Dale Earnhardt Jr. Slams Kyle Larson Over Darlington Crash That Rocked NASCAR
The NASCAR community is still buzzing after a dramatic incident at Darlington’s Goodyear 400 that flipped the race’s outcome and ignited fierce debate. With just four laps left, a collision between Kyle Larson and Bubba Wallace sent shockwaves through the field, paving the way for Denny Hamlin to snatch victory. Now, NASCAR icon Dale Earnhardt Jr. has entered the fray, delivering a scathing critique of Larson’s driving that challenges the popular narrative and exposes a deeper layer to this controversial wreck. As conspiracy theories swirl, Earnhardt’s analysis on his *Dale Jr. Download* podcast has shifted the focus from Wallace to Larson, raising questions about judgment, intent, and the ripple effects of one pivotal moment.
The chaos unfolded on lap 290 of the 297-lap race. Ryan Blaney, the 2023 Cup Series champion, had just overtaken Tyler Reddick to seize the lead, positioning himself for a potential victory. But as they exited Turn 2, Reddick brushed the wall, prompting Larson—running behind him—to brake hard. Wallace, directly behind Larson in his No. 23 Toyota for 23XI Racing, couldn’t react in time to the sudden slowdown. The contact sent Larson’s No. 5 Hendrick Motorsports Chevrolet spinning into the wall, triggering a caution that erased Blaney’s lead. The race went into overtime, and Hamlin, co-owner of 23XI Racing, capitalized with a flawless restart to win. Blaney finished fourth, Wallace 21st, and Larson a dismal 37th after a day plagued by earlier damage.
Social media erupted with speculation: Did Wallace intentionally wreck Larson to hand his boss, Hamlin, the win? The timing seemed too convenient for some fans. However, Dale Earnhardt Jr. saw a different story in the footage. “Bubba spins Larson, and you can see clearly as they’re exiting Turn 2, Larson just kind of powers down. I wonder why he did that,” Earnhardt said on his podcast. He noted that Reddick’s wall contact was far ahead, questioning why Larson braked so aggressively when Wallace was “right on his right rear, full steam.” Earnhardt’s conclusion was blunt: Larson’s inexplicable deceleration caused the crash, not any deliberate act by Wallace. “Everybody was like, ‘Oh, Bubba did it on purpose.’ But he did not,” Earnhardt insisted, dismantling the conspiracy theories.
Wallace’s account aligned with Earnhardt’s perspective. Speaking to *The Athletic*’s Jeff Gluck, Wallace explained that Larson “checked up more than I anticipated” after Reddick’s minor wall scrape, catching him off guard. He immediately apologized to Blaney, his close friend, for ruining his shot at victory—a move that hardly fits the profile of a driver orchestrating a deliberate wreck. Wallace’s 21st-place finish further undermines the idea of personal gain, as he paid a price for the incident. Meanwhile, Larson’s day had already been a struggle. An early spin on lap 4 left his car heavily damaged, barely meeting NASCAR’s minimum speed for much of the race. Earnhardt’s pointed question lingers: Why would a driver already battling a compromised car make such a drastic move with no clear threat ahead?
Respected journalist Jeff Gluck echoed Earnhardt’s take, dismissing the conspiracy theories as baseless. “I see all the conspiracy theorists out there, but I honestly don’t give any credence to this at all. It was a completely honest mistake,” Gluck said, noting Larson’s sudden braking as the trigger. Both analyses highlight a critical moment of misjudgment by Larson, whose actions set off a chain reaction that reshaped the race. For Blaney, the incident was a gut punch, as his team’s pit stop struggles during the caution dropped him from the lead to fourth. Hamlin’s win, while a triumph for 23XI Racing, came at the cost of intense scrutiny for his driver.
This Darlington drama has exposed the fine line between intent and error in NASCAR’s high-stakes world. Earnhardt’s sharp critique of Larson not only clears Wallace of wrongdoing but also calls for greater accountability on the track. As the sport moves forward, this incident serves as a reminder of how split-second decisions can alter destinies—and spark debates that echo far beyond the checkered flag.
