ASSIGNMENT 4: Balloon in the Gas Tank (Week 5)

Provide a 200 or 300-word written reply to the prompts below.

Upload your response here.

A Balloon in the Gas Tank

Exploring the Rules of the “Game”*

 “If I had to do it again, I’d still play it to try to get away with it, because I know how I got caught. I could tell you several ways I’d have gotten away with it.”

[Todd Berrier, NASCAR Crew Chief] 

The above quote is a response to a question posed by a news reporter. NASCAR regulations require cars to qualify with full gas tanks. Crew chief Todd Berrier rigged driver Kevin Harvick’s 22-gallon tank to appear full, when in fact it had just five gallons of gas. Having less weight enabled the car to go faster. When NASCAR officials discovered the deception, Berrier was fined $25,000 and suspended for four races. Harvick and car owner Richard Childress were each docked 25 points, dropping each from 8^th to 10^th in their respective national standings.

1. Why do you think that Mr. Berrier showed no shame, embarrassment, or remorse during the interview with the reporter? Is there anything unique about the NASCAR culture? Is there anything unethical in what he did? Why or why not?
2. What sort of “game” is business? Should a game ethic (potentially even an aggressive NASCAR ethic) extend to business regulations? Consider the following quote:

“Managers do not have an ethical duty to obey economic regulatory laws just because the laws exist. They must determine the importance of these laws. The penalties Congress names for disobedience are a measure of how much it wants firms to sacrifice in order to adhere to the rules; [and] managers not only may but also should violate the rules when it is profitable to do so.”[1]

The above quote suggests that breaking an "economic regulatory law" is like putting a balloon in one’s gas tank. The businessperson should break the law if it pays? Do you agree? Why or why not?

* This case study was created by Professor Daniel T. Ostas (modified February, 2017). All rights reserved ©. Fair use for non-profitable educational purposes is granted by the author so long as proper attribution of authorship is given.

[1] Frank H. Easterbrook & Daniel R. Fischel, Antirust Suits by Targets of Tender Offers, 80 Mich. L. Rev. 1155, 1177 n.57 (1982). Judge Easterbrook currently serves as Chief Judge of the U.S. 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals. Professor Fischel is a former dean and currently on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School.