Cheating No Longer Funny Opines Long-time Racing Writer Larry Woody

Unlike a recently posted Editorial by a Charlotte Observer writer who knows nothing of NASCAR, this opinion piece comes from the highly regarded Larry Woody who has covered NASCAR for several decades. He says NASCAR could park the driver and stop what was going on if it wanted.

Chad Knaus, crew chief for Jimmie Johnson, is in trouble with the NASCAR inspectors once again. (RacinToday/HHP photo by Tom Copeland)

Woody: Cheatings Not Funny Anymore
Larry Woody | Senior Writer, RacinToday.com

Tuesday, 6 March 2012

I confess that I wouldnt recognize a C-post if Chad Knaus installed one in my breakfast cereal some morning.

Which, based on all the mechanical malfeasances Chad has been charged with during his years in NASCAR, is not out of the realm of possibility.

But whatever a C-post is (an area between the roof and side window of a stock car, I read somewhere), it must be important. Chad was fined $100,000 and suspended for six races for illegally modifying one prior to the Daytona 500.

Driver Jimmie Johnson was docked 25 points, which he easily re-gained last Sunday at Phoenix with a 4th-place finish, with Chad serving at his post (not his C-post) while the penalty is under appeal.

The Daytona bust was Chads fourth since he has been Johnsons crew chief, including the teams five championships seasons. And that doesnt include last seasons incident at Talladega when Chad was over-heard instructing Jimmie to smash his Chevys rear-end into the wall so that it couldnt be examined in post-race inspection. In CSI parlance thats known as destroying the evidence.

They call Jimmie Five Time.

Maybe they should call Chad Four Time.

Apparently Chad is unperturbed by his image as Willie Sutton with a lug wrench. Hes back in trouble, and once again he claims the dog ate his rule book.

Im surprised that nobody seems surprised. The TV guys brushed the whole thing off as no biggie, and even the print media has generally given Chad and Hendrick Motorsports a pass.

Maybe its a matter of conditioning. In the old days of NASCAR the motto was, If youre not cheating youre not trying.

Drivers refused to even call it cheating; they preferred fudging.

I remember how amusing we all thought it was, watching rascally Smokey Yunicks cat-and-mouse games with NASCAR inspectors. And yeah, we tended to pull for the mouse.

But those days are over, lost in the mist and myth of the sports backwoods history like the burning-rubber smoke of a moonshine runner.

Its a new era, and cheatings not funny anymore.

Cheating will eventually do to NASCAR what steroids has done to baseball cast a pall of suspicion over the sport and tarnish the accomplishments of everyone who has the slightest taint.

That includes Jimmie Johnson and his incredible record five consecutive championships.

Did he win them fairly or did he secure his winning edge however slight with the aid of some sort of altered-C-post type of fudging?

That the question can even be posed by a fan of Jimmie which I unabashedly am should send shudders through NASCAR. It ought to embarrass team owner Rick Hendrick so badly that he would order Chad to stop doing it. With Ricks unmatched resources and talent theres no reason to keep sneezing on his opponents back-swing.

Jimmie likewise should put his foot down (hopefully not on an illegally-altered brake pedal). After all, hes the one driving the getaway car and its his legacy that is at risk.

Trust me if Jimmie and Rick had a sit-down with Chad and said No more, there wouldnt be any more. Wed have seen the last Hendrick C-post picked out of NASCARs police lineup.

NASCAR could stop it too if it really wanted to. Instead of spanking a mechanic, park the driver. Too drastic, you say? Well, bear in mind that credibility is like a wedding ring its hard to get back once its flushed down the toilet.

The fact that nobody NASCAR, Rick, Jimmie, Chad, the media seems particularly distressed is, well, distressing.

Larry Woody can be reached at lwoody@racintoday.com
Larry Woody | Senior Writer, RacinToday.com

AlthoughNASCAR crew chiefs are some of the most innovative people around, there are NO cheaters in a Nascar garage...Don't believe that? Just ask 'em! Ask all of them.

