ILNews

Hebenstreit: Here's to Another 100 Years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IBA-hebenstreitIt is May, this is Indy; how can I fail to comment on the Greatest Spectacle in Racing. One hundred years—that is a very long time. This year is the Centennial running of the Indy 500. It has been a fascinating run since the first race on May 30, 1911. William Howard Taft was serving as the President, World War I was still 3 years away, and the automobile was a new and strange contraption. William A. Pickens was serving as the 36th president of the Indianapolis Bar Association. I wonder if he had the opportunity to write a column every other week.

In 1911, Carl Fisher and his group decided to use their raceway in northwestern Indianapolis to host a record breaking event. Although Fisher is frequently described as both an eccentric as well as a visionary, I suspect he had no idea what a tradition he was starting. That inaugural race was not without controversy, and for 100 years there has been a dispute about who really won that race. Just as motor racing was brand new, so was the method of scoring and counting laps. Author Charles Leerhsen has just published a new book detailing the problems with that first running of the Indy 500. Until his death, Ralph Mulford claimed that he and his Lozier car had beaten Ray Harroun and his Marmon Wasp to be the first winner of the Indianapolis 500. Mulford claimed to have been a lap ahead of Harroun due to a pass he performed during a crash scenario. Apparently, knowing the scoring devices were flawed, Fisher decreed that all the records of the race be destroyed before they could be reviewed by the AAA who sanctioned the race. Sounds like a classic case of spoliation of the evidence!

As I am writing this column, it is a rainy Sunday, the second day the track has been open this year. Like many soggy race days, the weathermen are looking for that “window of opportunity” to allow cars to get out on the Brickyard to practice and especially for the rookies to get much needed time on the track. In this age of domed stadiums, the weather is still a major factor. Let’s hope that on Sunday, May 29th, the sun will be shining as Jim Nabors sings “Back Home Again in Indiana” and as AJ Foyt leads the group of 33 drivers to the green flag.

It seems that there has been a greater buzz about the Race this year. I hope that is a good sign for the Hulman George family and the racing community. With the revitalization of Main Street in Speedway as well as the arrival of Dallara to the area, the neighborhood around the World’s Most Famous Oval is looking up. Whoever thought up the idea of a Hot Wheels event at the World’s Greatest Race Course should be either commended or shot. Every guy who ever played with a Hot Wheels racer as a child is curious to see exactly how that event will turn out. Just a new twist to the real show—the Centennial running of the Indy 500.

For how many years did we hear Tom Carnegie announce the ecstasy that one of the daredevil drivers had just earned “a new track record” or the agony of defeat hearing that “Mario is slowing down…” How many race mornings have you awakened to hear that the Coke lot is almost full and that 16th street is at a standstill? What about all of those Styrofoam cooler toting race fans making their way to the old Snakepit. Ah, the old days.

Although we enjoyed those crazy days in the infield, I, for one, appreciate the substantial effort and expense the Hulman George family has devoted to elevating our Race into a first class international event. The 80 or so acres in the shadow of downtown are immaculately maintained. The economic impact to our City of that one day is almost twice that expected by hosting the Super Bowl. And let’s not forget that they don’t ask for City money to maintain the course. Since 1945 when Tony Holman purchased the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, it has been a constantly improving venue. Our city owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to the family for making our city the Motor Sports Capital of the World. I hope it continues for another 100 years.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT