Meth: The Key to Success In NASCAR?

Joining the discussion one year late but I simply had to point out that your argument is fundamentally flawed.

When it comes to concentration, reaction time, hand-eye co-oordination and other frontal lobe cognitive functions methamphetamine is most certainly a performance enhancer. Why do you think US military pilots are given its little cousin, dextroamphetamine before flying combat missions (Google GO Pills). Air Combat = high speed, high stress manoeuvring for long periods of time requiring intense concentration. NASCAR = high speed, high stress manoeuvring for long periods of time requiring intense concentration.

the so called "effects" of meth that you list and base your non-performance enhancing conclusion upon are the comedown effects, what happens as the drug wears off, not when high.

Meth is the perfect drug for NASCAR.

1) 911 was orchestrated by the US Gov't
2) OJ is innocent
3) Mayfield isn't a meth head.

Meth CAN be a performance enhancer.....
There are plenty of OTR Truckers who use it and drive for days.

They don't smoke it, they snort it. I haven't seen where anyone has said he's a hardcore crack head who is smoking it..
But it's absolutely possible he snorted it to pump himself up during races and became hooked.

Well, hopper, there has to be one in every crowd. You know the person who has so little self esteem that the only way he can make himself feel better is by trying to find fault in everyone else. In the end he only makes himself look like a royal p.i.t.a.. In my personal opinion (DISCLAIMER: this is MY personal opinion, NOT the opinion of the blog author, his other readers, or the rest of America) I believe he who shall not be named (copyrights to JK Rowling, Scholastic, and Warner Brothers) is concerned about you being competition for his own Nascar blog. Maybe you should put disclaimers at the end of all of your blogs such as fact, opinion, fun imaginative story, etc, so that a certain person will understand what you are doing. Most (and I say "most" instead of "all" because I know that would be judged) of your other readers get your writing style and will continue to comment accordingly. I enjoy your articles very much, hopper. Keep up the good work!

Marc: "From MY look around this place..."

Are you like an official blog inspector or something?

Is that supposed to be an insult? How many of your posts have 45 comments? Yes, these articles have more comments than any I've done in the past two months. That's a good thing. It means this blog is growing in popularity.

Does that make cents?

hopper - "A post that you have commented on 19 times, I might add."

And that should make you darn happy, from my look around this place these posts have more comments than any you've posted in the last two months combined.

Does that make "sence," oops, I mean sense?

Marc - in case you haven't figured it out after 43 posts, hopper is actually disagreeing with what Lisa Mayfield said. His whole article is basically saying what she says makes no sense based on Mayfield's performance during the time period stated. Maybe you should learn to recognize a little sarcastic humor when you see it and not take everything so seriously. Lighten up man. Life is too short.

Marc: "You took the word of a known crank in Lisa Mayfield and stretched that into a post that is in fact nonsense."

A post that you have commented on 19 times, I might add.

Yeah you defended it, and I said the argument made "no logical or practical sence" to quote you. [BTW "sence" is spelled sense] You took the word of a known crank in Lisa Mayfield and stretched that into a post that is in fact nonsense.

Better check your readership this and other posts have been linked on Twitter.

As for “13is” are you being so obtuse you fail to realize it was a simple error in use of the space bar?

You know 13is as opposed to the correct 13 is, go ahead read that original comment as "13 is" it makes perfect sense, but not when you are again flailing around for something to hang on me.

I don't mind debating. I already defended my article, and even broke it down for people to understand. The only response you could come up with was "your argument makes no logical or practical sence", even after I broke it down. What more do you want me to do?

Also, I never linked this article on Twitter.

And "13is" is not a word.

I could care less whether you admit to being incorrect.

You want to be critical of someone not "debating" then I suggest you practice that for all that reside her. Example Steve who was caught making grandiose untruthful statement in comment 23 and when called on it acts, as you call it, "like a child."

You might also have a word with Feru who acted pretty much the same.

Frankly it appears some here don't want honest debate, they are happy in a little echo chamber of like thoughts.

You don't want visitors entering and questioning some of the BS printed here then don't post links on twitter and invite people in.

P.S. “13is” isn't a spelling error either. But you knew that right? You were just flailing around for anything to counter me with because you couldn't on a factual basis?

