What did you make of the outcome of the investigation into the Chiefs 'Mad Monday' session, where a stripper claimed she was inappropriately touched, players exposed themselves to her, asked her to perform an act on them, licked her, and threw alcohol and gravel at her?
New Zealand Rugby says they couldn't substantiate any of the claims that allegedly took place.
So the implication is that Scarlette, the woman in question here, has either fabricated the story or is a liar.
Not one of those allegations stack up, they say.
New Zealand Rugby also says this investigation was never about the woman.
Well, why wasn't it?
She's the one who alleges she's the victim here.
Why would you ignore her, and only investigate the conduct of the Chiefs' players, and the structure of Chiefs' management?
They spoke to independent witnesses as well. They were in the room watching this woman perform. The players had invited them in to watch, apparently.
And those independent witnesses said they couldn't substantiate whether the allegations took place, either. They couldn't say whether they did, or didn't occur. Again, an odd response, I think.
My question is this.
If you're going to fabricate allegations, if you're going to make this sort of stuff up, why would you allege that gravel was thrown at you?
That's pretty random. You know? Think about it. It's an odd thing to allege.
If I had to bet my house on it, I would say it did happen.
And think about that as an act for a moment - rugby players throwing stones at a woman. That's hideous.
Meanwhile, New Zealand Rugby says 'nothing to see here'.
The players have received a letter that says they have responsibilities and on that Monday, they did not meet those expectations. It's a collective formal caution, apparently.
No further action will be taken against the player who hired the stripper. That's fair enough. There is no crime in hiring a stripper.
And Mad Mondays - the Mad Mondays that All Blacks coach Steve Hansen said should be banned - they'll continue. But New Zealand Rugby will issue guidelines for them. Interesting, isn't it? Steve Hansen says get rid of them. They're awful. And New Zealand Rugby says 'no. Mad Mondays are here to stay'.
As for the apology - the apology is to supporters, to sponsors and work colleagues.
There is no reference to the woman at the centre of these allegations.
We haven't heard from the co-captains, either. All Blacks Aaron Cruden and Sam Cane. Why not? Where was the leadership that day? It doesn't stop on the field. As co-captains, they'll get the big salaries, the cars, the perks of being a captain, but on this issue, they're mute. They're hidden away. Why didn't we hear from them?
What there has been is a lot of corporate speak from New Zealand Rugby and the players union - they've talked about better guidelines. They've talked about minimising risk for the players. They've talked about making better decisions. It's naval-gazing and PR spin all rolled up into a tidy little package, and neatly delivered to the media and the public.
What New Zealand Rugby and the Chiefs haven't talked about is their attitude to women.
In all of the corporate speak, in all of the discussion about improving management structure, and minimising risk to players, and formal letters of caution, no-one has said that despite the unsubstantiated claims, neither New Zealand Rugby nor the Chiefs condone any form of mistreatment of women.
And that's a major failure, I think.
It suggests the rugger-bugger "Booze and birds" culture is very much alive and well in New Zealand.