Tony Stewart hits, kills driver in sprint car race

[crashcarson15]

Indeed, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that NASCAR wouldn't be anything close to what it is without its more <ahem> stereotypical fans. In fact, IndyCar... which has even more historical cache than NASCAR outside of the south... shows what happens when a racing series can't sell to potential sponsors a loyal audience of mindless consumers who'll buy up entire Walmarts full of crap with their favorite driver's number on it, just because.

I wish there were a way for me to say that without sounding like a complete dick, but that pretty much is what makes NASCAR appealing to sponsors.

Yeah, Indy and F1 are actually kind of cool. I don't get NASCAR. Why don't we as a nation like open-wheel more?

Tony George.

When you make a move that splits the biggest race in the year from the best drivers in open-wheel, you're going to suffer. Granted, there's some credence to the argument that NASCAR was going to surpass open-wheel anyways in areas outside of the south, but there's no way to know if it would've happened had Tony George and CART officials not been idiots.

I mean, look at a guy like Alex Zanardi. Had he not gotten his legs taken out, he probably would've become one of the best open-wheel drivers, well, ever. But in his 5-6 years in American open-wheel, he never once raced in the premier event. It's like if the Daytona 500 ran with Nationwide Series drivers.

Open-wheel interest was probably declining from that late 80s/early 90s peak anyways but George pushed the nuclear button far, far too early.

EDIT: For the record—and I think I've made it clear—I'm not a NASCAR guy and haven't been for a few years. I just don't find the racing in NASCAR interesting (read: why they throw temper tantrums in the first place) and think that IndyCar straight has the best racing in the world.

[nuordr]

I seen the video about 20 times and I believe Stewart intended to swerve towards the guy and in the process killed him. I don't believe he intentionally meant to kill the young man, but maybe he was trying to scare him. I don't know if my thoughts are correct, but after the guy was hit, you could see Stewart's car veer back to the left. It was almost like he was trying to right his path when it was too late.

BTW, what is up with all the MOD edits in the thread?

[crashcarson15]

BTW, what is up with all the MOD edits in the thread?

In short, a combination of people posting links to and/or posting the video of the incident which doesn't need to be here and insensitive, over-the-line comments.

[wonderbread]

I dont get why it doesn't need to be here when that clip is the whole reason for this thread anyway

[crashcarson15]

I dont get why it doesn't need to be here when that clip is the whole reason for this thread anyway

It's been made clear multiple times in this thread why the clip isn't here.

Let's stop talking about it.

[The_Admiral]

Once again, the battle lines in this thread are pretty predictable, aren't they?

[infrared41]

You know I'm not a "bash the NHL" type. My point was simply that, despite what some of our...ahem...more enlightened members around here might think, NASCAR's audience isn't limited to "hillbillies and rednecks." Believe me, I'd love to see the NHL surpass NASCAR and auto racing in terms of popularity. (Hell, I'd love to see the NHL knock off the NFL.) It just aggravates me when people assume all racing fans are basically toothless rednecks who would do well to be as socially adept as the Beverly Hillbillies.

Indeed, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that NASCAR wouldn't be anything close to what it is without its more <ahem> stereotypical fans. In fact, IndyCar... which has even more historical cache than NASCAR outside of the south... shows what happens when a racing series can't sell to potential sponsors a loyal audience of mindless consumers who'll buy up entire Walmarts full of crap with their favorite driver's number on it, just because.

I wish there were a way for me to say that without sounding like a complete dick, but that pretty much is what makes NASCAR appealing to sponsors.

I wish I could say this without sounding like I'm saying you're totally off-base, but you're totally off-base.

