Comments on: Should Drivers Ever Be Suspended?

By: Timnothhelfer

Timnothhelfer — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:50:37 +0000

In the case of feigning ignorance to rule of competition the offender should learn the rule(s) and how it applies, then demonstrate it’s understanding at the next drivers meeting. If the offense is part of a pattern of denied responsibility the demonstration can be filmed for a Jack Arute segment.

By: madtad1

madtad1 — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:54:37 +0000

I want to clarify my post: fines and/or points loss, last on grid for one or more races, then suspension should be the order. The problem with points loss is that, if a driver is not in serious competition for a driving award, points loss won’t really matter to them. I’ll admit that even starting dead last may not matter that much to them, but it is a better option than an outright suspension.

What they really need to do, and what NASCAR and F1 do not do well at all, is apply all penalties evenly across the board. IndyCar should take the driver’s overall actions across the seasons into account when deciding if this was a “one-off” event, or is a pattern of behaviour or, even worse, a pattern of escalating behavior.

E.G: If “Gentleman Jim” is repeatedly cut off, race after race, by “Frankie the Fouler”, loses his temper and gets in a screaming and shoving match with Frankie, then he should be dealt with more leniently for his “1st offence”. If Frankie has been getting more aggressive, race after race, even after being warned and fined, until he finally causes a serious crash owing to his chopping cars off, then he should receive the nuclear option and be suspended for one or more races.

By: Mike Silver

Mike Silver — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:35:03 +0000

I think grid position penalties should come after fines/point docking. Suspension should be only a last resort except in the case of dangerous actions on the track. Sponsors also need to recognize htis is a possibility. Perhaps that will make them seek out more qualified drivers.

By: redd

redd — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:46:21 +0000

the NFL had to go to suspensions because monetary fines were not a deterrence in a league where players make so much money.

I think fines in Indycar (because of the much lower pay scale) would hurt the participants enough in most cases. Putting them last on the grid in a good idea also.

By: madtad1

madtad1 — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:40:08 +0000

You bring up excellent points both for and against suspension. I firmly believe that IndyCar must keep that particular big stick in their arsenal. However, it’s use should be considered “going nuclear” and reserved for the gravest violations.

Helio’s outburst, while very out of character, came perilously close to needing that stick. IndyCar would need to take all factors, including the driver’s record into consideration before going nuclear. Someone who has a record of similar offenses should be more likely to be suspended than someone who is acting out of character.

Frankly, a serious punishment short of suspension can and should include points loss (very NASCAR) and fines. I have an alternate punishment that could be used that would be close to the nuclear option: the driver would have to start the next X number of races Dead Last on the grid. If the team switches drivers, then the car itself starts Dead Last on the grid.

This would give the teams incentive to police their drivers, if the driver has a history.i

By: Bent Wickerbill

Bent Wickerbill — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:02:53 +0000

I understand what you are saying George, the sport is in enough trouble without alienating primary sponsors, but I believe that if you take the possibility of suspension off the table entirely, you have just lost the biggest stick you have to maintain control out on the race track. I believe the big stick should be used sparingly, but in the case of either extremely dangerous ontrack behavior, or felonious off track behavior, the possibility of being suspended should remain viable.