Actions Detrimental with Denny Hamlin - Emergency Podcast Explaining My Case

Episode Date: April 7, 2023

Denny Hamlin departed straight from his appeal hearing to the studio to record a historic, bonus episode of Actions Detrimental. Listeners will get a rare look into how the NASCAR appeals process works, as well as Denny's case to overturn his penalty and what implications the panel's decision may have on drivers going forward. Denny also provides insight into the deliberation that took place and what evidence NASCAR brought to the table.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The following is a production of Dirtymoe Media. Emergency Action is Detrimandal. Hey guys, welcome to a special edition of Actions Detrimental. I'm Denny Hamlin, the guilty party, apparently. Jared Allen, my co-host. Yeah, I don't know. Purple Vest guy. Yeah, who cares?

No, this is certainly an episode I wish I didn't have. I'm going to try to keep it short and sweet, but you know that sometimes I can just keep going. If you all sense that, Jared, just give me the old wink that you've gone far enough. You know, first I thought the appeals process is the first time I went through it. Interesting to say the least. I thought that, you know, both sides get a very fair presentation. You get fair time, equal time.

You know, there's no real time limit to it. You can kind of do, you know, what you want. You present, you know, really it's kind of NASCAR presents. and what's interesting I should kind of lay out the rules is that they cannot bring up anything not pertinent to this case you know that that's one thing so can you set the scene first of what this looks like in there and you've got the three panelists there's just a room around yeah a round table it's kind of a big you conference room and then you've got me and my co-presenter on on the end of the you on one side and NASCAR on the other side. So this is you and a

JGR representative? Yeah, yeah, that's right. Me and Eric Schaefer, the new CCO of Joe Gibbs Racing. He came from the NFL. He helped me prepare this case and whatnot. So it was Brad Moran and Chad Little for the most part. They called in a few witnesses. I called in one as well. But yeah, I thought it was a very a very fair way of doing things for sure they get to present and on the first appeal it's up to it's up to NASCAR to prove guilt and that's going to get interesting as I get talking okay so so entering this room and discussion you are innocent and it is up to NASCAR to prove that you are guilty of that's correct yeah and if you take it to final then you then have the burden of proof you must show.

Right. Okay. So I thought that, you know, I didn't want to talk a whole lot about this case the previous weeks because I knew I was preparing. I didn't want to give them kind of a heads up of what I was preparing. I thought that we, you know, you have to submit a two-page letter 48 hours in advance of kind of a summary of where your position is and they'll give their two-page. summary of where they stand, right?

And that way the panel is to get to see it. And then you also have to submit any exhibits, which would be video or any text or anything like it. Anything you plan on bringing to show, you should, you have to submit that 48 hours in advance, which is interesting. So I submitted it. I thought it was going just to the panel,

but I guess they got to see everything that I submitted all my evidence, all of anything I brought data, whatever it might be. Now, I saw their opening letter. I saw their two-page letter, which was very short, concise, and then I was like, was that it? And then, you know, because we really went expansive with kind of our defense here. And but I don't know if they saw, I'm guessing they saw everything I submitted, but I didn't, and then I asked the appeals panel, you know, were we supposed to see what they were going to,

because they hand us like a lot. little binder of like some pictures and stuff like that. But they are like, no, you can submit later. So that's not here or not there. NASCAR is already seen when you under the room, NASCAR has already seen what you're presenting. Yes, I guess so. You said you had to submit a letter 40. I saw their letter of where they stand. And I saw they saw the letter certainly of where I stand. And I'm guessing they saw everything that we submitted for evidence. But I didn't see them submit any evidence until I got there on that day. Okay.

So you're assuming that they have 48 hours to prepare based on evidence you submit. Yeah. But it's in the rules that they can submit late if you want to. You know, both sides can submit. Got it. Anytime. Now, I'm saying this because this is, this isn't proprietary secret information. This is, this is in the rule book.

Any team can go see what the appeals process looks like. It is actually pretty long. You know, I thought I had, I thought I had panelists that would be favorable, I guess, maybe. You know, you just don't know. You got a driver. Lincent James certainly knows kind of drivers, you know, the code, ethics, things like that. Promoter at Bowman Gray Stadium, which, you know, that's kind of what they live off of is the wrecks and the crashes, the confrontation is there. And then you had Hunter Nicol.

he's been on quite a few of these panels. So anyway, they were great. They asked a lot of questions. But interesting, you know, on this, I don't want to get into much of what NASCAR said because I think it's up to them to kind of state their case and if they choose to publicly defend it or not, or they don't have to, right?

