tiger, tiger...

i did not sit in front of the television and watch tiger woods' apology this past friday morning. i was attending to more important things and watched it later that night in an espn special report. what? a special report about a man admitting that he had been unfaithful to his wife--by press accounts, several times? rather than go into the more standard analysis of why we put extremely talented sports figures on high pedestals or that there have been signs since he first left college to join the pga tour to make millions that he needed to mature much more in terms of how he deals with folks interpersonally, i am more intrigued with the fact that several reports covered the kind of script that these apologies need to give:

• no tie, open collar shirt with a jacket (he did)
  
• no script, speak from memory (he didn't)
• keep it short (he didn't)
• look contrite (he looked awfully uncomfortable and if that is the twin of contrite, he was)
• take questions (he didn't)
• keep it open to the public (he didn't)

in other words, tiger woods did it the way he has since his father first decided he had unnatural talents in the world of golf--he did it his way. some folks were satisfied, others found it wanting, still others think he owes us more.

us? there was one point that i had absolutely no quarrel with that woods said--this is between him and his wife when it comes to his unfaithfulness. sponsors will do what makes the most sense for them to keep up a profitable bottom line--they are not part of morality play. a couple, who has never invited us into their marriage, are well within their bounds to say that we will not have entry now. my hope for them is that both of them are finding ways to be honest with each other to be clear about their expectations of themselves and of each other and that they make a decision that is good for them and their children.

the fact that the apology followed a script, of sorts, is barely worth dwelling on in my estimate. that he said he was sorry, that he apologized to those who believed in his integrity and found that belief misplaced, that he committed himself to making sure his charities do not suffer, and so on--all well and good.

but i am left with a nagging question through all of this. do we tend to mistake athletic skill for integrity in our elite athletes? from pete rose to mark mcquire to charles barkely (who was clear he wanted no part of being a role model) to tonya harding, we seem to equate athletic prowess with having good sense and/or common sense and integrity. we follow this pattern with other professions as well.

true enough, those of us in the public eye cede some of our privacy such that our human foibles can become the stuff of gossip and speculation. and i am not arguing that we need to be given a pass in this regard, it is part of the territory. but when folks, so personalize folks like woods that i hear things like "i can never forgive him," i think we've gone too far. woods will have to deal with the fact that he broke a vow he made to his wife (and children), that he lied to her and them.