News-Record.com

Lap 1: This might be the dumbest racing story you read all year, and we're not even to Talladega. David Caraviello's logic goes something like this: Drug testing in sports exists because athletes take steroids, and there aren't any steroids in NASCAR, so NASCAR doesn't have a drug problem and therefore doesn't need drug testing. Wow. That's just ... stunning. The fact that NASCAR didn't lay down the smack on Aaron Fike until the cops busted him shooting up in the King's Island parking lot tells you all you need to know about NASCAR's pathetic drug policy: You had a smack addict driving a race car, and nobody knew.

Lap 2: Lost in the debate about steroids and drugs is this: Steroids aren't just about making yourself big and bulky. Yeah, I know, Barry Bonds' super-sized melon is the symbol of steroid abuse. But look at cycling, the most drug-riddled sport this side of track and field. The road cyclists (think Tour de France) are tiny, but they use all sorts of chemical trickery to help them ride 100+ miles a day and recover overnight so they can do it again the next day. Then you have Formula One, which uses the WADA list of banned substances. (Here; PDF warning.) F1 drivers are specifically prohibited from using alcohol (technically, too much alcohol) and beta blockers, which tamp down the body's adrenaline. Who's to say NASCAR drivers aren't taking something to keep them alert during a 500-mile race? Or something to help them recover for next week's 500-mile slog? Or something else to keep them from mashing the gas and spinning the tires on restarts? You're a fool if you think it might not be happening.

Lap 2A: NASCAR does deserves major credit for how it deals with drug violations -- drivers are gone till NASCAR says otherwise. Too bad other major pro sports don't back up their alleged concern about drugs, performance-enhancing or otherwise, with serious punishment.

Lap 3: Dustin Long explains the reasoning behind NASCAR's announcement of a two-day test session at LMS: So, why do this? Better competition (... and) TV. It's odd to think that NASCAR thinks much at all about open-wheel racing. But evidently the IRL-Champ Car merger has them ... well, not exactly spooked, but concerned. The Indy 500 is the only open-wheel race I'll make a point of watching (other than the always bizarrely entertaining F1) during the year. I guess NASCAR wants to make sure that the Other 500 stays in what NASCAR considers to be its proper place - second.

Lap 4: Here's one race that BAM Racing can win: the race to the bottom of the NASCAR standings. The team has made only three of eight races this year, and it looks like they'll miss a bunch more because a potential sponsor fell through. (More from BAM here; click on "Important Message from BAM Racing.") If the economy is truly in the tank, and all signs seem to be pointing that way, expect some other low-budget teams to start missing some races. I think you'll see the biggest impact in 2009 when sponsor contracts start to expire. Best I can recall, there hasn't been a less-than-43 car field in a while (does anyone remember when?). I wouldn't be surprised to see one in the second race of '09.

Lap 5: Mike of "Trouble in Turn 2" delivers the best dramatic interpretation of the top 35 rule here. For some reason I'm now craving breadsticks.

Green-white-checkers lap: Here's something way off-topic. Frank Deford thinks MMA is kicking boxing's behind because MMA is bloodier. No, Frank, you're wrong. The reason boxing mostly stinks (Pavlik-Taylor and Pacquiao-Marquez aside) is because the matchups are awful -- lopsided, predictable and often miserable to watch. Even Floyd Mayweather is too bored to fight any more. Then you have heavyweight champ Wladimir Klitschko, who's afraid to take a punch. His last punch-less defense against Sultan Ibragimov is 12 rounds of my life I want back.

See? I promised you a rant. Now go outside and enjoy spring.