| Letter from Tony George |
The IRL and the '500' Future
Copyright © 1995 IndySpeedway.com All Rights Reserved
To The Editor of the Indianapolis Star:
It is my hope to provide an understanding of the purpose and motivation
behind the formation of the Indy Racing League. There is much
controversy in this matter, expressed as anxiety and even animosity by
certain members of the Indy racing community, several fans, and more
than one journalist.
In time, I hope the current wounds are healed and that these
disagreements ultimately provide for clearer and stronger relationships
throughout our sport. Later, I'll get into specific reasons why I believe so
strongly in the formation of this league.
Of immediate concern, though, is the unsettling rhetoric of threats,
boycotts and an alternate race on May 26 as leveled by Championship
Auto Racing Teams (CART) against both the Indianapolis 500 and the IRL.
Other than to once again reiterate our almost daily, sincere invitation to the
racing community that we consider all racers friends and that IRL events
and the "500" are open to any legitimate team with a legal car and
qualified driver, I cannot say how this will all turn out.
What I can say, very sincerely, is that any and all teams that have
competed in past "500s," many of them CART franchisees, are 100
percent welcome to enter and compete in any of our IRL events. New
entrants are welcome too. That said, I'm going to specifically address just
a single, highly inaccurate word that has recently surfaced as CART's
focal buzzword to describe its self-imposed predicament regarding the
"500." The word is "lockout."
Let's make this clear: There is no lockout. What I believe to be the case is
that CART, following an effort to eliminate the IRL and gain control of the
Indianapolis 500, is in the uncomfortable position of having created
deliberate and unnecessary conflicts from which it will not extricate itself.
Those conflicts surfaced with CART's announcements of technical
specifications for its 1996 cars and of its 1996 schedule, both of which
occurred well after the corresponding IRL information had been made
public and put in place for our inaugural season.
Probably 90 percent or more of the discussion (and cussing) has been
aimed at the IRL's 75 percent-of-the-field qualifying incentive, the one that
conditionally guarantees 25 spots in the Indianapolis 500 lineup to IRL
competitors. Although we have not changed any of the four-day,
speed-seeded qualifying format for the "500" with the fastest first-day
qualifier, whoever it is, still on the pole, let me explain where the new
qualifying criteria -- which only affects who gets bumped -- came from.
The IRL qualifying incentives, bridging across different events, provide a
new and interesting dimension to how starting fields are established
because they provide a hard, venue-to-venue continuity. There is a positive
side in terms of publicity and race-to-race interdependency to build the
league's identity. But the down side is that if the "500" were to be a true
league member, then the rule would have to apply to the 33-car Indy field
as well. We were on the fence leaning away from that one until the middle
of June.
That was when CART announced its 1996 schedule. The components of
our modest, five-race IRL schedule had been announced in January, April
and late May, and each announcement was accompanied by an IRL
promise not to create conflict with what we understood would be CART's
schedule. We obviously hoped they would enter our races.
On June 10, CART announced its 15-race 1996 schedule. Ultimately, four
of its dates appeared to us to have been put deliberately in conflict with
three important IRL dates: CART's Brazil and Australia races were placed
one week before and one week after the IRL's announced Phoenix date of
March 24, 1996; CART's Nazareth race was listed on April 28 against
USAC's important Indy Rookie Orientation Program; and inexplicably,
CART chose to schedule Elkhart Lake directly opposite the IRL's Aug. 18
New Hampshire race.
Travel logistics virtually eliminate the possibility of any team running Brazil,
Phoenix and Australia on consecutive weekends. While "ROP" (as USAC's
rookie program is called) is not a highly publicized event, it is nonetheless
well known in racing circles that it occurs a week before opening day at
Indianapolis, when the final preparations to the race track have been
completed. All CART could say about its Elkhart Lake date was that it had
always raced on that date (it hasn't) and besides, CART stated, it hadn't
made any promises that it wouldn't conflict.
What do you do if you are in our shoes? CART had obviously made a
perfectly legal, free-market competition move to prevent its teams from
participating in the opportunities presented by the IRL. At that point it
became incumbent on us to respond in kind, and we did it with a carrot
instead of a stick.
On July 3, we announced $12 million in prize money for the five-race
series, and qualifying criteria weighted toward teams that participate in
IRL events. In August, we weighted our season championship points
system very heavily toward consistent IRL participation. Plus we already
had an agreement in place with ABC Sports for live television coverage of
all five IRL races.
