Stock Car Commission Monitors Scales Of Justice

The National Stock Car Racing Commission just completed a busy week with a high-profile ruling on an appeal of NASCAR penalties by Robby Gordon Motorsports.
When the Commission overturned most of the penalties assessed Gordon from Daytona, it was its fifth ruling of the week — all stemming from Speedweeks at Daytona Int’l Speedway. But Gordon’s appeal made headlines because of the unique set of circumstances surrounding the penalties and because Gordon publicly feared the 100 owner and championship points penalized him would be the death-knell for his one-car Sprint Cup operation.
The Commission remains mostly behind the scenes in NASCAR, doling out rulings as appeals are filed, the 32 members remaining mostly anonymous to NASCAR fandom.
So, what is the Commission, and what does it do?
“The purpose of the commission is really to resolve disputes within the sport and to offer an avenue for NASCAR members who feel that a penalty assessed against them was either wrong or perhaps a little heavy,” said George Silbermann, who has been chairman of the Commission since 1999.
Gordon’s case was a milestone for Silbermann — the 100th appeal heard since he took the chairmanship.
Actually, the Commission is the first of two avenues of appeal afforded to NASCAR members. If an appellant is unsatisfied with the ruling of the Commission, he or she may appeal to the National Stock Car Racing Commissioner, Charles Strang, who has final, unequivocal say.
“We actually have two levels of appeal whereas most professional sports only have one,” Silbermann said.
That second avenue is rarely used. Silbermann said only eight of the 101 appeals he has heard as commissioner have gone on to Strang, who overturned only one of those.
The Commission is in place to hear appeals from all NASCAR members — from the weekly NASCAR racer to the biggest star in Sprint Cup.
Regardless of who is making the appeal, Silbermann said the forum is the same. Upon receiving the appropriate paperwork and a non-refundable $200 appeal fee, he gathers two other commissioners and sets a hearing date. Appellants must file within 10 days of receiving notice of their penalties. Three commissioners — two along with Silbermann — hear the appeal. The complete group never convenes.
Once there, both sides are afforded the opportunity to present evidence, call witnesses and tell their respective sides of the story.
“What I’ve tried to do is standardize it, so that literally the process is the same in every appeal,” Silbermann said. “Each appeal is different, but the process is the same whether you’re a weekly racer, a modified series driver or a Cup driver or owner.”
While Silbermann’s background is in motorsports — he is the former president of IMSA and has worked with NASCAR since leaving that post in the 1970s — not law, the appeals process follows some basic rules of the courtroom.
“This is not a trial, it’s not an open forum, it’s not cross-examination,” said Silbermann. “It’s an opportunity for both parties to tell their story and be prepared to answer questions from the commission. Within reason, I allow a lot of latitude so that both sides can properly tell their story.”
Most of the appeals take place in the greater Charlotte, N.C., area to make it convenient for the majority of NASCAR teams, but commissioners will travel beyond that region in order to hear appeals in a timely manner.
Silbermann said the Commission hears an average of about 20 appeals per year, meaning it has already heard roughly a third of that number through four races this season.
Weekly racers involved in disputes usually appeal first to their track promoters, but if they are unsatisfied, the Commission will hear their appeal — literally.
Silbermann said he offers to set up a hearing in person or the appellant can opt for a conference call with commissioners if he or she is unable to travel. With the advent of technology, Silbermann said video conferencing could be a possibility for the future.
The Commission has been criticized as a rubber stamp for NASCAR’s rules makers, but Silbermann defends his record, recalling a meeting with former NASCAR czar Bill France, Jr., shortly after taking over the chair.
“The first thing I did was sit down with Bill, Jr. to see what I’d gotten myself into, and he told me point blank, ‘Don’t ever come back from an appeal hearing and tell me you did what the competition guys want to hear. You come back and tell me you did the right thing for the sport.’ I’ve never really quite forgotten that,” he said.
Of the 101 appeals heard under Silbermann’s watch, 69 have been upheld, 22 have seen penalties reduced, eight have been completely or mostly overturned — as in Gordon’s case — and two have been increased.
Silbermann has heard the criticism before — much of it has come from some of NASCAR’s biggest players, such as team-owner Jack Roush — but he defends the commissioners as those who have the sport’s best interests at heart.
“These are people who are above reproach,” Silbermann said. “They’re either people who have been in the sport for a very long time, and in some cases they’re retired, but even the active ones have been in the sport for a very long time. It’s a mixture of race-track promoters, industry people, former drivers, former team owners and people from other forms of motorsports as well.”
Among those currently sitting on the commission are legendary team owner and builder Bud Moore, former Indy-car racer Lyn St. James, Lowe’s Motor Speedway President H.A. “Humpy” Wheeler and a cast of former drivers, promoters and industry leaders.
When considering an appeal of penalties levied against Carl Edwards for a missing oil-reservoir cover after his win at Las Vegas Motor Speedway, Roush said he has been frustrated by the Commission on several occasions and doesn’t believe an appeal for the No. 99 would be any different.
“I’m not a fan of the commission. I prefer to have my issues adjudicated by a court of my peers as we do in our broader society,” Roush said. “It’s not a happy thing whenever we have to go to a NASCAR court and sit down and talk about things gone wrong. In 22 years of being involved with this thing, I’ve never gotten any relief and we’ve appealed several times.
“One of the times I carried my polygraph things in there and it was ruled out of order because it was considered not to be evidentiary. I don’t look forward to doing that. We might feel that we have to do it in order to preserve our position in the court of public opinion. We may be pushed by a sponsor to do it, but Jack has no heart in going before that commission to have questions answered that have already been asked and answered. I think enlightenment is not one of the tools that would be useful for them. I think, for the most part, they’re predisposed for one reason or the other and it’s a rubber-stamp thing.”
But in a blog written in 2005 for Foxsports.com, former crew chief turned TV analyst Jeff Hammond said he has more faith in the fairness of the Commission than ever before.
“The Commission has come a long way since its inception, and if I was still a crew chief and had to go in front of these people, I would feel the best I have ever felt about the members of the Commission and the job they had to do,” Hammond wrote. “More than ever before, they have a better understanding of their responsibility to listen objectively and weigh the good and the bad.”