Actually, what makes NASCAR appealing to sponsors is the brand loyalty of the fan base. Take Tide detergent for example. Tide was reluctant to advertise on Darrell Waltrip's car because they felt their product was too expensive for the "stereotypical" NASCAR fan. They also believed that NASCAR fans were predominantly male. In other words, a bunch of male rednecks aren't going to pay premium prices for a "woman's product" like Tide when Weezy-Mae can get a barrel of Yee Haw detergent for .99 cents down to the Wal-Marts. But the sales staff convinced P&G to give NASCAR a go. And they did. The result? With their logo on Waltrip's car, Tide's sales rose something like 43% - and stayed there. P&G did a study and found out that NASCAR fans fully understand that sponsorship is what makes the wheels go 'round as it were so they do their best to help their sport by purchasing products that are NASCAR sponsors. The other thing P&G discovered? The NASCAR audience is over 40% female. Driver merchandise doesn't play much of a role in financing NASCAR the organization. If memory serves, the teams cut their own deals for merchandise. There was an attempt to at least get all the merchandise under the same banner a few years back, but it's still licensed by teams and drivers.

If you want rid yourself of preconceived notions and see how NASCAR actually works, read a book called "200 MPH Billboard." It will really open your eyes.

I find it amusing that someone on a forum dedicated to jerseys and uniforms can talk down to NASCAR fans because they buy NASCAR merchandise. Please tell me you typed that while wearing Packers gear.

[The_Admiral]

Did I miss something or did you just rebut "mindless consumers who'll buy up entire Walmarts full of crap with their favorite driver's number on it, just because" with a longer, more eloquent iteration of "mindless consumers who'll buy up entire Walmarts full of crap with their favorite driver's number on it, just because"?

[infrared41]

Once again, the battle lines in this thread are pretty predictable, aren't they?

Perhaps, but you never grow tired of picking the low fruit so why worry about it?

Did I miss something or did you just rebut "mindless consumers who'll buy up entire Walmarts full of crap with their favorite driver's number on it, just because" with a longer, more eloquent iteration of "mindless consumers who'll buy up entire Walmarts full of crap with their favorite driver's number on it, just because"?

How does "we buy the products on the cars because we understand it supports the sport and keeps it operating" equate to "just because?" NASCAR teams are funded by sponsors. Period. There is no NFL sized TV contract to carry the dead weight. Sponsorship is the most important thing in any type of racing. Period. That aside, why do you buy Blackhawks stuff? If it's a better reason than "just because", I'd love to hear it.

We're all mindless consumers, Lt. Colonel.

[Mac the Knife]

There's no way to prove that it was Stewart's car accelerating!

Sure there is. Expert video analysis. And I suspect that's what's being done now, trying to determine if there should be a criminal charge for vehicular/negligent homicide. I know it will be done, because just as sure as I'm sitting behind a QWERTY keyboard, there's going to be a civil lawsuit brought.

[DelayedPenalty]

Probably the best summary/analysis of the incident to date.

My thoughts: Stewart has earned himself a reputation of being a hothead, take no prisoners, aggressive driver, but the accusations being tossed around that he did it on purpose are absolutely ludicrous! Did he accelerate when he saw Ward in the track? Probably, because that's how sprint cars get most of their turning. The steering racks are really loose, and most of the steering comes from the power to the rear wheels rotating the car. Ward was wearing an all black driver's suit, a black helmet, on a dimly lit track, unexpectedly running in front of a car that has poor visibility on a good day.

How much can you see out of that car?

[dbadefense1990]

Not to be that person, but regarding the posting of the incident video on here, couldn't it be tacked-on as a "spoiler?" For those brave enough to want to see it, it's right there for them to click and play; for those sensitive souls out there, it's not outright displayed in front of their face and hidden behind spoiler tags.

Or did someone already try that?

[dbadefense1990]

There's no way to prove that it was Stewart's car accelerating!

Sure there is. Expert video analysis. And I suspect that's what's being done now, trying to determine if there should be a criminal charge for vehicular/negligent homicide. I know it will be done, because just as sure as I'm sitting behind a QWERTY keyboard, there's going to be a civil lawsuit brought.

Not to mention Stewart's car being confiscated and now being subjected to proning by investigators, to see how fast the car went and if he gave it any gas prior to the incident happening.

[Mac the Knife]

There's no way to prove that it was Stewart's car accelerating!