These are strong, attractive incentives for open participation that in no way
imply a lockout. Then as now, the IRL is designed for open inclusion of any
and all competitors. It is unfortunate CART is forcing its members to
choose.
Then there is the equipment question. On Oct. 11, a CART car owner was
quoted in The Star sports section about the necessity for the IRL to adopt
'96 CART equipment rules or else CART will be unable to compete in next
year's Indianapolis 500. That is a true statement, sort of. The problem
resulted from CART's decision last May to institute sweeping changes in
its own '96 chassis specifications that it knew when it made them would
effectively eliminate its cars from competing in the 1996 "500." That was
CART's decision, not ours, and I firmly believe the decision was motivated
by CART's desire to stifle the development of the IRL by creating the
burden on its members of redundant, expensive equipment.
It was, in my view, another free-market competition decision. I respect
CART's right to compete against the IRL, although it was certainly not our
original intent to compete against them. We wanted to coexist and not
force anyone to choose sides. That is why in early March the IRL
rescinded its own proposed sweeping changes in both chassis and engine
specifications.
At that time, CART told us they felt the IRL's proposed technical changes
-- which we had announced in 1994 -- would create hardship because they
were too late for 1996 production and too expensive for teams because all
new equipment would be required. We did not entirely agree with those
assessments, but in the interest of removing obstacles to agreement, the
IRL announced March 10 that for 1996 all applicable 1995 USAC and
CART specifications would be observed. It was purely a move of
appeasement on our part.
Imagine our surprise when two months later, in mid-May, CART adopted
changes in chassis specifications that were very close to what the IRL had
rescinded in the interest of keeping peace in the family. While technical
and safety improvements are the backbone of auto racing, it was obvious
to me that CART's chassis change was motivated less by performance
than by its political desire to prevent the IRL from conducting races in
1996. I was very disappointed by this, but it was not of our doing and we
will stick to the commitments we made for 1996 rules.
Chassis incompatibility and schedule conflicts: CART created both these
problems after the IRL was on record as sincerely having tried to avoid
them. The purpose of the IRL is to provide growth, stability and
opportunity for open-wheel, oval track racing. That mission is certainly not
intended to harm or control CART.
In fact, it has nothing to do with CART. We simply do not want the
Indianapolis 500 to be controlled by an outside group that does not have
as its most important goal the future of Indianapolis type oval track racing.
Not to mention a group that is based out of state and is far removed from
the significance of the "500" in this community.
It is often said that I am motivated by power and greed in forming the IRL.
It certainly is not greed, because this is a very intense financial
commitment for us to build a race track in Florida and establish proper
league staffing and resources. The monetary payback, if there is any, will
be over the long haul. On the subject of power, my desire is not now and
never has been control of CART, IndyCar or the entire series of whatever
cars run in the Indianapolis 500. The payback on that side is simply a
peace of mind that comes from maintaining the sovereignty of this
wonderful event.
Far from wanting to run the sport, I'd love to see even the IRL develop an
autonomy. There is much I would like to do in my life, but I'll be unable to
enjoy any of it if the "500" is not secure.
That's why the Indy Racing League was formed. I felt the long-term
protection of the "500" depended on a solid series of top level open-wheel,
oval track races. To that end, this league was created because CART
provided no long-term guarantees to the "500" or to oval track racing. Nor
has CART as an organization exhibited long-term stability, with four
different board voting structures and four different chief executives just in
the short five years I've been president of the Speedway.
The Indianapolis 500 will not be controlled by CART. They are welcome to
join us as competitors, but not to impose their will or their governing
structure on the Speedway.
Our timing in all of this was pretty good. The threat I feared might
someday materialize -- a CART sanction in a power move against the
Speedway -- is evidently upon us. Although you can argue that we brought
it on ourselves this time, I am convinced it would have happened over
some other issue at some other time. This time, though, we were in the
middle of exercising some very important American ideals -- those of free
competition, open markets and entrepreneurship. We are in a position of
strength, and we are steadfastly in a position to defend the future of the
"500" with the Indy Racing League.
It breaks my heart when I see CART drivers quoted as saying the "500" is
"just another race," and I can't count the number of CART owners who
have stated on various occasions that they would prefer to emasculate the
month of May, and instead re-make the greatest automobile race meeting
in the world into a single-weekend event. I would be ashamed if we let that
happen here. It would be an incalculable loss for both the world of racing
and the local community.