Chad is innovator extroidinaire which is the very reason Hendrick has him in that role to start with. Remember Ray Evernham, Chad's former professor...Competitors and journalists are looking at this competitive thing from two entirely different angles...Nascar has had to do the ''unless approved by us'' deal because the car guys are 10000 times smarter than they will ever be, rulesor no darned rules...No matter what any fan or reporter thinks or feels, Chad confiscated 5 champ rings from the head honcho himself and not once was it said here is your ring you cheater....Summation, Chad has out innovated everyone else and that ought to dictate what they need to do.

If one has never had the pleasure of building a car and trying to get it through inspection and into a start spot in a CUP event, I can only say that you will find a completely different mindset and understanding in that garage area than you do in the pressbox, grandstand, or NASCAR trailer. Bottom line, we are speaking about human condition here and I say INNOVATION, you say CHEATER. Breaking a black and white rule is cheating, on the other hand when trying to fill in the grey areas one just might find that the proverbial dog did eat his glasses,(they ate mine on a couple of occasions that I remeber all too well)that would be his call!

Chad is going to do the right thing here, he will pay the requested fine, he will serve his time out and he will come back and continue innovating, you go boy! Makes it interesting and gives us something to kick at.

p.s. Jimmie don't mind the Willie Sutton comparison 'cuz he knows that 'ole Willie dont even have one ring while Jimmie has a handful.So does Rick, so does Chad.

With apologies to the great movie The Shawshank Redemption

Junior Johnson: Perhaps it's time you considered a new profession. What I mean is, you don't seem to be a very good cheater. Maybe you should try something else.

Chad: What the hell you know about it, Capone? What are you in for?

Junior (wry glance to Smokey): Everyone's innocent in here. Don't you know that?

Exactly, TMC, That angle was where I was coming from , kinda, sorta. You read between the lines..

''You can be wrong and not be cheating, but you cannot cheat and not be wrong''. So how do you plead?

''The dog ate my glasses, not guilty of course''.

Shawshank lines areso fitting in this application , wish I had thought of them..I loved that movie!

"But those days are over, lost in the mist and myth of the sports backwoods history like the burning-rubber smoke of a moonshine runner.

Its a new era, and cheatings not funny anymore.

Cheating will eventually do to NASCAR what steroids has done to baseball cast a pall of suspicion over the sport and tarnish the accomplishments of everyone who has the slightest taint."

I take exception to these statements!...and agree totally with William. Who said these days are over...who says they need to be? When innovation i eliminated...then what?

I really wrestle with having a one-size-fits-all new hard-line policy. As we can all agree, the history of the sport was written through innovation and creativity. It not only made for lots of great stories, laughs, memories, and writers' copy, but it also pushed the sport forward competitively. And I'll also acknowledge most of the shenanigans we've all come to laugh about happened before big TV coverage, before the web, before 100,000 fans in the stands, before a boo-coodle of multi-million dollar car owners, before mega-dollar sponsor deals & so on.

So do we now squelch all of that creativity and rules-bending because those new variables are here en masse? Lowe's is likely not particularly happy seeing its logos on TV as b-roll footage of Chad, Jimmie & the 48 are aired. But likely only mildly so. The indictment isn't against them - its against the 48 team. Consumers and fans are smart enough to know that. But if you suspend a team from competition, then the sports marketing folks of those companies WILL blow a gasket. If Matt's and Woodhead's positions were put into practice, the sponsorship agreements would suddenly have car-oriented 'morals clauses' riders bounced between the attorneys of the companies and the teams. Sponsors would likely want a pro-rated refund of support if their emblazoned cars were forced to stay home.

The NFL has penalty calls for holding, roughing the kicker, pass interference, etc. Baseball has a penalty for a balk. Fail to sign your score card following 18? Pay the piper. Hack a Shaq? Put him on the line for 2. Cross-check: sit for 2. Drop the gloves: sit for 5 and maybe take a 10 minute game misconduct. Bottom line: blow the whistle, throw the flag, assess the penalty, and play on. I kind of think that's where racing is with rules about the cars.

Perhaps some want to equate Chad's tweaking to a corked bat, a smaller golf ball, a tomahawk chop with a hockey stick or something similar that's so blatant to the integrity of the game that a player (or a team) has to be tossed. If so, I'll hear your opinion. But I bet it differs than mine.

