The axe has fallen because both sports have failed to pass the scoring test under the institute's 'elite vote evaluation criteria'. If you think that smacks of bureaucracy, you're not wrong.

Some anonymous bureaucrat, hidden deep inside the government administration - the Sports Institute (SI) is funded by the government - came up with a complicated scoring system to test whether each of the 13 elite or focus sports was deserving of the government's generosity for the support period of 2007-2011.

A former SI official says they consulted the associations before coming up with the scoring system. 'It was they who wanted it solely to be results-oriented,' he says. Results-oriented is good, but what must not be forgotten is the playing field is not the same for all sports.

As such, athletics and tennis failed to meet the requirements. Triathlon, another sport which was in danger of sinking, was revived thanks to the silver medal Daniel Lee Chi-wo won at the 2006 Asian Games in Doha. That both athletics and tennis managed to stay within the confines of the Sports Institute last year was simply due to an appeals process that dragged on and on. Now they are packing their bags.

Around eight promising tennis players will no longer be accorded the right to use the facilities at the relocated institute in Wu Kwai Sha. They include Lynn Zhang Ling, Jessica Yang Zi-jun, Michael Lai Xiaopeng, Venise Chan Wing-yau, Martin Sayer, Yu Hiu-tung, Gilbert Wong Tsz-chun and Ronald Chow Chun-chiu.

Among the things they will lose are living quarters, sports medicine and gym facilities, funding for overseas travel, coaching and other back-up support. If these athletes want to get continued support, they have to apply individually, provided they have outstanding results.

Athletics, which like tennis received just under HK$2 million for its training budget per year at the institute, will suffer likewise. Four full-time and six part-time athletes will be out in the cold. Another 96 potential athletes could suffer.

From where did all these athletes come? From the individual associations - in this case the Hong Kong Tennis Association and the Hong Kong Amateur Athletic Association. They were chosen for their potential. They were taken into the institute's system, and nurtured there. They were fed and looked after, given what is believed to be the best coaching and other ancillary support. They were taken for training and competition overseas.

In most cases, the system worked. When badminton stars Wang Chen or Yip Pui-yin succeed, the Sports Institute is quick to take credit. Similarly cycling, table tennis or windsurfing, some of the other sports resident at the institute.

But when tennis failed to pass the assessment by a mere 0.5 points (they needed nine points), the athletes, trained by coaches from the institute, were suddenly found wanting. And they are no longer wanted.

Should the athletes be held responsible? Are they being judged fairly? Officials from both associations point to the latter - an unfair scoring system where all sports comes under one common yardstick.

'In athletics, there are not many chances for our athletes to obtain the maximum points, four or five, as the Olympic Games and the Asian Games are only held every four years,' says HKAAA executive director Vivian So Wing-yee.

'There is also a criterion that the number of participating teams must not be less than 24, otherwise the result will not be counted. In men's relay, for example, our team entered the final in many major competitions but there were less than 24 entries. What should we do?' asks So.

Tennis officials have requested the results-oriented system be re-evaluated taking into account world rankings.

'Ranking positions should count for points,' says an HKTA official, who added that rankings were the standard by which players could enter an international tournament.

The faceless bureaucrat who devised the scoring system should shoulder the blame for its shortcomings. It's an inflexible method that does not take into account the varying standards in the different sports.

Do you think that tennis, an international sport which has a very high standard of competition simply due to the prize money available, is on par with, say, badminton?

Or do you think athletics can be compared to windsurfing? It's all apples and oranges. You can't lump all sports in one basket and assess them using one scoring system as has been done.

To take it one step further, some sports at the institute have benefited from athletes 'imported' from the mainland, and as such safeguarded their financial future.

Did those officials behind this scoring system think about all these factors? The system should be in an institution not an institute.