Vic Zast: His Shtick More Harmful than the "Shtick" He Criticizes

Once upon a time, Vic Zast was right... but only once.

For those who don't get that reference, and most likely only a handful of you got that, I'll explain. In the 1960s, noted turf writer Joe Hirsch wrote about the five-time champion Kelso. He started his article with one sentence to own up to the horse's greatness.

“Once upon a time, there was a horse named Kelso... but only once.”

Of course, Hirsch did not realize exactly how true his statement would be. Certainly no one expected us to ever have another five-time Horse of the Year. Heck, in the nearly three-quarters of a century before Kelso, no horse had won American Horse of the Year more than twice. Kelso won the Jockey Club Gold Cup five consecutive years and utterly dominated the New York racing circuit for half a decade, something so extraordinary it was almost as incomprehensible then as it is now.

But the gelding was also the last non-Triple Crown horse to captivate the nation, the last non-Triple Crown candidate to truly gain any mainstream recognition for more than a fleeting moment. Sure, Forego and Cigar and countless others made an impact, but horse racing had already faded to secondary status in the United States for that impact to last. Even major sports media figures ignore horse racing, as Zast points out with the radio guy in Chicago not even knowing who Zenyatta is.

And on that one point, Zast is correct... but only on that one point. The rest of Zast's attack on what he calls the “'I'm too much of a regular guy' Shtick” is entirely off the mark and does the great sport of horse racing a giant disservice.

Zast attacks ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski because he has no interest in horse racing. Does Wojciechowski suddenly not have a right to not want to watch horse racing?

Or is Michael Wilbon suddenly less of a person because he won't watch the “Race for the Ages” between Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra? Is Wilbon wrong for saying “it's over” or comparing horse racing to boxing or bowling in terms of its decline in public awareness?

According to Zast, they both are wrong. And according to Zast, they did it not because they truly did not care about horse racing but were rather trying to “promote their own careers.”

Zast goes even further, stating that the “cynicism of certain members of the media to overlook horse racing's traditions, accomplishments, achievements and rare special days shouldn't be allowed to go on.” Simply, Zast is saying that freedom of the press shouldn't exist if that freedom is used to ignore the sport of horse racing.

Zast is correct when he says horse racing needs to organize to counter its “detractors,” to counter the people who ignore horse racing. He is right when he says the sport needs some organization to sweep in and promote the good in the sport. Horse racing supporters are never going to win the breakdown issue, but I'm sure they can hide it. If Toyota and Firestone mishaps could survive taking human lives, I'm sure someone can do the same to promote horse racing correctly. And I understand that that is not a perfect analogy, but it's close enough.

I want horse racing to be glorified as much as Zast, but come on.

Writing an article where we attack sports media members not caring about horse racing, that's how we want to promote our sport? Writing an article where we go after those who are indifferent, those who aren't even the ones spewing misconceptions and mistruths about our sport, and trying to deny them the right to have an opinion, that's how we want to promote our sport?

Instead of attacking Wojciechowski and Wilbon for having no interest in horse racing, how about try to give them reason to care.

Why should Wilbon care about the “Race for the Ages,” or boxing or bowling for that matter? Why should he care about something that 362 days a year his job dictates isn't on his agenda? That's the question Zast needs to ask.

Certainly Wojciechowski and Wilbon have nothing to gain in furthering their careers by ignoring any particular sport.

Would ESPN suddenly remove Wojciechowski from covering the U.S. Open for golf if he decides to support horse racing? Would Wilbon be permanently taken off of Pardon the Interruption?

Yet Zast argues that is why they are indifferent to horse racing, that ignoring horse racing helps “promote their own careers.” And that just doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.

Heck, Kenny Mayne used ESPN's horse racing coverage as a stepping-stone to a more lucrative role on SportsCenter and Sunday NFL Countdown.

There's also Jim Rome, an out-spoken critic of horse racing when he started at ESPN in the early 1990s before becoming a thoroughbred owner and one of its more vocal supporters while enjoying an increasingly more visible role for the World Leader.

But I guess that doesn't count as furthering his career.

Sure, Wojciechowski and Wilbon should care about horse racing, and caring about all sports would make them more complete, more like the “icons” of sport journalism that Zast points out. No doubt, I prefer Jim McKay to Wojciechowski and Wilbon because I appreciate sports that the latter two don't care about.

But I respect Wojciechowski and Wilbon's indifference. It's their right.

Zast appears whiny at best and just flat-out intolerant at worst, and in this case I feel the at-worst scenario is more accurate. And in a time that horse racing should be trying to win fans, not alienate those who are indifferent, this is about the worst off-track thing that can happen.

Gregg Doyel of CBSSports.com is a staunch opponent of horse racing, not just indifferent, but against the sport. He doesn't care about its history and traditions and never will. And once a year on that Thursday before the first Saturday in May, he'll write an article attacking the sport. Yet Zast didn't attack Doyel.

Zast instead chose to attack people who don't care, to attack people who aren't misleading people but just stating an indifference to the sport. Quite simply, Zast is trying to drive people who could become potential supporters away by calling them names.

Gee Vic, that's really a great way to get people on your side.

“The sport remains its worst enemy,” Zast wrote, and I guess he was correct about that too.

Heck, Zast himself is living proof, throwing a dagger into your own mission with this article.

Again, Zast was correct when he stated that horse racing's biggest problem is its lack of an organized positive promotional device. But for the rest of his article, maybe Zast would do better looking in the mirror.

“The 'I’m too much of a regular guy to care about a sport that foreigners and old guys like' shtick is, if not stupid, then embarrassing,” Zast wrote.

If not stupid, then embarrassing.

Sounds a lot like what I'd call pointing the finger at someone for having a different opinion than you do. Or what I'd call your article.

See, once in a while I can point a finger too... but only once. Let's not make this mistake again.