Edwards had to do it over again, he would probably wait until Bristol for payback.
Good thoughts from Hammond. He is a lot better when he is outside of the Hollywood Hotel.
JD
To bad Carl could not just suck it up after the 1st altercation and leave it at that, just like Dale Jr. had to back in the fall of 2004 at the same Atlanta track when a young, likeable, upcoming, overaggressive rookie at the time wouldn't give an inch and spun him out. That spin was very detrimental, as Jr was running in the top 3 and all but eliminated his only real chance to date, to capture a series championship. What goes around comes around and the Carl of today is not man enough to accept it as Jr. did back then!!! Even at Michgan a few years ago in a nationwide race, Carl get's loose off of turn 2 with Jr behind him and spins. Jr. Wins. Carl goes balistic, comes charging of the pits and hits jr. broadside and almost takes his hand off, then even confronts jr in victory lane. This Edwards character of today is starting to be more of a loose canon everytime he takes to the track anymore. I think they should worry more about him rather than Brad!!!
Obviously NASCAR thinks this kind of payback is OK since a 3 race probation was barely a slap on the hand.
Three races isn't enough for running down pit road backwards, let alone wrecking BK. Edwards can claim he was surprised, but he knows that as long as the wings are on these cars they're probably going to go airborne if they get backwards at full speed in reasonably clean air.
Edwards (like a couple of other drivers - Stewart and Gordon come to mind) seems to think there's a less important portion of the field that's obligated to get out of their way when they want to make a move. He just about killed BK for not doing so earlier in this race and at Talladega.
Please people, stop saying it's the wing. The wing is not making the cars go flying. Look at Sadler at Talladega a few years back. Stock cars have been flying for years.
I have seen the cars of yesterday flip. The wing thing does not jive with me. Just another excuse for the 99 driver. Does anyone remember Bobby Labonte on top, up-side down on Tony Stewarts car at Talladeaga a few years back??? No wing.
I also wonder if Vegas is giving odds on how loud the BOOS will be for the 99 driver at Bristol.
BK needs to drive just as he has been. The primadonna junior boyscout wanna bees 99 car and 11 car have more growing up to do than Brad does. Just my thoughts.
Okay, Bobby Labonte flipping at Talladega was not even aerodynamic related. I think we need to know the difference between an aerodynamic flip (or blowover) and a flip caused by other means such as a dramtic weight shift or a car being launched off a wall or other car. The roof flaps only work in the blowover situation, they could not have prevented such weight shifting flips as Bobby Labonte and Talladega, Dale Jr in the Daytona Nationwide race or Matt Kenseth in the Nationwide round at Talladega last year.
It's quite obvious looking at Ryan Newman's ride at Talladega last year and Brad K's blowover at Atlanta that the wing certainly played a part in it. First off it's very rare for these COT cars to get completely backwards as the wing generally catches the car before it spins all the way around. However in the cases where this car has gotten completely backwards it has taken off. How many blowover wrecks have you seen at Altanta (or any other 1.5 track) in the old style car with the spoiler?
The wing sticks out pretty far out on the back of the car and certainly looks like it could easily create lift when running backwards too the air. I'd really wager to say if Brad's car had a spoiler that he would not have taken off at all.
I know some people don't think the wing has anything to do with it because DW brought up the point and everything that guy says has to be incorrect.
Here's a another missing detail. Why is everyone ignoring all the people that showed up at Atlanta dressed up as seats? Because it's not California or Michigan right? Exactly. There were scores of empty seats at Atlanta but nobody wants to touch it. After the California race people (writers and fans alike) were practically calling for for the end of ACS. But nobody dares bag on a venue in the south, no matter how many empty seats there were. I didn't hear anyone mention anything about the empty seats at Daytona either.
Bottom line is, Empty seats are only a problem at a few certain tracks. That's called a double standard in my book.
Carl's change in attitude over the past 18 months or so makes me wonder what is being added to his protein shakes. He certainly isn't the "shucks, golly, gee whiz" guy who came on the scene a few years ago.
Mary, Richmond, VA
I don't think there's a story on what happened between the post-crash interview and what happened after Edwards got back on track, because it was simply that Edwards decided to get revenge.
Looking at the comments and examining my own opinion, I think the punishment was far too slight because of the person who did it, even more than the incident itself. Edwards is starting to establish a reputation as a violent driver.
“Amid the debate about penalties, there seems to be something missing.”
What’s missing is journalism, John. It was missing during the race coverage: when those in the booth failed to report Edwards appeared to be stalking Keselowski for several laps. It was missing afterward when pit reporters failed to ask, or even raise, the question you have asked: When did Edwards go from “not his fault” to “that was pretty wild …”? It’s been missing since Sunday when most of what we’ve heard has been opinions about paybacks, penalties and personalities.
But should we be surprised? Weekly, thanks to the outlet you have given us, we debate the pros and cons of the various outlets’ coverage of races and, in the end, at the heart of the cons lies a failure to cover (or show) what’s actually happening on the track.
What’s missing? Journalism: the who, what, when, where, why and how of the complete event. Instead, the televised “event” is the interaction of the people in the booth. The stars are not the drivers so much as the personalities assembled in the booth. The “news” is the opinion du jour. For those not watching the race in person but dependent upon what we see on television (or listen to on the radio), the “event” is censored to what Fox, TNT or ESPN decide to show us.
The media coverage of Edwards vs. Keselowski is simply another gasp of journalism's death rattle.
Could it be that flogging the big story (the wreck) is easier - or might some in the media want to avoid writing something critical of the Roush org. and endangering their access?
One of the headlines on Bristol motor speedway website is that Carl and Brad will both be in both races weekend after this one.
What's the big deal? Edwards was being diplomatic during the first interview on FOX. Even the announcers called him on it, laughing to themselves and the audience "that was putting it gently." Clearly they saw Brad at fault on the tape and expect Carl to be mad. Carl looked like he was choosing his words carefully. At some point I think he just saw the 12 in front of him and thought the timing was right to send the message. Awesome that NASCAR didn't suspend him. Awesome.
Anon 12:18AM,
What were you watching? Carl said very clearly he made a mistake. "It looks like it wasn't as malicious as I thought," he said.
Hammond suggests Carl got angrier as Brad climbed higher on the scoreboard. Others have suggested Carl has an anger problem that he must express against who he deems is to blame.
My only point in this entire saga was that TV viewers saw the first interview and never got any other information than Carl's statement of his "personal code" after the incident.
It's like the gap in the Nixon tapes, there is a chunk of information missing that has never been explained. How did he go from being embarrassed by his own actions to a revenge seeking missle?
Be nice to find out someday who talked to him during that time and exactly what they said.
JD
The foolishness here is that Carl's comments seem to imply he's now scared Brad into not hitting him again.
If NASCAR isn't going to assess post-race penalties, then as soon as Brad finds himself down a few laps, you can bet he'll go after Carl again.
And Carl's sponsor made an interesting statement today also, I don't think Carl or Jack wants to make them mad at this point of the season.
The first thing Mike Joy said was something to the effect of "Carl Edwards turned over Brad Keselowski." You're pretty off base saying they weren't on top of it - and no one could have predicted such a spectacular crash.
Anon 7PM,
Let me tell you where I am coming from. Four pit reporters. Spotters. DW said he saw what was happening and did not choose to pass it along before the crash.
My point was not that FOX was out of the loop, but that no one (except Jeff Hammond on Race Hub and Sirius 128) ever explained what happened while Carl was in the garage to get this end result.
Folks emailed me with all kinds of conspiracy theories. Dick Berggren should have asked Carl what happened since the last time we talked to you to bring you out to do this?
Does that make more sense?
JD
JD, Do you think Roush's accusing DW of having tried to settle an old score on TV in 2009 might have had the intended effect of making FOX extra careful before making a negative comment about a Roush team?
Because it just kind of happened quickly on the track, the opinions were honest for the moment.
Since that time, DW has been slinging it on the radio, Internet and Twitter. He is getting a lot of mileage out of this deal.
The problem is that after his Daytona issues and then his bizarre Trackside behavior with Danica, many folks are already holding him at arms length.
I hope for nothing but the best for him, but it seems this season he is often between a rock and a hard place when it comes to live TV commentary.
JD
Vicky D., I read Scott's statement about the "incident," and it sure sounds as if they're not happy with Roush or CE. Very, very interesting. I give them credit for making it. Surprised it hasn't been more widely circulated.
Post a Comment