But I promised on this podcast I would be very transparent. So that's what I'm trying to do. It's kind of shed some light because it was very interesting. interesting from my standpoint, how this all played out. So let me go back. Sorry, I keep getting ahead of myself. They present, okay, then I present, and then we, let's see, that took a while. My presentation was quite a bit longer. And then we break for 15 minutes, and we regroup. So I go back into a conference room, meet with my team and, and, you know, my team, and the people that helped prepare and everything.

And then we kind of talk about, okay, we heard what they had to say. Now it's rebuttal time. So we go back in. We rebut first, but then NASCAR has the last word. So they, they, you know, and at that time, we both can call witnesses as well. So when I'm rebutting, I'm calling witnesses. You know, I'm really kind of just expanding upon what my opening statement was and whatnot in my defense. but then, you know, they, they call in their witnesses, you know, which was Scott Miller and

in Mike Hilton. Interesting enough, I thought both of those guys were super fair to me. I thought Mike Hilton was like, man, talking about how great of a guy I am and how much I do for the sport. And I thought he was super fair in the sense of like he even said to the panel, which, you know, this, I'm only saying it because it's nice about me. He was just like, you know, or the process is like, you know, sometimes. we make decisions that aren't right, but it's up to you guys to decide whether that's the case

or not. And so I was like, wow, that's very straightforward, political and great of Mike. I thought Mike was super fair and really everyone was fair. I got no issues with anyone on the other side of that table. And again, they had a case to present. I did as well. It's important for me to kind of, you know, people really want to know, well, why did you appeal? The way we see it, from our standpoint, you admitted you crashed cross casting. We should go back just for people who might be tuning in this episode for the first time, is what was NASCAR charging you with, more or less? All right.

So charge one was race manipulation. I manipulated the finish of the race. Phoenix Raceway. Yep. Second was, I'm drawing a blank. second was oh oh okay this is a key people three charges this is key that i crashed or spun a vehicle over the off season they've removed the word intent intent was taken out of the rulebook so what i say on my podcast i don't know what it matters my intent does not matter they

removed it in the off season. So I believed, which was my fault, my mistake, that I could speak freely on Monday. The race was called. It was over with. And my intent doesn't matter, right? I just thought that I was free to speak. And what I was doing was essentially, and what I said I want to do on this podcast is inform people of what they see or what they may not see on the racetrack and try to be a great source of information for them on that. Um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, Let me, um... So three things. You were...

Okay. So, yeah. So I... Race manipulation. Race, that I manipulated the finish of a race and or championship. I crashed or spun a vehicle. Intent doesn't matter. Doesn't say on purpose intentionally any of that.

That's out of the rulebook now, right? And then actions detrimental to the sport. They, they deemed, uh, we can't have you. basically going out there and making a mockery of our officiating, I guess. I guess that's what it is. But basically, this is a bad look. Drivers can't be going around saying that they're going to wreck or spin others and then go do it, right? Okay, I understand their stance, right?

So now I have to, I need to defend it, right? So I'll read you kind of my opening statement that I think kind of, sums up my entire position. I'll also give you a couple of examples of kind of where I'm going with this, but let me just kind of start at the top. This is what I said for my opening statement. During the race at Phoenix, I made contact with Ross Chastain during a green-white checkered finish while contesting a position inside the top 10.

when my car began sliding up the racetrack entering turn one I had a decision to make either hit the brakes and let most all my competitors around me pass with ease or fight for my position I chose to fight for my position and by doing that I made contact with Ross I was ahead of Ross at the time we made contact I did not seek him out I entered the corner the the exact same way I had on previous restarts, please see attached data. So we showed data showing I entered the corner with less speed than I had on all previous restarts. What you will see is that I entered the corner with the exact, if not less speed entering the corner that I had on previous restarts that day. In fact, I turned the wheel farther left than I did on every restart previously. never once did I turn right to steer into Ross.

You will also see in the data provided, I actually hit the brakes once I saw contact was imminent. Once I made contacts in turn one and two, all the other contact that was initiated, the rest of the lap was by Ross slamming on the brakes, which cost us more spots. So the next day, I went on my new podcast former Dale Earnhardt Jr. and said that the incident was not an accident. And that is true.

