# Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy (merged)



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

just listening to the SCORE (after a heads up from realgm board)

Pax was on and said *"if Eddy is under contract, the Bulls have "the right" to request a DNA test, even if it's the one year qualifying offer"* or he won't play. 

and i am paraphrasing, as i didn't hear it live but when they recapped it, that "next week a decision will be made, as this thing will come to a head"



stay tuned.

edit: they just played a soundbite from the interview.

DIRECT QUOTE from PAX: "if he accepts the QO, for him to play for the Chicago Bulls then he will have to take that test"


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



mizenkay said:


> just listening to the SCORE (after a heads up from realgm board)
> 
> Pax was on and said *"if Eddy is under contract, the Bulls have "the right" to request a DNA test, even if it's the one year qualifying offer"* or he won't play.
> 
> ...


Here comes a 23 page thread.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



mizenkay said:


> DIRECT QUOTE from PAX: "if he accepts the QO, for him to play for the Chicago Bulls then he will have to take that test"


So what happens is Curry doesn't take it? Is he still under contract? Does he still get paid?

What if the result is negative? Does the Bulls fail his physical? Is his career as a Bull over?

------------------------------------------------------------

I am going to be so pissed if one of the beat writters don't ask some of these questions.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



johnston797 said:


> So what happens is Curry doesn't take it? Does he still get paid?


i _think_ YES. 

Pax said the Bulls feel that if eddy "is under contract" ie: being paid, then he will be required to take the test. sounds like if he doesn't take it, he sits. 

again, i am just reporting from the "updates" since i didn't hear the interview live.

ANOTHER DIRECT Pax QUOTE from the Update: 

"we've done everything in our power to be protective of eddy. all we want is to get all the answers we can get."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

They'll probably replay it before 6:00.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewto...start=36&sid=6a71712b415e29463a62bd2f85bf439e

Scroll down to the bottom of the linked page if interested. DudeMD with a very thought provoking post.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

I'm not a fan of this move.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

Paxson is right. He absolutely has the right to ask for the DNA test and Curry has the right to refuse to take it. But he better be prepared for the consequences of not taking it which is sitting on his butt. I will just leave it at that at the risk of saying something worse.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

This is a crap move by Paxson, IMO. No way to treat a human being.

If most industry-leading doctors that have offered an opinion have cleared him to play AND there is a trade on the table that does not screw the Bulls over too much, then Paxson should trade him.

Other teams seem willing to play him and doctors are willing to clear him. 

"I will not trade Eddy Curry" and "I will not sign Eddy Curry" and "I will not play Eddy Curry!!!!!!" Come on Pax.



Remember what the corn rows incident supposedly did to Krause and the Bulls? Imagine what the DNA test incident is going to do to this franchise.

Good luck next offseason Paxson. Grrrrrr.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



Basghetti80 said:


> Paxson is right. He absolutely has the right to ask for the DNA test and Curry has the right to refuse to take it. But he better be prepared for the consequences of not taking it which is sitting on his butt. I will just leave it at that at the risk of saying something worse.


yes he has that right, but how does this make the bulls look for future free agents?


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

I almost swerved off the road when I heard that. Pax is really taking a stand here and is not letting up. Paxson said he didn't want to use the word "fight" but a serious "discussion" will ensue if he doesn't agree to the test.

"Why would Paxson let him play for the QO and assume the risk for this year but not for a long term deal" question is now answered.

Paxson doesn't know for sure if a positive DNA test will result in HCM but Paxson doesn't want to be the GM to find out.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

I am sorry for this attacking of Paxson is insane. He was hired to do the right thing for the Chicago Bulls not Eddy freakin Curry. He has not "mistreated" Eddy that is a joke. This will have ZERO impact on future free agency. ZERO.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

well, doubt Pax at your own risk. He routinely swipes away doubt and comes up with Blackjack


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



spongyfungy said:


> "Why would Paxson let him play for the QO and assume the risk for this year but not for a long term deal" question is now answered.


Good point. At least the howls about how Paxson's position is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest are quieted by this announcement, whatever THAT'S worth.

I'm still a bit adrift as to how I feel about this whole situation, but I can't really put my support behind Paxson on this one. If the majority of the medical advice is that Eddy can play, I think this ultimatum is taking things too far. However I don't think k4e's gloom and doom prophecy about free agency will come to pass either.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



Basghetti80 said:


> I am sorry for this attacking of Paxson is insane. He was hired to do the right thing for the Chicago Bulls not Eddy freakin Curry. He has not "mistreated" Eddy that is a joke. This will have ZERO impact on future free agency. ZERO.


i'm not sure how you can be so confident about it. it's great that you don't think curry has been mistreated. i bet curry and his agent feel differently. and if i was a bulls fan, i would want the bulls to be on good terms with players and their agents to make future negotiations much easier.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

Well, I can't say I'm surprised. I don't get it. As we've discussed in gory detail - the DNA test request seems medically, legally, and ethically dubious to me. At best.

