A headstrong behemoth, NASCAR revealed the results Tuesday of its six-month investigation into the death of Dale Earnhardt but failed to provide much satisfaction.
There was no concrete reason cited for Earnhardt's death, although heavy play was given to the seat belt that broke in Earnhardt's car during his accident on the last lap of the Daytona 500 Feb. 18.
In other words, business as usual.
NASCAR computer graphics, pictures and expert explanation ultimately revealed NASCAR's report as a $1-million marketing campaign, an impressive display of spin control that failed to satisfy critics and other experts.
It indicated the broken seat belt, a collision with another car and the angle in which Earnhardt's Chevrolet hit the wall led to his death. But it also diverted any blame from itself, its most popular driver and one of its most successful team owners, Richard Childress.
Understand first that the safety practices of NASCAR were called into question early in the year in an investigation by Tribune Co. motor sports writer Ed Hinton. Other racing organizations shared their safety information. NASCAR, through President Mike Helton, clammed up.
Understand too that the NASCAR community appeared to go on the offensive. One would have had to have been deaf not to hear drivers, owners, team members, Winston Cup officials and even network broadcasters talk about how safe the series was. Every time a microphone appeared, an interview seemed to include at some point, "These cars are safe," or, "This is a safe series."
Then Earnhardt had his 160-mph collision with the wall at Daytona.
And then, NASCAR clamped down. For example, Earnhardt's car was put in storage and it was weeks before law enforcement agencies had a chance to examine it. There was the legal dispute over access to his autopsy photos, which were eventually sealed in Florida and, ironically, prevented NASCAR's investigators from examining them.
There has been an air of suspicion about this from Day 1.
NASCAR seems to be looking out for its best interests, which do not including blaming anyone in particular for Earnhardt's death.
Helton's press conference Tuesday left the impression that NASCAR was trying to save face as best it could, not so subtly telling us it had been right all along.
"We are still not going to react for the sake of reacting," said Helton, which has been his mantra throughout when asked about recently developed safety devices. But how could reaction after six months, and a supposed intensive investigation, qualify as a knee-jerk reaction?
What could NASCAR have done?
It could have mandated that drivers use closed-face helmets for the 2002 season. Earnhardt was wearing an open-face helmet, and a key element in the NASCAR report is that Earnhardt's chin hit the steering wheel, possibly contributing to his death.
It could have mandated the future use of head-and-neck support systems, such as the HANS device. Had Earnhardt been wearing one, it would have absorbed some of the shock to the back of his head when it hit the steering wheel, the side of the car, or both.
Dr. James Raddin, one of NASCAR's lead investigators, said the basilar skull fracture that killed Earnhardt originated with a blow to the back of the head. That contradicted the opinion delivered by Dr. Barry Myers, a court-appointed, independent medical examiner who had access to autopsy photos that Raddin did not. Myers had earlier concluded that the fracture was caused by a violent head whip. The HANS device and similar systems have proven effective in curtailing those types of injuries.
NASCAR could have mandated manufacturer-approved seat-belt mounting locations.
But NASCAR plods along when it comes to rules.
"When you start mandating things without proper testing procedures, you start opening yourself up to liability issues," said Mike Held, former team co-owner in the Winston Cup and CART Champ car series. "NASCAR has a history of requiring the bare minimums as it relates to the rule book. It's really the responsibility of the safety equipment company and the drivers to make their own decisions. And to a certain degree, I agree with that strategy."
As a business strategy, it makes perfect sense. But for a sanctioning body, which has an obligation to look after its stars, it leaves something to be desired.
"As they move down the road, might it be important to have a division of their company allocated toward a safety program? Absolutely," said Held, president of Co-pilott, a Sherman Oaks motorsports marketing company. "If you look at how they've grown over the last 10-15 years, the growth has been phenomenal. Is it time? Yes, it probably is time to implement an in-house safety program."
And so NASCAR announced plans to open a research facility next year in Concover, N.C., to try to make cars and tracks safer. They will also use black-box crash recorders next year, bringing them in line with the IRL and CART.
