Dukes receives an additional 30 day suspension from the Rays.
Friedman says he wants to insure that the kid has a productive major league career, and this is part of that insurance. Friedman correctly pointed out that the last incident was not a big deal, that this suspension was part of a bigger picture.
In this context, I agree with Mr. Friedman. He (Friedman) was not condemning the kid, but trying to wrap these incidences in a blanket and throw them in the garbage by spending 30 days on suspension. It also give the president of the Durham club time to cool off.
Of course, the writer from MLB could not help himself. He just had to include the "showering in sewer water" quote, almost in an attempt to establish a foundation of negativity that subliminally justifies the suspension. True to form, the writer did not include the fact that Dukes has disputed the quote. Terrible journalism.
I understand the suspension. I think Friedman is doing the right thing. I can't stand the journalist for not including Duke's response to the USA today article. Again, this is exactly the problem with journalists today. The average joe will walk away from that article as they have after the USA Today article to think Dukes is a bad guy. The irony is the kid is a good kid whose got problems and a family to feed, and a father in jail for murder. He's also got a ton of talent as a ballplayer. I think the kid gets called up in September if the Durham president hasn't gotten over this thing.
If you read the USA Today article, it appears that the only jovial guy out of the three interviewed was Dukes. I came away with the sense that Dukes was clowning around (which is why he has disputed the quotes) but the article was framed to get you to believe otherwise.
Moral of the story: Don't ever talk a reporter named Nightengale, and stay away from a columnist named Finnelly of the Tribune, lest you wish to be taken out of context or disparaged.