I don't see the logic in picking this fight for the Bulls. As far as I can tell, it's going to do absolutely nothing positive for them. And it's going to do nothing positive for Eddy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ViciousFlogging said:


> However I don't think k4e's gloom and doom prophecy about free agency will come to pass either.


So you think we very well might have a chance at signing Chris Wilcox?


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ViciousFlogging said:


> Good point. At least the howls about how Paxson's position is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest are quieted by this announcement, whatever THAT'S worth.
> 
> I'm still a bit adrift as to how I feel about this whole situation, but I can't really put my support behind Paxson on this one. If the majority of the medical advice is that Eddy can play, I think this ultimatum is taking things too far. However I don't think k4e's gloom and doom prophecy about free agency will come to pass either.


i can't say either. I think I am on Eddys side and Paxs side both. The rub is, i'm just a doofus behind a keyboard with no real insight or access to a genuinely informed opinion just like everyone else..probably only probably less insight :eek8:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



kukoc4ever said:


> So you think we very well might have a chance at signing Chris Wilcox?


you betcha :cheers:


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



Mikedc said:


> Well, I can't say I'm surprised. I don't get it. As we've discussed in gory detail - the DNA test request seems medically, legally, and ethically dubious to me. At best.


yes I would agree Mike. But I know it would help out the Bulls in making their decisions. Its probably going to have a definitive effect on their course of action...for their own criteria they have established. Believe in their decision making abilities or not



> see the logic in picking this fight for the Bulls. As far as I can tell, it's going to do absolutely nothing positive for them. And it's going to do nothing positive for Eddy.


yes well, its going to force someone to make a move, and the Bulls want it on their terms. Pax has earned the benefit of the doubt, being a guy who generally does the right thing, and is close to the inside info and strategies. In other words, I believe he has prudent goals. Many things are only better understood after the fact, and judged in different light.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

score update 5:20 PM


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



kukoc4ever said:


> If most industry-leading doctors that have offered an opinion have cleared him to play AND there is a trade on the table *that does not screw the Bulls over too much*, then Paxson should trade him.


I'm sure you meant a trade "that does not screw the Bulls over *at all*". Lord knows you wouldn't want Paxson to make a move that would hurt the Bulls. I mean, what pleasure could a Bulls' fan possibly take from that? 

I mean, that would be like juxtaposing the win loss records of the Bulls vs. other eastern conference rivals in a signature line, implicitly rooting for those rivals to eclipse the success of one's very own team.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

I'm not sure what happens top Eddy if he takes the DNA test and it shows he is potenttially pre-disposed. For Pax I guess it will mean that he won't be willing to sign him to a long term contract but does that mean he can't play this year for the Bulls ? If Pax tries that I'm sure the NBPA will fight that. On a personal level I think it is important for Eddy and his family to know whether he is potentially pre-disposed so they can better understand the potential risks. Also if Eddy doesn't have the gene then it should help Eddy feel a lot better about his own personal well being. At this point there is no waty to honestly seperate Pax's concern for Eddy on a personal level and what he needs to do on a professional level.

No doubt that Pax is taking advantage of the situation. This will give the Bulls a better idea of whether they should eventually sign Eddy to a long term contract. Pax is playing by the rules established in collective bargaining. The wording is such in the new CBA that the club physician in his sole discretion can demand whatever tests he believes is necessary and the player must submit to those tests. I don't think Eddy can refuse and expect to be paid. I'm not a doctor but this DNA test is much more likely to be positive for Eddy than negative. He should have taken it on his own when he was a RFA and could keep the results quiet. 

I'm pretty sure that Eddy's only recourse is to sit out the season without pay and then become a free agent next summer. Once again I believe Eddy's agent screwed Eddy but not pushing a private DNA test


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



Ron Cey said:


> I'm sure you meant a trade "that does not screw the Bulls over *at all*". Lord knows you wouldn't want Paxson to make a move that would hurt the Bulls. I mean, what pleasure could a Bulls' fan possibly take from that?


LOL. I was thinking when I was writing that while peeved that I would write something that the lawyers would jump all over. 

To clarify, if we could get Sweetney and a contract that is not too harmful in return (yes, screwing the Bulls a little) I would be in favor of it, since I'm also a fan of Eddy Curry and think at this point he’s seemingly getting a raw deal.

Like we've discussed before, I don't simply root for laundry... while you profess otherwise, which is cool

(anyway, back to basketball, eh?)


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



Cager said:


> He should have taken it on his own when he was a RFA and could keep the results quiet.


How would have this made a difference? Maybe he already did take it?

Edit: How not Who.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

Paxson has the right to ask for the DNA test, before giving Curry to the drill-sergeant Skiles. They both need to know, how far they can “push” Eddy to be the best player he can be, without paying a heavy price in the court, in case Curry collapse or get injured.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

I dont know about this it seems to me that the Bulls will come out the losers no matter how this plays out .The Bulls trying to force a player into taking a test that doesnt really prove anything is not gonna fly.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



kukoc4ever said:


> LOL. I was thinking when I was writing that while peeved that I would write something that the lawyers would jump all over.
> 
> To clarify, if we could get Sweetney and a contract that is not too harmful in return (yes, screwing the Bulls a little) I would be in favor of it, since I'm also a fan of Eddy Curry and think at this point he’s seemingly getting a raw deal.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree with you on one thing though. If he's simply not going to take the test, and the Bulls simply aren't going to play him if he doesn't, regardless of what we fans think of those respective positions, they should just part ways and be done with it. My biggest concern is that a long drawn out battle is just going to bring the team down.