It was not an accident. It was contact that could have been avoided. However, given my history with Ross for the last 12 months, what I chose to do was not cut Ross a break. I chose to put him in a compromising position where he could either hit the brakes or we were going to make contact and I was going to be okay with either result. What I did is what every driver does and that has raced someone just like you've been raced. I've got no respect from him so I chose not to give any. I didn't wreck him. I didn't spin him as NASCAR is contesting. I simply made contact that was avoidable. Contact so minor

that there was no vehicle damage done to either car. No caution was brought out and we both finished the race on the lead lap in 23rd and 24th. No innocent bystanders were involved and it certainly did not affect

the outcome of the winner. As far as race manipulation is concerned, this is just untrue. I mentioned first and foremost in my podcast that my intention was to get the best finish for my team that I could. That was the first statement I said when addressing this situation. And if you listen, the next sentence I say, I'm speaking off my opening statement now, is I turned the wheels left and my car went dead straight. So what happened on that last restart was hard racing between two competitors with a history.

And that's what it was. It was hard, aggressive driving, as defined. find in their rulebook. And I have the quote in their rulebook. And basically what that says, this is not going to be totally verbatim, but it is going to be 99% there, is that we understand that NASCAR is a physical sport and that we understand that aggressive driving happens. And sometimes contact happens during that aggressive driving. We will rule as such during the event and there should be no further penalties. That's in their rule book. That's their definition. So I said, what I was doing was playing into the rivalry that NASCAR itself promotes on a weekly basis.

The facts are that I reached out to NASCAR Tuesday morning the moment I heard that they were even looking into this. And I said, if they had any questions to please give me a call about what actually happened, I never heard anything back until I had a fine. and point penalty. I asked them, did they give me the penalty because of my actions on the track or my words? They said, your words. Listen, that is just not right. And I have proof that my actions were not out of line, nor egregious. Had NASCAR truly done an investigation of this incident or even had a conversation with me following the event, they would have realized just that. But I do, I do not believe I should have championship points or a monetary fine for what happened on the racetrack. They said themselves that this was a racing incident, which is the same sentiment that my competitors who benefit for my penalty are saying it was a racing incident.

Please consider this appeal and use facts and data to reverse this decision by NASCAR. So that's that's your opening statement. Yep. after NASCAR comes in and says this is why Denny Hamlin is guilty. So after that, I basically went into a full spread of SMT data showing exactly what I stated there. All right, Denny, hold up. What is the significance of the SMT data? Well, again, it's, for me, it's proving defense, right, that I entered, you know, I didn't

seek out Ross, right? I didn't turn into them. So the SMT data showing that you didn't actually take your hands off the wheel. Yeah. So like, yeah, so guys, we got to be a little bit understand here. I'm trying to speak to you guys on a microphone. I can't see you. You don't see the cars. Yeah, I can't do a little, hey, look at this car. It did this at the other right. I'm trying, I'm a, I'm a color commentator at this point, right? So I'm trying to give color to an incident that happened on track. Listen to MRN. You know what? It sounds so exciting. make it more exciting than probably what it really is. I think this is probably the case here where there was a little exaggeration going on for sure. Of course I didn't let my hands off the

wheel, Jared. I would go straight into the fence and it would have been bad. And the good news is NASCAR at least acknowledge he did not let his hands off the wheel. Well, then that goes to well, if that part's not true, what else part of his story is not true? But listen, I don't want to sit here and call myself an embellisher, but I'm, I certainly told the truth and the sense of, it wasn't an accident. I addressed it to my opening statement. It could have been avoided, but I didn't get a break from him in the past. I chose to not give him a break. I was okay with contact happen. I put Ross to a decision, either check up or we're going to hit, and I was fine with either result, but we hit and we kept going, right? So contact, it was

contact. It wasn't a wreck. It wasn't a spin. That's what I'm contesting, right? And it certainly is not manipulation in the race. And I know that to be true, because I've provided plenty of examples of exactly what race manipulation is. And I don't mean to upset anyone who might be a fan. But I'm sorry, Chase Elliott coming back onto the racetrack at Bristol,

multiple laps down, asking where the five car is so he can, quote unquote, help him out is race manipulation. He blocked the four car to allow his team. teammate to win. We went to a gambling seminar in January and they explained that we consider race manipulation when you do something that manipulates the finish of the race that would directly benefit yourself or a teammate. I think they put that in the rules because of that incident. And so, you know, I have many examples. I started rolling tape on all these crashes in the last four years where drivers openly said he did this to me so i gave it to him back on a microphone

right after the race or sometimes in cow larsson's um case after the clash when he admitted to wrecking justin haley and he said hey listen i i i probably overreacted there that's on a pub it's public so you by nascar's rule how is that not The same thing. Joey Legano knocked William Byron out of the way at Darlington and says, hey, if you're going to do this to me, what do you expect you're going to get? You're going to get it right back. You know, I knew that there was one way I could guarantee winning the race. I told them, let me save you the trouble of watching hours and hours of film of the 90s, 2000s, 2010s of drivers saying, yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm.