It is my hope to provide an understanding of the purpose and motivation
behind the formation of the Indy Racing League. There is much
controversy in this matter, expressed as anxiety and even animosity by
certain members of the Indy racing community, several fans, and more
than one journalist.
In time, I hope the current wounds are healed and that these
disagreements ultimately provide for clearer and stronger relationships
throughout our sport. Later, I'll get into specific reasons why I believe so
strongly in the formation of this league.
Of immediate concern, though, is the unsettling rhetoric of threats,
boycotts and an alternate race on May 26 as leveled by Championship
Auto Racing Teams (CART) against both the Indianapolis 500 and the IRL.
Other than to once again reiterate our almost daily, sincere invitation to the
racing community that we consider all racers friends and that IRL events
and the "500" are open to any legitimate team with a legal car and
qualified driver, I cannot say how this will all turn out.
What I can say, very sincerely, is that any and all teams that have
competed in past "500s," many of them CART franchisees, are 100
percent welcome to enter and compete in any of our IRL events. New
entrants are welcome too. That said, I'm going to specifically address just
a single, highly inaccurate word that has recently surfaced as CART's
focal buzzword to describe its self-imposed predicament regarding the
"500." The word is "lockout."
Let's make this clear: There is no lockout. What I believe to be the case is
that CART, following an effort to eliminate the IRL and gain control of the
Indianapolis 500, is in the uncomfortable position of having created
deliberate and unnecessary conflicts from which it will not extricate itself.
Those conflicts surfaced with CART's announcements of technical
specifications for its 1996 cars and of its 1996 schedule, both of which
occurred well after the corresponding IRL information had been made
public and put in place for our inaugural season.
Probably 90 percent or more of the discussion (and cussing) has been
aimed at the IRL's 75 percent-of-the-field qualifying incentive, the one that
conditionally guarantees 25 spots in the Indianapolis 500 lineup to IRL
competitors. Although we have not changed any of the four-day,
speed-seeded qualifying format for the "500" with the fastest first-day
qualifier, whoever it is, still on the pole, let me explain where the new
qualifying criteria -- which only affects who gets bumped -- came from.
The IRL qualifying incentives, bridging across different events, provide a
new and interesting dimension to how starting fields are established
because they provide a hard, venue-to-venue continuity. There is a positive
side in terms of publicity and race-to-race interdependency to build the
league's identity. But the down side is that if the "500" were to be a true
league member, then the rule would have to apply to the 33-car Indy field
as well. We were on the fence leaning away from that one until the middle
of June.
That was when CART announced its 1996 schedule. The components of
our modest, five-race IRL schedule had been announced in January, April
and late May, and each announcement was accompanied by an IRL
promise not to create conflict with what we understood would be CART's
schedule. We obviously hoped they would enter our races.
On June 10, CART announced its 15-race 1996 schedule. Ultimately, four
of its dates appeared to us to have been put deliberately in conflict with
three important IRL dates: CART's Brazil and Australia races were placed
one week before and one week after the IRL's announced Phoenix date of
March 24, 1996; CART's Nazareth race was listed on April 28 against
USAC's important Indy Rookie Orientation Program; and inexplicably,
CART chose to schedule Elkhart Lake directly opposite the IRL's Aug. 18
New Hampshire race.
Travel logistics virtually eliminate the possibility of any team running Brazil,
Phoenix and Australia on consecutive weekends. While "ROP" (as USAC's
rookie program is called) is not a highly publicized event, it is nonetheless
well known in racing circles that it occurs a week before opening day at
Indianapolis, when the final preparations to the race track have been
completed. All CART could say about its Elkhart Lake date was that it had
always raced on that date (it hasn't) and besides, CART stated, it hadn't
made any promises that it wouldn't conflict.
What do you do if you are in our shoes? CART had obviously made a
perfectly legal, free-market competition move to prevent its teams from
participating in the opportunities presented by the IRL. At that point it
became incumbent on us to respond in kind, and we did it with a carrot
instead of a stick.
On July 3, we announced $12 million in prize money for the five-race
series, and qualifying criteria weighted toward teams that participate in
IRL events. In August, we weighted our season championship points
system very heavily toward consistent IRL participation. Plus we already
had an agreement in place with ABC Sports for live television coverage of
all five IRL races.
These are strong, attractive incentives for open participation that in no way
imply a lockout. Then as now, the IRL is designed for open inclusion of any
and all competitors. It is unfortunate CART is forcing its members to
choose.
