A basic tenet in constructing an effective apology is not to say too much. As author Darrel Puls says, “By limiting the scope of the apology, we enhance the probability of success.” In my own experience, it means quickly finding a period, and stopping. Finish the sentence, and wait for the response. Only after the listener says something like, “What on earth were you thinking?” am I free to offer my explanation; if I include that in my initial statement, the listener hears not an explanation, but an excuse.

We were treated to a fine example of this today with Donald Trump’s video “apology” in connection with his comments ten years ago about pursuing and assaulting women. To his credit, Mr. Trump recognized that an apology would be an appropriate response here. And, after a false start initially (“If anyone is offended, I apologize”), his videotaped statement started out fairly well, with some essential elements of a good apology, such as taking responsibility (“I said it; I was wrong”) and stating, “I apologize.” Had he stopped there, we might have entertained the possibility that he was sincere — especially given that, by all accounts, Mr. Trump is not accustomed to apologizing. But going on to change the subject to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings made clear he was not. If you want to construct an effective apology, blaming others is a basic “no-no” – a surefire way to undermine the effectiveness of an apology. He didn’t find the period soon enough.

A couple other elements of a good apology were missing. One is the intent to avoid the bad behavior in the future. Peacemaker Ministries in its “7 A’s of Confession” calls this, “Alter behavior.” Mr. Trump did not describe how he will avoid this behavior from now on. He “pledge[d] to be a better man tomorrow” but offered no specifics to suggest how that might happen. Another of the “7 A’s” is to “Admit specifically.” Mr. Trump is trying to apologize for his words; but people who listen to the 2005 tape are likely to be as alarmed about his actions as about his descriptions of them afterwards.

Mr. Trump may indeed be sorry for his actions in the past, but by skipping some basic principles of an effective apology, it doesn’t sound like it.

U.S. Olympics swimmer Ryan Lochte posted a statement on Instagram today, after it came to light that the armed robbery he reported in Rio last weekend wasn’t quite that.

Lochte told an NBC reporter last Sunday that he’d been robbed at gunpoint, but he omitted that he and three friends had damaged a men’s bathroom at a gas station just before that, and that the “robber” — who Lochte told the reporter was dressed as a police officer — was in fact the gas station’s security guard, confronting the Americans after discovering the mess.

This apology is a good attempt but, on closer inspection, it falls short.

His statement starts well: “I want to apologize for my behavior last weekend – for not being more careful and candid in how I described the events of that early morning.” But we can inspect public apologies more carefully: he’s apologizing for the way he described the event, not for the vandalism itself. In fact, he never does apologize for the damage he did to the restroom, which reportedly included ripping down a sign, damaging the door and soap dispenser, and other things. And instead of saying he wasn’t “candid,” why not just say he wasn’t “honest”?

Then he explains how traumatic it is to be out late with your friends in a foreign country “with a language barrier” and be confronted at gunpoint and asked to leave. No doubt this was traumatic – but a statement like this doesn’t belong in an apology, because what the apologizer intends as an explanation sounds to the listener/reader like an excuse. One gets the sense that Lochte still feels that an injustice was done him, perhaps that the security guard over-reacted. Apparently the Americans paid $50 to the gas station owner at the time, and perhaps Lochte feels that he was in effect robbed. It’s tough to write a sincere apology when you feel that you were the real victim.

He goes on to say that he “should’ve been much more responsible in how I handled myself, and for that, I’m sorry.” Exactly what that should’ve looked like, he doesn’t say. As if he’s following a formula, he says he accepts responsibility “for my role in this happening,” without really accepting any responsibility for single-handedly creating an international incident. We wish he’d said, “I misrepresented this incident as if I were an innocent victim, and ended up slandering the reputation of Rio de Janeiro, Olympic athletes, and the U.S.” He adds that he’s “learned some valuable lessons,” without hinting at what those might be.

He’s hoping this will all go away, but one way to make that happen is to issue a sincere apology. Maybe he’ll try again.