I'm hardly a fan of any HMS driver. Outside of Tim Richmond, I've never pulled for any driver on Rick's roster. But at a higher level, I think points and dollars are probably about the right type of punishment.

If folks want a zero tolerance policy towards car design, I think we'd be destined for a type of racing series that fans have already rejected: IROC. Have the sanctioning body provide all the cars and crews with the only variable being the drivers and a blind draw for a weekend's ride.

Whew, that's too much to read isn't it?

I think you make a very valid case and summary.

I say amen...I for one agree with all that.

Chad? Cheat? Really?

Then: 2006

Now: 2012 Ohhh yeahhh. Cheating is VERY apparent.

I have a different thought on this subject.

Folks that frown on 'cheating' (read intellectual/mechanical exploration)and are willing to verbalize it in any way, have no idea how to build a car, prepare a car and have no respect to gain from making it go fast, and will never derive any satisfaction from actually accomplishing anthing important where actual skill is required.

I have said this often as i grow older and have the benefit of hindsight. Those folks with brains and money can own cars. Those with brains and talent build cars. Those with skills and courage drive cars. Those with none of the above simply write about it!

I have a favorite quote that I draw from when thisattitude is observed,that was provided by Teddy Roosevelt.

It is not the critic who counts, not the person who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes up short again and again because there is no effort without error and shortcomings; but who actually strives to do the deeds, who knows the great devotion; who spends himself in a worthy cause. Who at the least knows in the end the high achievement of triumph or at worst, if he fails while daring greatly, knows that his place will never be with those timid and cold souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

"Let the crew chiefs play with them, to a point" .... which point?

I did not mean for any of this to seem unkind, only wanted to express the issue from my viewpoint. I see many forms of opinions expressed that I think are 'unusual', but make no comment.

My question regarding which point was asked because it seemed quite open ended. I did not understand what point you thought was the correct 'point'.

I have no issue with you thinking something wasn't nice, but what part did you think was untrue?

In re-reading my post,I would not have been so proud of the no-brain part, but this discussion was just so remindful of the times that i was involved, how outlandish some of the writing was because of the absolute lack of knowledge that some folks assumed that they had about a subject when they wrote about it. There is an emotional ,dedicated and focused approach to those that are actually involved that is rarely noticed by the folks that are not 'deep' into it. My guess is that it is not easily recognized.

To those folks that don't understand that, and I apparantly am unable to communicate it very well, I am just going to move on. If some one is not able tolook up atthe trees, it will be difficult to explain the clouds!

Many articles have been written concerning my involvement in NASCAR, and they ALL were kindly written by knowledgeable sports writersand were appreciated greatly. I am NOT dumping on writers! But, my one burning memory that continues to this day, is that it seems to appear impossible or at least very difficult to write about the technical and competative aspects of competition, particular team sports.

Nothing is written regarding all the hundreds and hundreds of things Chad did back at the shop that were right and led to many races and championships, that were all appreciated by his team members and owners and driver, but when the less than 1/2 of one percent of his efforts that were debated by NASCAR that appears in public, he is subjected to 'knowledgeable' reporting.

The 'summation' at the start of the earlier post is not mine originnaly, but written concerning a football writer, I stand by my OPINION that is is a common occurance in other sports activities as well.

I do however, wish these conversations could be held face to face. I feel certain that I would be able to maintain a pleasant and ongoing conversation puncuated with many smiles and nods of the heads. I do not feel like the person that I seem to be portrayed as on thethis site.I converse daily on metal shaping sites and Model A restoration sites with no such feedback. I will strive harder to just read hereon this siteand not post too often.

Will, please keep on keepin on. Your insite is greatly appreciated by many. Just a few different words and this would have been perfect,just goes to show we areall not perfect. I see peope write about Smokey Yunick, Junior Johnson and many more like they are the greatest of all time and we all know they lived in the "gray area". If the rule book was always black and white and we all played by the rules then we would not need inspectors,police,judges,jurys and so on.We all know why Nascar hired Gary Neson,he was one of best "cheaters" I mean innovators, there was. The thought there had to be,"it takes one to catch one".They write rules and we see just how tight the rules are.It's been that way since the beginning,it's called human nature.we laugh and marvel at some of the stuff the likes of Smokey and ,Juniortried to pull offand someday folks will laugh at how slick Chadhas been too.Is there any certainty that anyone else that has ever been in this sport that we can say 100% has never,ever pushed the gray area? Some do it more than others,some get caught,some don't. If we know what they have done and got caught, can we only imagine what they have done and not got caught. Thanks Will, I think I will add you as another of my racing heros. As for critics, I guess we need those too. They keep the fire burning and and make us realize just how imperfect we really are.

