NASCAR Strikes Back, Appeals Mayfield Injunction
Just when it seemed Jeremy Mayfield had a victory in his hands and NASCAR was ready to pull back, NASCAR fired back at Mayfield after filing an appeal to U.S. District Court to reverse the decision on Monday.
Despite initial rumors that NASCAR would avoid an appeals process, NASCAR asked Judge Graham Mullen to reverse his original decision made last Wednesday. The ruling allowed Mayfield to temporarily return from his NASRCAR-issued drug suspension, first announced May 9 after a race in Richmond, Va.
During the ruling last Wednesday, Judge Mullen claimed there was a "great chance" of a false positive during testing, despite NASCAR's claims that both the "A" and backup "B" samples were tested; including at an independent lab. Most of the controversy surrounded the drug detected and the amount, which NASCAR stated in court filings was methamphetamine.
But, Judge Millen ruled in favor of Mayfield in the original ruling, stating the "alarming amounts" reported in the drug sample were indicative of a false positive.
In the newest filing, NASCAR asks Judge Millen to reverse the decision because Mayfield "poses a threat to public safety," giving reason for the "immediate appeal" filed on behalf of NASCAR.
NASCAR went on to say the Judge failed to, "properly consider the reliability of assessments by Mayfield employees that the driver did not ingest methamphetamine."
The lab in charge of performing the drug tests for NASCAR, Aegis, claimed they had "several advanced procedures" to prevent any false positives during testing.
Despite the ruling last Wednesday, which gave Mayfield the clearance to drive in the series once again, Mayfield did not arrive in Daytona with his own team Mayfield Motorsports. Despite asking up to four other teams, Mayfield could not find a ride in time for last Saturday's Coke Zero 400 at Daytona.
As of Monday afternoon, Mayfield had yet to register his team's No. 41 car for the upcoming race Saturday night at Chicagoland.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?