Sure there is. Expert video analysis. And I suspect that's what's being done now, trying to determine if there should be a criminal charge for vehicular/negligent homicide. I know it will be done, because just as sure as I'm sitting behind a QWERTY keyboard, there's going to be a civil lawsuit brought.

Not to mention Stewart's car being confiscated and now being subjected to proning by investigators, to see how fast the car went and if he gave it any gas prior to the incident happening.

Don't read into confiscation... that's far from uncommon in what is still, after all, a criminal investigation.

I don't have a dog in the fight here, but it's pretty simple and straight-forward: if Stewart accelerated, regardless of his intent, he's guilty of (at minimum) vehicular homicide. They'll never be able to determine his intent provided he didn't blurt out something stupid while he was being questioned, so a manslaughter charge would never result in a conviction. If it went to a criminal trial, odds are a jury would acquit. In a civil case however, particularly given his professional background, he's gonna be toast on a stick if it gets to a jury.

[PSUcelticsWON95]

Probably the best summary/analysis of the incident to date.

My thoughts: Stewart has earned himself a reputation of being a hothead, take no prisoners, aggressive driver, but the accusations being tossed around that he did it on purpose are absolutely ludicrous! Did he accelerate when he saw Ward in the track? Probably, because that's how sprint cars get most of their turning. The steering racks are really loose, and most of the steering comes from the power to the rear wheels rotating the car. Ward was wearing an all black driver's suit, a black helmet, on a dimly lit track, unexpectedly running in front of a car that has poor visibility on a good day.

How much can you see out of that car?

Thank you. I've spoken with people who drive sprint cars and who work on sprint cars. That wing can block out an entire car, let alone a person standing wearing all black in a poorly lit corner. Keep in mind the glare that is produced from the lights while wearing the visor and tear-offs. I have heard from someone who works for the 45 sprint car (the one that was in front of Stewart under caution) and he said that he couldn't even see Ward and barely missed him himself.

[OnWis97]

There's no way to prove that it was Stewart's car accelerating!

Sure there is. Expert video analysis. And I suspect that's what's being done now, trying to determine if there should be a criminal charge for vehicular/negligent homicide. I know it will be done, because just as sure as I'm sitting behind a QWERTY keyboard, there's going to be a civil lawsuit brought.

Not to mention Stewart's car being confiscated and now being subjected to proning by investigators, to see how fast the car went and if he gave it any gas prior to the incident happening.

Don't read into confiscation... that's far from uncommon in what is still, after all, a criminal investigation.

I don't have a dog in the fight here, but it's pretty simple and straight-forward: if Stewart accelerated, regardless of his intent, he's guilty of (at minimum) vehicular homicide. They'll never be able to determine his intent provided he didn't blurt out something stupid while he was being questioned, so a manslaughter charge would never result in a conviction. If it went to a criminal trial, odds are a jury would acquit. In a civil case however, particularly given his professional background, he's gonna be toast on a stick if it gets to a jury.

Do you mean regardless of whether his intent was to "injure", "harm" or "scare"? If so, I agree.

But if you mean that includes some "unrelated" intent (like he was accelerating to get around a curve or something) then I'd disagree. I don't know anything about motor sports so I am not smart enough to know whether he could sell the court that he was accellerating for some unrelated reason, but it strikes me that his intent in accelerating could be hard to prove.

[illwauk]

You know I'm not a "bash the NHL" type. My point was simply that, despite what some of our...ahem...more enlightened members around here might think, NASCAR's audience isn't limited to "hillbillies and rednecks." Believe me, I'd love to see the NHL surpass NASCAR and auto racing in terms of popularity. (Hell, I'd love to see the NHL knock off the NFL.) It just aggravates me when people assume all racing fans are basically toothless rednecks who would do well to be as socially adept as the Beverly Hillbillies.

Indeed, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that NASCAR wouldn't be anything close to what it is without its more <ahem> stereotypical fans. In fact, IndyCar... which has even more historical cache than NASCAR outside of the south... shows what happens when a racing series can't sell to potential sponsors a loyal audience of mindless consumers who'll buy up entire Walmarts full of crap with their favorite driver's number on it, just because.

