Author Topic: Beer is OK but hard liquor isn't?? WTF??? (Read 867 times)

DiabloTX · « **on:** June 27, 2004, 12:06:25 AM »

NASCAR says it will not allow a hard liquor company to be the primary sponsor of Jeff Burton's 99 Ford Taurus. But it's ok for Bud, Miller and Coors to sponsor cars....hmmmmmm. Hypocritical? I am with Richard Petty on this one...alcohol has no business being on the side of a race car.

Just say no to liquor!!

United · « **Reply #1 on:** June 27, 2004, 12:10:30 AM »

Well, you gotta think about it. If they took Beer and Cigarettes out of racing, what would be left for sponsors? Nascar would pretty much go out of business. (Even though i do hate the thought of promoting of cigarettes, especially with the amount of children interested in racing)

DiabloTX · « **Reply #2 on:** June 27, 2004, 12:12:04 AM »

Name me one cig company that is a sponsor for a car in Nextel Cup?

United · « **Reply #3 on:** June 27, 2004, 12:16:42 AM »

Ok, well cigarettes are weeding themselves out. I was referring to the main sponsor, Winston, last year. Now that im thinking about it, it does seem that there are barely any cigarette companies anymore that are sponsoring nascar.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #4 on:** June 27, 2004, 12:23:53 AM »

There are none now. The only one I can even remotely think of is the Hav-A-Tampa dash series which is a minor, minor league of NASCAR.

rpm · « **Reply #5 on:** June 27, 2004, 12:28:44 AM »

NASCAR is trying very hard to shake the "Good ol' Boy" image it had for many years. The loss of Winston as series sponsor opened the door for them to make this happen. They want a "family" environment, but need to keep their core constituency in the process.

I see this action as following that policy. Beer and wine have always been considered "soft" in regards to "family" entertainment. Local laws in dry counties were the prohibiting factor in the past where advertising of spirits was illegal.

I personally don't have a problem with Smirnoff or Crown Royal being a sponsor, but if others do I can see their point. Good call NASCAR.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #6 on:** June 27, 2004, 12:33:48 AM »

Well RPM, to my thinking alcohol is alcohol no matter what the technique is to make it. And it sure doesn't have anything to do with getting behind the wheel and going 180 mph. Hypocrisy is how I see it and how I'm going to call it.

BTW, any predictions for tomorrow at (gasp!!) Sonoma?

JG is on the pole and I think that Rusty is really the only one that can give him a good run considering. But, damn, there's 4 Roush cars in the top 7 on the grid. Ok, this is too tough to call.

rpm · « **Reply #7 on:** June 27, 2004, 12:43:27 AM »

Look for the Blue Deuce to be the car to beat. Martin always looks good on Infinity but I've got doubts about the Roush/Yates engine program.

My Top 5:
Rusty Wallace
Mark Martin
Tony Stewart
Robby Gordon
Kasey Kahne

Darkhorse:
Dale Earnhardt, Jr.
I think Jr. might just sneak his way to a Top 5. He gets no respect on a roadcourse but has been getting some tips from Tony Stewart.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #8 on:** June 27, 2004, 12:56:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
I've got doubts about the Roush/Yates engine program.

Very astute observation. Roush's engines have been suspect for years. I am still kind of in awe of Kenseth winning the Cup behind a Roush engine. And Yates? Man, that guy built bullet-proof engines for years. I think his collaboration with Roush was a bad, seriously bad move.

rpm · « **Reply #9 on:** June 27, 2004, 01:02:56 AM »

Yeah, I think Ford was trying to cut some costs with that. Personally, I would not want another race team within 1000 yards of my engine program.

Lizking · « **Reply #10 on:** June 27, 2004, 01:22:41 AM »

Someone named Gordon will win.

I don't care what they advertise. I was more surprised that they slapped down a Morgan Shepard paint job because of it's religious statement.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #11 on:** June 27, 2004, 01:36:07 AM »

Now that IS interesting...

Beer good.
Hard Liquor and God BAD!!!!

Funny thing is, you drink enough hard liquor you'll be seeing and talking to God through a toilet.

Sandman · « **Reply #12 on:** June 27, 2004, 02:20:45 AM »

Drug/alcohol policies in this country never make any sense, so there's really no reason why NASCAR should be any different.

One day, we'll make this country perfectly suited for children, which will be a wonderful thing until we grow up.

Reschke · « **Reply #13 on:** June 27, 2004, 09:00:20 AM »

Its hard to say who will win today at Sonoma. That track has always had a trick or two up its sleeve and its not so much about the engine as who will make the right moves. Speeds only get up to around 140 or so on that long back straight coming into the hairpin so it leaves alot of room for real driving on the rest of the track.

Hell if you want to try driving it spend under a $100 and get NASCAR Racing 2003 and a steering wheel and pedals setup then hop in a car. Just make sure you change you front end to 0.00 in caster and camber and haul ass.

As for the sponsorship...I am with Diablo on this one. If you are going to deny a company based on alcohol a sponsorship then you might as well go ahead and push Busch (one step down from Cup cars and owner of Budweiser) out of it altogether along with Miller.

Bodhi · « **Reply #14 on:** June 27, 2004, 10:53:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by United
Well, you gotta think about it. If they took Beer and Cigarettes out of racing, what would be left for sponsors? Nascar would pretty much go out of business. (Even though i do hate the thought of promoting of cigarettes, especially with the amount of children interested in racing)

There has been no cigarette company that is a direct car sponsor in nascar for damn near 10 years. As for alocohol sponsors, when's the last time you actually saw the sponsors? Over 90% are either chain stores, products, or pharmaceuticals.

Learn about it before you knock it.