Head2Head: Penalties

Haven't we been here before?

Chad Knaus is once again banned from the racetrack due to illegal modifications to the No. 48 Chevrolet driven be Jimmie Johnson.

Last year at Daytona, it was a rear window that brought Knaus a mandatory four-week vacation. This year at Sonoma, a 10-inch piece of the front fender equals six weeks off for him and Hendrick Motorsports teammate and fellow crew chief Steve Letarte.

For Letarte, this is his first infraction. But Knaus has a history of breaking the rules and it's time NASCAR stops worrying about being fair, and starts punishing based on past history.

In '06, there was Daytona. In '05, Knaus was suspended two races and the team docked 25 points for having the car's roof too low at Las Vegas although in appeal, his suspension was lifted. In '03, at the Coca-Cola 600, Johnson's car had an unapproved fuel system and Knaus was fined $2,500 after winning the race. In '02, a 25-point deduction and $25,000 fine for Knaus at the Daytona July race for offsetting bolts.

That's quite the resume.

In the last six years, Knaus has been punished by NASCAR five times for illegal modifications to his car. Yet, the 48 team just chugs along and hasn't finished outside the top five in points.

Where is the deterrent to prevent cheating?

It's not there and Knaus knows no matter how many times he gets caught, his job is safe and the team will continue to be successful.

It seems to me we should be at the point that these are no longer considered "accidents," but clear rule violations yet NASCAR continues to turn a blind eye. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me five times and well, it's the same as a first-time offender.

Football, baseball, basketball -- all these sports look at past history when making a decision on how to punish someone. If the individual is constantly in trouble, the results are a stiffer punishment. When does Knaus fit the label "constantly in trouble?"

It's time NASCAR starts looking at Knaus for what he is, a habitual rule-violator, and punish accordingly.

• Bill Kimm, NASCAR.COM

O n its face, the idea of a policy to penalize repeat offenders more severely seems logical. If the same folks keep repeating the same offenses, it stands to reason that increasing the penalties might act as a deterrent.

It's the basis for countless "three strikes" laws around the country. You break the law three times and there's a mandatory sentence and that's the problem. There's no ability for judges to use discretion in determining the severity of the offense.

That would be the same problem NASCAR would face in any attempt to impose increasing sanctions against violations of its rulebook. If every violation was worth equal value -- and not just in the catch-all phrase "actions detrimental to stock car racing" -- it would be easy to hand down successively stricter penalties for each infraction.

But there's the rub: Every violation is not the same. Can you compare what the Hendrick teams did last weekend at Sonoma -- cars that don't pass inspection -- to Kurt Busch's meltdown at Dover? They were both worth a 100-point penalty, but which was the more serious situation?

Is it fair to take into consideration an unrelated incident that happened several years ago and apply it as a "previous infraction?" What if it happened in the Busch or Craftsman Truck Series?

If Dale Earnhardt Jr. uses a curse word in a post-race television interview and gets slapped with a fine, should the same rule apply to drivers who utter one on their two-way radios during the race? It's the same word, used in a different context.

A "three strikes" rule would also place NASCAR in a difficult position of trying to determine intent. In the case of Junior's wing bracket, should NASCAR have to determine if the team mistakenly put the wrong part on the car or did it on purpose with the idea of gaining an advantage?

A lack of consistency has plagued NASCAR's rules decisions over the years, but going to a "three strikes" policy puts the sanctioning body in a no-win situation. Escalating penalties for repeat offenders makes sense -- if there are repeat offenses -- but that's rarely the case here. For once, let NASCAR dole out the penalties based on discretion, not a set formula.