5/12/05

Because there was such a reaction to Jok Nicholson's reference to IHRA and contingency decals in his Dead-On column, we are running a special section of letters. For those of you new to DRO, this is not the first time Nicholson has addressed the contingency subject. We ran a three-part discussion of the problems of getting paid contingency money in our December 2001, January 2002 and February 2002 issues, along with a considerable quantity of letters. Please check our archives for these issues.

It is obviously a subject that stirs deep emotions and still needs some work and understanding on each side, so we intend to revisit the subject soon, giving several different perspectives. These letters are presented in the order in which they were received.

To read the Contigency Letters from May 24th, click here.

FROM RACER #1

I just read your article on contingencies and realized that you and most racers don't really understand the idea of contingencies. The winner gets paid for all the advertising done with his car and for the advertising by those racers that didn't win and the times that the winning driver didn't win. When a manufacturer goes to the staging lanes for first round and sees 30 or 40 racers with his decal he is paying the winner for all those decals. It would be ridiculous to pay someone $200.00 or $300.00 to put a sticker on for one round with a product that he may have purchased for $100.00 or $200.00.

Contingencies buy advertising space. A racer earns the money. It is not a gift. As both a racer and a sponsor, I have an insight into both sides of the situation. I hope I give the companies whose products I run value for any contingencies I receive and hope the other racers do the same for me.

Chuck Anderika
East Coast Auto Electric

FROM RACER #2

The manufacturers set the rules, similar to an employee/employer relationship. If the racer is told the decal has to be on the car for the entire event, so be it. There is no room for argument, and frankly, I am surprised a racer of your caliber would have such an attitude. Obviously we don't see eye to eye on this issue. I personally think your comments are shameful.

Sincerely,

Dr. Larry Rose

FROM RACER #3

Good information on contingency. If I did not have 44 years of experience in this world I would have a very hard time believing that the IHRA took away $7,000 in contingency like they did! Simply boggles the mind!

Here's is another one for you, not anything like the above but just another example of the stupidity that envelopes contingency issues today. Last month I was at Las Vegas for the national event. It was Sunday and I had time to kick around. I was in the manufacturers midway and suddenly realized I had not signed the required yearly 'advertising agreement' from Castrol. This is required in addition to displaying their decals for payment in the event of a win/ru. So I headed up to them and asked for a 2005 copy of the advertising agreement to sign so I could be 'legal'. Their response was..."Not on Sunday!" I was in total shock! I only wanted to sign the agreement so in future events I would be legal and get paid.

Well Jok, as you can imagine the result of this was that I NO LONGER use Castrol products and I do not have any Castrol decals on my car! Simply put, they are not the only manufacturer of oil and petroleum products so I will use the competition's products.

Nothing like having $7,000 stolen from you, but irksome nonetheless. I hope your 2005 season goes well. I will look forward to next month's article.

John Steffen
S/G 5200
Littleton, CO