If it's not one thing, it's something else when it comes to a contingent of IndyCar fans finding a way to try to discredit four-time and three-time reigning series champion Alex Palou.
Three times in the past month and a half, there have been what effectively amount to made-up controversies involving the driver of the No. 10 Honda, with the third and most recent unfolding during Sunday night's race at World Wide Technology Raceway at Gateway, a race he only finished 17th anyway.
First, it was the push-to-pass nothingburger, when Palou was one of 12 drivers who used the button during a Long Beach restart when it was supposed to be disabled.
Based on the direct wording of the IndyCar rulebook, none of those 12 drivers committed an infraction, and none of those 12 drivers were penalized.
End of story, for some.
Yet just one of those 12 drivers was criticized for it throughout the entire week leading up to the series' next race at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway road course, while the other 11 somehow got a free pass.
The media, as usual, perpetuated the drama, and conveniently ignored the fact that runner-up Felix Rosenqvist, whom Palou had to defend on that restart, actually used the button more than Palou did during that restart. In other words, had Palou not used it, he could have lost the race due to somebody else committing the very "infraction" that fans wanted him crucified for.
The fact that IndyCar changed the rule after the fact to prevent what happened from happening again served two purposes. One, it proved they obviously didn't like what happened. But two, it proved that the rule needed to change to make what happened illegal moving forward.
In other words, it was within the rules at the time.
We don't fault Rosenqvist, either. This was apples to oranges compared to Team Penske's 2024 infractions. In this case, the series made a mistake, and they adjusted the rules accordingly afterward to prevent it from happening again. In 2024, one team retained access, and took advantage, while everybody else did not, and IndyCar dropped the hammer. The rulebook was not adjusted.
Then there was the Indy 500, when Palou was docked five points for a front wing infraction discovered in post-race inspection, rather than entirely disqualified from his seventh place finishing position.
Yes, IndyCar has disqualified drivers in the past, including from the Indy 500. But they've also merely issued points deductions in many cases, and the reason for this points deduction, rather than a full disqualification, was the fact that the infraction was determined to have resulted from an assembly error, rather than an illegal modification by the No. 10 team.
Anybody who actually read the report could decipher that, although as usual, there were those who elected to read it with a tinfoil hat and assume it was preferential treatment.
Most recently, during Sunday's race at Gateway, Arrow McLaren's Nolan Siegel wrecked himself out while inexplicably driving directly into Palou's No. 10 Honda going into turn one while already running one lap down.
Palou was not leading the race at the time, so Siegel was not trying to stay on the lead lap or get his lap back. Instead of holding his line like Palou did as Palou moved past the No. 6 Chevrolet, he sliced down across the track and drove straight into him.
Not (even close to being) clear.
Palou was not penalized for the move, and while we're not even sure why that needed clarification, it unsurprisingly prompted the usual "favoritism" reactions from the fanbase.
Siegel claims he "left a lot of room", but pretty much every camera angle proves otherwise. The only "room" he left was the room he chose not to take for himself when he decided to slice down the race track into another car. It wasn't even a 50/50 deal or a racing incident; a lead-lap car was never going to yield to a lapped car while ahead of said lapped car.
It was completely on Siegel, who has a history of making mistakes that come down to a general lack of awareness of his surroundings (and being criticized for them).
We'll also remind you that when Palou crashed out at Phoenix Raceway with contact from Juncos Hollinger Racing's Rinus VeeKay, he took the blame for the incident afterward. While the whole "Palou Perfect" narrative can rightfully annoy a certain contingent of the fanbase, the 29-year-old Spaniard knows he too can and does make mistakes.
This was clearly not one of those instances, even for as much as the fanbase wanted it to be.
Is the Alex Palou narrative healthy for IndyCar?
One thing I've learned over the years is that whenever a fan prefaces a statement with something like "I usually root for [driver], but...", it generally means that they've never rooted for that driver, but they want to conveniently pretend they have because they think it somehow makes whatever wild hot take ensues more valid.
It actually makes it more embarrassing, especially since that same line has been on repeat for pretty much the entire 2026 season. Gateway was just the latest totally predictable instance.
We've heard all this nonsense about how Palou doesn't have a strong enough personality to carry the series, or that his dominance is only hurting IndyCar.
First of all, ratings continue to soar, so we're not sure what kind of billboard nonsense we're looking at to determine that the series is "ruined". And second of all, Palou is now at a point where he is giving fans ways to completely (and consistently) manufacture drama without actually doing anything wrong.
Sure, it'd be funny (and extremely surprising) if he actually came out with a Denny Hamlin-like attitude of "10 against the world" or "I beat your favorite driver" one day to really play the part. But it almost seems like the fanbase has created that vibe around him anyway just because he's been at the top for so long. Because none of the "bad guy" narratives are actually stemming from Palou being the bad guy.
It's a little bit ridiculous, but at the end of the day, if the lack of drama and "villain" is hurting IndyCar so much, isn't this exactly what the sport needs more of, in a way?
Add us as a preferred source on Google