Terry Haddock Speaks On Testing Issue (2 Viewers)

[RacerRose]

Really?



Pretty clear.

Thanks for clarifying, but nothing like that was worded in the article that was posted in how the teams favored the policy.

 

[Greg]

It's funny, Force's operation would have never survived had this rule been in effect when he first started out. Most of his income that helped him through those initial years came from match racing.

I'd like to know how this rule has affected anything positively. Any team that would have supported the NHRA controlling how they spent their dollars, how they tested, where they raced, etc. doesn't deserve the opportunity. Why would most of these teams let the basic freedom of running their own operation, spending their own money, be dictated by a bunch of fools. I guess I just don't understand people, and why they don't stand up for themselves any more.

 

[clwill]

Thanks for clarifying, but nothing like that was worded in the article that was posted in how the teams favored the policy.

True, but the next post had that link

 

[Gordon]

Watch the show, then we can discuss it further.

Alan

I can't wait. But I sincerely hope all the pawns in this chess game didn't drink the Kool-Aid in an attempt to try to smooth over an otherwise sketchy scenario.

If it looks like it, smells like it and tastes like it... Well...

 

[none]

I truely hope none of you ever end up on my jury. You have decided guilt without even hearing the evidence.

Alan

 

[JIMBO]

Alan, I guess the Force team didn't make any passes down a strip, if that is what will proven on " THE SHOW " then I guess we understand why they did not break any rules.
Remember people........THEY DID NOT MAKE A PASS,THEY DID NOT MAKE A PASS,THEY DID NOT MAKE A PASS..............

 

[rollingthunder]

I truely hope none of you ever end up on my jury. You have decided guilt without even hearing the evidence.

Alan

The feeling is mutual.

 

[Terry]

Alan, I watched the show and have a couple of questions and I hope you can find time to address them for me. I watched the interviews with Capps and Ace (who by the way, in my opinion, did a really good job of expressing their displeasure with the situation in a very civil and coherent manner), but is Capps correct when he said that Morgan Lucas had been charged with a test session for a 100 ft. blast at midnight while shooting a commercial for Geico? And that he was told this weekend that he hadn't been charged for a test after all? Please note that I am not judging here, simply asking for the correct info after watching the show.

One more question--did you see the segment that Paul and Mike did on the "controversy"? I consider Mike Dunn to be very knowledgeable on most aspects of drag racing, and he made it very clear in a rather oblique way that he felt the rule had been "modified" from his understanding of the original policy. Do you agree with Dunn's assessment of the situation, or is he wrong in his interpretation of the situation?

Hope you can find time to give me some clarifications on these issues so I won't be judging without the correct 'skinny'.

Thanks

 

[clwill]

I truely hope none of you ever end up on my jury. You have decided guilt without even hearing the evidence.

Alan

OK, I watched the qualifying show (twice), and watched NHRA Raceday. The issue was never satisfactorily addressed. Do you think it was Alan?

Graham spoke as if the rule never said "applies to both the car and driver" as the post on NHRA.com said, and hand-waved the "applies to the team, not simply the driver" that was in the original rule sent to PRO. It was just as if he rewrote history with "we never said that" or "we never meant that". That was certainly how everybody else interpreted it, as Capps and Ace clearly said.

And on NHRA Raceday, John avoided the question three times. No, it's not his fault, he asked for a ruling and was told OK. But he's clearly not providing much insight on this.

So, Alan, where's "the evidence" that this jury isn't seeing?

 

[clutchflite]

I truely hope none of you ever end up on my jury. You have decided guilt without even hearing the evidence.

Alan

On NHRA Raceday, Force referred to the original email sent out to the teams regarding the testing policy. Can someone (Alan, anybody) post this? - It should be the evidence that will settle the controversy.

 

[Muddy]

I truely hope none of you ever end up on my jury. You have decided guilt without even hearing the evidence.

Alan

I sure hope someone like you is on my jury should I ever have to face one. You've always alleged not guilty in the face of mounting evidence.

 

[.]

I truely hope none of you ever end up on my jury. You have decided guilt without even hearing the evidence.

Alan

The evidence said "applies to team and driver." You seem to be ignoring the so-called evidence.

 

[Pete]

When the testing policy was first announced the owners were for it. But don't take my word for it,

NHRA Story » Top Fuel, Funny Car testing policy supported by team owners

Alan

evidence?

Verbatum from the rule:

"If a racer’s number of days driving outside an NHRA national event exceeds that permitted under the testing policy, the racer would not earn points at the NHRA event but would still be eligible to earn the coveted Wally trophy and the purse and posted contingency monies."

Sorry, Robert should not be earning points in Reading.

 

[Paul]

evidence?

Verbatum from the rule:

"If a racer’s number of days driving outside an NHRA national event exceeds that permitted under the testing policy, the racer would not earn points at the NHRA event but would still be eligible to earn the coveted Wally trophy and the purse and posted contingency monies."

Sorry, Robert should not be earning points in Reading.

He's out in round 2, he would have been better off staying in his old ride considering John is in the semi's. I agree though, he shouldn't be earning any points this weekend.

 

[Greg]

I truely hope none of you ever end up on my jury. You have decided guilt without even hearing the evidence.

Alan

How much evidence is needed beyond the very words of the rule itself??

 

[.]

How much evidence is needed beyond the very words of the rule itself??

Optical data?

 

[Gordon]

Alan,

I have all the respect in the world for you, but the evidence, including everything I saw and heard during this weekend's telecasts, clearly points to a change in intended interpretation (spirit) of the rule and it ultimately ended up benefitting John Force Racing.

And as such, I stand by what I said initially... as much as I like Robert Hight, and John Force for that matter, Hight should not have earned any points at Reading. If there's something we're not seeing, or being told, I'd love to see/hear it.

Lastly, and a little off topic. Would this even be a discussion if we weren't using the playoff (Countdown) system we have in place? Hight wouldn't even be a player at this stage of the game if we were using the old points system. My point? I'm definitely not a fan of it, but I have accepted it... I only bring this up because it is what I like to refer to as an "unintended consequence." A points deduction, or inability to earn points altogether would be a non-issue if he weren't fighting for his 10th place life and a spot in the Countdown. He could theorhetically test his heart out, knowing he couldn't earn points, but perhaps put himself in a position to win races anyway.

Which brings up my next question. Do the cars/teams/drivers (or whover the restriction applies to this week) who don't make the countdown start testing to their heart's content? Will Hight or Neff start testing theories for John and Ashley if they're not in? Do they simply test for themselves in the hopes of getting bettter and improving their chances of blocking for John and Ashley?