With Liberty and Drug Tests, FOR ALL!!!

This from the Daily Herald. St. Viator, a suburban Chicago school is instituting a drug testing program for ALL students. WHAT A CONCEPT.

If combating drug use among youths is as strong a public policy concern as some of the hysterical ramblings we've heard lately regarding Performance Enhancing Drugs indicate it is, then we should be concerned about and combat drug abuse amongst all students equally. PERIOD.

To do otherwise indicates we are only concerned about athletes harming themselves, and not the chess club. This gives the kids who would normally succumb to peer pressure to use drugs, to be able to say, "Thanks, but if I fail the drug test, my mom won't get me a car for graduation" or whatever.

Besides, high school is supposed to be preparing kids to be productive members of the workforce and many companies today require you to produce a sample or two here and there. Although, they don't test the guy in sales after he lands a big contract for PED's now that I think about it. Not a perfect world, I guess.

St. Viator to drug-test all students in fall
BY SHEILA AHERN
sahern@dailyherald.com

Next fall, St. Viator High School students will map out routes to new classes, memorize locker combos and shop for a homecoming outfit.

This year, they can add this to the autumn back-to-school rituals: a drug test.

The 20-member St. Viator Board of Trustees has unanimously approved a new drug policy where each student will be drug-tested using a strand of hair.

Every student will be tested in the first six weeks of school, and 20 will be randomly tested weekly for the rest of the year, said the Rev. Robert Egan, president of St. Viator.

I bet this will bring back shorter haircuts amongst the boys. The only concern I would have doing it this way is if using hair samples provides a history of drug use that goes back years into the students past.


Each test costs $45. The school has budgeted $65,000 to $75,000 for the drug tests for the 2007-08 school year.

St. Viator now randomly tests for drugs only members of the boys football and hockey teams. A drug dog also visits five times a year, and random students are picked for breathalyzer tests at school dances, Egan said.

Hair samples will be tested for cocaine, opiates, PCP, marijuana, amphetamines and Ecstasy, whose use within 90 days of the test can be detected. It does not detect steroids or alcohol.

A student who refuses to be tested will be kicked out, Egan said.

The faculty and staff will not be tested.


An increasing number of schools are drug-testing athletes or those in other extracurricular activities. According to the National School Boards Association, about 5 percent of school districts drug-test athletes and 2 percent test for extracurricular activities.

In Antioch-Lake Villa High School District 117, students participating in extracurricular activities and those seeking parking permits are drug-tested.




Barker said St. Viator's tactic "seems extreme" and likens it to plopping a metal detector at a high school's front door: It primarily, he says, instills fear and suspicion in the community.

But the program is seen as a huge success at St. Patrick High School in Chicago. Since 2004, the school has spent $60,000 yearly to drug-test every student. Each year, less than 1 percent tests positive for drugs, said school spokesman Chris Nelson.

"The parents couldn't be happier," he said.

Across the nation, drug-testing high-schoolers has become increasingly popular in the past five or six years, said Ed Yohnka, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Most policies don't last more than a year, he said.

"It give these kids a way out," she said. "It's a better excuse than, 'My mom will kill me.'æ"

• Daily Herald staff writer Erin Holmes contributed to this report.

America Divided over Bonds Chase

Divided along racial lines, duh. What have I been saying for years and years. I find it amazing that the poll reports 37% of fans would like to see him pass Aaron's record, that is certainly not the perception you get from the media, a group that is disproportionately white compared to the American population.

Also, interesting is the breakdown by those who feel Bonds is HOF worthy. 85% of blacks compared to 53% whites. In other, words if black America voted, Bonds would receive the necessary 75%, if white America voted he would not. Given that an overwhelming majority of the baseball writers who vote are white, you can see where the numbers will fall using basic mathematical skills (Don't ask Charles Barkley for help).

Clearly, race is a factor in the reporting and the perception of this issue. As the saying goes, White America needs to recognize that "denial is not just a river in Egypt". Just like any other significant life problem, recognition of the problem is ALWAYS the first step in correcting the problem. Anyone that wants to continue to argue against those two basic facts is an utter fool.

These poll figures clearly show that once again here is what the issue of race boils down to in this country today:

CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION-THE PROBLEM OF "TALKING PAST ONE ANOTHER": "Two persons, carrying on a discussion in the same universe of discourse-corresponding to the same historical-social conditions-can and must do so quite differently from two persons identified with different social positions. These two types of discussion, i.e., between socially and intellectually heterogeneous participants, are to be clearly distinguished.