Then there is the equipment question. On Oct. 11, a CART car owner was
quoted in The Star sports section about the necessity for the IRL to adopt
'96 CART equipment rules or else CART will be unable to compete in next
year's Indianapolis 500. That is a true statement, sort of. The problem
resulted from CART's decision last May to institute sweeping changes in
its own '96 chassis specifications that it knew when it made them would
effectively eliminate its cars from competing in the 1996 "500." That was
CART's decision, not ours, and I firmly believe the decision was motivated
by CART's desire to stifle the development of the IRL by creating the
burden on its members of redundant, expensive equipment.
It was, in my view, another free-market competition decision. I respect
CART's right to compete against the IRL, although it was certainly not our
original intent to compete against them. We wanted to coexist and not
force anyone to choose sides. That is why in early March the IRL
rescinded its own proposed sweeping changes in both chassis and engine
specifications.
At that time, CART told us they felt the IRL's proposed technical changes
-- which we had announced in 1994 -- would create hardship because they
were too late for 1996 production and too expensive for teams because all
new equipment would be required. We did not entirely agree with those
assessments, but in the interest of removing obstacles to agreement, the
IRL announced March 10 that for 1996 all applicable 1995 USAC and
CART specifications would be observed. It was purely a move of
appeasement on our part.
Imagine our surprise when two months later, in mid-May, CART adopted
changes in chassis specifications that were very close to what the IRL had
rescinded in the interest of keeping peace in the family. While technical
and safety improvements are the backbone of auto racing, it was obvious
to me that CART's chassis change was motivated less by performance
than by its political desire to prevent the IRL from conducting races in
1996. I was very disappointed by this, but it was not of our doing and we
will stick to the commitments we made for 1996 rules.
Chassis incompatibility and schedule conflicts: CART created both these
problems after the IRL was on record as sincerely having tried to avoid
them. The purpose of the IRL is to provide growth, stability and
opportunity for open-wheel, oval track racing. That mission is certainly not
intended to harm or control CART.
In fact, it has nothing to do with CART. We simply do not want the
Indianapolis 500 to be controlled by an outside group that does not have
as its most important goal the future of Indianapolis type oval track racing.
Not to mention a group that is based out of state and is far removed from
the significance of the "500" in this community.
It is often said that I am motivated by power and greed in forming the IRL.
It certainly is not greed, because this is a very intense financial
commitment for us to build a race track in Florida and establish proper
league staffing and resources. The monetary payback, if there is any, will
be over the long haul. On the subject of power, my desire is not now and
never has been control of CART, IndyCar or the entire series of whatever
cars run in the Indianapolis 500. The payback on that side is simply a
peace of mind that comes from maintaining the sovereignty of this
wonderful event.
Far from wanting to run the sport, I'd love to see even the IRL develop an
autonomy. There is much I would like to do in my life, but I'll be unable to
enjoy any of it if the "500" is not secure.
That's why the Indy Racing League was formed. I felt the long-term
protection of the "500" depended on a solid series of top level open-wheel,
oval track races. To that end, this league was created because CART
provided no long-term guarantees to the "500" or to oval track racing. Nor
has CART as an organization exhibited long-term stability, with four
different board voting structures and four different chief executives just in
the short five years I've been president of the Speedway.
The Indianapolis 500 will not be controlled by CART. They are welcome to
join us as competitors, but not to impose their will or their governing
structure on the Speedway.
Our timing in all of this was pretty good. The threat I feared might
someday materialize -- a CART sanction in a power move against the
Speedway -- is evidently upon us. Although you can argue that we brought
it on ourselves this time, I am convinced it would have happened over
some other issue at some other time. This time, though, we were in the
middle of exercising some very important American ideals -- those of free
competition, open markets and entrepreneurship. We are in a position of
strength, and we are steadfastly in a position to defend the future of the
"500" with the Indy Racing League.
It breaks my heart when I see CART drivers quoted as saying the "500" is
"just another race," and I can't count the number of CART owners who
have stated on various occasions that they would prefer to emasculate the
month of May, and instead re-make the greatest automobile race meeting
in the world into a single-weekend event. I would be ashamed if we let that
happen here. It would be an incalculable loss for both the world of racing
and the local community.
by Anton Hulman George
Indianapolis Motor Speedway President
October 24, 1995
Indianapolis Motor Speedway President
October 24, 1995