Comfortably Lomb said:It's weird how so many people are experts about dirt track racing now.
Come on, you didn't play this game?
http://youtu.be/GVo9Qs8tH0Q?t=39s
Comfortably Lomb said:It's weird how so many people are experts about dirt track racing now.
Comfortably Lomb said:It's weird how so many people are experts about dirt track racing now.
Average Reds said:Presenting those quotes like they are from the same person is extremely disingenuous.
No, he doesn't. I thought the quotes were from the same person too. It's bullshit that you didn't differentiate between the two, because why am I supposed to believe that Becker knows anything about driving these cars?Bone Chips said:
You have to admit, isn't it a little bit ironic that you are reading into my "intent"?
Flunky said:friends and family should STFU
http://uproxx.com/sports/2014/08/kevin-ward-family-tony-stewart-dick/
I mean, I know if my nephew dies tragically, I am going spill garbage on Facebook and organize tasteless group photos.
Yeah yeah yeah, I screwed up. Chill out for cying out loud. It wasn't done to intentionally deceive anyone. I fixed it.MakMan44 said:No, he doesn't. I thought the quotes were from the same person too. It's bullshit that you didn't differentiate between the two, because why am I supposed to believe that Becker knows anything about driving these cars?
Bone Chips said:Yeah yeah yeah, I screwed up. Chill out for cying out loud. It wasn't done to intentionally deceive anyone. I fixed it.
The irony of the "intent" part still stands, for those inclined to see the humorous side of it.
Bosoxen said:
You'll have to forgive people for overlooking any attempts at humor by someone who is actively engaging in a crusade to crucify someone. People are, well, funny that way.
Average Reds said:
I don't think he's looking to crucify Stewart. I just disagree with the way he (and others) are going about the process of drawing conclusions.
This is exactly my thoughts. My first impression when I saw the video is that he was clearly trying to dust him. That was mostly due to the car moving hard to the right. After seeing a better video, that doesn't look to be the case. He is clearly cutting the wheel hard to the right at time of impact. It's been noted in a lot of posts why they do that on a dirt track. It's also pretty established why in that case you would goose the throttle. It seems more than reasonable that he was trying to swing the rear towards the bottom of the track and just didn't have the time. The car moving right was after impact, due to Ward being stuck under the car. I can't imagine the visibility combined with the expectation that there wouldn't actually be someone walking on the track gives more than enough plausibility that this was a tragic accident. The only one who knows for sure is Stewart. Outside of some elected DA wanting to make a name for himself, I can't see any chance charges getting brought. Reasonable doubt should make this impossible to get a conviction.C4CRVT said:I drove my girlfriend's mustang quite a few times in the snow this past winter (up my steep, curvy driveway). RWD 300 HP with "all season tires"
Crackpot theory here perhaps but it seems to me that Stewart may have actually jerked the steering wheel up the track (to the right) and gassed it to get the back end to swing away from Ward. I think that by the time TS saw where Ward was he could have become acutely aware that Ward's momentum was toward his back tire and he was trying to get his rear tire away from him.
Comfortably Lomb said:It's weird how so many people are experts about dirt track racing now.
Not looking to crucify or vilify. Tony Stewart was my favorite Nascar driver. Just rendering my opinion on what I saw in the video, coupled with my knowledge of Tony's history of hot-headed behavior.Bosoxen said:
Maybe he's not trying to crucify him but he is most certainly going out of his way to vilify him. Change the verb in my statement and the point still stands.
Night of the Keyboard said:Here's Stewart's train of thought for the "buzz" scenario which all ocurred in a time period that could be as small as a fraction of a second:
There's somebody in the middle of the track.
He's wearing a helmet so he must be a driver.
It must be the driver of the car I spun out.
He's dissing me and I can't let that happen(even though the race is not televised, there are probably about 100 people in the stands and I don't know him from Adam).
I'm going to buzz the rat bastard.
If his his split-second reaction to seeing a human being in, or near, the path of his car is to buzz him, let's hope that when Stewart is driving to the mall a kid never runs out from behind a car while chasing a ball.
BoredViewer said:This is the man we are talking about. Anything there lead you to believe this is the type of man that wouldn't 'buzz' another driver?
this post needs more love, because it hits the nail right on the head.maufman said:It's an interesting study in the power of first impressions. Aside from a bunch of rumor-mongering on Twitter citing so-called witnesses who must have been at least a quarter mile away, there's no evidence that this was anything but a tragic accident. Which certainly doesn't foreclose the possibility that Stewart wasn't as careful as he ought to have been, but that's a far cry from suggesting he acted out of anger or malice in a way that cost another driver his life. Yet, that initial, rumor-driven narrative continues to enjoy traction far in excess of what the known facts support.