"Ours is a world in which social groupings, which had hitherto lived more or less isolated from one another, each making itself and its own world of thought absolute, are now, in one form or another, merging into one another. Not only Orient and Occident, not only the various nations of the west, but also the various social strata of these nations, which previously had been more or less self-contained, and, finally, the different occupational groups within these strata and the intellectual groups in this most highly differentiated world-all these are now thrown out of the self-sufficient, complacent state of taking themselves for granted, and are forced to maintain themselves and their ideas in the face of the onslaught of these heterogeneous groups.

"How do they carry on this struggle? They usually do so with but few exceptions by 'talking past one another'; i.e., although they are more or less aware that the person with whom they are discussing the matter represents another group, and that it is likely that his/her mental structure as a whole is often quite different when a concrete thing is being discussed, they speak as if their differences were confined to the specific question at issue around which their present disagreement crystallized. They overlook the fact that their antagonist differs from them in his/her whole outlook, and not merely in the opinion about the point under discussion.

"This indicates that there are types of intellectual intercourse between heterogeneous persons. The differences in the total mental structure remain obscurely in the background in so far as the contact between the participants is concerned. Consciousness for both is crystallized about the concrete issue. For each of the participants the 'object' has a more or less different meaning because it grows out of the whole of their perspective frames of reference, as a result of which the meaning of the object in the perspective of the other person remains, at least in part, obscure. Hence 'talking past one another' is an inevitable phenomenon of the 'age of equalization'."

-Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia


Also, please stop with the argument that there is no racism involved because it's a black man eclipsing another black mans record. There was no love for Aaron as he approached Ruth's record.

As the numbers show, Bonds "personality" as a factor in his acceptance vis-a-vis Aaron is is more of an indictment of white America as it again indicates that there is a certain way blacks have to act in order to be "acceptable" to whites.

Ali was not very popular during the time he was dominating the boxing world, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was not popular while he was the most dominant force in the NBA. Both later became more palatable and acceptable, but both competed and endured intense levels of hatred and vitriol.

I would make the argument that Bonds is currently competing and challenging Aaron's record in a climate that is far filled with more hatred and risk then even Hank Aaron may have endured. If it could possibly be measured, I would bet that the risk of a death threat to Bonds being accomplished before he completes his record chase is far greater the level of risk Aaron may have competed under. And as we've seen with the Seles incident, and the various incidents of fan on player/coach violence on major league baseball fields recently, it cannot be denied that there is a heightened level of risk. Combine the climate with alcohol and you have a very volatile and combustible mix indeed.

The racism is more effectively covered up today than it was in the 1970's due to the politically correct environment in which we live in, but it clearly is in fact, still there.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2861930

Alcohol is a Greater Danger to Youth than Steroids

At the risk of having Tony LaRussa come at me with a fungo bat, I will say I'm not surprised by the results of the Josh Hancock autopsy. Mr. LaRussa had even more insight into Hancock's situation than I did, but upon hearing the initial accounts of the accident, my first thoughts were DWI or DWD. Turns out we had both, with a possible marijuana chaser. The results do not make it any less of a tragedy, in fact maybe more, since the accident was in many ways preventable.

Once again, we continue to ignore a national problem, that according to the data is many times more of a public health problem to American youth than steroids. The issue is underage drinking. Maybe this will be somewhat of a wake-up call to the issue.

Unfortunately, I doubt it. Alcohol is legal and widely accepted across the nation. However, at one time so was tobacco. And it was an issue of choice and personal responsibility. Then came the results that showed the danger of second hand smoke on others and it was no longer you killing yourself slowly, but you affecting the health, safety and welfare of others. And that's where your rights end and mine and those of society as a whole, begin. So we enacted restrictions on tobacco advertising , sales and when and where smokers could light up, much to the chagrin of tobacco users. And this occurred even tough the tobacco industry lobby was once as strong in Washington as the alcohol lobby is today.

You may be asking, hey Slav have you gone MADD? No, but I am mad, because the parallels between alcohol and the health and safety risks are eerily close to those of tobacco back in the 70's. Do I think there may be a day when advertising rules for alcohol products and companies will be the same as those in place for the tobacco industry? Maybe.

