In the following pages, I will analyze an article by Jenna Fryer on the topic of NASCAR driver Jeremy Mayfield and his recent problems involving testing positive for methamphetamines. I will show that Fryer is frustrated at the level of attention that this issue has garnered from the media; distracting, in her view, from the legitimate coverage that her field of expertise should receive. I will also show that in doing her due-diligence in covering this story, Fryer has herself been captivated by the human drama at the core of this issue.
Any and all “insights” into NASCAR are derived purely from Fryer’s words. I can assure you of this because I have never watched a NASCAR race, I have no idea who Jeremy Mayfield is, and I probably could not pick a topic that I know less about or have less interest in if I tried.
“INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- Jeremy Mayfield is back under suspension for a failed random drug test after an appeals court ruled in NASCAR's favor Friday, issuing a stay on the injunction that gave the driver the right to return to the race track.”
In this lead, Fryer is ham-handedly dismissing Mayfield as a worthwhile subject of study in the universe of NASCAR coverage. She indicates, though her immediate implication through the use of the word “back,” that Mayfield’s off-the-track problems are chronic and that he is not so much of a lost cause as he is undeserving of being a “cause.” She uses a procession of quick, truncated, and definitive words, followed by an implied faux charity on the part of the organization, suggesting that Mayfield may have been treated with kid gloves early on in this ordeal. The hard consonant words “back,” “failed,” and “ruled,” in addition to the subliminal suggestion of legitimacy of the drug test, through the specificity of its randomness (this is relevant later), suggests a lack of patience on the part of Fryer toward Mayfield. Using the word “gave” in reference to Mayfield’s temporary de facto reinstatement is indicative of Fryer’s belief that the injunction allowing Mayfield to return was an undeserved gift.
“The one-page decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stands until NASCAR's full appeal can be heard.”
Would it be different if the decision were 2 pages? 10 pages? 4 pages? Fryer’s explicit enumeration of the number of pages, specifically one, suggests that she is of the opinion that this is a no-brainer and the fact that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals only needed one page to set it’s decision solidifies the position that this case is open and shut.
“NASCAR appealed to the Richmond, Va., court after a federal judge on July 1 lifted Mayfield's suspension based on the argument that the drug testing system was flawed. U.S. District Court Judge Graham Mullen still has NASCAR's request before him to overturn his earlier decision based on its claim that Mayfield tested positive for methamphetamine a second time on July 6.Mayfield was suspended May 9 for failing a random test done eight days earlier, and NASCAR has said he tested positive for methamphetamine. Mayfield has denied ever using the illegal drug.”
Fryer reports Mayfield’s position using as passé as language as possible, referring to his contention of a flawed drug testing system as merely an “argument” when higher diction could, conceivably, been used. Her use of specific dates (and the one notable avoidance of a specific date) appears to be an attempt to set a convincing and easily followed timeline. Rather than begin with the first offence, which can be deduced to be May 1, she begins with the most recent infraction, thereby setting Mayfield up as a repeat-offender from the get-go. July 6th was his second failed test. He was suspended May 9th for a test that was failed on May 1st, though that date is implied rather than specified. What this does is assumes guilt on the part of Mayfield. By starting the sequence of events with the fact that Mayfield tested positive a second time on July 6th, the audience is lured into automatically assuming that Mayfield was guilty of the first positive test on May 1.
“He is not entered in Sunday's race at Indianapolis Motor Speedway and has indicated he has no intention of returning to racing as he fights NASCAR. The last remaining employee at Mayfield Motorsports resigned last week, and Mayfield has not entered any events since Mullen's ruling.”
Is Fryer really trying to set up the David vs. Goliath bit here? Now? Ok, so Mayfield is going to fight NASCAR. This sounds oddly similar to Sarah Palin’s claim that she “keeps an eye on Russia.” Also, isn’t “last remaining” a bit redundant? Isn’t that meant to imply a steady and deliberate attrition on the part of Mayfield’s team in order to show how everyone, even those close to him, are deserting a guilty man?
“NASCAR and Mayfield have been locked in a nasty battle since the initial suspension, and there have been multiple court filings by both sides as they've argued their position to Mullen. He agreed with Mayfield that the testing system was not fair because the driver was not allowed to take his backup "B" sample to an independent laboratory as a means of contesting his positive result.”
What makes a legal battle with a sports organization “nasty?” Do the lawyers smear shit on the court documents? Fryer takes up valuable word count to say that there have been “multiple court filings by both sides” which suggests that she is starting to reveal a willingness to concede that Mayfield may have something going for him in this fight. Is that what the evidence suggests? Or is Fryer trying to draw this ordeal out a bit?
“Five days after the injunction was issued, NASCAR asked Mayfield to submit to another test, but it took him seven-plus hours to provide a sample. NASCAR presented evidence to Mullen last week showing Mayfield failed that July 6 test and accused him of intentionally delaying the testing process.”
Fryer leaves it up to the reader to reason through what it means that Mayfield waited 7 hours to piss in a cup. Obviously, the NASCAR faithful are supposed to assume that the juice in the cup didn’t come from Mayfield’s fruit tree. Yet, he apparently failed this test, too. So, what’s with the delay? Maybe it’s a legitimate non-starter.
“In addition, Mayfield's estranged former stepmother offered sworn testimony that she had witnessed the driver use methamphetamines at least 30 times and that he'd cooked the drug himself until it became too difficult to obtain the ingredients.”
Levi Johnson’s mom can cook meth in Wasilla, Alaska, but Jeremy Fricken-Mayfield has a hard time getting the ingredients?! Anyway, this is the point that the story goes from being a record of events to a segue to a Springer episode.
“Mayfield angrily denied her accusations, and accused NASCAR of paying Lisa Mayfield to lie about him because she was angry he had not given her financial help since his father's 2007 death. On Tuesday, Mayfield submitted evidence to the court that he'd passed a drug test at an independent lab less than an hour after NASCAR's July 6 test, and said those results are "consistent with my lifestyle as I have not and do not use or abuse methamphetamines." It is impossible for methamphetamine to be in my body as I have never consumed that substance," he wrote.“
This is a fairly compelling twist in the story, yet Fryer does not produce nearly the amount of detail regarding this mystery test as she did for the two tests that Mayfield allegedly failed. Also, if you recall, she has already set Mayfield up to be guilty-as-fuck, in the first half of the story, so an obligatory “other side of the story” at the end, after the bat-shit crazy former step-mother comments, seems to be somewhat buried. The presumed guilt is presented among verifiable dates and completely logical sequences of events. The hint of innocence comes right after some fringe family member says that he was getting high all the time.
“Dr. Harold Schueler of the Broward County (Fla.) Medical Examiner's Office, filed an affidavit on behalf of Mayfield that claimed the levels of methamphetamine in NASCAR's test are "astronomical" and "could be remotely accurate, unless Mr. Mayfield was deceased or a chronic abuser."”
Great cliff-hanger, Fryer! If, in fact, the levels of meth in Mayfield’s urine sample would be enough to kill him, that would be an extremely important angle and something that I would think would merit a second opinion. However, what we have here is a big, dangling loose end that practically REQUIRES Fryer to write another Mayfield-meth story because seriously, don’t you HAVE to get the opinion of another doctor as to whether Mayfield’s piss sample did actually have enough meth in it to tweak a hippo? And that’s where Fryer jumps off the “reporting” train and gets on the “serial story” express. Her position is “Yeah, he’s guilty, but don’t you want to hear about all the crazy shit with his ex step mother before he becomes a footnote?”
