I've been sitting here wondering something in regard to Jeff Gordon's hard hit against the infield retaining wall at Las Vegas Motor Speedway this past Sunday. I read an article last night on nascar.com regarding there not being SAFER barriers on the inside walls.

Rick Hendrick said: "If the teams are asked to spend $8 million a piece for a car that is a little bit safer, then we need to fix the damn walls at the track," Hendrick told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "That ought to be priority No. 1, and if the tracks don't have the walls, then we shouldn't race there."

Quite simply, I agree with having the SAFER barriers installed. Who wouldn't for safety reasons? Forgive my ignorance here, but are there other tracks coming up that don't have the SAFER barriers on the inside walls?

BUT back to what it is that I'm wondering... Take the same scenario, only the scenario that's running through my head is it's Robby Gordon that took the hard hit instead of Jeff Gordon.

Do you think there would be such an uproar if Robby Gordon had been the one to be involved in that hard hit and he voiced his concerns about the infield walls. I bet not.

Honestly I don't understand why things such as this are reactive instead of proactive. I just don't get it. The powers that be should just make the decision that this is necessary for all race tracks. Period.

What do you think?

E-mail this entry to a friend