"I believe anybody who tells you he is unbiased is a liar. Being human gives you bias, and you can't avoid that. The best you can ever hope to be is fair."
-David Poole
Click to read David Poole tribute
RJO's Favorite Charities
Good friends of RJO
Joe Gibbs is Happy to be Second. Do you know why?
Official Beasts of RJO
07/30/1993 - 01/11/2010
 |
Carl Flips Keselowski: Should NASCAR Penalize the Intent or the Outcome? | | By Carol Einarsson | 03/08/2010 | Category: Various Other Articles | | | In the pit of his stomach, Carl Edwards feels it. He is now a changed man; you can be sure of it.
NASCAR wants racing to be racing again. They want to let the drivers have rivalries, and though unspoken, it seems NASCAR also wants drivers to have a little more freedom to settle differences on the track. The governing body has done everything to encourage this kind of situation. They have mandated the flying cars, and they have given license to the drivers to bump each other.
When Keselowski first went flying, I couldn’t believe what I saw. Carl Edwards, more than 150 laps down (because of the 12 car) came back to square the deal.
NASCAR acted swiftly, parking the 99 and calling the driver to the truck. Not even calling him there after the race, but calling him there NOW. And presumably, those that called the meeting aren’t even in the truck right now, but still up in the booth. That leaves us with the picture of Carl waiting in the principal’s office waiting for him to return. And when he returns, he’s gonna be angry. So Carl will sit and wait. And he’ll think.
But when sentences come down, will intent be considered, or only the outcome?
Not to make this more dramatic than it was, but if someone had died, “intent” is the difference between murder and manslaughter, and the sentences are dramatically different. So, I feel, should be the NASCAR penalties.
Some might say that nobody (except maybe Ryan Newman) knows better how these cars can fly than Carl Edwards. Others might say he had no way of knowing that’s what would happen. In all likelihood, Carl expected to bump BK out of the way and maybe damper his day as had been done to the 99.
So do we look at the outcome or the intent? If Carl’s pay-back bump had effectively loosened up the 12 car and cost him a few spots or even spun him in the grass and cost him a lap, would Carl have been parked and summoned?
I don’t think there’s anything NASCAR can say or do to Carl Edwards at this point that will come close to that pit in his stomach. That pit is telling him, “Wow. I coulda killed someone just now.” That pit will leave him a changed man, and likely a safer driver. Can any NASCAR penalty accomplish more than that?
| | | Comments: | | | I say Penalize the intent but keep in mind Brad's history of driving recklessly with no concern for anyone elses welfare. |
| | | Great piece (quick, too!) I don't think we can depend on Edwards' conscience in this situation, though. The premeditated component to this ups the ante. A suitable punishment would be loss of points for today for Edwards, and a suspension for the Cup at Bristol. |
| | and noting one other thing. What if BK's car had flew 10 more feet and hit the catch fence like Carl did at Dega? What if a fan had been the one killed? And what if that fan had been wearing a 99 shirt.
this isn't bristol or martinsville. You can't wreck someome as payback at atlanta when you're doing 180mph
Carl deserves to sit out a race
-The Assistant |
| | The results have to be taken into account here.
If Brad had gone through or over the fence and killed someone Carl would be sitting in a jail cell at this point.
Carl sitting out for one race may be what's needed here.
Jim @ Home |
| | | Hmmm, how many people end up in jail because they did something they shouldn't have and someone ended up getting hurt. How many drunk drivers intend to kill someone when they get behind the wheel? When you take a chance and do something you shouldn't you can't always control the outcome or envision the possible variables. |
| | | points and fies are a way to get a point across.......... sitting out??? how about both, sitting out???? both have done the samething!!! |
| | best check that boy in the #99 for the roid rage.
Seriously. |
| | I hate to say this, because it goes completely against the "let the boys be boys" theory, and I'm sure it would just make Carl feel worse, but...
NASCAR needs to suspend Carl Edwards for one race. The team may continue to race, with an alternate driver, but Carl needs to sit for a week. Not a fine, not a "probation," but a suspension.
I see it as being similar to how the best hockey referees (such as Bill McCreary, head referee for the Olympic gold medal game this year and the NHL's undisputed #1 man) will keep an eye out for the first signs that things are getting out of hand, then slap down the offender HARD with a very stiff penalty, pour encourager les autres, as the French say. It sends the message that, "I'll let you play, I'll let you play rough, but if you start going overboard, I'm the one in charge, and you're gonna get it."
