Confusion was the first reaction to the TMZ item in which former Cowboys quarterback and CBS broadcaster Tony Romo [accepted “full responsibility” for his recent OWI arrest](https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/tony-romo-addresses-his-owi-arrest-through-a-spokesperson) in Milwaukee, in a statement issued by an unnamed spokesperson.
The same statement arrived, unsolicited, in the PFT email box.
“Reaching out as we are working with Tony Romo’s team,” the email began. “Below please find a statement _to be attributed to an unnamed spokesperson_: ‘Tony accepts full responsibility for his actions and has taken proactive steps to ensure that this isolated civil matter is properly resolved. We are working with local authorities to bring this matter to a close and we are communicating with CBS about next steps.’” (Emphasis in original.)
While we won’t name the spokesperson or his firm as a courtesy, any email that suddenly lands in the PFT account without prior communication is fair game to be used on the record. The ability to speak on an off-the-record basis can’t be unilaterally activated — especially when there’s no prior relationship whatsoever between the person who sends the email and the person who receives it.
The bigger issue is this. How can Romo, or anyone, accept “full responsibility” by issuing a statement through an unnamed spokesperson? To accept full responsibility, the responsibility must be fully accepted. That can’t happen by issuing a statement through an unnamed spokesperson.
Really, who uses an unnamed spokesperson, for anything? Romo has a spokesperson who, for whatever reason, won’t attach the spokesperson’s name to the statement.
If Romo wants to accept “full responsibility,” he needs to conduct a press conference, issue a statement in his own name, or submit to an interview. Maybe he eventually will. For now, though, it’s impossible to regard a statement from an unnamed spokesperson as the acceptance of responsibility, full or partial.