Mayfield Saga: Is NASCAR Wrong?

by Chris Leone, Special To NASCAR commentary and driver pictures, 2012 NASCAR schedule, video, Bench Racing With Steve and Charlie

I do weekly Fantasy Pick'Em columns here at OPR, as well as the occasional opinion and analysis piece. I also provide the IZOD IndyCar Series coverage. For more on that, head to my site, OpenWheelAmerica.com. My Twitter handle is @christopherlion.

July 28, 2009 1:05 am UTC 27 Comments

This is part two in a three-part series on the endless Jeremy Mayfield saga. Today’s post questions the accuracy of NASCAR’s statements over the past 80 days.

It’s interesting to consider NASCAR, not Jeremy Mayfield, to be in the wrong, if only because the grand majority of folks think it goes the other way around. After watching Mayfield’s 20-minute interview with WBTV in Charlotte, in which he raises a lot of good points that deftly counter NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston’s statements, it’s not a total reach.

His claims make logical sense to the conspiracy theorist, and it’s interesting to analyze them even when they seem unlikely. Taking Adderall and Claritin D can lead to a positive result for methamphetamines. By making him go through NASCAR’s rehab program, NASCAR chairman Brian France and program administrator Dr. David Black could cite Mayfield as living proof of the strength of the sport’s drug policy, one that has taken a beating over the past two and a half months.

Mayfield doesn’t even cite NASCAR’s suspension of Tim Richmond in the late 1980s, not long before his death, as a previous example of the sport throwing one of its drivers under the bus. Richmond, too, claimed his innocence, sued NASCAR, and was eventually reinstated, but much like Mayfield projects, never returned to the track because no owner was willing to hire him.

It’s also interesting to read into a lot of NASCAR’s claims over the past few months. Some can easily lead a person to suspect foul play, or at the very least exaggeration; others can just be misleading. For example:

• Consider, first and foremost, the fact that the results of both of Mayfield’s drug tests with NASCAR were not released until over a week after they were taken. Given that Mayfield was attempting to get his B sample tested between May 1 and May 9, that gap perhaps makes sense. But consider that David Black’s corporation, Nashville-based Aegis Labs, claims it only takes four days to complete a drug test. Consider also the high-profile nature of the situation. The fact that Mayfield’s July 6 test results took nine days to come out perhaps gives credence to his suspicion that NASCAR spiked his drug test; if NASCAR had gotten a positive result, why wouldn’t they have released it immediately the day they got the results? If the test simply took longer, then what explains that?
• Consider NASCAR’s claim that Mayfield attempted to dilute his July 6 drug test by ingesting large quantities of water. Mayfield had already taken a drug test that day, only a few hours prior to NASCAR showing up. The average person can urinate anywhere from 3 to 7 times per day, but it’s difficult to keep going when you have nothing with which to replenish your system. Seeing as Mayfield’s All Sport sponsorship no longer exists, water is a smart way to rehydrate, in turn producing more urine for another sample. NASCAR could have easily picked up on the presence of water in Mayfield’s sample and used it to their advantage in this way.
• Consider a claim that Mayfield cited in an interview with Sirius’ Nate Ryan and Buddy Baker on July 16. Mayfield noted that Brian France had recently claimed that NASCAR has positive drug tests “very frequently,” implying that many within the sport have tested positive for something. Furthermore, France’s July 3 remarks showed a man firm in his belief that NASCAR’s policy was strong, but were very light on specifics. If positive drug tests happen so frequently in NASCAR, assuming that multiple drivers’ tests have come back dirty, why is Mayfield the only driver to have received a suspension? Or, if France was only referring to legal prescription drugs that the sanctioning body allows, why would France have left his comments so vague?

Chances are, there are better, more truthful explanations for all of the issues raised, but with the unreliable nature of conflicting information, we can only speculate. (I am pretty positive about the pee test, though. It’s hard to force yourself to go when there’s nothing in the system.)

One of the most interesting and perhaps ironic quotes in this case comes from Ramsey Poston, NASCAR’s spokesperson, in response to Mayfield’s independent test results. The PDF features minimal information, but includes a specimen number and negative results to tests for amphetamine and methamphetamine.

In response to the PDF, Poston said, “They seem to be a little light on the details, don’t you think?”

Poston’s response is ironic, given NASCAR’s relative lack of specificity throughout this entire case. When the new drug policy still lacks a list of banned drugs for drivers, when their story of Mayfield’s forced drug test on July 6 is (at the very least) far less comprehensive than Mayfield’s version, and when Mayfield’s test results took over a week to be released (bringing into some question how the tests were handled), one could suggest that perhaps the pot is calling the kettle black.