The result of that policy is invariably a good, hard-hitting, but *clean* game, where people don't hesitate to check the crap out of each other, but don't take any cheap shots.
This is what I think NASCAR needs to do in this situation. With the "let boys be boys" policy in place, there still has to be a line that you can't cross without getting slapped down hard. Even if Carl hadn't flipped Brad, his intent was that, while he was over a hundred laps down, he would spin the car running in sixth place right at the end of the race. That, in and of itself, is just dirty driving, and needs to be punished.
The fact that Brad's flip was being replayed to the point of wearing out the sprocket holes last night, and that you could clearly see Carl's hands make that sharp right turn into his fender, just make it more critical that NASCAR take a hard line on this.
I actually do take Carl's intent into consideration, though; had he said afterwards that he fully intended to flip Brad and wasn't unhappy he had at all, I'd be calling for him to be out for the season. Remorse is a major mitigating factor, but, to continue Carol's analogy, even second-degree manslaughter ("extreme emotional disturbance"--you walk in on your spouse in bed with someone other than you, for example) holds a significant penalty that must be paid.
It's sad, but true, that making an example of someone will get the message of "you boys play nice, now" across better than any other statement. |
| | | this is what you have to know about carl edwards...........the infamous you tube episode with matt kenseth, him grabbing junior after a nationwide race, him marching into kevin harvick's garage to provoke a confrontation and now him wrecking BK. This guy is in serious need of anger management! NASCAR needs to sit him for at least a week so he can think about the consequences of his actions. |
| | @rdfox,
Do you really think you can take anything Carl says after the fact as honest? I'd bet his first reaction as he saw the car go airborne was "good, that will teach you". And then "oh %^$# this isn't going to be good for me". What do you think he's going to say afterward? Just like a child "I didn't do it!". |
| | I've never been a fan of those whose intent is to knock anyone out of the way (yeah, I'm talking about you Dale Earnhardt) instead of racing cleanly. If you can't pass someone on your own merits, maybe you should choose another line of work.
In Carl's case (and JPM's last year, and a dozen other drivers over the last few years) he simply waited to get back on the track to knock Brad out of the way in retaliation for what really was nothing more than a racing deal. Carl even saw that and said as much so he knew it wasn't anything malicious on BK's part.
And that whining about "he didn't give me room" kills me. No one is required to give you any room whatsoever. Sure, the yellow line is not out of bounds at Atlanta but you are not required to move down if someone drives down on you. Brad held his line, did not turn right on Carl, and it was Carl's and Carl's spotter's fault. Clearly.
Now what to do? If NASCAR had the you know whats, they'd park Carl for two races. That's a lot of money and points to lose and I guarantee Carl would not do that again. If he did, 5 races. One more time and he loses his license.
NASCAR should have parked EVERY car for two races every time they intentionally came back on the track and hit another car in revenge. No, you can't say JPM can do it to Tony last year but Carl can't do it to BK but they CAN say from now on, no more.
Carl intended to knock Brad out of the way, plain and simple. NO, he did not intend to kill him but, had that been the result, it's clearly manslaughter. You'd have a tougher time proving murder.
NASCAR needs to let the drivers police themselves but within the rules. You come back out and intentionally wreck someone, you're out for the race, lose points, money and maybe even next week's racing privilege.
Either NASCAR is going to protect the fans and other drivers or someone is going to be killed again. Then it will be too late.
I like Carl but he's human and competitive and like every other driver. However, I don't come into work and intentionally pour hot coffee over those who refuse to make a fresh pot when they take the last cup because I know better. So should Carl and JPM and anyone else who comes back on the track and exacts revenge.
Carl was WAY wrong in this case because Brad did not intentionally wreck him. Even if it was intended, Carl overreacted.
Jack Roush better have a good talk with Carl and we can only hope that Schrader gives him a good talking to as well.
We WANT to like Carl. We don't want to hate him because he's a big baby like JPM or a handful of other drivers.
Time to finally nip this in the bud and penalize him and any other driver to stop this once and for all. |
| | Let's first talk about theory of punishment. Two major theories of punishment inform our notions of justice: retribution and deterrence. Retribution, also referred to as "just deserts,” is the idea that we punish people because their bad deeds deserve punishment. Deterrence, which is the more prominent of the two theories in Western legal traditions, is the idea that we punish transgressors in order to deter future instances of the same behavior. Within the deterrence theory, two types of deterrence exist – specific deterrence and general deterrence. Specific deterrence is aimed at deterring the transgressor from committing the same transgression in the future; general deterrence is aimed at deterring other possible transgressors from committing the same transgression.
