Turn 2

If you've been following the Mauricia Grant lawsuit against NASCAR alleging racial and sexual harrassment, you were probably not surprised Friday to hear that NASCAR has responded with a lengthy document denying all the charges.

But, as defendants in such cases do, NASCAR then went too far by attempting to discredit Grant in the media by suggesting she's done some pretty bad things herself.

Specifically, NASCAR said one of Grant's past boyfriends had filed a temporary restraining order against her. That complaint claimed Grant, now 32, had made death threats and harassing calls to his home and work.

NASCAR's attorneys also unearthed a DUI charge, to which Grant had pleaded no contest (she served two days in jail) and found that, later that same year, she was charged with driving with a suspended license while in Atlanta to work a NASCAR event.

Grant's attorney said she does not deny those allegations, but that they are "totally irrelevant" to the lawsuit.

NASCAR's actions immediately after Grant's lawsuit was fired were to suspend two officials working in the Nationwide Series who were named in her $225 million action against the racing giant, and fire a third, which suggests that NASCAR believed at least some of the allegations Grant made were true. NASCAR, however, has said the actions were unrelated to Grant's claims.

The response filed with the court also directly contradicts Grant's claims that she filed complaints about the way she was treated by co-workers, saying she made no complaints at all before her termination, which NASCAR said was not an act of retaliation for complaining about harrassment. The organization will not specifically say what lead to her firing, but said she was frequently late for work and was involved in an altercation with a security guard at Michigan International Speedway.

NASCAR has clearly decided to get down in the mud on this one. Bringing up Grant's past legal problems, while not unexpected, demonstrates a kind of panic on the part of the organization. It is nothing more than the legal equivalent of the third-grader's, "Well, she did bad stuff, too!" defense.

(Remember when Florida cops believed NASCAR CEO Brian France had been driving drunk in 2006, but couldn't prove it? What if they could have? Would that have had one ounce of bearing on this case? No.)

If NASCAR and its personnel did nothing wrong, then it doesn't need to worry about this lawsuit. But trashing Mauricia Grant on unrelated issues does nothing to support the defendant's case in court. NASCAR's legal team is apparently counting on a jury trial, because a competent judge wouldn't see the claims as any kind of legitimate defense, and, of course, none of this can be found in the legal response filed Friday.

The smear campaign could become a factor that might cast doubt about Grant's credibility in jurors' minds, however, despite that fact that she could have served time for a DUI and have had a restraining order filed against her, and NASCAR could still have acted illegally in terninating Grant's employment and could still be guilty of failing to act on her complaints of racism and sexism from its employees.

NASCAR doesn't need to stoop to this kind of behavior. Personal attacks like these just make the organization look desperate. The tactic could well backfire.