Just me, or was that Bancroft interview a strange hodgepodge of contradiction and vague jargon and self-justification that's somehow being consumed as a redemption narrative?
It's like – of course he feels bad and he's had a torrid year and it's an innocuous reason to catch such heat. But he still doesn't get it, not really. Why the wrongs were wrong, why the response came.
This: claiming pride for honesty in a setting where you flat-out lied and evaded questions. It's not even bullshit, it just makes no literal sense. 
Later he says it's "fascinating" that people were interested in the detail of the lies, in terms of what he used on the ball, because the tampering was the same. In which case, what was the point of the lie in the first place?
And none of these questions are followed up, he's not pressed on any of these points, because he's interviewed by a fellow WA cricketer who's famously a nice bloke, rather than a journalist.
And where does someone get taught or encouraged to use such tricky fake-formal language – "Dave suggested to me to carry out the action on the ball." It's like a Tennessee grifter pretending to be a lawyer.
It's fine, it's an interview, whatever. Just don't present it as Bancroft moving on and making everything right. We've gone nowhere yet. If anything it's a regression.