In this respect, I believe the question posed in this article and in the poll posted above is inadequate for the situation. What is at question is whether extremely reckless behavior should be punished despite the intent behind that behavior. Edward’s intent seems to have been merely to spin Keselowski, behavior that is inherently reckless but, to a degree, accepted within the sport. However, the circumstances exacerbated the degree of recklessness to a point well beyond letting the drivers police themselves. So while I believe that Edwards did not intend the outcome in this instance, I do not believe that NASCAR should or will allow this to pass with just probation. In order to deter future extremely reckless behavior by Edwards as well as by other drivers, NASCAR must give Edwards a real penalty, even though his remorse may mitigate what he “deserves.” I support at least a one race suspension and loss of both driver’s and owner’s points for the race.
|
| | Fine Carl (150,000.00) that will get his attention. Dock drivers points. I would take the total points from 2 races. 156 x 2 = 312. That will really get his attention. Go another step further, and give his share of the winning for the next 2 races to the we team to cover their cost for repairing the car.
Now let's see you prove that the next time this happens that it wasn't a real accident.
I would NOT take owners points (not his fault) I would not park the car (not the teams fault) I would not park the driver ( not the sponsors fault).
In other words let the punishment fit the crime. What Carl did was stupid., but let's also be honest here.
NA$CAR brought this on themselves with their inconsistant ruling on things like this in the past. This is the perfect opportunity to say " OK.. if this happens here is what we are going to do.. and then apply it in a consistant manner.
I don't think it's going to happen, after all this is NA$CAR. |
| | Taking this a step further and following along with the murder/manslaughter hypothetical, rdfox is correct in that voluntary manslaughter (intent to kill upon adequate provocation) is a felony, but in some circumstances involuntary manslaughter (the type Carol is referring to in commenting that the difference between murder and manslaughter is intent) can also be a felony. Under Georgia law (O.C.G.A. § 16-5-3(a)), involuntary manslaughter (without the intent to kill) is a felony if the death occurs during the commission of an unlawful act that is less than a felony (by the way, if an unintentional death occurs during the commission of a felony, then that is murder (O.C.G.A. § 16-5-1(c))).
Had a death occurred, I believe that the question of whether Edward’s behavior was lawful is an open question. O.C.G.A. § 16-5-60 (b) (“Reckless Behavior”) provides “A person who causes bodily harm to or endangers the bodily safety of another person by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act or omission will cause harm or endanger the safety of the other person and the disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation is guilty of a misdemeanor.” And while to some degree competitors in inherently dangerous sports assume the inherent risks of that sport, this is not a complete defense, and does not apply to spectators. Also, in the last 15 to 20 years, there has been growing concern in the criminal justice system that sports violence is under-acknowledged and under-prosecuted (“The Problem of Sports Violence and the Criminal Prosecution Solution”, http://www.uga.edu/pol-sci/courses/cjcornelljlpp.pdf). Perhaps the most notorious instance of an athlete being successfully prosecuted for unlawful behavior during a sporting event was in 2000 when hockey player Mart McSorley was charged with and convicted of felony battery with a weapon when he intentionally hit another player with his stick. And while I do not expect any “Reckless Behavior” misdemeanor charges to be brought against Edwards in this instance, had someone died I believe that felony manslaughter charges would be pending. That is what NASCAR has to be concerned about, and that is why they must seek to deter extremely reckless behavior.
|
| | @qhorque,
Kyle Petty addressed this issue on Twitter last night. KP admits to intentionally wrecking another driver at least once, but he take issue with Edward’s choice of when and where to wreck Keselowski. This is the difference. Wrecking another driver is inherently dangerous and reckless behavior, but it accepted in the sport within certain bounds. On the straightaway at the fastest track on the circuit is not within those bounds, and the reason for that is apparent when we consider what happened yesterday and the possible consequences. So yes, Earnhardt, Wallace, DW, King Richard, JPM, Jeff Gordon, and many other drivers (even Mark Martin) have done exactly what Edwards did in that they wrecked another driver as payback, but the circumstances made Edwards’s actions extremely dangerous and reckless rather than just the normal level of danger and recklessness inherent in racing. As stated above, I believe that NASCAR should hand down a real penalty to deter extremely reckless behavior and make the drivers think twice about when and how they retaliate.