Photo courtesy Icon Sports Media

Filed under: Jeremy Mayfield

Tagged with: Jeremy Mayfield, NASCAR

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Comments

27 Responses to “Mayfield Saga: Is NASCAR Wrong?”

Marc on July 28th, 2009 2:59 pm

Chris – “Taking Adderall and Claritin D can lead to a positive result for methamphetamines.”

Well no, it will cause a false positive. And those false positives are easily weeded out by testing the “B” sample.

“The fact that Mayfield’s July 6 test results took nine days to come out perhaps gives credence to his suspicion that NASCAR spiked his drug test;”

Then why has not a single bit of evidence attempting to prove that ever been entered into any court record? It would make the case a slam dunk would it not, yet despite Mayfield’s statements alleging it nothings ever been presented to the court.

“Mayfield noted that Brian France had recently claimed that NASCAR has positive drug tests “very frequently,” implying that many within the sport have tested positive for something.”

More deception by Mayfield and, sad to say you Chris. Yes France did say that and it was, when taken in context of the discussion, a ref to false positives that occur when some over-the-counter drugs are consumed. “A” samples in thise case returned “positive” adn when the “B” sample was tested using different techniques to weed out false positives the person in question were cleared of any wrong doing.

And finally – “Mayfield doesn’t even cite NASCAR’s suspension of Tim Richmond in the late 1980s, not long before his death, as a previous example of the sport throwing one of its drivers under the bus. Richmond, too, claimed his innocence, sued NASCAR, and was eventually reinstated, but much like Mayfield projects, never returned to the track because no owner was willing to hire him.”

Why should he note that incident? While that episode is a black mark on NASCAR the testing done at the time wasn’t conduced by Aegis, NASCAR’s lab now and Brian France wasn’t in charge at the time.

It’s a thin straw that’s not worth grabbing by someone that’s been proven to be a liar on a couple pf occasions, at least.
Maddie on July 28th, 2009 3:34 pm

Hello, I just wanted to share a bit of info with you also. Everyone want to keep slamming Jeremy in the media but has anyone done any DD’ing on Nascar and also Lisa Mayfield?

Here is some good reading on Nascar
I’m not sure if you have read Robyn Snell’s, NASCAR Daily News article about two weeks ago. But I think you would find it very interesting. It’s a great book and even talks about good Ole’ Brian and his rehab and drugs also.
It’s about a book called Dirt under the asphalt. By Jack G Flowers

http://cupscene.com/blogs2/2009/07/07/nascar-sprint-cup-series-reaches-midpoint/

After reading Robyn’s story, I just had to order the book and also the download, the online version you can purchases there for only 5.00.

Here is another great story also about Tim Richmond…..it just like dejavu all over again.
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-21/sports/sp-1130_1_drug-test

Thank you
A different Marc on July 28th, 2009 4:17 pm

Why should we believe Nascar?
A different Marc on July 28th, 2009 4:24 pm

After all,

You must think Jeremy can finish 2nd and 3rd in Nascar events while on Meth like his stepmother claims.

You must believe that he decided since late January to become a meth addict. He passed their test before the season.

You don’t see anything wronog with Nascar callilng this a drug of concern and an isolated event for Jeremy originally and then changing to calling him an addict and drug user.

You have to think it is perfectly fine for Aegis and Nascar to police themselves. After all they don’t stand to loose anything if they had reported Jeremy as clean in the second test. They would have shot themselves in the foot if they did.

Nascar claims Jeremys most recent test isn’t valid because nobody personally witnessed him piss in the cup. Nascar doesn’t watch any of the drivers when they test them. Well other than Jeremy at his house.

You also have to think that Aegis is one of only 4 labs in the whole world who can tell the difference between Meth and over the counter drugs. This is why they want the most recent B sample to go to an independant lab but only one of these other 3 who are in Canada, Minnesota and California. We have to assume that Labcorp’s testing and equipment are not as good as Aegis.

I could go on forever about this. Nascar lied before, why not now?
GG4JM on July 28th, 2009 7:21 pm

Don’t see why everyone is so quick to blame Jeremy. With Na$car’s record of
lies and deceitfulness, they should be the first one to question.
MJ4JM on July 28th, 2009 7:54 pm

Hi Chris, I left you a message at Bleacher Report.
thanks
NascarCowboy on July 28th, 2009 7:59 pm

@ A different Marc – you mention the labs Aegis wants to use for the B sample, have you ever read the transcript of Dr. Blacks testimony before Congress regarding drug testing in the WWF? He didn’t trust LabCorp then either and although I can’t be sure, I think he references these 3 labs. It’s a long read but there are several places where if you substitute NASCAR for WWF, it’s eerily similar to Jeremy.
A different Marc on July 28th, 2009 8:08 pm

NascarCowboy,

Where would I find a copy of Blacks testimony? I would love to read it.
NascarCowboy on July 28th, 2009 8:12 pm

@ A different Marc – I’m new here, do you know if posting links are allowed?
Marc on July 28th, 2009 8:33 pm

a different Marc – “You must think Jeremy can finish 2nd and 3rd in Nascar events while on Meth like his stepmother claims.”

