confiscate the tire at Du
Quoin, but instead, after
hearing complaints from
other teams—most notably
the Crosley Brands/How-
erton Motorsports Kawasaki
squad, where Mees' archri-
val Bryan Smith rides—took
possession of the tire a
week later at the Indy Mile.
Samples from the tire
were tested at a lab and
found to have "been con-
taminated and that a num-
ber of additional chemical
compounds were present in
the test sample which were
not present in the control
tire supplied to the labora-
tory," according to a state-
ment released by AMA Pro
Racing on September 24.
So if the tire was chemi-
cally modified, it stood to
reason that Mees should
be penalized for running
an illegally modified tire at
Du Quion, but not having
possession of the tire in
question for a week proved
to be key in AMA Pro Rac-
ing's ultimate decision not to
penalize Mees.
In its statement AMA Pro
Racing said it "could not
determine when the tire had
come into contact with any
contaminant material that
was subsequently identified
during chemical analysis."
So in other words, in the
week between Du Quion
and Indy it's possible the tire
could have come in contact
inadvertently with chemicals.
Doping of tires (with
chemicals such as Tulu-
ene, Xylene or Acetone)
was common in the past
to soften the tire to provide
better traction, but chemical
modification of tires is no
longer allowed in the inter-
est of safety.
Mees' mechanic Kenny
Tolbert declined to com-
ment on the tire issue when
asked at Peoria other than
to say, "It's sour grapes by
one of the other teams." He
declined to name the team,
but it's no secret the loudest
protester has been Rick
Howerton of Howerton Mo-
torsports. His rider Bryan
Smith would have the most
to gain had Mees been
penalized at Du Quoin.
On its Facebook page
Howerton Motorsports pub-
lished a rebuttal (https://
www.facebook.com/How-
ertonMotorsports/photos/
a.433328140036485.891
38.417924134910219/919
507104751917/?type=3&th
eater) to AMA Pro Racing's
statement on the tire, which
basically accuses AMAP of
dropping the ball by not con-
fiscating the tire at Du Quoin.
That is a valid complaint and
one that at least one AMA
Pro official admitted was a
mistake on their part.
It should be noted that
this reporter noticed at the
Indy Mile that Mees' tires
seemed to have more wear,
and certainly with AMAP on
full alert, it's highly un-
likely Mees' tire would have
been doped at Indy, so it's
possible that Mees' riding
technique is simply rougher
on rear tires.
It's also not a big se-
cret that Smith's Crosley/
Howerton Kawasaki has a
highly-sophisticated engine
management system that
essentially provides traction
control and that would rea-
sonably result in less rear
tire wear on Smith's bike as
compared to Mees'.
In the final analysis, AMA
Pro Racing likely did make
a mistake by not taking the
Mees tire directly from the
Rogers Racing team at Du
Quoin, but AMAP also made
probably the only decision
they could make of not
penalizing Mees, since the
tire was out of AMAP's pos-
session for a week before it
was sent in for testing.
As a result of the con-
troversy, the statement
explains that new protocols
are being implemented to
include random testing of
tires, just as they do for fuel,
sound and drug testing.
While the decision will not
satisfy everyone, it at least
shows AMA Pro Racing is
able to admit an error and
then take steps to make
corrections.
Larry Lawrence
PHOTOGRAPHY
BY
BRIAN
J.
NELSON
Controversy
surrounds
defending
Grand National
Champion
Jared Mees
over his rear
tire used at the
Du Quoin Mile.
VOL. 52 ISSUE 39 SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 P25
