NHRA error... (1 Viewer)

StarLink
High Speed Internet
Available AnyWhere On Earth
Now $349


This stuff is why I have such a big nerve anytime I see anyone post anything negative about someone's personal integrity/intentions without having 100% correct reason to. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I think you can and should be skeptical and cautious in your mind all you want but, you don't do it publicly.

Once you cross that line, YOU'RE the one with the bad intentions.
 
I couldn't care less about what comes out of Glendora these days. For the past few years, it's been one CF after another. NHRA does not drive the sport. It's should be about the racers, the fans, and the sponsors. The folks at NHRa have forgotten about anyone that doesn't put a dollar in their pockets. It's time for a change. And right now, just about any change would make things better.

After everything positive DSR, his teams, and his sponsors have done for the sport, why do they keep messing with him?
 
Just curious, when NASCAR fines a team they say the money goes into a fund and is is distributed back to the teams through some kind of system at the end of the year. Where does the money go from an NHRA fine?
And I think in the long run this has hurt NHRA more than it will DSR or Oakley. They both show much more class and credibility than NHRA.
 
after nearly a week of reading comments on this topic, i still feel the same
way i did when watching the broadcast last sunday........
the race is same day, tape delayed with minimal time between
"live" final rounds and beginning of broadcast.
what part of the day did NHRA decide G. Light's accusation would be
part of the show?, or did they decide earlier in weekend and planned
for this charade?
for the amount of speculation surrounding this story, it is quite amazing
(maybe unprofessional is a better word) that NHRA would not only make
this statement publicy, but worse do it on primetime television.
 
Jim

I am sure you are frustrated for sure, by no means am I discounting that. My only contention is that this 'Nitrogate' as it has been termed has been kept alive by the press releases.

No offense taken at all. I am sure you are pissed about it and I took your replies as just having a conversation. That is one of the drawbacks of these forums. When we read others posts, we automatically imply negative emotions and sarcasm gets lost. That is one of the few things I remember from taking 'Intro to Communications' twice in college, lol.

Have good weekend

Toby

Toby... please read my post. Cheap seats refers to no direct involvement... not nose-bleed seats.

And I could give a **** about the sales at the Rolling O... I don't like my friends wondering if we cheated. That is exactly what was in question the past two days.

(looks like you can't swear on this forum)

Toby... my rant is not directed at you. If it seems so, I apologize. I'm just very frustrated.

Jim
 
Fines are easy to pay, then they go away.
Reputations are priceless, good or bad, .........priceless.
I personally have never met Jim, but being a business owner I respect what he has accomplished with Oakley. We work your a$$es off for years to build solid reputations, it doesn't just happen over night.
Jim has decided to spend HIS money in this sport and at the same time put his reputation as a businessman in full view of everyone. It's a very short sided opinion to say it really doesn't matter, it will just go away. No, it doesn't just go away. The buying public might forgive, but they don't forget.
Jim has a right to be pissed.

Fire in the hole!
 
It goes into the Compton/Light yearly bonus account.:rolleyes:


Probably have to find a way to pay for the Bentley after the HD deal went in the toilet.......:eek:

(Not making fun of your situation Don, as it is a serious matter...but taking a fair shot at Light's Out and Compton..)
 
Jim

I am sure you are frustrated for sure, by no means am I discounting that. My only contention is that this 'Nitrogate' as it has been termed has been kept alive by the press releases.



Toby
Toby..I'm glad it's being kept alive..by whatever means.

Jim has every right to be upset..and he gave his reasons why. Complete and utter nonsense the way this has been handled. I'd like to see it stay at the front until it is made right.
We've heard from Don, Alan and now Jim. The way NHRA handled this directly affects these individuals at a personal level..and I hope NHRA gets b!tchslapped over this.
 
It is Don's contention that the 4 barrels were approved by the NHRA as legal, and they were certainly never used at the race. They were upstairs in one of the trailers.
Mr. Jannard, having that nitro in the transporters during a national event violates the NHRA rules.
 
Chris,

The only thing I'd bring up would be the line that only fuel from "AN NHRA accepted supplier"

The "AN" tells me that there is more than one accepted supplier...right?

I guess the baseline issue is whether or not Pro Nitro is recognized as an accepted supplier.

If it said only fuel from "THE accpeted NHRA supplier," this would all be acedemic.

I'm not throwing punches here....just digging like everyone else.


Brian
 
Mr. Jannard, having that nitro in the transporters during a national event violates the NHRA rules.

According to DSR the fuel was from WEGO which is an approved supplier so it was legal. Also NHRA has admitted that DSR did not use the fuel at anytime during the meet. Finally DSR is legal and authorized to have that much Nitro in their possesion.

jim

PS: Somebody should tell NHRA that the brown stuff on their shoes is not dirt......
 
On page 64, the 2008 NHRA Rule Book says: "Only nitromethane from an NHRA-accepted supplier may be brought on site or used on site at any NHRA POWERade Drag Racing Series event..."

I wonder what the definition of "brought on site" and "on site" would be? If "site" is the track, wasn't the fuel already there? Wasn't the fuel "brought" to Don by the track if his pit is considered to be "on site"?
 
Chris,

The only thing I'd bring up would be the line that only fuel from "AN NHRA accepted supplier"

The "AN" tells me that there is more than one accepted supplier...right?

Not really. It means the supplier must belong to "the group of accepted suppliers". That group might be one, many, or even zero.
 
Ways To Support Nitromater

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top