I don’t believe word one of what she says and I also believe adding her her affidavit was the only provable mistake they’ve had at this point.

“You have to think it is perfectly fine for Aegis and Nascar to police themselves. After all they don’t stand to loose anything if they had reported Jeremy as clean in the second test. They would have shot themselves in the foot if they did.”

Why shouldn’t I? Because some lemmings and Mayfield sycophants are claiming some type of bogus “conflict of interest?

Using your “logic” such as it is, you must think it’s “perfectly fine” for Mayfield, his lawyer and LabCorp to police themselves.

“Nascar claims Jeremys most recent test isn’t valid because nobody personally witnessed him piss in the cup. Nascar doesn’t watch any of the drivers when they test them. Well other than Jeremy at his house.”

You are woefully short of the facts guy, or gal.

Following is from the court records and details a second and independent test [meaning not Aegis].
QUOTE
Notwithstanding the testing results by Aegis, an independent lab re-confirmed the results which indicated that methamphetamine was present in Mayfield’s samples. Affidavit of Mitchell LeBard (“Lebard Aff. (Doc 21-11)”) at ¶ 6, pp. 6-7. A second test at an independent laboratory again confirmed that the positive test result was not the product of a false positive.
UNQUOTE

And note this test was not the one nascar took on July 6th.

<em”You also have to think that Aegis is one of only 4 labs in the whole world who can tell the difference between Meth and over the counter drugs. This is why they want the most recent B sample to go to an independant lab but only one of these other 3 who are in Canada, Minnesota and California.”

Um no, not even close. That “B” sample is being held until judge Mullen of eh Appeals Court makes the decision on what lab to use. Mayfield’s own lawyer has confirmed that.

Your are so far behind the news cycle on this story I’m not sure your worth dealing with. That said, others following in this thread may actually gleem some facts vice the misinformation you are peddling.

“I could go on forever about this. Nascar lied before, why not now?”

I could go on forever about this also, and have, but I’ll turn the question around to you.

His lawyer Buric filed a fake affidavit by an alleged “expert.”

The recently released transcript of Mayfield calling Aegis Labs on July 6th makes him a liar in that instance because in court records the claim is that call went to Aegis’ voice mail..

Mayfield has lied about taking a hair test when he appeared at Lowes, but that test has never been entered into a court record. Why?

Mayfield claims to have taken 15 tests with all of them negative for Meth, yet only three are on court records. Why?

He claims NASCAR “spiked” his sample but again no evidence of that has ever been entered into an official record. Why, if true his case would be a slam dunk but alas there’s no proof given by him or his lawyer.

And finally he and his lawyers claim NASCAR’s policy must follow federal guidelines. Well I’ll give’em a break, that hot lying just be disingenuous because a private entity does not and is not required to follow them.

So now the question you is, given all of the above… why should we believe a damn word Mayfield says.
Marc on July 28th, 2009 8:36 pm

NascarCowboy yes you can post links, although more than one link sends it to moderation cue to be looked at.
Chris Leone on July 29th, 2009 12:42 am

Sorry Marc, forgot the word “false” in there; but the test can’t tell whether or not it’s a false positive, it just calls it positive, and that’s why I worded it as I did.

Keep in mind that, as I implied, it gives credence to the theory in the mind of the conspiracy theorist. Most of the article is spent looking at the case in this way, because it’s the easiest way to get into the mindset to scrutinize NASCAR.

I also quote Brian France, per Sports Illustrated:

“We had to have the toughest policy because we have the most to lose if one of our players is on … the track impaired,” France said. “We know we came up with a very good policy. People frequently test positive for one thing or another. It happens very, very frequently. It’s very rare, though, that we do a suspension, because that’s a very serious matter.”

Given the vague wording of this quote as presented in SI, I find Mayfield’s and my own interpretation of France’s wording completely valid, and it’s neither of our faults – either France didn’t word it as well as he could have, SI didn’t put the quote in the proper context, or both.

