Full Throttle

Here we go again, now that the the Kentucky Speedway date for it’s NCTS event is about 6 weeks away up pops stories about the speedways lawsuit. Dismissed lawsuit I should say.

Cynical? I sure am, there’s nothing like sucking a bit of air out of the May stories that are all centered on Humpy and Charlotte. Get while the gettin’s good as they say.

Anyway, the owners of the speedway are back in the news, and to be fair as much as I hate to be, the U.S. appeals court in Cincinnati released a redacted version of Kentucky’s appeal Monday. That gave the powers that be to run to the press giving their version of why they feel wronged by the judge, NASCAR, ISC, the Man in the Moon, Oprah and McDonalds.

Actually I made those last three up, but you get the idea, they are playing the victim card for all its worth.

In the appeal Kentucky Speedway says that NASCAR denied independent tracks Cup races until they agreed to sell to ISC at below market value. The track’s appeal also says that NASCAR threatened to pull races from Las Vegas Motor Speedway because the owners refused to sell to ISC; the owners later sold to ISC-rival Speedway Motorsports.

(Let me see if I have this right, they contend a threat was made, yet if that’s true wouldn’t ISC have double the reason to pull a date after LasVegas was sold to Speedway Motosports? And if evidence of the threat exists why wasn’t proof of it entered into evidence before the lawsuit was dismissed?)

“KYS, as a purchaser of sanctioning, cannot switch to hosting Bengals or Reds games, as suggested in the District Court’s casual analysis…,” Kentucky Speedway’s owners assert in their appeal. “By denying independent tracks such as KYS an opportunity to host a Cup race, it is impossible for a rival sanctioning organization to gain access to a competitive set of tracks in order to gain critical mass.”

(Funny Kentucky has had no problems hosting the ARCA RE/MAX Series at the track.)

NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston denies that NASCAR threatened to pull races from Las Vegas or other independent tracks. “It’s absurd,” Poston said. “It’s completely false.”

Exactly, if they had a wiff of proof of any threats it would have been in evidence not aired in a press release.

Jerry Carroll and the rest of his investment group that own the track are suffering an extreme case of sour grapes over losing the first case or have been sipping far too much Kentucky Bourbon.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, they don’t have a ghost of a chance of winning this anti-trust lawsuit. But don’t believe me, I formed my opinion based on an expert. An expert that represented Francis Ferko and Texas Motor Speedway in his suit against NASCAR and ISC.

If you will recall that suit was settled out of court because it was found somewhere in the dusty past ISC had promised Texas a second date. Something that hasn’t happened in the current case.

Samuel Cherry, Ferko’s lawyer at the time had this to say about Kentucky’s suit two years ago:

At first glance, it seems NASCAR and ISC are operating an illegal monopoly in violation of federal antitrust laws, said Samuel Cherry, an Alabama-based lawyer who represented a plaintiff in a similar suit against NASCAR and ISC from 2002-04.

But, Cherry said, it’s not that easy to prove. His client, Francis Ferko, a Speedway Motorsports Inc. shareholder, sued NASCAR and ISC in 2001 because Texas Motor Speedway, one of SMI’s tracks, had not been awarded a second Cup date that had been promised. The suit alleged antitrust violations, just as Kentucky Speedway’s does.

That suit was settled in 2004 when SMI paid $100.4 million to buy out an ISC track in Rockingham, N.C., and transfer Rockingham’s Cup race to Texas.

That settlement, Cherry said, was pushed by NASCAR’s 1994 promise to award Texas the Cup date, not the antitrust portion of the suit.

“I think Kentucky is going to have a difficult time prevailing,” Cherry said. “We made the same antitrust allegations, but I didn’t feel very good about them.

“We said there should be competitive bidding for races, but your competitive environment has to pass business sense, and that’s where NASCAR has a strong argument, because they’ve been able to maintain a good business model. The competitive dynamics that at first glance appear to be collusive knock you down, but on closer examination, you appreciate the business logic to that approach.”

Cherry said he declined an opportunity to get involved in Kentucky’s case because he doesn’t believe it to be as strong as SMI’s.

Got that, Cherry had reservations about the Texas suit and truth be known the weak case is what led to the out of court settlement vice containing and possibly losing. Cherry and Texas went the bird in hand route rather than losing the whole shebang.

Jerry Carroll doesn’t have that option.

For the sake of argument let’s say Kentucky wins the suit.

One of the demands of the suit - assuming Kentucky wins - is for NASCAR to place up for bid all their race dates. Which raises the question how could tracks like legendary Darlington, or Kentucky itself afford a bidding war with the more well-heeled venues in the sport?

My guess they couldn’t. France, Bruton and a couple others more well-heeled than Jerry Carrol would out bid everyone and Kentucky would still lose out, in addition, and in all probability lose both the NCTS and Nationwide Series’ dates.

Technorati Tags: Kentucky Speedway, Jerry Carrol, Speedway Motorsports, ISC, Texas Motor Speedway