week's Friday Forum in which it was asked why Government's annual sports awards remain closed to professionals -- thus excluding the likes of Shaun Goater and, we thought, Elliot Hubbard.

In a hard-hitting letter, published in The Royal Gazette yesterday, Roberts claimed the article was factually wrong and the criticism unjustified.

But was it? Roberts is respected as one of Bermuda's longest-serving and most knowledgeable sports administrators. And when it comes to the Sports Awards, anything he doesn't know isn't worth knowing. He was instrumental in launching the programme several years ago and has remained the key organiser.

Yet, while his version of the Sports Awards criteria may indeed contradict those which appeared in this column last week, his letter can't go unchallenged.

It is in parts at best naive, at worst a distortion, albeit misguided, of the reality of modern day sports.

As regards the thorny subject of amateur status, Roberts writes: "The designation of a professional in sport is solely the purview of responsibility of the sports national or world governing body. Your comments about monies received by Brian Wellman is speculation at best. He is recognised as an amateur by the International Amateur Athlete Federation, the world governing body of Track and Field, as is Elliot Hubbard by his sport's world governing authority. Both athletes receive funding assistance locally, through Government's Elite Athlete Assistance Programme and through various private sector business sponsors.'' In the words of outspoken sports broadcaster Warner Wolfe, `Give us a break!' While Wellman and Hubbard's governing bodies may well regard them as amateurs, they're probably the only ones who do. Certainly, the athletes themselves don't and there's no reason why the Government Sports Award panel should -- except to endorse the "shamateurism'' policies propagated by the likes of those within the IAAF.

Ask Wellman for a career description and he'll reply "full-time athlete''.

Whether his income is derived from Government funding, sponsors or appearance money, makes little difference. He is for all intents and purposes a professional.

And the same applies to Hubbard who rides for and is paid by a professional US cycling team. His team shirt reads "Navigators pro'.

Roberts continues: "Your comments about overseas athletes Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson, Maurice Greene and others is again speculative, as they are recognised amateurs by the IAAF and therefore merit no further discussion.'' Speculative? Merit no further discussion? Good grief! Is anybody still so gullible as to believe these track superstars with bank accounts even bigger than their egos should be considered amateur? Roberts goes on to explain: "The Sports Awards Programme clearly states that in the matter of performance criteria for Athlete of the Year and Achievement Awards, it is for amateur athletes only ... aspiring amateur athletes should not be compared at the same level with professionals. It would be manifestly unfair and certainly not comparable with significant sacrifices that amateur athletes make to excel in their sport both nationally and internationally...'' But wasn't that exactly the point of last week's article? If we're going to distinguish between professionals and amateurs, let's do so sensibly.

Brian Wellman and Elliot Hubbard are simply not amateurs. They're as professional as Shaun Goater. And, if anything, it's "manifestly unfair'' in this day and age to continue to make a distinction between `shamateurs' and professionals.

The Athlete of the Year award should embrace all of our sportsmen and sportswomen as should the Achievement Awards, no matter what their status.

Admittedly a mistake appeared in last week's article concerning Hubbard who we claimed had been ignored last year and the year before.

He, in fact, has received Achievement Awards in recent years.

But, hold on, aren't Achievement Awards for amateurs only? And doesn't Hubbard ride for a professional team, and has done for some years? So regardless what cycling's world body might say, we have a blatant contradiction.

Any debate in sport is healthy. And knowing Mr. Roberts as I do, I suspect he'll have another reply to this article, which we'll be glad to publish.

But, in the meantime, I repeat last week's headline: `Why not Sports Awards for All.' -- ADRIAN ROBSON