Roush Racing elects to appeal penalty

CONCORD, N.C. -- Roush Racing owner Jack Roush and driver Mark Martin have elected to appeal the 25-point penalty assessed them two weeks ago at North Carolina Speedway, the team announced Wednesday morning.

NASCAR officials were in a meeting and not available for comment at the time this story was published.

MARTIN'S PENALTY  •  Roush Racing might file appeal on Wednesday  •  Roush probably will not appeal Martin's penalty  •  Roush ponders challenges to penalty  •  Martin penalized 25 points for coil infraction  •  Martin's car fails post-race inspection

After finishing second to Johnny Benson in the Pop Secret 400, Martin was found to have what NASCAR deemed an illegal left front spring on the No. 6 Viagra Ford. The spring in question had 4 3/8 coils, 1/8 of a coil less than NASCAR's mandated 4 1/2 coils.

According to Roush Racing president Geoff Smith, who inquired about the penalty to competitors at Phoenix, the small difference in the length of the spring offers no advantage on the track. Hence, the Roush organization will exercise its right to appeal.

"According to NASCAR rules (sec. 12-4), penalties for violation of NASCAR rules are determined by the gravity of the violation and its effects of fairness of competition," Smith said.

"Since the spring in question had an inconsequential deviation from the rule-specified length, since its use had absolutely no effect on the fairness of competition, and since the penalty imposed was harsher that the intent of its own published standards for the imposition of penalties, we have elected to take advantage of the review process NASCAR has provided to us."

Roush Racing also announced Wednesday that they had no plans of seeking legal recourse against the manufacturer or seller of the spring in question, regardless of the outcome of the appeal.

	Jack Roush Credit: Autostock

"There was little question that we have legitimate, meritorious claims, but, ultimately we concluded that Roush Racing can better serve the sport by terminating any contemplation of litigation," Smith said. "In this business, the words "racing" and "litigation" should never appear in the same paragraph if at all possible."

Smith went on to say that Roush Racing applauds the overall intentions of NASCAR's rule book and its appeals process, but that in this instance he and Roush Racing do not feel the punishment fits the crime.

"We applaud NASCAR both for laying out rules that confirm its interest in insuring that its managers impose penalties only after due regard is given to the fairness the circumstances require, and applaud them even further for providing us with an appeal mechanism that is unprecedented in professional sports," Smith said.

MESSAGE BOARD  Discuss the issue on Martin's message board.

"The existence of this rule and the appeal rights granted to us by NASCAR are powerful statements that NASCAR has established and is committed to upholding and maintaining a policy of fairness in connection with the imposition of penalties for the violation of its rules."

Smith cited two other instances this season in which teams were caught using illegal springs. But in both of those instances, he said, the springs were altered for performance enhancement. That was not the case with Martin's spring, which he said came straight out of the box and onto the car without alteration. He seeks to reduce the penalty to nothing more than a monetary fine.

"Fairness can only exist when there is equal punishment for equally situated offenders," Smith said. "That is a concept that is a cornerstone of the entire American experience. It is our firm conviction that Roush Racing was not 'equally situated' with the two other teams who suffered penalty points reductions in 2002.

	Credit: Autostock

"NASCAR's examination into the 'gravity of the violation and its effects on the fairness of competition' of each of the three situations requires that it evaluate the presence or absence of two very significant facts: (1) Did the examination of the part reveal the offender's intention to violate a rule? (2) Was the part's function altered in any way to attempt to improve performance? Both of those factors were conspicuously absent in our case, and both were present in the other two cases. Fairness requires a different penalty result for us."

Heading into this weekend's season finale at Homestead-Miami Speedway, Martin trails Tony Stewart by 89 points. Minus the penalty, his deficit would be substantially less, at 64 points.

"We hope that these 25 points have no impact in this year's championship race, and do not enjoy having this issue present itself at this late date, yet we cannot passively submit to a punishment that is so excessive for the offense," Smith said.

"We also recognize that the list of successful appellants can fit on the back of a postage stamp, but we remain hopeful that after a sober review of each of the spring related penalty violations, the Commission will confirm NASCAR's written commitment to fairness by reinstating our points."

Though Smith is unsure when the process will get under way or who might serve on the panel of judges, all involved at Roush hope for an expeditious ruling by NASCAR. The team does not want the issue hanging over their heads this weekend at Homestead-Miami Speedway.

The question remains, however, whether they'll continue to pursue the matter if the championship is decided by more than 25 points.

"We'll make a decision about that later if we're faced with it," Smith said. "Our thinking, and Jack in particular, is we're very conscious that the penalty side of the rule enforcement process is going in the wrong direction -- which is by imposing points penalties on inconsequential deviations from a regulation is being done without consideration of what's appropriate for the circumstances.

"That will end up being unfair in the future. So we want to press this point and whether we continue to press it, we'll decide on that after Sunday."

Roush Racing has already taken steps to assure this doesn't happen again. They've searched their entire inventory of springs and found one other spring with the same problem.

Overall, Smith said, it's about respect, fairness and the integrity of the company.

"We want the points, because Mark and that Viagra team earned them on the racetrack," Smith said. "It's about fairness, because we want a rules making and enforcing process that conforms to the rules they've established.

"It's important to point out the differences in a public way to keep fairness in the system. It's partly about respect, too, because when a penalty is issued you're got the scarlet letter 'C' on your forehead -- 'C' being 'cheater.'"