"Add Michael Waltrip's crew chief and competition director to Daytona's list of cheaters. Each were suspended indefinitely Wednesday for using an illegal substance in Waltrip's engine during 500 qualifying."
--ESPN front page, emphases added
Wait, let me guess: It was steroids, wasn't it?!?
Call me an anarchist but the more infractions your "sport" feels the need to define, and the more precisely they have to be defined, the less legitimacy your pursuit has.
Obviously some basic ground rules are necessary to define the objectives of your sport (the car goes around the track 200 times, no fewer, and it never cuts across diagonally...), and some things might as well be codified to resolve ambiguity and prevent unsportsmanlike conduct.
(For example, I have no problem with NASCAR prohibiting the use of Molotov cocktails or IEDs, though I'd be surprised if they have a rule specifically devoted to same.)
But my goodness gracious... they have to regulate the gasoline?! That's insane. (Yes, I also think corked bats should be legal, as should hockey sticks where the blade dares to be longer or curvier than spec.)
ON SECOND THOUGHT: I'm opposed to the use of aluminum bats because they're a threat to life and health. So you could argue that fuel that makes cars go too fast is also unhealthy. Blah. I suppose a weaker form of my original premise is that the more complexity is involved in defining the restriction, the more the restriction makes the pursuit itself bogus. So, bats: Wood fine. Superballs bad. Aluminum is OK for boys but not for me. Fuel... ?
Posted by Matt Bruce at February 14, 2007 06:15 PMWhen I was very young, I couldn't understand the point of auto racing because I assumed that the fastest car would always win and thus there would be no suspense.
Posted by: WestBerkeleyFlats at February 14, 2007 09:28 PM