I tried debating you, and every time I did, I got this answer:

"Your argument makes no logical or practical sence."

So, I simplified it for you by breaking down my article into pieces. But still, you did not seem to get the concept. So you went spouting off all over the boards bringing people down and smarting off at them, like a child. I have stayed out of the name-calling and child-like behavior because I want people to think highly of me, and I will continue to do so.

And as far as Dr. David Blklack, that is my mistake.

So Marc, if you want me to say that you are right and everyone else is wrong, then go ahead and tell me that's what you want. Otherwise, we can debate like real people.

Feru - Point missed? Not hardly, and I notice when called on your little trick you failed to answer a couple simple questions directly related to your remark and if answered would have helped us all in understanding both our positions.

I'm not shocked you didn't, really.

Hopper, if you feel the need to reduce yourself to nit-picking spelling errors - vice actually debating issues - have at it. It says more about you than me.

However a little instruction is in order.

In comment 34 you note an alleged "error," specifically the following: “he could assist David Blkack, who is NOT a doctor the way we ignorant redneck hillbilly hicks with IQs barely in the double digits envision a doctor.”

See those little curly-cue things that surround that sentence and that the entire sentence looks different that than above and below it?

That means it's a quote, a quote of Steve's words written in comment no. 33.

So in the end, your sad attempt at criticizing me ends up appearing as if your attention to detail is somewhat lacking.

"Just trying to give you a few pointers, 'buddy.'"

And I find it interesting you neglected to include the entire directive just about the quote you gave, it reads thusly.

You're missing the point, Marc:
You can sure dish it out, but you can't take it.

And being accused by you of taking something out of context? That's rich!

Marc,

I hate to pick on somebody's writing. Especially when that somebody has been so comlementary of my own. However, I noticed that, in your comments, you seem to be having a little trouble with your spelling. For example, in comment 34, there is no such person as David Blklack, at least not in America. In #30, you used the word "13is". Quite frankly, I've never heard of it, but it may be in an updated version of the dictionary. In comment #22, you use the word "your" in place of "you're", which means, "You are". These are just a few of the mistakes I noticed

I noticed that, like me, you are a writer. Just trying to give you a few pointers, buddy.

Attempting to put words in my mouth Steve? Again. Remember it is you claiming you're stupider, or something.

Not that I can expect an answer, 'cause you've already proven you refuse [ref comment 26] to, but maybe you can demonstrate where I come close to showing this:

"And I am not the only one who has correctly identified him as a total raging egomaniac who has as his top priority building himself up by tearing others down."

Examples please?

"he could assist David Blkack, who is NOT a doctor the way we ignorant redneck hillbilly hicks with IQs barely in the double digits envision a doctor."

Other than Mayfield making the idiotic claim Dr. Black isn't a "doctor" can you - or any "ignorant redneck hillbilly hicks" show one instance where Black or anyone else makes the claim?

Fact is he is a doctor, as in holding a PHD in Forensic Toxicology, Surely you know what a doctorate is right?

"But I still believe Jeremy has rights, and I hope he gets rewarded here on earth on the basis of his integrity and character, not only because of his loose cannon behavior!

Never said, nor implied, he didn't have rights and in fact those rights include the legal process he has pursued and has just parked his disingenuous butt.

Hey, Hopper, I am just a rookie at this "you are way stupider than me" stuff and by logical deduction way stupider than Jeremy Mayfield. In fact, divide Marc's IQ by ten and hope you match that figure.
All I was trying to do on this website is to bring a little of my barely informed perspective to the debate about JM, and celebrate his determination to stay involved in a uniquely American sport, one of the two that Earnest Hemingway called a sport, the others are just games. I finally realized a few minutes ago that Marc is a true professional hatchet man with his own cranialcavity.com. And I am not the only one who has correctly identified him as a total raging egomaniac who has as his top priority building himself up by tearing others down. NASCAR had better hire him, he could assist David Blkack, who is NOT a doctor the way we ignorant redneck hillbilly hicks with IQs barely in the double digits envision a doctor. In fact, in my opinion, NASCAR as an organization is so far away from American values and principles as stated in our founding documents that their rules and power structure is totally offensive to our country!
I got an education (no degree granted) in less than 2 days!
But I still believe Jeremy has rights, and I hope he gets rewarded here on earth on the basis of his integrity and character, not only because of his loose cannon behavior!