BoredViewer said:Let me direction your attention to the 1:00 mark of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwc8obMmv7o
This is the man we are talking about. Anything there lead you to believe this is the type of man that wouldn't 'buzz' another driver?
The silly logic tree above... is just that. Stewart knew he had just been in a caution inducing crash... he'd surely have an idea where that happened on the track... he's driving under caution now, so he's going to be keeping an even sharper lookout for unusual 'stuff' on the track... yes, I'd consider a pointing, finger wagging man, to fit that qualification. He also knows the type of reaction that someone (himself) might have when he feels wronged.
People make irrational angry split-second decisions all the time. The idea that one can't... c'mon.
* And for a bigger bonus... I didn't even realize... just listen to the commentary from 1:34 on...
You know what? This might shock a few people's in here, but after doing a lot of reading on this today, and after watching the video about 20 more times, I have to concede that my original statements on this were probably a little too severe. It is possible that Stewart accelerated in order to avoid Ward, though I have to say that in the video it doesn't look to me like the kid was ever directly in front of Stewart's path. Another thing to consider is that during a caution these cars are not going 100 mph. They are going 35-40 tops. If you are coasting at that rate of speed, would the fish tail really be that dramatic by not accelerating through the turn? What I do know is this - Stewart's act of accelerating there didn't turn out so well. I don't think he ever intended on hitting the kid, but I do still believe that he intended to buzz him.Fred in Lynn said:Bone Chips - What do you make of J.J. Yaley's assessment of turning a sprint car on a dirt track? It's the reply to Average Reds' post that immediately followed the post by rembrat that included an article with Yaley's assessment of turning sprint cars on dirt. His description contradicts yours, i.e., he claims one must accelerate to turn.
[
Yeah, I noticed that as well today. The 2nd video apparently has not been made available to the public. Additional video angles are going to be key in deciphering Stewart's intent. There did seem to be a lot of rumblings out there today about lower level criminal charges still being possible (manslaughter 2, reckless endangerment, etc). Not sure if this is just pointless speculation or if there is perhaps something in the 2nd video or the investigation.rembrat said:Do you know what "run him over" means in the context of racing? I'm afraid you don't.
In actual news, investigators have acquired a 2nd video of the incident and it's said to be of a different angle.
EDIT: It seems they got the 2nd video on Monday so apologies if this has been posted already.
Comfortably Lomb said:
No one is arguing that there is no chance he didn't intend to "buzz" the dead kid. Or that Stewart is not a hothead. What some people are saying is that there currently appears to be no evidence that he did intend to buzz the kid in this particular instance.
And really, are you suggesting because he once threw a helmet at a car in a situation where it was unlikely there would be any serious physical repercussions, he is the kind of person who would make an insanely reckless decision about someone's life in a split second? Sorry, I can't make that logical leap.
garlan5 said:I dont think TS is at fault or not at fault enough to bare the blunt of blame here. Ward owes at minimum, MINIMUM more than 50% of the blame for putting himself there. So lets say TS, at worst, tried to buzz him because that's the worst I could believe he would be doing. Again worst case scenario here. There no way you'll convince me he hit him on purpose (actually with evidence shown I am not buying he buzzed him). So with that said he still doesn't take more than half the blame. Ward still owns 50% blame at minimum. Probably more. Even if that is the case I dont think TS deserves jail time. And what do the people blaming TS expect him to do. Or what do you expect him to have done from day one.
If I were TS i'm not sure I could drive anymore this season. I think I might hang it up for the season as a PR saving move, possibly a career saving move, or even mental saving move. Just dump the season, reach out to the family away from the press, show them sympathy, and even consider funding funeral costs and whatever I could to show them some respect.
Rovin Romine said:
I find this "he shouldn't have been there" argument interesting.
What if a confused old man or a child had wandered onto the track? Is it OK to buzz them because they might slow you down in some way and need to be taught a lesson? Obviously not. We value human life more than the rules of a sporting event.
Yet somehow the idea that Kevin had agency (that is, made the conscious choice to be there) makes it OK for another party to buzz them? Or makes Kevin "mostly" at fault?