I wish there were a way for me to say that without sounding like a complete dick, but that pretty much is what makes NASCAR appealing to sponsors.

I wish I could say this without sounding like I'm saying you're totally off-base, but you're totally off-base.

Actually, what makes NASCAR appealing to sponsors is the brand loyalty of the fan base. Take Tide detergent for example. Tide was reluctant to advertise on Darrell Waltrip's car because they felt their product was too expensive for the "stereotypical" NASCAR fan. They also believed that NASCAR fans were predominantly male. In other words, a bunch of male rednecks aren't going to pay premium prices for a "woman's product" like Tide when Weezy-Mae can get a barrel of Yee Haw detergent for .99 cents down to the Wal-Marts. But the sales staff convinced P&G to give NASCAR a go. And they did. The result? With their logo on Waltrip's car, Tide's sales rose something like 43% - and stayed there. P&G did a study and found out that NASCAR fans fully understand that sponsorship is what makes the wheels go 'round as it were so they do their best to help their sport by purchasing products that are NASCAR sponsors. The other thing P&G discovered? The NASCAR audience is over 40% female. Driver merchandise doesn't play much of a role in financing NASCAR the organization. If memory serves, the teams cut their own deals for merchandise. There was an attempt to at least get all the merchandise under the same banner a few years back, but it's still licensed by teams and drivers.

If you want rid yourself of preconceived notions and see how NASCAR actually works, read a book called "200 MPH Billboard." It will really open your eyes.

I find it amusing that someone on a forum dedicated to jerseys and uniforms can talk down to NASCAR fans because they buy NASCAR merchandise. Please tell me you typed that while wearing Packers gear.

You Packers analogy would make more sense if I were drinking Miller Lite, shopping exclusively at Fleet Farm and Shopko, and had an account through Associated Bank without any regard for for those companies reputation or the quality of their product/service simply because they sponsor the gates at Lambeau. I do own a finite amount of Packers merch which I usually only wear on gameday, but I don't go out of my way to get officially licensed Packers bedsheets, shower curtains, toilet paper, underwear, etc. Granted I know there are some fans like that, but they tend to be the same fans who also like NASCAR.

The only thing I can think to accurately compare your point to is MLS. Did a significant number of gamers in the Seattle-Tacoma area ditch their Playstations for X-Boxes when the latter became the Sounders' shirt sponsor?

[TheFallenHaveRisen]

You know I'm not a "bash the NHL" type. My point was simply that, despite what some of our...ahem...more enlightened members around here might think, NASCAR's audience isn't limited to "hillbillies and rednecks." Believe me, I'd love to see the NHL surpass NASCAR and auto racing in terms of popularity. (Hell, I'd love to see the NHL knock off the NFL.) It just aggravates me when people assume all racing fans are basically toothless rednecks who would do well to be as socially adept as the Beverly Hillbillies.

Indeed, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that NASCAR wouldn't be anything close to what it is without its more <ahem> stereotypical fans. In fact, IndyCar... which has even more historical cache than NASCAR outside of the south... shows what happens when a racing series can't sell to potential sponsors a loyal audience of mindless consumers who'll buy up entire Walmarts full of crap with their favorite driver's number on it, just because.

I wish there were a way for me to say that without sounding like a complete dick, but that pretty much is what makes NASCAR appealing to sponsors.

I wish I could say this without sounding like I'm saying you're totally off-base, but you're totally off-base.

Actually, what makes NASCAR appealing to sponsors is the brand loyalty of the fan base. Take Tide detergent for example. Tide was reluctant to advertise on Darrell Waltrip's car because they felt their product was too expensive for the "stereotypical" NASCAR fan. They also believed that NASCAR fans were predominantly male. In other words, a bunch of male rednecks aren't going to pay premium prices for a "woman's product" like Tide when Weezy-Mae can get a barrel of Yee Haw detergent for .99 cents down to the Wal-Marts. But the sales staff convinced P&G to give NASCAR a go. And they did. The result? With their logo on Waltrip's car, Tide's sales rose something like 43% - and stayed there. P&G did a study and found out that NASCAR fans fully understand that sponsorship is what makes the wheels go 'round as it were so they do their best to help their sport by purchasing products that are NASCAR sponsors. The other thing P&G discovered? The NASCAR audience is over 40% female. Driver merchandise doesn't play much of a role in financing NASCAR the organization. If memory serves, the teams cut their own deals for merchandise. There was an attempt to at least get all the merchandise under the same banner a few years back, but it's still licensed by teams and drivers.

