That appears to be me, if that helps any...

running onto a hot track.... "hey! watch this!"

The pot is a non-issue that some Buford T. Justice wannabe NASCAR fan latched onto to further bury this one in Stewart's favor. No way in hell was an ambitious, promising young driver going to be stupid enough to get high and climb in a race car. No way. Smoking away from racing, in the rest of his life, sure - but I can't believe at the track.

Some folks would sure like to believe the old Reefer Madness schtick and assign all manner of wild and crazy poor judgement to "drug" use, and these upstate rednecks are simply playing to that. Totally unnecessary - Stewart was as innocent as the day is long even without this "factor" - which really isn't.

Shane Hmiel, Kevin Grubb, Jeremy Mayfield - all three promising stock car drivers who's careers were ended because of failed drug tests and accusations that they drove high.

None of us know the back story of some unknown that got killed up in New York and is suddenly famous because of the circumstances, but I'm pretty sure that in the history of motorsports, more than one hotshot has gotten behind the wheel of a race car or race bike high.

Unser, JR had some alky issues. A nip here and there..... When its bad, alcoholics can and do carry on a day of work as usual.

Look at all the truck drivers of years back. One truck driver killed a friend of my family after blowing a red light. Statement from truck driver admitted just leaving a bar and having dinner. Family members recall smelling the booze on this guy! But the cops didn't even bother to test him! The killed individual however WAS had blood tested for drugs / alcohol... found clean. The damn police had more compassion for the working man azzhole killer truck driver. That's how it was in the days.

Marijuana in the kid's system??? Talk about a gift from God! Tony had better be in church this Sunday down on his knees thanking the Big Man Upstairs.

That's very naive.

Just stop

It was quiet evident of his intentions, especially with his past reputation of being a hot head. You see drivers get out of their cars on national TV (NASCAR Events), and throw helmets and other stuff at cars. I didn't expect NASCAR to be on the level of NFL with what happens off the screen.

Tony may well be a hothead but that argument falls on its face because Tony had zero reason to be pissed at the kid.

And, NASCAR had nothing to do with this race. Was a small town dirt track event.

That's not the point I was making. kids watch nascar drivers throw helmets at other cars from the side of the track on national TV, as if it's okay. If the professionals do it argument. As I can see the rational behind the kid getting out of his "car".

Did he have zero reason to hit him?

Did Stewart have zero reason to hit the kid?

I would say yes, he had zero reason to hit the kid... but what are you trying to say... that you believe Stewart hit him on purpose?

If so, how do you support that belief?

And what would be his reason for trying to hit him?

I could be talking to either Weeby... or a bot, but regardless, your use of the word "appears" is very telling...

The person filming is in the stands on the front straight... when they zoom in on the back straight, it's easy to forget that the action over there is 100 yards away or more.

The throttle blip you hear is from one of the cars nearest the camera or phone he is recording with... not from any of the cars on the back straight.

The camera doesn't zoom in on sound... only on image.

The sound of the blip is loud because it's close to the guy holding the camera... just like his voice.

Well, 12 of the 23 Grand jurors could not be convinced that a crime was committed so that puts criminal charges to rest. Barring a video of Stewart admitting he was trying to hit him the criminal case is over.

As the civil liability with it's lower burden of proof is a different matter. NY is a pure comparative fault state whereby any damage award is reduced by the percentage the kid was determined to be at fault. Add to that assumption of risk defense could result in a total bar to recovery from TS.

Legally speaking I think the track owners could be held more liable than TS (poor lighting, insufficient release, alcohol/drug testing, lack of rules about leaving car, safety crew, etc). But they have same defenses as above.

On the subject of TS hitting accelerator I'm not sure about that. But watching the video coupled with the fact I've driven a variety of dirt track cars including a sprinter, my impression on my first viewing video was that TS turn to left to avoid kid and then instinctively corrected back right. The way a LTO dirt car behaves is extremely twitchy with stagger, roll out, wedge, and weight bias. Just my amateur experience. They are particularly evil when trying to turn right.

Most people would be surprised by the number of people who smoke pot before a race. Probably not so much now but quite a lot many years ago and many names you'd know and perhaps even a world champion or two.

That is not correct...

JR

I guess the testimony of the EYEWITNESSES (you know, the people that were actually there and seen it, heard it smelt it, etc... live, up close and personal, from feet away and not from behind a computer moniter or tv thousands of miles away looking at some half assed cell phone video), had nothing to do with the outcome of the case. :rolleyes:

And yes, post-mortem toxicology reports will show the level of drugs in the system.

I have no doubt that James Hunt did this more than a few times. Still, he never got out of his car and stood in front of the guy who hit him, that I know of.

reading my mind ;)