Will, I understand what you saying here and I agree with your assessment...You did not speak out of place or context that I read. The majority here know that you were stating your perspective without malice or intent to anyone..Some people just take it personal for some reason, I do not understand why.

I have on occasion stepped on someomes toes here based solely on stating my own experiences, ideas, and opinions ( they did not like what I said) and reached the conclusion that maybe I was better off just reading than trying to contribute and have cut back for that reason.... But, when I do have something to say that I feel strongly about whomever (and I know who they are) on here that does not agree or like it can just move on down the line as Lionel would say.

Your opinion and experiences are as real as anyone's here, more real than most and are certainly as welcome as anyone else's as far as I am concerned. Please do not give up on the site as most of us understand that maybe, just maybe what you are saying has merit and is relevant.. I for one believe it does and is...

A big ol AMEN to BB and Will. Most but not all reporters were not even born when we started racing. As a long time racer myself and also having grown up in the circus we call Racing I too understand what you guys are talkin about. Dont stop posting W/C I for one remember some of your work and you did it for love long before the big money came in. And BB YOUR STILL AN old far*****

I always remember Ricky Rudd telling me one time in 1983 flying from Greensboro to Spartanburg to interview with Bud Moore that he could tell me exactly how he got such great gas mileage when he drove the DiGard Gatorade car for Gary Nelson. He said, "I could tell you exactly how and where he ran the extra gas lines in my car, but I won't because I might need to drive for him again."

Honor among thieves - no.... just being realistic I guess that everybody stretches it to the limit and above looking for a winning edge.

I think it was Smokey (everything about streaching the rules is dedicated to him anyway) who said something like this, "nothing is illeagle until some one says it is"

The only way to ever police the body on these cars is also the best soulution to the "can't tell what kind of car it is" and that would be to go back to stock sheetmetal. Make them look like what the manufacturer meant for them to look like. Of course you would still have some that might be a little narrower than others (like someones Mercurys once were) or such but with the templetes that could be minimized. We always used the "If it's wrong before the race you fix it or don't race, if it's wrong after the race you don't get paid' method in short track racing and we didn't need protests as we checked the first so many cars anyway.

Many of the things that were called cheating some years ago are standard practices today. Innovation furthers invention and progress. Controled innovation is the key, not stifling it.

I remember watching Janet Gutheries car get turned down because one of the little grill bars in the rear side panels of the Laguna's top was partly missing, her crew had to fashon one out of sheet metal and attach it with silicon.

Woops, got to go, I will try to finish this thought later.

I can't imagine where our "sport" would be today without a laundry list over the years of outstanding writers (I could name tons, but it would take far too much space) who got many of us interested and covered racing BEFORE television and BEFORE most fans could obtain a radio broadcast of an event.

Many of those writers' names such as Bloys Britt now adorn the doors leading into the fancy media centers at today's modern racetracks.

I don't know whether Chris Economaki could change a spark plug, but he could sure write racing.

If it were a requirement for writers to have technical knowledge of race cars, I doubt we'd have had too much NASCAR coverage since that first 1948 NASCAR race. In fact, most fans get bored very quickly when the race writing turns technical rather than focusing on the personalities and competition. All of that tech writing is best left to enthusiast publications, not the general reading audience.

Are there some writers who are/were idiots? Surely. Have you ever met any crew, crew chiefs or car owners who were/are idiots? I surely have. Thank goodness I didn't have to rely on them for my race coverage. Some of them were extremely well known within the sport for avoiding the truth at all costs. You can interpret that as being liars if you like because that is what they were.

I've also been in situations where many, many serious thousands of hard to come by dollars were paid to technical folk who thoroughly screwed up a race car to the point that it missed a very important event. I'm sure I'm not the only person that has happened to.