If you want rid yourself of preconceived notions and see how NASCAR actually works, read a book called "200 MPH Billboard." It will really open your eyes.

I find it amusing that someone on a forum dedicated to jerseys and uniforms can talk down to NASCAR fans because they buy NASCAR merchandise. Please tell me you typed that while wearing Packers gear.

You Packers analogy would make more sense if I were drinking Miller Lite, shopping exclusively at Fleet Farm and Shopko, and had an account through Associated Bank without any regard for for those companies reputation or the quality of their product/service simply because they sponsor the gates at Lambeau. I do own a finite amount of Packers merch which I usually only wear on gameday, but I don't go out of my way to get officially licensed Packers bedsheets, shower curtains, toilet paper, underwear, etc. Granted I know there are some fans like that, but they tend to be the same fans who also like NASCAR.

The only thing I can think to accurately compare your point to is MLS. Did a significant number of gamers in the Seattle-Tacoma area ditch their Playstations for X-Boxes when the latter became the Sounders' shirt sponsor?

That would involve the MLS being popular

[infrared41]

You Packers analogy would make more sense if I were drinking Miller Lite, shopping exclusively at Fleet Farm and Shopko, and had an account through Associated Bank without any regard for for those companies reputation or the quality of their product/service simply because they sponsor the gates at Lambeau. I do own a finite amount of Packers merch which I usually only wear on gameday, but I don't go out of my way to get officially licensed Packers bedsheets, shower curtains, toilet paper, underwear, etc. Granted I know there are some fans like that, but they tend to be the same fans who also like NASCAR.

The only thing I can think to accurately compare your point to is MLS. Did a significant number of gamers in the Seattle-Tacoma area ditch their Playstations for X-Boxes when the latter became the Sounders' shirt sponsor?

Without sponsorship, NASCAR may as well be you and me racing our cars around a parking lot. NASCAR fans love their sport. They understand that supporting the sponsors of their sport will keep their sport around. Why does that automatically make them idiots? And I'm not talking about buying the entire the Dale Jr. collection at Wal-Mart. I'm talking about choosing Tide over Yee Haw, etc. As I said before, driver merchandise deals are made by the individual teams. NASCAR has nothing to do with that. My point was that, by supporting sponsors, NASCAR fans contribute to the health of their sport. They aren't being duped, they fully understand exactly what they're doing. Frankly, I think that's more honest than you or me trying to convince people that we aren't doing exactly the same thing every time we open a can of Coke or buy a pair of Nike sneakers.

EDIT: There are plenty of examples of NASCAR fans not supporting a sponsor because the quality of the product was subpar. Support isn't "automatic." The sponsor still has to deliver. There are just as many stories about failed sponsorship (like the Army and National Guard) as there are success stories. Again, if you would like to see how it really works, read 200 MPH Billboard. Or I suppose you can continue to believe the stereotypes without any evidence to support your position.

[See Red]

I seen the video about 20 times and I believe Stewart intended to swerve towards the guy and in the process killed him. I don't believe he intentionally meant to kill the young man, but maybe he was trying to scare him. I don't know if my thoughts are correct, but after the guy was hit, you could see Stewart's car veer back to the left. It was almost like he was trying to right his path when it was too late.

BTW, what is up with all the MOD edits in the thread?

The only veering back is directly after impact, when the car, because of the impact, starts to go right and then is corrected.

What reason does he even have to veer towards the guy? There was no contact in the accident -- in fact, there's a reasonable chance that because the accident happened in a position that Stewart wouldn't have even seen the crash happen, Stewart might not have even realized why there was a caution until he was coming back around.