@Blknight3,
You make a good point re: the culpability of the team and the sponsors, but I think your argument also points out the reason why owner’s points and a suspension should occur. It is not the team’s fault or the sponsors’ fault, but they have control over the drivers, and a penalty that affects them will prompt them to exercise that control. They may not “deserve” the punishment, but if the goal is deterrence, not retribution, then this type of indirect punishment is acceptable, and even desirable.
|
| | | One last thing: I believe that Edwards was justified in retaliating against Keselowski, and had he waited two weeks until Bristol or three weeks until Martinsville, I doubt anyone but Keselowski fans would object to such retaliation. Unfortunately, Edwards made a very bad decision on the time and place of retaliation, and in sports as in real life, sometimes bad decisions are as ruinous as bad intent. |
| | My first reaction when it happened was for him to be suspended for the next 5 races. After a little time passed and I thought about it more, I now feel he should be suspended for Bristol and take the points away (driver and owner) for Atlanta.
I do agree though that if Brad would have only spun out, a lot of this discussion wouldn't even be happening. But I was raised that YOU own your own behaviour AND the result of it. His decision to spin him at a very fast track was a bad decision and he should suffer the consequences, and he should be grateful noone got hurt.
Nascar does own a lot of this. Their decision to encourage the drivers to settle it on the track coupled with the full knowledge that the new cars are getting airborne is a recipee for disaster.
I think Nascar will only put him on probation, but I would like to see a 1 race suspension and the loss of the Atlanta points.
FF |
| | | So glad IRN029 brought up the other incidents Edwards started, exactly the point I wanted to make. Some are still on You Tube if anyone would like to look. He seems to be two different people, scary. |
| | @qhorque,
I wrote my response to you above a little too quickly. I neglected to write that I agree that punishment is in order for Edwards but disagree that all on-track retaliation should be punished. That should make my reply make more sense, because as it stands now, it may seem I was implying you thought Edwards should not be punished whereas your actual position seems to be that NASCAR should not allow drivers to intentionally wreck other drivers in any circumstances.
|
| | I agree with rdfox on this one. There's a difference between "boys being boys" and intentionally setting out to injure someone (to go with rdfox's hockey analogy, there's a difference between a scuffle on the boards and whacking someone's head with the stick).
NASCAR cannot allow the competitors to intentionally and with premeditation act in a fashion which any ordinary person would expect to result in injury.
If it was my call, Edwards would sit until Charlotte. NASCAR's given a one-race suspension for far less serious actions (e.g. Robby Gordon in Montreal a couple of years back). This one warrants a multiple race suspension.
John
|
| | | Count me in for the one race suspension. Taking away points would serve the same purpose, but making him miss the race seems to be more of a punishment to his ever-growing ego. I still don't see what Brad did that deserves any form of retaliation. |
| | I agree AndyPandy- in this instance.
Brad hasn't done himself any favors over the last couple years wrecking folks (Denny and Joey come to mind) but I don't really see how the first incident between the 99 and the 12 was anybody but Carl's fault.
like I said- I firmly believe he's got roid rage. |
| | JPN001,
I hear what you are saying but I'll always disagree. I think all intentional wrecking, regardless of which era, who did it, how bad it resulted, just means you can't win fair and square and is a weak way out. If you can't win on your talent and equipment, then you shouldn't be able to spin someone out and maybe ought to be a crew chief instead.
That being said, some banging and bumping is well within the bounds of the sport. However, spinning out someone to win is not right and never should be allowed. So yeah, my official stance is that intentional wrecking to advance your position is not racing. It's cheating.
In this case, and I've watched it several times already, Brad did NOT do anything wrong to Carl. This was not payback for anything. Carl came down on Brad and got spun because he wasn't clear. To "even the score" at that point was to actually make it worse. Carl was retaliating when there was nothing for which to retaliate.
Oh, and don't think I am making a double standard here. Even when my favorite drivers spin someone out I hate it and I lose respect for them which does add up over time.
Some of these racers seem to need to be reeducated as to what's racing, bumpin' and bangin', and actual malice. Most guys get all bent out of shape and immediately say "He wrecked me!" when, in actuality, it was just aerodynamics or slow reflexes, or someone else accidentally pushing someone into else. All just part of racing.