I'm getting them and I'm getting them back or I'm gonna do it this week or next week or maybe after the race or it's even on the radio. You know, these are things at NASCAR monitors and I create and I had so many examples. And I found it interesting that NASCAR acknowledged that what you say after the event, they think is that the heat of the battle

and can't be taken seriously. So maybe if you're going to as a driver do something, maybe you should just emit it right away because they met you're hot and angry. But what I did was admit it after I've cooled down 24 hours later. I said, well, that's interesting because I have an interview from Joey Lugano

on his championship tour this offseason where they talk about the wreck in which he retaliated against me at California that broke my back and injured me for a couple months. And they said, Joey, what would you do different? And he's like, you know, that's just basically that's the way I am. And I, you know with me that if you race me aggressively or whatever, you know, basically he said with me that I didn't show remorse.

I boasted about it. And so, hey, I got them back. And so I don't really take anything back. And that's just the way that it's going to be. It's what NASCAR was built on for 75 years. And you know what? I agree with that. And I said, that's the problem.

And that's what we really need to think about with this case is that. that I think a lot is on the line at this point. You have drivers that don't know where the line is now. I am worried for the future of our sport, and the last thing we want is our drivers timid, not only off the racetrack now, but on the racetrack. I thought for the last two hours of this hearing, they conceded that they had lost the first two points,

and that all they're going for is actually detrimental. And so there was a key point where I think one of the panelists was asking me, what result do you want? Do you want all or nothing? And I'm like, oh, I got to be careful with that. Because you went into this hearing. I wanted it all reversed. I wanted it all reversed because this was casual contact by two hard racing rivals.

That's a fact. Can't twist it any other way, right? And my intent doesn't matter. That's been taken out of the rulebook. So I just really feel like we made a strong case to this. I've given you panel a list of 35 of the last retaliatory incidents. Every one of them that has a monetary or a point penalty has either been someone wrecked someone under caution.

Safety vehicles are out there. It's a dangerous moment. It was a right rear hook. So basically you go down the straightaway, you turn right on somebody and you hook them right in the fence and destroy them. It resulted in a caution because the wreck was so severe that it was a caution. Mine was none of these. None of them.

It shouldn't even be on the page with the retaliatory, the last 35 retaliatory incidents. That's what scares me about this. And I believe that, and I explain, the most detrimental thing we can do, is tell drivers you can't be yourselves. I heard Mike Davis talking about this on Dirty Mo Live right after, but it's so true. William Byron, who is represented by the same person, told Rod, I ain't doing no podcast now.

Like, I'm afraid of getting in a bad position and saying the wrong thing. And now you don't even have to say, I crash Ross. You can just vaguely say it, and they can interpret it however they want. And that's what's scary, right? We have a star power problem in our sport. And I'm not sitting here saying I'm trying to be a star,

but I'm trying to be honest and transparent. I'm trying to do what others are not doing. And that's being themselves, because a lot of these guys are awesome dudes. But NASCAR using me an example will inhibit them or prevent them from wanting to come out of their shell. and sometimes be controversial

or sometimes call out a rival. Like it's just, this is, it's crazy because in NASCAR's two-page report, they says we encourage drivers to self-police. How can you self-police and not manipulate the race? It is impossible. It's impossible. Tell me how.

I can't go punch them in the face because that's a fine. I don't understand, right? if we were confused after yesterday, we shouldn't be. I told you last week, well, a colleague slammed dunk. I said, well, wait a minute. Don't be so sure. And I think today cements that my tweet from last week, I don't know anymore. I don't know.

