No Anti-IndyCar Bias within ISC, Track Presidents Say

Presidents of IndyCar race hosts Chicagoland and Kansas Speedways said this week that even though their tacks are ultimately owned NASCAR, business is still business.

The bottom line still speaks loudest, said Craig Rust, president of Chicagoland Speedway, one of four tracks on the IndyCar schedule owned by International Speedway Corporation (ISC), which is owned by NASCAR. Besides Chicagoland and Kansas, IndyCar races at ISC tracks Watkins Glenn and Homestead-Miami Speedway.

"It’s a business,” said Rust, who has been with ISC for 14 years, including a tenure as the president of Watkins Glen. “It doesn’t matter what on that track, if fans want to see it and we’re packing the house, believe me as promoters we’ll continue to work with that sanctioning body.”

Pat Warren, president of Kansas Speedway, agrees and says the focus at the track level is staging successful events. “We want to put on the best show possible for our fans, and we want to have a safe and exciting facility for the drivers,” Warren said. “My goal is to make fans who choose to come to Kansas Speedway have a fantastic experience and they want to come back.” The great experience is the key, not so much the source of the experience.

Rust said he and his track have “a great relationship” with the Indy Racing League, one he wants to see continue into the future.

"We’ve got to make, at the track level, good decisions on from a business standpoint,” said Rust. “But there is commitment from ISC to try and grow the IndyCar product. I know there are some people who will question that, but we’ve worked really hard in that area.

"I’ve been part of the ISC for about 15 years and I just know behind the scenes we’re asking ‘what can we do to find new fans and how can we work with the IRL and the sponsor to help grow the fan base? There’s no (anti-IRL) conspiracy out there. As a promoters, when you got these assets, these trace tracks out there we want to host successful events and it’s as simple as that. If you are successful and you got a good relationship you’ll continue.”

Rust also points out that ISC “stepped up in a really big way” when IndyCar was young, with eight ISC tracks on the schedule in 2003 and nine in 2004.

“Motor sports evolves. Certain markets have kind of blossomed other markets haven’t,” he said. “Some of the tracks who ran IndyCar now have two NASCAR dates and some struggled with IndyCar. It’s a business and it has to work for both sides.”

IndyCar CEO Randy Bernard has said there's no animosity between IndyCar and ISC. “I have tremendous respect for Lesa Kennedy and Brian France,” Bernard said on The Inside Line. “I know them both from my days at the PBR (Professional Bull Riders Association). I’m a firm believer that all boats rise on a high tide. They have these multimillion-dollar facilities that need more events than just NASCAR. ISC is a publicly traded company and it is very important for them to make sure they bring in events there that are successful."

Warren will welcome ISC CEO Lesa France Kennedy, recently named "The Most Powerful Woman In Sports" by Forbes Magazine, to Kansas Speedway today. France Kennedy and others will be on hand for the track's formal ground breaking for a $385 million Hollywood Casino being added to the track in turn two. 

Comments

[Dylan]

Sure, there's no conflict that Indycar's biggest rival owns ISC. Yeah, no problem there. I do think some tracks are more workable than others, and definitly Watkins Glen seems freindly with Indycar, but overall, ISC's best interest is NASCAR, since the same people own both. but with NASCAr's struggles I do think some tracks might reconsider an INdycar race if it could bring in enough people.

[DZ]

Who are they trying to kid? Business IS business and they can say what they want but they've also demonstrated that when promoting and scheduling events, IndyCar takes a CLEAR backseat to NASCAR's best interests.

ISC/NASCAR must also understand they've been extremely fortunate to have a product that has sold itself to millions with relatively little promotion from the venue, so when the venue has to promote an event to increase it's success, they seem to have little idea how to do it.

I contrast anything ISC has done (beside opening the ticket booths and gates) for IndyCar with SMI and Eddie Gossage. Gossage has historically done far more work to have successful IndyCar events than ISC, and I'd bet they reap the benefits from that work as well.

I understand that for ISC/NASCAR is 'their house, their rules', which is also why I still support being on no ISC tracks and working more with others who are most eager to host IndyCar races.

[JP]

Cooperation and good manners will extend just far enough to keep tracks with single cup dates booked and keep the Anti Trust lawyers away while not hurting the core nascar business.

SMI will always be the track owner with fewer dubious agendas under the table, but since Penske sold his tracks to ISC, they have the more intriging portfolio.

[DZ]

Unfortunately for IndyCar, historic IndyCar tracks such as Michigan, Phoenix, Watkins Glen, and Nazareth are (or were) all under the ISC banner. For the record, I don't consider Chicagoland, Kansas, or Fontana 'historic' to Indycar... yet.

Maybe I'm too old and can remember when Phoenix was 'THE race' to kick off the season, which a whole generation of race fans now don't even know about. Damned nostalgia.

[Chad Paff]

Bring a better product and a product that people want to watch, with drivers people want to watch, and ISC would be fine with Indy Car.

That simple.

[Squall]

By your logic, Chris Paff, NAS*** needs to bring a better product, with their attendance figures still falling (while, curiously enough, IndyCar's are on the rise).