Too much "retaliation" in my opinion where none is warranted. |
| | I think Nascar should penalize the intent.
First and foremost, Carl was not down 150 laps because of Brad. Carl came down into Brad, causing the incident to begin with. If I am not mistaken it was said that Carl had already acknowledged that.
I don't have a problem with the driver's policing themselves, as long as they are smart about it. There are ways to get the point across to a fellow competitor...when one is not happy about something. Bumping them on the fastest portion of the track, at that high rate of speed is very stupid. Carl was very stupid.
I am not going to give Carl any slack on this because he knows better. Carl has been in this sport long enough, and he is a good enough driver to know when and where to do something like that. Carl is a ticking time bomb, that is something we all know... hence the incident's with Harvick and Kenseth. Carl allowed his emotions to cloud his judgement and it could have injured someone very badly. That can not be allowed to happen.
IMO Carl did not sound very concerned in his interview post the incident. Which makes me very concerned.
Also, I don't get why he and Denny are so insistent on teaching young Brad a lesson. Why is it that Brad is supposed to yield to these guys on the track? Brad is there for the same reason those two are... to win.
|
| | The clean cut looks, the backflips, the Aflac Duck, the association with Schrader, the new baby...boy I really WANT to like Carl Edwards...
After the incident with his own team-mate Kenseth I had a real suspicion about Carl but it faded over time; after his interview with DW before the race I thought well maybe he's matured...
Oops - a little too premature on that call apparently. Carl more or less admitted after seeing video of the first wreck that BK hadn't really done anything wrong but then he added "Brad never gives me room". So I expect the payback was as much for past incidents as for earlier in the race.
Not that I'm OK with what Carl did - far from it. When you wreck someone at 180 mph you HAVE to know it is dangerous, period. Carl showed extremely poor judgement, to say the least. Being 155 laps down and wrecking a car that had a sure top 10 just makes it worse. And since when has a driver ever been expected to "make room" for anyone?
The whole incident spoiled an otherwise better than average race. When BK's car first flipped right side up I was plenty worried after seeing how much the A-pillars were bent...the fans just don't need that kind of crap, much less the drivers.
A one race suspension seems the least NASCAR should be doing at this point. The fact they have indicated it will be Tuesday before they announce anything would seem to indicate the penalty won't be a slap on the wrist. |
| | | First of all this is racing. We watch racing for the excitement. Retaliation and pay backs have been part of the sport for many years. I'm sure Carl did not intentionally do this with the hope that someone was hurt. Don't you think these drivers that continually get wreck by Keslowski are sick of him wrecking them week after week and he goes undamaged and ends up finishing in the top five or ten while those that are wrecked have to pick up the pieces and try to get those points back that they have lost. I thought this weekends race is the most exciting race that we've seen in a long time. Las Vegas all we saw was Jeff Gordon drive around in a circle and lap car after car. That is not racing. I watch racing for the excitement not to watch car go around in a circle. Nascar is trying to find a way to bring excitement and viewers back I think Carl just did that for him. I have personally met Carl and do not believe that he ever intended to hurt someone. Did he mean to wreck Brad--of course he did its called racing. Get over it and lets move on to Bristol. |
| | I think we all agree that Carl never meant for Kez to flip. However, you have to look at it as if Carl was pointing a gun at him. No, he would never mean to shoot him either but, the potential is there. A 3400 lb car is a weapon. My surprise is how Carl did not plot this better. He had 150+ laps to think about it. Lacked finesse and got caught.
Carl/Roush will probably lose points but will not sit out. He will be put on probation until 12/31. Kez on probation too, so he doesn't stir the pot. |
| | @ stormy13
You stated: "I watch racing for the excitement not to watch cars go around in a circle"
Houston.... we have a problem.
|
| | And what do we get out of all this? Three weeks of "probation" which is akin to no punishment at all. Nice.
Can't wait for someone to really get hurt. If that's what NASCAR wants then I guess I'll play along and want it too. Can't wait to see another racing deal turn into intentional payback and death. That will be sooooooo good for NASCAR.
