Panther Racing Owner Fined

[DanicaFan]

John Barnes, owner of Panther Racing has been fined $25,000 and placed on probation until December 31st. The reason for this was for posting a comment about Indycar on Twitter. They said the rule it violated was..

Pursuant to Rule 9.3.1.8 of the 2012 IZOD IndyCar Series rulebook: Using improper, profane or disparaging language or gestures in reference to Officials, Members or actions or situations connected in any way with INDYCAR, the IZOD IndyCar Series or any Event.

Here is the twitter comment he made...

"Today is the day to resolve TURBOGATE! I hope @indycar gets their act together. It has been embarrassing. "

I think he is right on and sometimes the truth hurts. Not sure whether they will appeal it yet or not.

[Jag_Warrior]

Weak sauce.

The series has flubbed the turbo issue thus far and yet they want to be immune from (legitimate) criticism.

BTW, if CART had fined every "disparaging" comment by a team owner or participant back in the late 90's, it would have been so flush with cash that it would probably still be in business. $25K a pop? Just off the top of my head, I can think of at least a billion dollars in fines for Penske, Ganassi and Michael Andretti.

[anthonyvop]

Weak sauce.

The series has flubbed the turbo issue thus far and yet they want to be immune from (legitimate) criticism.

BTW, if CART had fined every "disparaging" comment by a team owner or participant back in the late 90's, it would have been so flush with cash that it would probably still be in business.

And where is CART today.

It is about time that Somebody in Indy finally put their foot down for the good of the Sport. I have been calling for this for years.

[BDunnell]

It is about time that Somebody in Indy finally put their foot down for the good of the Sport. I have been calling for this for years.

For people not to be allowed to say what they think?

[heliocastroneves#3]

And where is CART today.

It became ChampCar in 2004 and merged with the IRL in 2008. ;)

[FIAT1]

[quote="anthonyvop"]And where is CART today.

live and well at a present grid including one of the founders.

[anthonyvop]

For people not to be allowed to say what they think?

For what is equivalent to an employee? YEP!

Wanna Bitch? QUIT!

[BDunnell]

YEP! !

An attitude that would not have been out of place in Soviet Russia. As I suspected, your much-vaunted belief in personal freedoms only goes up to a point.



Wanna Bitch? QUIT!

Or offer suggestions in a constructive manner. Employees can have much to offer in that regard. It would be a very arrogant employer who thought that all who work underneath them were devoid of ideas — and a very bad one, too.

[BDunnell]

And a "constructive manner" is going public on Twitter? That'll get you fired in a skinny minute at any employer I know of.

For a start, anthonyvop's definition of 'employee' in relation to this matter, which you seem to accept hook, line and sinker, is surely questionable. Secondly, I was making a general point. Still, if you and anthonyvop wish merely to go along with the bland status quo of the modern corporate world, so be it.

[anthonyvop]

An attitude that would not have been out of place in Soviet Russia. As I suspected, your much-vaunted belief in personal freedoms only goes up to a point.



Or offer suggestions in a constructive manner. Employees can have much to offer in that regard. It would be a very arrogant employer who thought that all who work underneath them were devoid of ideas — and a very bad one, too.

An employer has every right to react when an employee publicly criticizes its employer. The Employer has no obligation, moral or otherwise, to allow insubordination by its employees.
Nobody is stopping an employee from criticizing their employer. Nobody!!!

To compare it to Soviet Russia(As you called it) is ignorant at best and is just another lame attempt to suggest that I don't respect rights when in fact it has been exposed of many threads on this message boards that it is I who believes in the rights of the individual over the rights of the state. Just as you have demonstrated that you favor the state over the individual.

[Jag_Warrior]

And a "constructive manner" is going public on Twitter? That'll get you fired in a skinny minute at any employer I know of.

Yes, it will. But John Barnes is not an employee of the Indy Car Series. Were John Barnes an actual employee of the Indy Car Series, any act of willful misconduct by him could also result in a lawsuit against ICS/IMS. Let's say he's accused of discriminating against females (says he won't hire women as pit crew members). Female potential employees could sue Barnes, but not ICS, unless there was some evidence that the series had the same discriminatory policy. My understanding has always been that the team owners (except for when they held equity interests in CART) were independent contractors, not employees.