And the reason why the Richmond thing is worth citing is because it led to the replacement of Forest Tennant, who was the administrator of NASCAR’s drug policy at the time. It was also a case of NASCAR actually falsifying the drug tests in question. That means that if Mayfield’s conspiracy claims are true, there’s a precedent for it. It also means that the courts should consider taking drug testing out of NASCAR’s hands.
Marc on July 29th, 2009 1:01 am

Chris – “That means that if Mayfield’s conspiracy claims are true, there’s a precedent for it. It also means that the courts should consider taking drug testing out of NASCAR’s hands.”

Not when that case was not handled by the current drug policy or Aegis Labs, it’s nothing but a Red Herring.
Kate on July 29th, 2009 8:53 am

The Tim Richmond case may not have been handled by Aegis labs, but dear Dr. Black was involved.
A different Marc on July 29th, 2009 9:47 am

Marc,

I don’t think anyone is disputing the fact that there is meth in his 2nd sample. Jeremy is claiming nascar spiked the 2nd sample. Labcorp doesn’t have a dog in this fight and they are one of, if not the largest in the business. They signed off that he is clean 40 minutes after the test. I realize Mr. Black claims these labs can’t detect the drug in small traces if the person ingest a large amount of water. This is why he does his “normalizing” process. My problem is that the amount of meth they claim is in his body is so freaking high that labcorp would have picked it up as well. Even if he did drink a ton of water.

I do know that Nascar has been inconsistant thoughout this process. Maybe I’m wrong and Jeremy is a user but I am not ready to believe that yet. I don’t trust Nascar or Mr. Black. Jeremy does not fit the mold as a meth user. Nascar has been tagged as having the reputation of destroying anyone who tries to get in there way. It seems to be pretty much a given that if you piss off Nascar they will make your life miserable if you ever try to race again. Because of this, I don’t think it is all that much of a stretch to think they would try to see to it that Jeremy never races again. They expected him to serve his suspension and follow the rules. They were not looking for a fight. It seems to me that if Jeremy was an addict he would prefer to spend a million dollars on drugs rather than a million on Lawyers. It’s not like he can race again when this is over.
Maddie on July 29th, 2009 9:50 am

Sorry Robyn Snell’s, NASCAR Daily News article the Dirt under the asphalt. By Jack G Flowers
http://cupscene.com/blogs2/2009/07/07/new-book-reportedly-digs-up-the-dirt-on-nascar/#more-4079
Sorry the link changed
HENRY on July 29th, 2009 2:16 pm

Kate: Just wondering, how do you know Dr. Black was involved with the Tim Richmond case? I hadn’t hear that before.
Maddie on July 29th, 2009 5:04 pm

Henry, if you look at the link I posted about Tim Richmond you will see
Dr. Forest S. Tennant, in there. Also here is an another article with the NFL
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/nfl/20080921-9999-1s21nfl89.html
Marc on July 29th, 2009 6:34 pm

Maddie – And so, Dr. Forest S. Tennant’s name is located in both places.

What does that “prove” to you?
HENRY on July 30th, 2009 7:48 am

Maddie:
I read both articles, what I got out of it was that Dr. Black was doing the testting for Tennent for the NFL, and although it didn’t state it in the article, Dr. Black also did the testing in the Tim Richmond case since all this happened in the same time period.

Is that what you got from it.? Or did I miss something?
HENRY on July 30th, 2009 8:02 am

I found this quote in a Nascar blog:
http://community.nascar.com/members/lvgordonfan2/blogs/82085

“Also I was reading up on this Dr. Black and he worked for the NFL’s drug program in the 80’s around the same time that Dr. Tenant was the head of the same program. that seem kinda suspisious.”

What if we found out that Dr Black did the drug testing in the Tim Richmond case.

How about it Chris,? Maybe something to do some research on.
Marc on July 30th, 2009 2:04 pm

So HENRY, the sign on San Diego link tells you what?

The entire story details problems of NFL players had over the small number of players announced as being dirty by using steroids and not anything to do with the tests being suspect in any way.

You ask Chris “what if we found out that Dr Black did the drug testing in the Tim Richmond case.?”

First of all. why don’t you research it and secondly you should be researching whether Dr. Forest S. Tennant had any untoward activities considering he was the center of the controversy at the time and not Dr. Black.

But, I’m going to do you a favor considering you’re begging Shris, oops sorry you’re asking Chris to research Dr. Black’s involvement I’ve not only done it but long ago.

In Sept 2007 Dr. Black testified before Congress and under oath as he did.

NASCAR suspended Tim Richmond for testing positive for a banned substance, or not, prior to the 1988 Daytona 500.

While it’s true Dr. Black started Aegis Labs in 1986 according to the companies website that fails to tell the whole story.

Here is Black’s testimony given while under oath before Congress detailing his history.