Two different panelists found the same infraction, we're assuming same infraction, with a different result. Speaking of the colleague in Hendrick appeals. the panel for Hendrick acknowledged that they did something that they shouldn't hate altered the race car for a performance advantage essentially let me call it they cheated but yet i rubbed Ross against the fence and deserve a 25 point penalty they had four cars that were illegal it doesn't make any sense and i'm not beating up this process because i told you i think the process is fair i just don't understand where we're getting

these various outcomes. So I don't want to see them change it. I think that it is a very fair thing. I came on here and I have to be, I'm done with it after this because I promise my team owner, if you let me appeal, I'll let it go. I promise I'll let it go, right? But this concerns me because the results don't make any sense.

And when the panel is consistently, calling out NASCAR for them crossing words and saying you're contradicting yourself, I don't get it. NASCAR themselves is saying, yeah, this is probably a subjective call. It's not egregious, we agree. Then why are we in the room? You want me to self-police? Tell me how to do it then. I tried breakfast. That didn't work. It's just disappointing. So you said this is it for in respect to JGR and your team owner. You're not going to go any further with this. But you do sound surprised that this result went this way. When you're in the room pleading your case and hearing from NASCAR, did you feel that this was going to go your way? Did you feel it wasn't going to go your way?

I was more confident when they started deliberating than I was going into my case. Now again, I might be guilty. I don't know. Somehow you were on one side, right? When I initially said, well here's what I'm saying Jared. This is my defense. Let's use past precedent. This wasn't a wreck. This wasn't a spin. No caution, no damage.

What are we even talking about here? This is contact, as defined by their rule book. I was, we were, we were high-fiving just about. That we did such a great job. And I really based that off of the panel was asking, NASCAR, how is this so different than what we see every single week? And there really wasn't a legitimate, I thought, good response to that. And I thought that, man, there seems to be questioning them a lot and they not really have a whole lot of questions for me. I thought

Lynn had a really good question for me, though. I won't expand on that. But she was, she was really good. She was writing down a bunch of notes. And I'll tell you, so we went back there. And, they said just sit back here and they'll deliberate and we'll uh we'll let you know when they're come to a virgins i we were kind of really high-fiving and and and smiling like man we really we presented as good as we could present i feel so good at it simply because too we had heard words that in the last two hours sounded like they were conceding we're just going after action's detrimental he just can't be saying these things because it makes us look like we're not officiating it correctly. They've already said we agree it's not egregious.

We agree that this is something that normally we stay out of. The whole severity of the incident was just not, it was benign, benign was the word used. So we think, okay, well, I think worst case, I think we're getting the whole thing thrown out. They come, I used the restroom and they come right back. I mean, it had to be maybe 10 minutes. So the panel walks out? Yep. No, we walk out of the room. The panel stays. Okay. The three of them talk it out and then they notify, you know, it's almost like a jury thing where they notify, hey, the jury foreman, we have a verdict. They came back and says, hey, they're done. I'm like, oh, wow, this is going to be great. Can't wait. I'm sitting down and I'm smiling. And I kind of look at them and they're,

they're not as excited as they were like 20 minutes ago and I'm just like all right okay and literally they read off the verdict in about 15 seconds and it was so quick and they're like that's it and everyone starts standing up and I'm looking at Eric and I'm like wait a minute what'd they say like what did they say he's like they're keeping it as is I says okay why No reason. It's just, that's where, you know, when the media talks about, well, why? Why is the difference in the Hendrick and the colleague? Nobody knows because we don't have an explanation.

And, but I do understand too, when you have a jury, they don't explain why. Now, they'll come out in interviews later on and say, here's the reason why I've voted this way or another. But like when you have a judge, like a civil case, they do explain, well, you're guilty and here's why, right? That one was one that flipped 180. I mean, we were in shock. I was in absolute shock to where I was frozen there. And I'm looking at Eric and he's looking at me and we're just like, wait a minute. Are you sure they just weren't reading off the proceedings? Like, it happened so quick. And with no explanation, I was just like, that's it? And then we went back to our room and then we just stared at each other.

Again, for a while, it had to be 10, 15 minutes, and we're just scratching our heads. And I'm like, holy shit, what just happened? Because if I'm in there and I hear everything that goes on, how in the world could they vote this way? But they did. And so I still am in shock, but I don't think that, You know, I don't know that I should be,

but I know that the process is fair. I don't know what else I can say about it, is that they just didn't agree, you know, agree with the defense, or it's weird. I just don't get it, and I'm a loss for words now. I need to just kind of end this, but certainly I'm shocked. Check out Dirty Mo Media on Twitter, Facebook,

TikTok and Instagram.