In the Hancock case, fortunately, he did not kill anyone else, but that often is not the case. Will Congress hold hearings on this public health issue? I doubt it. Too many campaign contributions are at stake, too many Washington parties fueled by alcohol, too many mistresses swayed by the effects of alcohol too take that one on.

IT'S A CRAZY WORLD WE LIVE IN.


http://www.centurycouncil.org/underage/65_data.html

Underage Drinking Fact Sheet

* Underage drinking remains a persistent problem among youth, though there are signs progress is being made. According to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, about 10.8 million Americans between ages 12-20 report current alcohol consumption; this represents nearly 28% of this age group for whom alcohol use is illegal. Although there have been some declines in underage drinking from 2004 to 2005, since 2002, past month alcohol consumption has remained relatively unchanged among 12-20 year olds.
o Of these youth, nearly 7.2 million (19%) reported having engaged in binge drinking and 2.3 million (6%) in heavy drinking. More males than females aged 12 to 20 reported current alcohol consumption (29% v. 28%), binge drinking (21% v. 16%) and heavy drinking (8% v. 4%) in 2005.
o These rates of consumption reported in the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health are similar to estimates reported in the 2002, 2003 and 2004. However, there were slight declines in past month consumption and binge drinking among 12- to 17-year olds between 2004 and 2005.
o Among older age groups, the prevalence of current alcohol consumption decreased with increasing age, however, among America's youth the rate of current alcohol consumption increases with increasing age according to the 2005 survey, from 3% at age 12 to 6% at age 13, 11% at age 14, 20% at age 15, 27% at age 16, 33% at age 17, 44% at age 18, 52% at age 19, and 58% at age 20. The rate reaches a peak at 69% among persons 21 years old.
o In 2005, more male than female 12- to 20-year olds reported current alcohol consumption (29% v. 28%, respectively), binge drinking (21% v. 16%), and heavy drinking (8% v. 4%). Unfortunately, among youths 12- to 17- years old, the percentage of females who report drinking in the past 30 days remains slightly, although not significantly, higher compared to their male peers (17% for females compared with 16% for males). However, the 2005 rate of current alcohol consumption among 12- to 17-year old males and females represents a decline from the 2004 rates — the one year decline among males was significant.
* According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), first use of alcohol is typically reported to begin around age 12.
* According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), children who begin drinking before the age of 15 have a four times greater chance of becoming alcoholic as an adult than those who begin at 21, the legal drinking age.
* Progress continues to be made in the fight against underage drinking according to the 2004-05 Pride Survey. The National Summary of the Pride Survey, again recorded an all time low level, and a statistically significant decrease, in the number of students who reported they drank alcohol in the past year.
* According to the 19th Annual Pride Survey, among all students in grades 6 to 12, reported annual and monthly consumption of any alcohol product decreased significantly from the previous school year. Annual consumption rates decreased from 47.2 percent in the 2004-05 school year to 45.4 in 2005-06 — a statistically significant decrease and record low level. Monthly consumption decreased from 22.5 percent in 2004-05 to 21.4 in the current survey school year — a statistically significant one year decrease.
* The 2006 Monitoring the Future study also showed declining alcohol consumption among American youth, although, alcohol consumption continues to be widespread among today's youth. The prevalence measures (lifetime and annual) for alcohol consumption showed significant decline among 12th graders.
* Four out of ten students have consumed alcohol at least once by the end of eighth grade and slightly more than seven out of ten students have done so by the end of high school. That is, 41% of eighth grade students, 62% of tenth graders, and 73% of twelfth graders report they have tried alcohol. The figures represent a lifetime alcohol consumption decline of nearly one percentage point among 8th graders, declines of nearly two percent among 10th graders and two percentage points among 12th graders, a statistically significant one-year decline over the past year for high school seniors.
* Additionally, the 2006 Monitoring the Future survey revealed a statistically significant decline in the annual rate of alcohol consumption 12th graders from 2005 to 2006, with all three grade levels reaching record low levels over the past decade. Annual consumption among 8th grade and 10th grade students declined only slight from 2005 to 2006, while 12th grade students' annual prevalence declined two percentage points from 68.6 to 66.5. Annual consumption rates among 8th and 10th graders for 2006 were 34% and 56%, respectively.
* Thirty-day alcohol consumption remained relatively unchanged among 8th and 10th graders with prevalence rates of 17% and 34%, respectively. Although not statistically significant, past 30-day alcohol consumption rates declined nearly two percent among high school seniors from 47% in 2005 to 45.3% in 2006, a new record low. Additionally, binge drinking (having five or more drinks in a row) decreased nearly two percent among 12th graders in 2006, marking another historical low level at 27%.
* The one-year one percentage point declines noted in the 2006 Monitoring the Future Study, while not always statistically significant, are notable because they reflect a longer-term gradual decline in underage drinking.
* A qualitative research study conducted by Amica Insurance confirmed that teenagers whose parents talk with them versus talk at them might be less at risk to engage in harmful behavior involving alcohol. What's more, teens said they would be more apt not to drink and drive if they had heard directly from their parents how important they are to them.
* Only one in four teens in America (27 percent, about 6.5 million) lives with "hands-on" parents — parents who have established a household culture of rules and expectations for their teen's behavior and monitor what their teens do: such as the TV shows they watch, the CD's they buy, what they access on the Internet, and where they are spending evenings and weekends. These teens are at one quarter the risk of smoking, drinking and using drugs when compared with teens who have "hands-off" parents, according to a new survey of 1,000 American teens ages 12-17 conducted by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA).
* According to the most recent wave of The TRU Study (Fall 2005) from Teenage Research Unlimited, drinking and driving continues to be an issue of great importance to teens. Three-fourths of teens (75%) cite drunk driving as an issue they care about, making it one of teens' top life-and-death issues and ranking it third overall, following education and child abuse and ahead of such issues as war, terrorism, economy, environment, drug abuse, cigarette smoking, racism, and abortion.
* Young drivers are over represented in both alcohol- and non-alcohol-related fatality rates. Alcohol-related fatality rates are nearly twice as high for 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds as for the population over 21. More than 40 percent of 18-, 19-, and 20- year-old crash fatalities are alcohol-related.
* In 2005 approximately 31.7 million people aged 12 and older drove under the influence of alcohol at least once during the past year. These data reflect a decrease of more than five percent from the 33.5 million persons reporting drinking in driving in the 2002 National Survey of Drug Use and Health. Driving under the influence of alcohol continues to be associated with age, with a peak among 21- to 25-year olds (28%).
o Eight percent of 16- and 17-year olds reported driving under the influence, and 20% of 18- to 20-year olds reported engaging in this behavior at least once in the past year.
* In 2004, among 15- to 20-year-old drivers, 29 percent of the drivers who were killed in motor vehicle crashes had been drinking. Additionally, for the same year and age group, 24 percent of these young drivers had BAC levels of .08 or higher.
* For young drivers age 15 to 20, alcohol involvement is higher among males than females. In 2004, 26 percent of young male drivers involved in fatal crashes had been drinking at the time of the crash, compared with 12 percent of young female drivers involved in fatal crashes.

Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy...and Bonds at 740.

This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy we'll continue to see as Barry Bonds makes his march towards the home-run crown. Jeff Perlman, the author of Love Me, Hate Me, The Making of an Antihero has his own special man-crush on Josh Hamilton. Well, isn't that special? He clearly hates Barry Bonds and the example he provides, but gushes eloquently over Josh Hamilton. That's just so special.

from espn.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=pearlman/070420&sportCat=mlb

Of course, this nation is so full of forgiveness, but apparently on a selective basis only. It may be full of something, but it's clearly not forgiveness.

from espn.com:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=pearlman/07411&sportCat=mlb

Another comes courtesy of Sports Illustrated's Peter King, who is not going to mention Barry Bonds any more because he believes he cheated. Here's his take on Shawn Merriman after he tested positive for steroids:

MERRIMANMANIA. From Bruce White of Indianapolis: "Should Shawne Merriman be eliminated from the Pro Bowl due to his positive steroids test?''

No. If he's eligible for 12 games and plays at a very high level in those games, he should be able to play in the Pro Bowl. Now, if he were to miss three games down the stretch for any reason, let's say, I'd say he didn't deserve a bid because he missed too much time. But he paid his penalty according to the collectively bargained rules of the game.

All right, let me get this straight Mr. King:

You're going to protest Barry Bonds achievement with your silence, (sounds more like a reward than a penalty, hey whatever) but have no problem with Shawn Merriman being rewarded for his achievement by participating in the Pro-Bowl even though Merriman flunked a steroids test and to-date Bonds hasn't flunked one?

Sounds like your disdain for cheating is a bit selective, don't you think? Merriman served his time according to the CBA? Weak argument. Apply same logic to Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, than we can talk like intelligent, rational people.

