A five-furlong workout in the fifty seven and change four days before the most important horse race in the last 25 years?

A classic stalker wants the lead?

At a mile and a half?

On the rail?

In standing water, where the track has drained after heavy rain?

Romantics deserved better.

Gamblers always think they deserve better.

Gamblers who had Funny Cide second to the winner in the Belmont States probably did deserve better.

It has been written and preached by people who cover horse racing out of the corners of their eyes every spring that a victory by Funny Cide -- combined with the release of the eagerly anticipated motion picture "Seabiscuit" -- could save horse racing.

Save it from what?

Save it from people who only cover horse racing in the spring?

Good.

According to some of the so-called expert analysts, with Funny Cide's loss -- or Empire Maker's victory, depending on which side of the supersonic workout argument you're on -- horse racing lost some fans Saturday. But that's okay. The fans that wandered off are the browsers, not the bettors.

The premise that the near future of horse racing was somehow up for grabs Saturday in the slop in New York was a goofy one in the first place.

Think somebody at your local book club, upon hearing that a Triple Crown had been captured by a gelding, was going to run out, get a form and bet the next race at Lone Star?

Think I'm going to be so distraught by a two-for-three Triple Crown performance that I'll avoid playing an excellent Double at Penn National Wednesday night?

For my money, the 2003 Belmont States was one of the best things that could have happened to horse racing, because horse racing is all about betting -- and some of the things that transpired at Lake Belmont were enough to cause the average blackjack player to put down his cocktail and race to the track.

There was, for example, a horse in the Belmont Stakes named Supervisor that went off at odds of something like 15-1. This animal had morning line odds of 50-1, and that seemed about right. But people from all across this land and probably individuals overseas as well placed incredible sums of cash on this horse to win -- an incredible sum on Supervisor in the Belmont being anything from two bucks, up.

The more cash that is wagered on horses that can't win, the more those who can win will pay.

Another one that figured to be in deep was Dynever, just in from a rodeo down Texas way.

The Exacta matching Empire Maker and Ten Most Wanted was a fat $44 and change.

That's bad for racing?

It is bad for racing only if you didn't have it.

From a return-on-investment perspective, it's fantastic for horse racing.

So here's where we stand with horse racing, people. This is a plan that will guarantee a successful future for the sport.