Tiger Woods has finally broken his silence after being caught playing a few extra holes last year. But who in financial services should have to apologise for their "indiscretions" in helping bring the world's economy almost to its knees?
Woods's suitably-humble apology was given to a ‘few close friends'. And every broadcast network in the world.
The scandal, which broke in such theatrical fashion when his furious, golf club-wielding wife chased his car off the road, has already cost the golfer millions in lost sponsorship deals on top of a reported £300m payment specified in his pre-nup.
Humility and remorse now might go some way to resurrecting his image and protecting that income, but why should his market value really be affected in the first place.
Surely a man who is only a public figure on the golf course should be judged solely on what he does there. But a stricter moral code seems to apply to sportspeople than anyone else at the moment.
The drawn-out humiliation and vilification of Woods and John Terry recently seem completely out of proportion with their actual wrong-doing.
Boris Johnson holds a much higher office than the captain of the England team and the world's number one golfer, but there seems to be no questioning of his suitability to be Mayor of London. At least, not on the grounds of his extra-marital infidelities.
Woods has acted in a pretty grubby manner, but he is famous - and has earned his wealth - as a golfer, not as a model husband and nice guy.
He should still be judged as a golfer and his behaviour outside of his public, professional life, however tawdry, should have no bearing.
**Visit our apology poll here**
Our weekly heads-up for advisers
Data quality is key