Do you do any special contortionist exercises to reconcile your logic in these two instances?

I think I've about had it with the blatant stupidity of braying jack-asses like this.

Somebody on this planet needs to complete the Honesty and Integrity Trifecta (we'll call it the HIT for short) for me before I give them an ear on this issue.

That is, whenever I hear or read somebody blast Bonds, (and of course they know everything he's done or didn't do, because he's always been so open and accommodating with his time with the media) I ask, "what do you think about Clemens, might he be cheating to get the results he's getting at an advanced age?"
 "Oh no, no way".

How about Lance Armstrong, couldn't he have done something to help him defeat not only Cancer but his competitors, all of whom seem to be on something? Nobody except the French seems to think he does anything but win Tour de Frances.

There seems to be just as much of a mountain of real or circumstantial evidence to implicate Clemens or Armstrong from what I've seen, heard or read. But we gleefully leak information on the one hand and blissfully redact in the other? Not to mention some other guys we let slide because they're still popular, like Pujols, Prior and many others.

And I'm a little tired of hearing, "Well these guys aren't approaching "hallowed" records" as if cheating is somehow OK, up until a point. Try that the next time you rob a bank and don't steal all the money in the vault. You want to start erasing records from the record book, you better get yourself an awful big eraser, or gallons and gallons of white out.

Guys like Perry, Sutton and Whitey Ford are in the Hall of Fame and lionized in spite of careers built on bending rules. Time to put it away folks. Never mind whatever was accomplished as a result of the use of "greenies", which were made illegal in 1970.

There is a huge problem in this country among youth with use of crystal meth. Meth being shorthand for methamphetamine or "speed". Hey, Dad baseball players use it, why can't I?

There is a also a huge problem in this country with alcohol use among youth, but I don't see any major sport turning away sponsorship dollars on principle. I know it's legal and that makes a huge difference, but spit tobacco is legal also and they took a stand there. Tobacco by contrast does not generate sponsorship dollars. Seems like we're picking our spots to take a stand based on dollars to be lost or gained (wait, where have I heard that before?).

Palmeiro I can see venom being directed at. He knew the deal and still tried to get away with something. Anyone else caught under the drug testing program deserves whatever animosity they get.

McGwire, Sosa, Bonds all of them have the Lance Armstrong defense in my opinion, they've never failed a test. You want to blame them for baseball not having adequate testing, that's pretty ignorant and unfair. I don't see anyone at work unilaterally offering up urine or blood tests unless they have to and even then, under protest. You want to retroactively punish people for behavior, start by taking racists like Cobb, Anson, et al out of the Hall of Fame, then you'll have my attention. Or take out some of the cheaters you've glorified in the past. Then I'll be impressed by your position on the issue.

And by the way, Peter King and his ilk on the Football Hall of Fame have no problem whatsoever looking the other way on all sorts of reprehensible behavior when voting on membership in the Football Hall of Fame. Drug Use, Murder, Manslaughter, anything goes as long as you perform on the field. And your little piss-ant silent protest against Barry Bonds is supposed to mean something? Give it a rest you MF-ing hypocrite.

The biggest Performance Enhancer Bonds has used in his favor IMO has always been Questec. Since being put in service in 2001, the year he hit 73 homers, his strikeout to HR ratio has turned from about 1:2 before to about 1:1.25 afterwards. Only Pujols seems to be as close in terms of HR to K ratio. That's a pretty significant change in one year.

Pitchers cannot pitch to him and get him out within the constraints of the strike zone as defined in the rule book, period. And it's possible they were never able to. However, prior to 2001, Major League pitchers had an extra 5-10 inches off the outside corner to work with. Anyone care to debate that fact? I didn't think so.

It's the same problem with Alex Rodriguez. He's so locked in and so good as a hitter and a slugger that he simply can't be pitched to. And even A-Rod strikes out about 4 time for every HR.

There is still a significant portion of the guys who study the game from statistical viewpoint who do not see the numbers of Bonds, McGwire and Sosa as being abnormal.

Here's another interesting outlook from Daniel Engber's article in Slate titled "The Growth Hormone Myth: What athletes, fans, and the sports media don't understand about HGH". The gist of the article is there is really not much data out there that indicates, from an exercise physiology standpoint, that using any of this stuff works to enhance performance on the baseball field. You have to make leaps of faith or assumptions that are not backed up by any scientific data.