I understand that the series (any series) must have rules in place to prohibit (truly) disparaging comments. But IMO, this was a stretch... and an overreaction.

[anthonyvop]

Yes, it will. But John Barnes is not an employee of the Indy Car Series. Were John Barnes an actual employee of the Indy Car Series, any act of willful misconduct by him could also result in a lawsuit against ICS/IMS. Let's say he's accused of discriminating against females (says he won't hire women as pit crew members). Female potential employees could sue Barnes, but not ICS, unless there was some evidence that the series had the same discriminatory policy. My understanding has always been that the team owners (except for when they held equity interests in CART) were independent contractors, not employees.

I understand that the series (any series) must have rules in place to prohibit (truly) disparaging comments. But IMO, this was a stretch... and an overreaction.

While not an actual employee of IndyCar you can be damn sure that the entry forms for the series include a code of conduct similar to a employee contract. By entering into the series he acknowledged that he would abide by this code or face sanctioning.

[harvick#1]

this happens with every sport.

no matter how bad a referee officiates a game, if a coach or anyone else calls them out in the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NCAA, MLS, etc... they will be fined as well. the coach has a point, but the leagues have to protect their people, no matter how wrong they are.

[Marbles]

The employee\employer argument is garbage. The company I work for doesn't exist for me or because of me. Indycar exist because of people like Barnes -- Barnes doesn't exist because of Indycar. Code of conduct aside, as for what was said and the punishment well, it smacks of Indycar being a bit too senstive... and yes -- the truth hurts! Allowing two forms of Turbo would surely result in this. Honda's approach should give them the advantage on ovals and ultimately Indy. If this was the only way to get these two manufacturers to come to Indycar then I understand. Otherwise, I don't.

Bunch of circus clowns...

[Lousada]

The Indycar innercircle is maybe 50 people or so. I think Panther racing is even based in Indianapolis. These guys see eachother every week and probably around town too. If Randy had a beef with John Bernard, couldn't he just hop around the block to the Panthershop and talk it out like grownups?
The comparison with NFL and the likes is moot because in the NFL there are thousands of players, coaches, team owners and staff, based all over the country. Indycar on the other hand is maybe a core of 50 people that have known eachother for 15 years and often much longer. With that kind of personal connection, giving a big fine for one tweet is harsh and to me rather offensive.

[Jag_Warrior]

While not an actual employee of IndyCar you can be damn sure that the entry forms for the series include a code of conduct similar to a employee contract. By entering into the series he acknowledged that he would abide by this code or face sanctioning.

Yes, I understand that. But if the code of conduct is anything like the ontrack rules in the series, it's safe to say there is a LOT of latitude. So again, IMO, for a series that is just now beginning to turn a new page, this was an overreaction to rather mild criticism. They really do have bigger fish to fry... like that joke of a series website, no mobile apps, enhancing sponsor exposure value, improving the TV ratings, etc. The series should start focusing more on the major items and not get tangled up worrying about minor things.

[anthonyvop]

Yes, I understand that. But if the code of conduct is anything like the ontrack rules in the series, it's safe to say there is a LOT of latitude. So again, IMO, for a series that is just now beginning to turn a new page, this was an overreaction to rather mild criticism. They really do have bigger fish to fry... like that joke of a series website, no mobile apps, enhancing sponsor exposure value, improving the TV ratings, etc. The series should start focusing more on the major items and not get tangled up worrying about minor things.

While I agree with you in what IndyCar needs....allowing "players" to openly criticize the series will not help with improving TV ratings nor enhance sponsorship value. What it does do is justify the beliefs of a small but noisy group of hardcore fans who agree with the criticism (These are already locked in and need not be placated) at the same time turning off potential sponsors and fans.

[Jag_Warrior]

While I agree with you in what IndyCar needs....allowing "players" to openly criticize the series will not help with improving TV ratings nor enhance sponsorship value. What it does do is justify the beliefs of a small but noisy group of hardcore fans who agree with the criticism (These are already locked in and need not be placated) at the same time turning off potential sponsors and fans.

No, the criticism didn't help with improving ratings or sponsor value. But what did the news of this fine and probation do? It gave legs to a story that would have otherwise died as soon as other Twitter posts covered it over. Indy Car's handling of the turbo dispute (as well as the whole Lotus affair) is what has rankled people - not Barnes' Twitter post. That the series needed to make a point with Barnes is fine. I'm just saying that their execution was pretty poor. Large (successful) organizations typically don't spend any amount of time addressing small, individual criticisms - and if they do, they typically don't do it publicly. This was not exactly like Goldman Sachs and "Muppetgate".

