DARLINGTON, S.C. — Matt Kenseth was in Canada when J.D. Gibbs sent him the results of their appeal to NASCAR to reduce sweeping penalties against Joe Gibbs Racing.
“J.D. kept texting me and the texts just kept getting longer and longer,” Kenseth said Friday. “I’m like, ‘Wait a minute. They did what? They gave us that back?’”
They sure did.
Aside from crew chief Jason Ratcliff’s absence Friday at Darlington Raceway, it was almost like nothing ever happened after a three-member appeal panel dramatically reduced the penalties for having an illegal part in Kenseth’s race-winning engine at Kansas.
Among the key changes: Ratcliff’s suspension was reduced from six races to one, Kenseth lost only 12 points instead of 50, a six-race suspension against team owner Joe Gibbs was wiped out and Kenseth had his three bonus points from the Kansas victory restored.
The decision came a day after NASCAR chief appellate officer John Middlebrook reduced the suspensions of seven key Penske Racing employees from six points races to two, plus next week’s All-Star race. Middlebrook upheld the rest of the sanctions against Penske, but the team still viewed his decision as a victory.
NASCAR President Mike Helton on Friday was not discouraged with the two-prong appeals process, despite the mixed decisions that seemingly undermined NASCAR’s authority.
“We are content with our appeal process. It’s designed to be independent, it’s designed to have layers to it, and the personalities involved are those we chose to be involved in it,” Helton said outside the NASCAR hauler. “I think the members that are involved in the sport understand our responsibility and how serious we take it, and I don’t feel like this in any way undermines what we do and in most cases the process doesn’t come back with anything that really changes our mind much. We do our job and the due process exists.”
Helton admitted NASCAR doesn’t know the reasoning behind either decision issued this week.
Middlebrook issued a two-sentence statement through NASCAR that shed no light on how he came to the conclusion he did in the Penske case. The three members who heard the Gibbs appeal said nothing after their decision.
Understanding why a decision was made helps NASCAR change the language of its rules to avoid penalties being overturned in the future.
“I don’t know that we know exactly what the appeal members were thinking,” Helton said. “But from the experience, if there’s a way for us to be more precise and changing wording or adding wording to a rule, so that the clarity of what we feel like our responsibility is translated to the member and is obvious to anybody from the outside looking at it.”