Can I change spark plugs? Yes.

Could I change points and condenser and set timing? I used to.

Can I advise you on your EFI? No.

Would I recognize cheating if I saw it? Probably not.

Do I know anything about spring rates? No.

Am I technically oriented? No.

Did I get Dale Earnhardt to sign his first personal services contract? Yes.

Was I involved in Richard Childress giving up driving? Yes.

Was I involved in getting the Petty family and Wood family together? Yes.

Have I "discovered" driving talent in the northwest and brought a driver south who won the Daytona 500? Yes.

Have I brokered sponsorships for tracks, drivers and team owners? Yes.

Can I build a race car? No.

Do I know much about the shady areas? No.

Can I write about racing? Many think so.

Have I contributed anything to racing? Well, In 1983 Grand National Scene Newspaper named me as "The Individual Contributing the Most to NASCAR Stock Car Racing." BUT, that was a bunch of writers who made the award, lol!

Personally, I don't think racing would have ever made it to a big stage if we were just dependent on crew chiefs. There was a reason that old Big Bill France Senior used to pay the travel expenses including motel bill for top writers to come cover the Daytona and Talladega races. Bill France, Senior didn't think writers were stupid. He thought they were valuable assets to promote the advancement of NASCAR stock car racing.

It has been my personal experience that most top car owners and crew chiefs after the fact are not shy at all to call cheating cheating. They didn't consider it a gray area. They knew exactly what they were doing and hoped to get away with it.

I'm kinda ready to puke over all this stretching the envelope and gray area talk. If you can get away with it, more power to you. But, call it what it is.

I guess that's why I loved the MEN like Bud Moore and Paul Sawyer so much. They called a spade a spade. No tippy toe crap for them. Real racers.

In fact, my best remembered racing quote of all time (written down of course, by a writer) was one of Bud's quotes as related in the 1972 Brock Yates book, SUNDAY DRIVER.

Bud had returned to NASCAR after winning several SCCA Trans-Am Championships. Brock was interviewing Bud beside the pool at a Michigan motel before a M.I.S. NASCAR race.

Why, asked Mr. Yates, did it cost so much more money to run the NASCAR Grand National circuit than to race in the SCCA Trans-Am Series?

After spitting a stream of tobacco juice down wind and with his tongue hanging out of the corner of his mouth, Bud Moore answered the question Yates had posed. It was a simple three word answer. "CHEATING IS EXPENSIVE!"

Bud didn't say stretching the envelope was expensive or trying to tippy toe around the gray area was expensive. He said CHEATING was expensive.

Did those championship winning car builders call it gray or stretching? Nope. They called it cheating and knew they needed to out cheat their competitors to maintain an advantage.

In one of his books, former driver Sam Posey tells of walking by Bud's crew as they were changing tires after going through SCCAA Trans-Am tech at Kent, Washington in 1970. Sam says he went to roll a tire back to the boys, but it was so heavy he couldn't roll it. Bud had those tires for pre-race tech weigh-in filled with sand.

Parnelli Jones won that September 20, 1970 Kent 200 Trans-Am race for Bud Moore enroute to the 1970 Trans-Am season championship. Posey was third that day behind Jones and second place Mark Donohue in the Roger Penske Camaro.

I asked Bud about the 1970 Kent race 12 years later and what Posey had said. Bud laughed and laughed. He said that wasn't the best cheating they did that day. Bud said they were running an oversized fuel container and that Roger Penske protested after the race.

SCCA officials made Bud drain his tank and they refilled it. According to Bud it was dark. Instead of completely draining the tank, Bud had two crew members "pass water" in the dirt and make a sizable puddle. We'd have never gotten away with it in NASCAR, but the SCCA sporty car officials weren't used to cheating he said.

Flash forward.

My personal opinion is that it takes all sorts to put on a successful racing campaign.

Writers have been an integral part of fueling the growth of stock car racing.

Writers aren't stupid because they can't build a race car. Crew chiefs aren't stupid because they can't write a news release. Takes all types to reach the pinnacle where we'd all like to see stock car racing.

If folks like a multi-time time National Championship car owner/crew chief in NASCAR and SCCA like Bud Moore can call cheating cheating, why can't the rest of us?

