RIO DE JANIERO – The only thing possibly standing between embattled U.S. Olympic gold medalist Ryan Lochte and a lifetime suspension from USA Swimming was an apology – an all-encompassing, sincere, lengthy apology.

And so an apology of sorts came Friday morning via Instagram, more than five days into the U.S. swimming scandal that rocked the second week of these Olympic Games. Actually, it appeared to be part apology and part explanation about the “traumatic” events of early Sunday morning, as if any of us needs to hear another word about that drunken fiasco.

In his apology, the 32-year-old Lochte actually mentioned his sponsors before referring to “the hosts of this great event.” Sponsors first is so Lochte-esque. Or perhaps it was the PR firm now representing him who thought of that one.

Whatever the case, Lochte is navigating treacherous waters. He is certain to be suspended by USA Swimming, the no-nonsense national governing body for his sport, and by the U.S. Olympic Committee as well. There could be two separate decisions, or they could be combined into one.

Lochte’s three late-night Rio running mates – Jimmy Feigen, Gunnar Bentz and Jack Conger – will also certainly be suspended as well by both organizations.

How long will they be banned? I don’t know why Lochte would ever be allowed back into the sport after lying about being the victim of a robbery early Sunday morning, apparently to cover up what Brazilian police call an act of vandalism at a local gas station by the four American swimmers.

As a four-time Olympian, he knows as well as anyone the responsibilities of representing his nation – which are not the same as the responsibilities of, say, representing your college or your local pro team. It might sound quaint and decidedly old school, but the USOC and USA Swimming take the notion of athletes properly representing their country very seriously.

The USOC prefers that its Olympians do two things: stay out of the news and win medals. For example, the organization was hoping not to publicize the fact that it had to engage in some significant plumbing and construction work in the athletes’ village to make some rooms inhabitable prior to these Games.

Turning yourself into a week-long international incident – as Lochte and the others did here – is the last thing the USOC would ever want.

So it’s within the realm of possibility that USA Swimming in conjunction with the USOC would ban Lochte for life — or at least indefinitely, which would give it the option to reinstate him at some future date.

There’s no guarantee Lochte will continue to swim through to the next Olympic Games in 2020 anyway, but there’s also the matter of being one of the faces of the sport: a spokesman and ambassador, so to speak. Many Olympic swimmers from decades past made appearances at the U.S. swimming trials in Omaha earlier this summer. A ban presumably would prevent Lochte from participating in any of those activities.

But, ultimately, does USA Swimming want to lose Lochte forever, or keep open the options to allow him back into the fold at some future date? He is one of the nation’s most popular swimmers, and were he willing to talk to young swimmers about the error of his ways, he could still be a valuable resource for the sport.

That likely won’t be anytime soon. Previous suspensions by USA Swimming are especially telling. After a photograph of Michael Phelps smoking a marijuana pipe circulated on social media in 2009, USA Swimming banned him for three months.

When Phelps was arrested for his second DUI in 2014, the governing body suspended him for six months and banned him from the 2015 world championships.

In both cases, he apologized within a day after the news broke, each time accepting blame with no hint of an explanation. In other words, he and Lochte have different advisors.

The Lochte controversy also comes at a politically sensitive time for the organizers of the bid for the 2024 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, which is so linked to the USOC that its hospitality suite is located inside the USOC’s USA House here.

Put it this way: If L.A. loses in the voting a year from now, the list of reasons could very well include Lochte.