NASCAR: Perception Is Reality And NASCAR Got Played

NASCAR has many imperfect systems and it would appear that their appeals process is one of them. Did Furniture Row Racing play NASCAR and win when it comes to the recent suspension of Cole Pearn?

Perception is reality. Furniture Row Racing has withdrawn their appeal of crew chief Cole Pearn’s one-week suspension. Did they “game” the system?

First, let’s review:  In Daytona, the No. 78 car of Martin Truex, Jr. was not allowed to take to the track for a qualifying attempt because NASCAR impounded the car due to a roof flap issue. As a result, Truex, Jr. had to start at the rear of his qualifying race, and that was his only penalty. While disappointing, the No. 78 car does hold one of the 36 charters, so making the race was never in doubt. As we all know, Truex, Jr. went on to finish 2nd to Denny Hamlin in the race in the closest 1-2 finish in Daytona 500 history.

Fast forward to Atlanta: NASCAR officials again found Truex, Jr.’s roof flaps, specifically a spring used on them, to not be to their liking. Because roof flaps are a safety device, and safety is one of the areas that will earn you a larger penalty if unapproved modifications are discovered, the team was issued a P3 penalty. Following the Atlanta race weekend and before Las Vegas crew chief Cole Pearn was suspended for one race, the team was fined $50,000 and both Truex, Jr. and team owner were docked 15 driver and owner points, respectively. The team immediately filed an appeal of the suspension:

"Due to the severity of the P3 penalty levied against Furniture Row Racing and its crew chief Cole Pearn today (Wednesday), the No. 78 Sprint Cup team has informed NASCAR it will appeal the decision. The infraction, which was immediately corrected following technical inspection at Atlanta Motor Speedway last week, was safety related and not competition related. We sincerely appreciate that NASCAR has an appeal process so we can review the level of the penalty."

OK, so you have the team acknowledging a violation, but because it was safety-related and not competition-related, that’s the basis on which they’re forming their appeal of the penalties. They don’t deny the use of an unapproved device, but think the penalties are too severe. That’s their right. The benefit to the team is that while Pearn is appealing the penalty, he may (and did) participate in both a test session at Las Vegas as well as all practice, qualifying and race sessions throughout the weekend.

Following Las Vegas, the team on Tuesday, March 8 informed NASCAR that they were withdrawing their appeal, and that Pearn would indeed serve his suspension by not participating in Phoenix.

Is this fair? Did the team appeal solely for the purpose of having their regular crew chief at the all-important test session in Las Vegas as well as to gather data from the new rules package on a 1.5 mile oval, a configuration on which many Cup races are held?  Did they intend all along to withdraw the appeal? It would sure seem so – and it isn’t fair. At the very least, it gives the perception of “gaming” the system.

More racing: NASCAR: The Five Worst Wrecks From The Las Vegas Weekend

What are the necessary remedies, if any?

Should withdrawing an appeal no longer be an option to teams?  Should appeals still be heard, members allowed to participate, and penalties increased if the appeal is subsequently upheld? What do you think? Be sure to comment below or reach out to us via our social media channels. Be sure to check back in with BTF later in the week to see how the race weekend without Pearn impacts the No. 78 team.