ASCS: Appeals Commission Upholds Findings in ASCS Fuel Penal
 

7/31/24 4:59 PM Appeals Commission Upholds Findings in ASCS Fuel Penalty

The World Racing Group Appeals Commission, comprised of independent industry personnel, convened on Tuesday, July 30, 2024, to hear an appeal from Robert Baker regarding a penalty issued to his team, which includes his son Brady as driver, for fuel used in competition that did not conform to benchmarks in June at Batesville Speedway. The ... Read more

The post Appeals Commission Upholds Findings in ASCS Fuel Penalty appeared first on American Sprint Car Series.



https://ascsracing.com/news/appeals-...-fuel-penalty/

Re: ASCS: Appeals Commission Upholds Findings in ASCS Fuel P
 

Thank you for your transparency :6:. There's one series that should follow your lead, instead of just saying "i failed".

Re: ASCS: Appeals Commission Upholds Findings in ASCS Fuel P
 

The only problem I have with this is WRG, or any other sanctioning body for that matter, doesn't report what the substance was that rendered the fuel illegal. If it was performance enhancing, as in nitro, that qualifies as "cheating". If it was top lube or marvel mystery oil or something to lube the fuel system, that qualifies as a foreign substance, not necessarily cheating. Several years ago an ASCS competitor was found to have fuel not passing the examinations - his explanation was that the hose he used to fill the jugs where he got his fuel had previously been used for racing gasoline. While the excuse is a little thin it does bear some merit. I guess where I'm going with this is I believe there is a difference between "cheating" and "not conforming to the specifications", and maybe the penalties should reflect as such.

Tim Simmons