I find it very offensive personally to see a post that is so overtly sanctimonious as to say, ""I can build a race car and you can't so your opinion doesn't count."

Again, I think it takes lots of types of talent to "Put on the Show" as Big Bill used to say. It's all important, but let's call cheating what it is and quit making up name for it.

I find it very offensive personally to see a post that is so overtly sanctimonious as to say, ""I can build a race car and you can't so your opinion doesn't count."

That was NOT my intent!

I would ask that folks look at the percentages of effort.

Chad probably did hundreds and perhaps thousands of things right, including a large number of 'questionable' ideas and NO ONE took the time to research and expose those good things that made Jimmy Johnson a winner, but when some one (NASCAR) exposes a questionable issue, eveyone and their brother feels inclined to comment on it.

If i could spell 'sanctimonious' I would use it at this time.

I appreciate your pointing that out to me. I have great respect for both Mr. Johnsons, and you as well.

I have a question.

I just noted that the first sentance of the first post in this thread ("Unlike a recently posted Editorial by a Charlotte Observer writer who knows nothing of NASCAR,") was a direct comment regarding a professional writers lack of knowledge.

I am confused. Are there different rules for different posters?

I still like the word 'sanctimonious'!

My original opening comment at the beginning of the post referred to an Editorial Writer for the Charlotte Observer - Peter St. Onge - whose sports writing had mostly been confined (to my knowledge) to covering SEC College athletics. He had written a very derogatory editorial last week about NASCAR comparing it to the purity of SEC college competition.

I thought Larry Woody having covered hundreds of NASCAR races, as well as SEC, was mush more qualified to offer an opinion on the subject of NASCAR and cheating.

No different rules to my knowledge for posters, but I didn't like the editorial writer using the Observer Editorial page as a forum for a subject he seemed to have little knowledge of.

Then again, I don't make the rules, lol!

Dave, I appreciate your taking the time to respond.

From my perspective we each were only offering OUR opinion of another persons perspective.

I am puzzled about some one writing about some on else's revelation of information. I am not complaining, just puzzled.

The following are just thoughts, not directed in any manner.

I have revealed here before that I am making notes, as I recall themin the event that I take a turn at writing some day, and it is often revealed to me that a writer is expected to do their own research and derive emperical information regarding their contribution.

It just seems contrary to that when some one takes another's information and writes about it, and offers an opinion. I do not say that it is wrong, only that I do not understand it. I am additionaly puzzled as to why no one notices and writes about a huge number of good achievements, but is willing to pounce on a perceived 'problem' issue.

These are just my thoughts concerning this specific area about NASCAR competition and the effort involved. I duly respect your contribution to the sport and recognize that you have a long history of involvement and I would not attempt to write an article about the type of thingsthat you have accomplished because I not at all familiar with them.

Others on this site have skills that I will never have and I applaud them for it.

I was only trying to express my viewpoint that regarding car building, preparation, 'grey area' investigating andthe tactical skills required during the race are almost impossible to describe by those that have actually been involved, and (from my perspective) it seems hard to 'swallow' what is presented some times.

I have tried to explain it to my Dad, Mother, sisters, a few wives, assorted girlfriendsand a few close friends, and they just look at me. I have to this point been unable to select the right words to describe it. Billy B and others here know exactly what I am talking about, and I would venture to say they have difficulty explaining it as well. It is not a learnedskill set.

I guess I would describe it as a skillset with (10) layers, and when I read what others say in attempting to descibe it, only the top 2 or 3 layers are ever referred to.

That's just my opinion. I offer no apologies and have no excuses. That is just how I feel. I do not wish to infer anything negative to anyone.

As far as explaining it to your family, let me say this....

My father before he died became a huge race fan and fan of Ray Hendrick in the modifieds in particular after accompanying me to Southside, South Boston, Old Dominion, Langley Field and Beltsville.

We decided to take my mother one night to Southside Speedway in the mid-60s. When we returned home, my late mother who never cursed said, "I would rather be in hell with a broken back than ever go to another race."

She also never understood me associating with what she called "Those people."

Until her death we agreed to disagree, but with respect for each other.

I think that is where we probably are opinion wise.

How many lashes, Jimbo?!