Considering the continued state of things in AOWR (though somewhat improved at the margin), it would be better (IMO) for ICS to promote ideas that encourage more competitors to join the series, more sponsors to support the series and more fans to watch the series.

[anthonyvop]

No, the criticism didn't help with improving ratings or sponsor value. But what did the news of this fine and probation do? .

It showed the sponsors that the series is finally getting control of the business and that insubordination will be brought under control. A plus

[Jag_Warrior]

Well, now that they've killed this fly with a sledgehammer, maybe they'll get around to fixing the website (something that should have been done before the season started) and getting on to truly important things. I've just not heard that team owner insubordination was a real concern for prospective or current sponsors. But I don't know. I would think that ratings, or lack thereof, mean more to them.

[Jag_Warrior]

They probably could have hired a couple of high school kids and gotten a reasonably respectable website up over the winter AND on the cheap.

I *think* it was for Long Beach back in the mid-late 90's, but do you remember when CART or its TV partner did a nice intro piece for a race? It had a kind of avant garde feel to it. Wasn't that done by some film school students? Sure, it might cost a bundle to get SoftPauer to do a live timing & scoring app or for Remy Sharp to design a site for them. But as you say, even a reasonably competent high school computer science student could have built them a basic site that would have served the purpose. The web is no longer new. This isn't or shouldn't be hard. But hard or not, it's necessary!

I want to see the sport grow. As one who cheered heavily against the IRL, I now want to see this series grow and be successful. So just as I was critical of the stupid things that CART did (and I was a HUGE fan of CART), it's frustrating when I sense that the ICS is devoting any amount of time to silly, meaningless things and not (yet) fixing the things that actually do matter.

Just my 2c's...

[DBell]

Well, now that they've killed this fly with a sledgehammer, maybe they'll get around to fixing the website (something that should have been done before the season started) and getting on to truly important things. I've just not heard that team owner insubordination was a real concern for prospective or current sponsors. But I don't know. I would think that ratings, or lack thereof, mean more to them.


Spot on Jag. For all the talk about momentum the series has, it hasn't translated into anything meaningful for the TV ratings. They are as stagnant and miserable as ever. Nothing will ever really change if they can't get on top of this.

[anthonyvop]

I've just not heard that team owner insubordination was a real concern for prospective or current sponsors. But I don't know. I would think that ratings, or lack thereof, mean more to them.

I personally know of one sponsor who has backed away because of the ICS lack of control of what the owners and drivers say.

[BDunnell]

I personally know of one sponsor who has backed away because of the ICS lack of control of what the owners and drivers say.

What was it, specifically, that caused such concern?

[Jag_Warrior]

I personally know of one sponsor who has backed away because of the ICS lack of control of what the owners and drivers say.

Possibly so. But my guess is, they could easily make up for that lone lost sponsor if they were capable of delivering sufficient sponsor exposure value. But it's been several years since I worked for a company that sponsored cars in an American formula car series. And the reason that last company left was because of declining viewership and ROI/sponsor value... not because someone said something mean about some other competitor or the series. If that was really a concern among sponsors, half the drivers/teams in NASCAR wouldn't have sponsors. And my former company (along with many others) did end up going to NASCAR. So there's that...

Many moons ago, I got a chance to attend a sponsor conference down in Charlotte. I had nothing to contribute. I think my company sent me just to get me to shut up about racing participation. But anyway, I learned quite a bit. And I have to say, not once did anyone mention anything about "owner insubordination" being an issue. The behavior of drivers, especially off-track, was listed as a sponsorship risk... but nothing about insubordination.

And BTW...

IndyCar tabs retired Indiana Supreme Court justice to hear Chevrolet appeal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/indycar-tabs-retired-indiana-supreme-court-justice-to-hear-chevrolet-appeal/2012/05/03/gIQA77fKzT_story.html)

Wonder if Indy Car will now try to fine GM and put them on probation? Wonder how that would turn out? Hey, I'm just saying if they want to imitate CART, for goodness sake, at least imitate the things that CART did right... not the things that contributed to the downfall.