His sponsor should pull the sponsorship. If you can"t control your temper then get the h#ll out of the car. Crap like that WILL get someone hurt or worse. IMO, there is no tolerance for that kind of action.
Doug eck at eriez...
Started by suhoney18, Sep 07 2015 12:26 PM
40 replies to this topic
#21
Posted 09 September 2015 - 11:25 AM
#22
Posted 09 September 2015 - 11:27 AM
No it is his fault , Doug ECK . He would be the one that needs power bombed on concrete
#23
Posted 09 September 2015 - 11:30 AM
Wait one minute!!!! So you are saying that his sponsors dont make him act like that? Thats completely ridiculous. I mean I sponsor laps and races at a certain track and look what the hell goes on there lol. I was under the impression that was normal lol.It's not his fuking sponsors fault !!!
- raceover5 likes this
Matt D
#24
Posted 09 September 2015 - 11:36 AM
I've seen him race for years and arrived at the conclusion long ago that he has some screws loose. Even when he isn't getting in to another car, he is always angrily gesturing at someone.
#25
Posted 09 September 2015 - 11:51 AM
So we all agree , Doug Eck SUCKS . so it is written
#26
Posted 09 September 2015 - 05:02 PM
Ataboy legend
#28
Posted 13 September 2015 - 09:24 AM
no it isn't his sponsors fault but its still a liability for the company or business if he does something stupid and it turns bad.
Ok, I'm in no way a fan of that mental midget D Wreck, but how on earth is any company that sponsors a race car liable in any way for the actions of the sponsored driver? If that logic is used, that means a business that buys space on one of those roadside billboards is liable if the billboard (not owned by sponsoring business) somehow malfunctions and falls on a car? I'm not being argumentative, I'm just failing to see how that works.
#29
Posted 13 September 2015 - 03:53 PM
it shouldnt have anything to do with sponsors. But most lawyers are able to twist shit so far upside down that they could convince people that there is no way he would have that car if it weren't for the sponsor.Ok, I'm in no way a fan of that mental midget D Wreck, but how on earth is any company that sponsors a race car liable in any way for the actions of the sponsored driver? If that logic is used, that means a business that buys space on one of those roadside billboards is liable if the billboard (not owned by sponsoring business) somehow malfunctions and falls on a car? I'm not being argumentative, I'm just failing to see how that works.
Matt D
#30
Posted 13 September 2015 - 06:16 PM
exactly lm racing
#31
Posted 14 September 2015 - 07:25 AM
From a Sponsors Standpoint they should drop him and hopefully pick up someone else. Like it or not as a driver with sponsors you are a representative of that company. Their name gets soiled when you act like a child in the middle of a big race like that. Just like all professional sports. Athletes that Cheat or break the law immediately lose their endorsements depending on how severe their actions are. I know if I were the one sponsoring him, I'd be looking for a new driver.
#32
Posted 14 September 2015 - 07:50 AM
It doesn't " soil " the fuking sponsors name. Anyone with half of a dick and half of a brain knows that it wasn't their decision for him to drive like that . Fuking liberals always want to blame everyone except the people responsible
#33
Posted 14 September 2015 - 08:59 AM
Legend obviously you miss the lucking concept of a Sponsorship! A sponsorship is advertisement. as a sponsored driver you are a representative of that company. you carry their name, so in extension, you are an employee of that company. You're absolutely right the sponsor can't control the actions of the driver. Just like you can't control the actions of one of your workers building decks! But guess what if one of your employees snaps and throws a rock through someone's window while building a deck for you, who do you think that customer will come after? Not billy bob the carpenter, Legend! It's up to you as an employer to discipline the employee. But you can't control the actions of your employees right? I love how you try to make everything about politics though. LOL has nothing to do with Democrat/republican, black or white, chicken or the egg it's just plain common sense.
#34
Posted 14 September 2015 - 09:10 AM
How is it his fault that SOMEONE ELSE decided to throw a rock through a window.Once people hold themselves accountable for THEIR OWN actions it is no longer anybody elses problem. The only thing legend would have to do is pay the bill for said window then decide if its worth it to pay a lawyer to recoup his loss. Jon did not throw the rock through the window himself. Now sponsoring a race car is no where near the same as having a person on the payroll. Big difference there. One is a choice to give someone money based on a promise of a set ammount of apperances randomly vs having someone who has an employee id number.
*GOTTI*
#35
Posted 14 September 2015 - 11:05 AM
In most cases a sponsor on a race car is usually a friend or family member who has a buisness just trying to help out. So chances are they know how he acts and dont really care. But in no way should sponsors be accountable for a drivers actions.
Matt D
#36
Posted 14 September 2015 - 04:07 PM
I have turned down sponsoring a car because while I like the driver personally, his actions on the track do not represent the image I want to portray. I don't feel a sponsor could be anymore liable than someone wrecking into a billboard would going after the advertiser. I would say this....after making a huge scene such as this one, the last thing any business wants to see is their name on it. In said example, if the billboard company let their billboards fall down, or grow up with weeds....its pretty clear the advertiser would not stand for such a shotty image of their company.
- BRC27 likes this
#37
Posted 14 September 2015 - 07:19 PM
Well im sure there are plenty of upstanding gentlemen who would like to have you're name on their car.I have turned down sponsoring a car because while I like the driver personally, his actions on the track do not represent the image I want to portray. I don't feel a sponsor could be anymore liable than someone wrecking into a billboard would going after the advertiser. I would say this....after making a huge scene such as this one, the last thing any business wants to see is their name on it. In said example, if the billboard company let their billboards fall down, or grow up with weeds....its pretty clear the advertiser would not stand for such a shotty image of their company.
- BRC27 likes this
Matt D
#38
Posted 14 September 2015 - 07:51 PM
Tunacan I was wondering if you remember when Doug Wolfgang had his serious sprint accident? You said a sponsor is not liable, but Wolfgang, the driver, sued everyone associated with his car. From his sponsors to the manufacturers of certain parts on his car, to the track and the officials. I never heard the outcome of any litigation nor if anyone was held responsible. But this was several years ago, I am sure anyone with a name on a car is subject to responsibility. Will it stand up in court is another thing.
How about the drunk guys that hit the Latrobe policeman head-on? The Policemans family is sueing the company whos name was on the van and the bar they were at. The company didn't have any responsibility did they? No. But because their name was on the van, they are being held accountable. Will it stand up in court is another thing.
Edited by bezerker, 14 September 2015 - 07:52 PM.
#39
Posted 14 September 2015 - 08:34 PM
Wolfgangs deal was lack of insurance on the tracks part. And as far as thebpolice officers tragedy they werent suing the name on the vehicle. They were suing an employer where said person had an employee id number. Not comparable to a sponsorship.
*GOTTI*
#40
Posted 15 September 2015 - 03:54 PM
Bezerker, if the person driving the van was doing so in the course of his employment, the owner of the van (i.e., the company) would certainly be liable under simple agency concepts. And any bar who serves a visibly intoxicated person more alcohol may be held liable if the customer kills someone with his car on the way home from the bar. Race car sponsorship is quite another matter. I don't see how an advertiser could be held accountable for any on-track antics of the sponsored race car. The race car driver is not an agent of the sponsor. Gotti is correct. The crucial question is the relationship of the parties, not the fact of a name being on a vehicle.
Edited by flash49, 15 September 2015 - 03:56 PM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