I can't wait. |
| | @ghorque,
We may disagree whether retaliation is ever acceptable, but I agree with you on this. |
| | | oops... typed 'g' instead of 'q'. Sorry! |
| | | No problem! It's supposed to be "cork" as I am known amongst my friends as a big wine lover so they call me "cork" most of the time and I spell it quorque for my e-mail and stuff. |
| | | I'm not taking Carls side on this,BUT, Brad has done nothing but alienate a whole bunch of drivers with his aggressive driving and his so what attitude. My hope is that he has taken a lesson here, that you get back what you give on the track. Maybe he will think twice the next time before he runs over someone to advance his position. |
| | | Just one more thought. I'd rather see Carl punch him out like Spencer did to Kurt Busch after the race. |
| | Just right No penalty really
This talk of murder /manslaughter is ludicrious dying is one of the occupational hazards of racing, and yes going to watch those races also.
What a bunch of namby-pamby's
SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE A SALE ON KEROSENE SOAKED RAGS |
| | I think that drivers should wait for retaliation until after NASCAR solves their "rear wing" issue.
We've had three cars that have not only gone airborne, but have had massive body damage when landing, and if all that energy from the impact could save a driver from what may be an impact (Had Kevin Harvick been 13 feet back and Ryan impacted the ground with Kevin driving into the 38 instead of under it, sending Ryan even further deeper into the carnage, the results would have been worse) that they would have walked away from instead of carted off on a gurney, then there was a flaw in the design, like the wing being wider and stronger to send air right into the intent of the roof flaps, defeating the roof flaps design.
Regardless of instances of retaliation or unintended contact, these cars should not leave the ground unless it catches the grassy infield. Unless some of you are missing this, these cars, when sent backwards, are sailing through the air at almost 20 feet up. Even Rusty never attained that height. I'm even surprised that there arent flaps attached to the sides of the car. But, as a fan, I am going to be behind putting the spoiler back on the car before we get to Tally, if not sooner, and pitch the wing.
Carl's penalty is appropriate had the 12 car stayed on the ground, the probation. He'd also not be called to the trailer either. But I know the ticket sales would not have risen higher had Carl not stood his ground. And that's good to see again. As much as I enjoy watching and am a fan of Mark Martin, I certainly wouldn't enjoy a race full of Marks.
|
| | For those still interested in this, Scene Daily ran an interesting article yesterday about possible legal ramifications for retaliatory incidents:
http://www.scenedaily.com/news/articles/sprintcupseries/NASCAR_drivers_could_face_legal_implications_for_retaliatory_contact_on_the_track.html
The article is quite well done overall (with just a tinge of sensationalism); it does a nice job of highlighting legal thought on both sides of this issue (as well as in the middle).
As for the comments section, well, let’s just say that after reading the comments, I appreciate all the more why this is the only NASCAR related news/editorial website on which I leave comments.
|
|
Follow RJO on
Sprint Cup 2010 Schedule
Saturday night races in red
Feb 14 Daytona FOX 1pm
Feb 21 Fontana FOX 3pm
Feb 28 Las Vegas FOX 1pm
Mar 07 Atlanta FOX 1pm
Mar 14 OFF
Mar 21 Bristol FOX 1pm
Mar 28 Martinsvl FOX 1pm
Apr 04 OFF
Apr 10 Phoenix FOX 7pm
Apr 18 Texas FOX 3pm
Apr 25 Talladega FOX 1pm
May 01 Richmond FOX 7pm
May 08 Darlington FOX 7pm
May 16 Dover FOX 1pm
May 22 ALL STAR SPEED
May 30 Charlotte FOX 5pm
Jun 06 Pocono TNT 1pm
Jun 13 Michigan TNT 1pm
Jun 20 Sonoma TNT 3pm
Jun 27 Loudon TNT 1pm
Jul 03 Daytona TNT 7pm
Jul 10 Chicago TNT 7pm
Jul 17 OFF
Jul 25 Indianapolis ESPN 1pm
Aug 01 Pocono ESPN 1pm
Aug 08 WatkGlen ESPN 1pm
Aug 15 Michigan ESPN 1pm
Aug 21 Bristol ABC 7pm
Sep 05 Atlanta ESPN 7pm
Sep 11 Richmond ABC 7pm
Sep 19 Loudon ESPN 1pm
Sep 26 Dover ESPN 1pm
Oct 03 Kansas ESPN 1pm
Oct 10 Fontana ESPN 3pm
Oct 16 Charlotte ABC 7pm
Oct 24 Martinsvl ESPN 1pm
Oct 31 Talladega ESPN 1pm
Nov 07 Texas ESPN 3pm
Nov 14 Phoenix ESPN 3pm
Nov 21 Homestead ESPN 1pm
 
  
 
What happened to me in 1983?
|