Feru - I don't know, what about it?

Perchance you can explain why rules on my site should apply here.

And I find it interesting you neglected to include the entire directive just about the quote you gave, it reads thusly.

"I also refer you to my comment policy if you have any questions. If you prefer to offer advice or a private admonition (or story tip) shoot me an email via the Contact Page."

If you desire rules be instituted here I'd suggest you contact the owner of the site, or hopper who penned this article to include a published comment policy as I have done.

And for the record in over 5 years of publishing I only banned two commenters, interestingly one recently that slithered over from this site.

Here is his/her/it's first ever comment at FT.

He/she/it deserved to be banned from the get-go but wasn't until warned and finally banned for good.

From Marc's website:

"NOTE: Inflammatory remarks and inane drivel will be deleted. It's not about free speech, remember you are in a private domain. My website, my prerogative."

Well...how about that?
He can do it to you, but you can't do it to him!

Do ya think hopper?

The quote in 1 is "borders on delusional" referring to you as delusional would be written thusly: You're friggin' delusional.

You DO SEE the difference don't you?

The quote in 13is "you may be as deranged as Mayfield," note the qualifier "may" meaning you may, or may not be deranged.

Nice try hopper, but this raises a question; Is it POSSIBLE English is your second language?

Marc:

"Comment 13, um no I offered a possible scenario.

Comment 1 and 3, again quote the “personal attacks?”

Comment #1 you referred to me as "delusional", and in comment #13, you referred to me as "deranged".

Just saying.

Better? No I always feel good, but I see no direct quotes proving what you claim. Why is that?

And BTW you DID claim I conducted "personal attacks on ALL OF US OTHERS for various reasons."

However I never responded to Zack, Barry, Christina or Jessica who all commented in this thread in any way, shape or form so again you're incorrect - again.

Marc, I hope you feel better now!!!

And BTW, can you quote the "personal attack" in comment 22?

Comment 18?

Comment 13, um no I offered a possible scenario.

Comment 7? Go ahead quote it.

Comment 1 and 3, again quote the "personal attacks?"

Steve, so when is pointing out when someone is wrong a "personal attack?

When is it right to assume Aegis has chain of custody issues when that has not been demonstrated by the court yet?

Ahem, Steve... I've not only read that transcript but I have the full document saved in pdf format.

As a service to you I'll gladly send a copy to you as it's apparent a reread is needed. His ref to "offensive" isn't what you think it is.

Furthermore and in ref to your quote: "NASCAR will be forced into a fair and accurate program with true outside labs and proper chain of custody."

Latched onto the "Conflict of Interest" meme due to NASCAR's contract with Aegis haven't you?

If so explain how Mayfield and his attorney's hiring of LabCorp as their lab of choice any different?

The chain of custody issue with regards to Aegis is an issue yet to be resolved by the court isn't it?

But what is known to be true fact, and found in a court of law, LabCorp recently was ordered to pay 40 percent of a $28 million judgment in the Congers case because of a failed chain of custody issue.

Marc,
I am glad we have freedom of speech! In the posts on this thread, you own numbers 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 18, 19, and 22, with more to follow. Everyone of these contain personal attacks on all of us others for various reasons, but mostly we are idiots with no common sense. Thanks for your uplifting contributions to advance the search for truth!

Steve - "The word “false” is an arguable point in Brian France’s statement, you say he included it, I believe Jeremy thought he included it, but maybe not!"

No I didn't say France included it, that was my interpretation and his implication. So, stop trying to put words into my mouth or writing.

For the record here's the exact quote: "we have tests all the time where we get positive tests, for one substance or another for prescribed or over-the-counter and how we handle that is, like I said with the policy; it has some flexibility to that."

So, I guess your wrong on both counts, I didn't write it and France didn't say it.

That said, if you had read the entire press conference his quote came from the "flexibility" noted is why they have the mandatory "B" samples to weed out positive results that prove to be false and is the same process every drug program includes.

