A racer's decision to race can be a wrong one made for what are essentially almost all the right reasons. Almost. A sanctioning body's decision to self-promote an event (and thus accept responsibility for setting everything right in order to provide the best possible event experience and race) should be held to an even higher standard. If you choose to promote an event, and you aren't either prepared, capable or committed to making it the best event it can be--and the safest--then what did you take on that duty for? Just for the money? In order to box out a rival? Hubris? A whim?
I can accept, as many of the drivers have done since, that some responsibility for saying "No!" rests with them. And the car owners. But was there more than just the implied threat of losing ground in a points battle for refusing to race? I'm not saying that there was, but in a division that races as few times as Silver Crown, fewer yet on dirt, and fewer still on genuinely racy half-miles, does there even need to be? You want to win the points, you don't take a knee and give every other competitor who doesn't trailer his ride the upper hand. It would have been understandable (and preferable) if the whole field just said the show will have to wait until changes are made, but then we would be reading and listening to the same "Modern Day Spoiled Wimps"-posturing that was leveled at teams in the past for demanding safer conditions. And who would actually believe that the same folks who botched the track conditioning initially would quickly undo and satisfactorily redo what was already a mess?
We've seen on another thread that the flagman, in a move I simply have neither seen nor ever heard of before, has offered his apologies to every driver for not being the final arbiter and insisting on aborting the start until conditions were improved. Is there anyone among us who would have insisted, had he not offered that apology, that he deserved any blame? And heaven forbid that the drivers form a union, or union-like coalition in order to effect positive change. The hue and cry in this day and age would make national news.
I doubt it will take another wreck on the first lap for the drivers to say "No" next time. I'd expect that if there is another abomination of a racing surface forced upon them, not only will some of the more outspoken drivers refuse to push off, they will collectively resign from the event. And if a track is that bad again, under USAC's oversight, I'd certainly expect that the fallout for the organization will be lasting and will doom some persons in that brand-provider. USAC is nothing without the deeply-talented pool of exceptional regulars who deserve better than they are receiving.
I'll give the drivers one pass for not doing what in hindsight is obviously the right thing, and saying "I refuse", but I will NOT extend that pass to the entity that forced the conditions that those drivers should have balked at upon them.