Perhaps we should rename this the "running people down is OK as long as I think they ought to know better" argument.
Rovin Romine said:
I find this "he shouldn't have been there" argument interesting.
What if a confused old man or a child had wandered onto the track? Is it OK to buzz them because they might slow you down in some way and need to be taught a lesson? Obviously not. We value human life more than the rules of a sporting event.
Yet somehow the idea that Kevin had agency (that is, made the conscious choice to be there) makes it OK for another party to buzz them? Or makes Kevin "mostly" at fault?
Perhaps we should rename this the "running people down is OK as long as I think they ought to know better" argument.
Rovin Romine said:
I find this "he shouldn't have been there" argument interesting.
What if a confused old man or a child had wandered onto the track? Is it OK to buzz them because they might slow you down in some way and need to be taught a lesson? Obviously not. We value human life more than the rules of a sporting event.
Yet somehow the idea that Kevin had agency (that is, made the conscious choice to be there) makes it OK for another party to buzz them? Or makes Kevin "mostly" at fault?
Perhaps we should rename this the "running people down is OK as long as I think they ought to know better" argument.
soxfan121 said:
I love you but this is a shitty post.
I realize stupidity is not a crime and that you approach everything as a law problem but this is pretty simple. Being out of your car on an active race track is rock stupid. The cars are moving fast, even under a caution, and being out of your car endangers yourself and the other drivers (who may need to swerve to avoid you, putting other racers in harm's way). Nothing good can come of a guy on an active race track and nothing good did happen.
Presumed or divined motives, Stewart's history of being a hothead, the physics of these cars on this track - entirely irrelevant to establishing that BEING ON THE TRACK WITHOUT A CAR IS DANGEROUS. Intentionally being on the track, without a car to protect you, is stupid. And it absolutely, positively set up this tragedy.
Had Ward stayed in his car, stayed BEHIND another car, been shouting and throwing his helmet at Stewart from behind the wall...and he's alive today.
soxfan121 said:
I love you but this is a shitty post.
I realize stupidity is not a crime and that you approach everything as a law problem but this is pretty simple. Being out of your car on an active race track is rock stupid. The cars are moving fast, even under a caution, and being out of your car endangers yourself and the other drivers (who may need to swerve to avoid you, putting other racers in harm's way). Nothing good can come of a guy on an active race track and nothing good did happen.
Presumed or divined motives, Stewart's history of being a hothead, the physics of these cars on this track - entirely irrelevant to establishing that BEING ON THE TRACK WITHOUT A CAR IS DANGEROUS. Intentionally being on the track, without a car to protect you, is stupid. And it absolutely, positively set up this tragedy.
Had Ward stayed in his car, stayed BEHIND another car, been shouting and throwing his helmet at Stewart from behind the wall...and he's alive today.
I'm not saying its alright if he actually buzzed him. I'm just saying they would share the blame even though neither intended for such a tragedy to occur.Rovin Romine said:
I find this "he shouldn't have been there" argument interesting.
What if a confused old man or a child had wandered onto the track? Is it OK to buzz them because they might slow you down in some way and need to be taught a lesson? Obviously not. We value human life more than the rules of a sporting event.
Yet somehow the idea that Kevin had agency (that is, made the conscious choice to be there) makes it OK for another party to buzz them? Or makes Kevin "mostly" at fault?
Perhaps we should rename this the "running people down is OK as long as I think they ought to know better" argument.
"Tony Stewart has decided not to compete in the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series event this weekend at Michigan International Speedway in Brooklyn.
maufman said:New York is a "pure" comparative negligence state, which means Ward's family can recover damages from Stewart if they can prove he was negligent, even if the jury finds that Ward was more than 50% responsible. And Stewart still has the same incentives as before to reach a quiet, out-of-court settlement with the family.
Maybe the evidence of drug use will decrease the settlement the family ultimately receives, but I still think the family will sue (unless a settlement is reached before a suit is even filed).
drleather2001 said:His family's case just went up in smoke.
Average Reds said:
Based on what we learned yesterday, I think Stewart's willingness to settle before trial is much lower than we all assumed.
There's no doubt Ward's family will sue - they said as much yesterday - but unless they accept a token settlement from Stewart, I will be shocked if they ever recover a cent.
maufman said:
Making this story go away is worth more to Stewart than Ward's family could rationally expect to recover in court. Assuming that Ward's family isn't on a crusade and is willing to settle, I think Stewart's sponsors will talk sense into him at the appropriate time.