Their ruthless decisions would have had more coverage on any other day and their priorities would have been debated. There is something not quite right about this "jolly hockey sticks" funding list.

Does it really make sense to invest £18 million ($23 million/€21 million) in trying to win a maximum of two medals in one sport, while denying a talented contender from another a paltry £30,000 ($38,000/€35,000) a year?

UK Sport is ruthless and businesslike in its decision-making and, as Britain have enjoyed so much success at London 2012 and Rio 2016, one could argue that they have everything just right.

Those who make the decisions have targeted sports in which medals are relatively "easy" to win, just as the Chinese have done in recent years. China, Russia and the United States are usually at the top end of the medals table and they are not big on rowing, cycling, sailing and the horsey sports, so it is understandable that those are the targets for the money that largely comes from the National Lottery.

The stand-out exception in this respect is gymnastics, in which all the top nations are strong. Britain’s gymnasts and their coaches deserve far more credit than they have been given for their achievements, and they deserve every penny of their £16.7 million ($21 million/€20 million) funding.

But do all those other sports deserve so much, when others have nothing? Every medal won has cost £5.5 million ($7 million/€6.5 million), so giving hockey £18 million is already way over the odds.

Hockey is very much an establishment sport - a "posh" sport like rowing, modern pentathlon and equestrianism.

The sports that have lost out are badminton, archery, weightlifting and fencing. They all feel aggrieved but as they won no medals in Rio, with the exception of badminton which claimed a bronze, it is tough luck and goodbye.

This is particularly harsh on weightlifting, the Olympic sport I follow most closely, and inexplicably tough on its most promising British talent, the Yorkshire teenager Rebekah Tiler.

Yes, weightlifting has a terrible image because of doping - but not in Britain. And it will surely sort itself out in the next few months, because failure to do so could cost it its place on the programme.

Weightlifting is not unlike gymnastics in that it has a very long Olympic tradition, and is taken seriously by all the big nations. Finishing 10th in Rio at the age of 17 was a phenomenal achievement by Tiler, Britain’s best young weightlifter for many, many years.

She also won a medal at the European Championships, and has several international youth titles to her name. She would win a place in any international team.

There are other talented women in the British elite squad: Mercy Brown, Zoe Smith and others. In the European Championships in April the British women finished top of the Olympic qualifying table, for teams who had not already qualified for Rio.

The funding they survived on was about £400,000 ($503,000/€476,000) a year. It seems harsh to take that comparatively small sum away while other sports get millions, even if, on a pure money-for-medals basis, it is perhaps understandable.

What is not understandable is the ditching of a medal contender for Tokyo 2020, who is given a paltry annual grant. There must, surely, be enough in the pot to fund Rebekah Tiler. All it would cost is about £30,000 a year and maybe a bit of help from physios and specialists in other sports.

Weightlifting is not posh, it is not establishment, and it has a bad image because of what has been going on in the old Soviet Bloc. But it is a growing sport in Britain - one of only four at the last count - especially among women.

A bit of money for Rebekah Tiler could help her to promote her sport among girls who may not be from "jolly hockey sticks" circles - and keep that growth going. And it might even lead to a medal in four years' time.

If there is money in the UK Sport coffers for deserving individuals, here is one very worthy case to consider.