The following paragraphs were I thought most interesting:

The most likely reason that athletes use HGH, though, is superstition. A ballplayer might shoot up with HGH for the same reason we take vitamin C when we have a cold: There's no good reason to think it does anything, but we're willing to give it a try. The fact that the major sports leagues have banned growth hormone only encourages the idea that the drug has tangible benefits. Why would they ban something unless it worked?

This mentality has put doping officials and athletes into a feedback loop of addled hysteria. The World Anti-Doping Agency will ban any drug that athletes use, whether or not it has an effect. The WADA code points out that the use of substances "based on the mistaken belief they enhance performance is clearly contradictory to the spirit of sport." In other words, it doesn't matter if HGH gives athletes an unfair advantage. If Jerry Hairston believes he's cheating, then he really is cheating.

That twisted logic has turned the latest round of busts into a giant PR campaign for growth hormone. Every star athlete who gets caught with a vial of HGH turns into a de facto spokesperson for the drug. In a certain sense, that might be a good thing: The media hype may soon make HGH so popular that it squeezes the more dangerous anabolic steroids out of the market. That's one way to clean up the game.

Seems like a silly way to go about it though, travelling from one bogeyman to another, but that seems to be the way things get done in this country.

And who cares if Hank Aaron doesn't show up for the record breaker? As far as I'm concerned, he couldn't hold Willie Mays' jock as a player. And if Mays had played in as hitter-friendly ballparks as Aaron enjoyed, we'd be taking about Bonds breaking Mays' record. And we might be waiting a bit longer for the record to fall. Mays might have hit 800.

I'm not going to go as far as calling Aaron a coward as Rob Parker did in this Detroit News article, but I do feel it shows a lack of class and respect for the game of baseball and Bonds accomplishments.

from detnews.com
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070420/SPORTS08/704200362/1129/rss15

And Bud Selig can stay home to for all I care. He was gutless at the beginning of this whole "steroids" mess and it wouldn't surprise me if he continued to be gutless now. If you really want to label anyone a coward in this whole mess, the guy for me would be Commissioner Bud Selig, representing all of the owners.

And for all the whiners, who won't be able to face baseball with Barry Bonds as it's Home Run King can always cheer on Alex Rodriguez as he makes a run at 800, 900 or, if he can get to Wrigley Field on a regular basis, who knows maybe 1000 HR's as the mark for future sluggers to shoot for.

Then tell me that the size of ballparks, the springiness of the baseballs, the dilution of pitching, etc. hasn't been a factor all these years. Me, I'll celebrate a great achievement, by a great major league hitter, possibly the best all-around hitter of this generation and most others.

The Keith Olbermanns of the world can stay home and make love to their inflatable Rebecca Lobo dolls or whatever young lady they're currently stalking (ahem, allegedly stalking) and try to pretend that they are the moral compass not only for baseball, but for the entire free world. Give me a M.F.-ing break. Where have you gone Harold Reynolds?

The "Devil" Rays sure know how to Pick 'em

This is on top of the personal disaster that is/was Josh Hamilton and the moronic, borderline criminal behavior of Delmon Young. Add now B.J. Upton and Elijah Dukes.

You can take the word Devil out of the team name, and there has been talk of that since the franchise's inception, but it doesn't seem like the Rays have figured out how to take the "devil" out of the players it drafts and develops.

That's over $10 million dollars invested in these prize pigs. Do you think they may want to consult with the Rockies or some person or organization who understands that "Character Counts"?


Elijah Dukes suspended by Durham Bulls

Yet another top minor-league prospect in trouble
Sunday, June 18, 2006
The trouble continues for the trio of Devil Rays' Triple-A stars. On Saturday the Durham Bulls announced that outfielder Elijah Dukes has been suspended for unspecified reasons.

Though the Rays would not comment, Dukes' past makes the announcement less than surprising. This season Dukes, a slugging outfielder, has had a blowup with his coaches during a game and for another, did not play because he showed up late.

Saturday's news came on the heels of shortstop B.J. Upton getting arrested early Friday for DUI in Chapel Hill, N.C.

Upton was driving 51 in a 30 mph zone at 3:30 a.m. His blood-alcohol content was a 0.11. North Carolina's legal limit is 0.08.

"The Devil Rays and B.J. Upton recognize the seriousness of this matter. We will continue to monitor this situation as the judicial system runs its course," was the only statement released by the Devil Rays, from executive VP Andrew Friedman.