Let's start with this one, which was actually issued a couple of days ago. Without getting too deep into the back story, there is currently some suspicion that Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick is involved with dogfighting, based on some dogfighting related paraphernalia found on property he owns in Virginia. In a couple of recent interviews, Washington Redskins quarterback Clinton Portis spoke up in Vick's defense and seemed to suggest (and by "seemed to" I mean "flat out stated") that dogfighting is no big deal and really shouldn't even be considered a crime. At least, that's what the words coming out of his mouth seemed to mean.

But on May 21, Portis issued this statement through the Redskins organization: Portis Statement On Dogfighting Comment

The following is a statement from Redskins running back Clinton Portis regarding recent comments he made to a Norfolk, Va., television station.

"In the recent interview I gave concerning dogfighting, I want to make it clear I do not take part in dogfighting or condone dogfighting in any manner."

Actually, in the recent interview, Portis made it pretty clear that he did condone dogfighting. Quoth he: ""I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property, it's his dog. If that's what he wants to do, do it."

But clearly, the Redskins did not condone his condoning of canine combat sports. In case anyone doubted the not-so-sincere sincerity of Portis's entirely voluntary disavowal of his own words, the Redskins issued another statement the next day, May 22:

Redskins Statement On Portis Comments
The following is a statement issued by the Washington Redskins:

"The Washington Redskins, as an organization, obviously would never condone anything related to animal cruelty. The team takes the recent comments of Clinton Portis very seriously and apologizes to everyone that was offended."

Here is our apology! (The Portis statement was more of a not-very-convincing clarification. This is not the Clarification Index, though I certainly invite someone to start one.) It is what we will call a Corporate Apology. It is not an individual apologizing, but the "Washington Redskins, as an organization." I'm not sure anyone spoke the words of the apology ... it seems to be "a statement issued." And it is not an apology to anyone in  particular, but to "everyone that was offended" (Which, I think, should actually be everyone who was offended. But this isn't the Grammar Index either.)

All in all, pretty weak tea as apologies go. I would rate this low in sincerity, but also low in severity. It is a bit of corporate spin control, the Redskins doing some public relations clean up after ill-considered comments of who apparently suffers from foot-in-mouth disease.

DATE OF APOLOGY:  May 22, 2007
APOLOGIZER: Washington Redskins
APOLOGIZEE: Everyone that (sic) was offended by the recent comments of Clinton Portis

Further commentary: It's Portis' mouth vs. mouthpieces (John Ryan, San Jose Mercury News)