“Well, my activities are multiple, so I’ll try to be thorough. I am chairman, president and director of Aegis Sciences Corporation. Aegis Sciences Corporation was a program at Vanderbilt University. It was a program that I
directed at Vanderbilt. I was recruited to Vanderbilt in 1986 to direct a program set up for testing athletes for performance enhancing drugs. Vanderbilt had had a steroid scandal and part of their reaction to that was to set up a doping program for testing athletes for performance enhancing drugs. Also, Roy Kramer was the athletic director at Vanderbilt, and Roy Kramer became the driving force for establishing the NCAA drug testing program. I was on campus for four years. While I was there, I also worked with the transplant program at Vanderbilt with Dr. Bill Frist. Bill and I worked together quite a bit. And I worked with the transplant program setting up testing services clinically.”

“I also set up clinical testing for overdose toxicology, as well as for rehabilitation toxicology. In 1990, the school decided that forensics was not a
part of its mission, that its mission was clinical. So they discontinued the funding for my program. I had a choice of leaving Nashville and didn’t like that choice. I wanted to stay in the Nashville area, so I took the program off
campus. And it started off as Aegis Analytical Laboratories, but today it is known as Aegis Sciences Corporation.”

So, do you still think Dr. Black had any damn thing to do with Tim Richmond?

Or are you going to cling to that crap ’til someone pries it from your cold dead hands.

It you fail to understand, or don’t believe me quotes and their origin I’ll gladly send you the 171 page pdf file of his enter testimony before Congress.
Marc on July 30th, 2009 2:17 pm

P.S. HENRY Sorry I should have added the next para of his testimony given under oath, it reads:

“At the same time, NASCAR had a difficult situation with a drug-related issue, and I became a consultant to them for their program administration for substance abuse. And that relationship continues until this day.

Golly Gee-Wiz, do ya think NASCAR’s “drug related” issue was the Tim Richmond case and he was never involved with NASCAR until after that controversy?

Go ahead, tell me he lied under oath. I dare you.
HENRY on July 30th, 2009 2:56 pm

I don’t know, I just asked a question. I appears that Tennant’s lab (if he really had one) was in California, don’t know why they would send the Richmond sample way out there, and since he seemed to be involved with Dr. Black, at the time,there is some chance he could have let him do the testing.
Marc on July 30th, 2009 4:26 pm

HENRY – “and since he seemed to be involved with Dr. Black, at the time, there is some chance he could have let him do the testing.”

Really, well in order for that to have happened Dr. Black would have had to test Richmond’s sample at Vanderbilt University that’s where he was at the time. Do you honestly think Vanderbilt would let him walk into their program on steroid testing and test some outside sample from someone totally disconnected to both steroids and Vanderbilt?

Yeah ok, whatever, you believe what you want. Facts be damned and Dr. Black’s sworn testimony be damned.
kate on August 3rd, 2009 9:25 pm

Yes, Dr. Black was assisting Dr. Tennant with NASCAR’s drug testing program at the time of the Tim Richmond incident. He himself has bragged about his more than 20 year relationship/involvement with NASCAR and the France family. So, he’s been involved with the Tim Richmond incident; the NFL drug testing scandal; and the WWE/Chris benoit drug mess, to name just three fiascos. Sorry, but I’m not drinking the kool-aid Nascar and Black are serving with the Mayfield case. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool the public again and watch Congress get involved. JUST what Nascar and Aegis Sciences need.
Marc on August 6th, 2009 6:55 pm

kate – “Yes, Dr. Black was assisting Dr. Tennant with NASCAR’s drug testing program at the time of the Tim Richmond incident. He himself has bragged about his more than 20 year relationship/involvement with NASCAR”

So, what you’re saying is when Dr. Black stated under oath during a Congressional hearing that he was involved with NASCAR after the Tim Richmond debacle he was lying.

Is that it?

Of course you failed to link to anything that proves your point which, sorry to say, is typical of the deniers that only see Mayfield’s side and no others.

kate, again – “Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool the public again and watch Congress get involved. JUST what Nascar and Aegis Sciences need.”

Not Congress, but the FDA is involved to the point of listing LabCorp as being guilty of several infractions in the recent and historical past.

Aegis, well not so much. In fact the FDA has no citations of illegal or nefarious activity on their part.

P.S. What “NFL drug testing scandal” do you refer to?

The one where 13 players were busted for steroids and the complaint was more than that were guilty and not publicized?

If that’s the case your stretching the term “scandal” way past reasonableness.

Got something to say?

Did you know you can log in with your Thunder Lounge account, and have your personal avatar and site link available when you comment at On Pit Row?

Don't have an account yet? Sign-up for free.