As far as Mayfield thinking France included it, I suspect this Mayfield quote referring to NASCAR's drug policy is relevant:

"Well, if it’s a zero-tolerance policy, how in the hell do you have people testing positive all the time?"

That my friends is nothing more than complete ignorance on his part, or willful misrepresentation of the policy.

Also, Marc, if you haven't done it yet, read the 21 page transcript of the court hearing where the judge lifted Jeremy's suspension. What I interpreted is that he heard that the "sole discretion" of NASCAR to be offensive, and when NASCAR did not adhere to their own stated guidelines about lab accreditation, his mind was made up! His only mistake is that he is a public servant in a democracy, not a paid lackey of a dictatorship!

Marc,
I have had bosses who have done a better job of browbeating me than you are attempting! But it seems that most of your comments come across as attacking the messenger rather than factual debate. The word "false" is an arguable point in Brian France's statement, you say he included it, I believe Jeremy thought he included it, but maybe not! I would believe that an organization that buries their monetary settlement with a former female employee, and does not divulge the final explanation for contaminated fuel in the 55 Toyota rules by fear, threat, and intimidation. "You can call "Dr." Black with any specific questions on drug policy". It has been made up on the fly, there is woefully inadequate documentation of prohibited substances, I could go on! No matter whether Jeremy is a meth-head or not, the good that will come out of this is that at least relating to drug use, NASCAR will be forced into a fair and accurate program with true outside labs and proper chain of custody. If Mayfield is a consumer of prohibited drugs beyond Claritin and Adderal, he should bear the consequences. But if he isn't, NASCAR through their selected WWE-based testing program ruined his racing career and they should be accountable for compensating him fairly!

hopper - "Marc, anyone who chooses to defend Mayfield doesn’t need to come up with proof. NASCAR is on the offensive here, and it’s their side that needs to come up with the proof."

Sorry guy I asked YOU directly to come up with proof as you seem to assert the "spiked" samples charge may hold some truth to it.

But here's a related question, he has been saying NASCAR "spiked" his samples for at least two weeks.

Why then after two court filings by his lawyer John Buric THIS WEEK wasn't proof of the charge offered to the court?

And why after claiming he has had 15 tests all showing a negative result for Meth has that's not been entered into the court record, only two tests are on record.

And BTW, Barry is correct, Mayfield filed the civil suit it is in fact incumbent on he and his lawyers to prove his own case.

You know about as much about the law as you do about "spiked" drug samples.

Steve - "And the assertion by Brian France that there have been positives shows that when you are in the favored group,"

Excuse me?

Let-me guess, you read that on some crap forum full of NASCAR haters and other such nutzoids?

Here let me blast you with a cluebat, that quote is a direct reference to others that have had a FALSE positive [they DO happen you know] in a "A" sample and the results of testing the "B" sample proved they were false positives.

Now, stick you fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalala"

"NASCAR is on the offensive here, and it’s their side that needs to come up with the proof. Innocent until proven guilty. That’s how our legal system works."

WRONG! This is not a criminal case, it is a civil case. The burden of proof is on Jeremy.

Jeremy Mayfield seems to be the embodiment of two John Cougar Mellencamp songs in the 80's. One is The Authority Song" containing "I fight authority, authority always wins". The other is "Minutes To Memories", the specific reference being "I do things my way and I pay a high price". In an interview, he quoted lyrics from Aaron Tippin, "you got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything". Given just his life circumstances that we know (ADHD, his dad's alcoholism and suspicious death, hard times dealing with team owners), I believe he is bearing up very well, as evidenced by his television interviews. My gut feeling in watching these is he's telling the truth, but maybe we need to have the star of "Lie To Me" watch the tapes.
He knows the emperors (David Black and Brian France} have no clothes, but he is one of the very few to publically state it! Maybe he is relating to a 60's Bob Dylan lyric, "when you got nothing, you've got nothing to lose", but NASCAR has failed to bring him down to nothing yet.

Marc, anyone who chooses to defend Mayfield doesn't need to come up with proof. NASCAR is on the offensive here, and it's their side that needs to come up with the proof. Innocent until proven guilty. That's how our legal system works. And until Mayfield is proven guilty, which I don't believe he will be, I will continue to take his side.

