So, Tiger Woods had his press conference, read his statement, didn't answer questions, and has gone on his way.
He admitted his wrongdoing, acknowledged he was wrong, and apologized, which I think everyone expected him to do.
That said, I heard a lot of talk in the media leading up to this about how that wasn't good enough...Tiger should have to face questions, should have to answer questions to the media. He owes that to "us," whoever "us" is, the talking heads claim.
I don't get it, though. What, really, would he accomplish by taking questions? What answers does anyone think he is going to give to any question that he's asked that he wasn't going to cover in his statement?
I have heard it said by one person -- Ken Hoffman of the Houston Chronicle and 1560 The Game in Houston -- that Tiger Woods should be asked if he really had sex with one of the mistresses the night his father died, as has been alleged.
Really? Is that really something we are entitled to know?
The argument is that, by doing commercials and taking Nike's money and being a public figure, he should have to answer these questions. Of course, the reality is that, any questions about details like that, he's not going to answer, and he probably shouldn't answer.
Which means that the Mike Lupicas of the world can then "tsk tsk" about how cowardly Tiger was, by saying he'd take questions, but not answering any of them.
It is stupid.
And the particularly stupid comparisons I've heard are between him and Roger Clemens, suggesting that Tiger's behavior and arrogance mimics Roger's.
A couple of differences, though.
First, what Roger is accused of has to do with his performance, what he's done on the field. The whole Tiger Woods flap has nothing to do with golf...it has to do with his personal life.
Secondly, Roger Clemens has acknowledged no wrongdoing, and claims he's done nothing wrong. Woods, to the contrary, has admitted wrongdoing. He's just not going to confirm or deny every single sordid detail that anyone wants to know about.