Marc,
Thanks for your reaction, I certainly hope I am doing similar to you, bringing up possibilities that have not been mentioned yet. I do find it interesting and depressing that NO other NASCAR stars or drivers have spoken to the issue since a few asked for a list when this first surfaced. And the assertion by Brian France that there have been positives shows that when you are in the favored group, the power structure will hush things up! Remember the "foreign substance" in Michael Waltrip's fuel at Daytona a couple of years ago? A good example of someone bowing down to the NASCAR steam roller. Please refresh my memory, but did the full story ever come out? When drivers pucker up really well, and remember the goose that lays the golden egg, it all works out in the short term.
As for whether Jeremy Mayfield has done meth or not, I do not know! But he has refused to go quietly into the night, MAYBE because he is not guilty. Another poster on another site asked the question, if you were told by your employer that you were being fired for drug use and you knew you didn't, would you leave, or fight it? You state that "proof positive" would make you "consider" it. Do you truly trust NASCAR? That is impressive. All this reminds me of the old saying, "absolute power corrupts absolutely".
What do you know about the current status of Carl Long, speaking of steamrollers?

I'll tell you what hopper, you come up with proof positive and I'll consider it.

Until then, and assuming you believe that tripe, you may be as deranged as Mayfield appears on occasion.

Let me guess, you don't?

steve, so what are you saying?

That Paul Hendrick is somehow related to the Hendrick Motorsports owner?

For the sake of argument let's say he is, for what possible reason would he place the race team in jeopardy, or what reason would he be in cahoots with NASCAR on this issue?

He's not and your just spewing out nonsense.

Let me guess, you also believe NASCAR "spiked" Mayfield's samples.

One puzzling factor- why in the 21 page court brief is the head guy on NAZICAR's legal team named Paul Hendrick? Thicker than thieves, eh?

Some of these people talk like they have experienced meth first hand lol.

hopper - "Did Mayfield’s best years come as a result of the meth? If so, then perhaps some of the champions in recent years should be suspected and tested."

You would only buy into that scenario if you mistakenly believed Meth is in anyway possible and aid or an enhancement to a drivers ability on the track.

And it just not possible. Ever hear of the First Law of Holes?

In short it refers to not diggig any longer when your at the bottom of the hole.

I don't even see how meth could possibly be helpful to a driver. I've seen what meth does to people, and the results are not conducive to driving at about 180mph. It makes people nervous and paranoid, which would not help on-track decision-making at NASCAR's highest level. If he really was/is on meth, Jeremy Mayfield is either an idiot or a victim of job pressure, but either way, he should just back out quietly and seek help. Not the Lindsay Lohan kind of help, the real kind.

The article makes sense. Wow, these comments are painful...

Alright, let me put it this way...

The first part of the article dissmisses any potential truth behind what Lisa said. The second part of the article talks about the scenarios if Lisa was right. Did Mayfield's best years come as a result of the meth? If so, then perhaps some of the champions in recent years should be suspected and tested. Did meth cost Mayfield a shot at being a Cup champion? Who knows.

I don't by into Lisa's tale, as I prove in the first part of the article. I'm just going over the scenarios IF her tale is true.

Does that make sense?

Your argument only holds water if you believe Lisa Mayfield's tall tale and at this points she's been pretty much unmasked as a crank.

Put another way you set-up a false premise based on what Lisa said and went from there, I'll stick with my original assessment, your argument makes no logical or practical sense.

My argument, Marc, is that Mayfield couldn't have been on meth from 1998-2005 because of the way he performed. Unless meth is a performance enhancer, Mayfield should've been driving the wrong way during that time instead of winning all his races and making the Chase, if he really was on meth.

Either that, or he could've been a 5-time champion during that time had he not been on meth, if he was on meth...

First of all tossing out anything Lisa Mayfield has said is most probably a correct thing to do, that said to make any claim Mayfield couldn't possibly be a meth user because it isn't a performance enhancer borders on delusional and show a complete misunderstanding of drug abuse.

Heroin isn't a performance enhancer either why did Aaron Fike use it and get busted for it?

Your argument makes no logical or practical sense.