These guys don't need that distraction heading into the season. Its very frustrating on so many levels for us fans.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

If he had taken a test already then he would know his situation and whether he could ever submit to a DNA test. Of course it is possible that he did and he tested positive for the gene. 

As I read the new CBA it is unclear to me whether Eddy can be suspended. IF the physician demands the test and Eddy refuses then the Bull swould have the right to rescind their QO which may make Eddy a free agent. That would obvioulsy be a dumb move for the Bulls. So the only leverage I can see the Bulls having is just whether Eddy plays at all this year.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



spongyfungy said:


> I almost swerved off the road when I heard that. Pax is really taking a stand here and is not letting up. Paxson said he didn't want to use the word "fight" but a serious "discussion" will ensue if he doesn't agree to the test.
> 
> "Why would Paxson let him play for the QO and assume the risk for this year but not for a long term deal" question is now answered.
> 
> *Paxson doesn't know for sure if a positive DNA test will result in HCM but Paxson doesn't want to be the GM to find out.*



i think this bolded part has always been the bottom line for pax. and i think he has been consistent in his approach. listen, if eddy were to play and something god forbid happened to him, eddy's family and hangers on would sue the bulls so fast heads would spin. they would say, "hey, why did you let him play?" 

i'm guessing pax has consulted the team's lawyers on this one and that it has been determined that it is within pax's legal right to ask for the test, _as the language specifies testing in the CBA_.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



kukoc4ever said:


> I'm also a fan of Eddy Curry and think at this point he’s seemingly getting a raw deal.


you know what needs to be done right?


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

bulls talk is pretty much dead in chicago. It's going to be football talk straight from 6-8 PM. 1000 has baseball and it's either that or football anyways. I never listen to 720 sports central but I'm guessing it's bears and cubs and the sox downfall. hopefully the interview will show up on audibles.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...3bulls,1,2312450.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


_Paxson said Curry must take more tests to rule out health issues before he puts on a Bulls uniform.

"We've done everything in our power to be protective of Eddy, show our concern and passion for him," Paxson said. "All we want to do is get as many answers as we can get. It's coming to a point where next week, there's going to be a decision made."

Curry's agent, Leon Rose, did not immediately return a message seeking comment._


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

I agree that this at least defeats the argument made by many that the "Evil Empire" have malice in their hearts when they are pressing Eddy to get this test. It's not just a bargaining ploy. It's actual concern about whether Eddy will drop dead on the basketball court. 

I do think there are lots of arguments to be made that this would set risky precedent and is too intrusive and I think there are good arguments that it's only sensible to demand this test considering the potential consequences of skipping it. All things being equal, I prefer being armed with as much information as possible. However, in a "Brave New World" type of sense, this is getting a little creepy to me. It should be interesting to see how it plays out and if this ends up in the courts.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



kukoc4ever said:


> This is a crap move by Paxson, IMO. No way to treat a human being.
> 
> If most industry-leading doctors that have offered an opinion have cleared him to play AND there is a trade on the table that does not screw the Bulls over too much, then Paxson should trade him.
> 
> ...


2 of the 3 leading experts have cleared him. The other 1 has cleared him pending a DNA test, from what I heard recently. If that's what you mean by "most", then I guess you're right.

I'm not gonna lie, I have mixed feelings about this. Once I learned about the inconclusiveness of DNA tests, I thought maybe it should be left up to Eddy. But if Pax is doing this legally by the allowances of the CBA, then he might as well take advantage of it. He might look like the bad guy to some, but at least he's been consistent with his "we just want the best for Eddy" approach. From what it sounds like, the Bulls were prepared to make a better contract offer if he had taken the test by now.

I do worry about Eddy taking this personally. Lord knows I would if I were in his shoes, but then again, I'm the type who would've taken the test since Dr. Maron recommended it. 

As far as future free agents, I think this situation will all be moot. This is an isolated incident that 99% of free agents will never have to go through.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



jnrjr79 said:


> I agree that this at least defeats the argument made by many that the "Evil Empire" have malice in their hearts when they are pressing Eddy to get this test. It's not just a bargaining ploy. It's actual concern about whether Eddy will drop dead on the basketball court.


Sorry, but that's just preposterous.

Giving Paxson the ultimate benefit of the doubt, about the best I can come up with is that he has an exceptionally shaky grasp of the medical issues at hand. That pretty much strains credulity, though, given Paxson's overall intelligence and the expertise of the various doctors involved.

Paxson has known about Maron's request for Eddy to take a DNA test since May. He told the world that Eddy could resume all physical activity with no restrictions in June. Nothing, so far as we know, has changed on the medical front.

Yet exactly one week before the deadline for the qualifying offer, Paxson all of a sudden decides that Curry must take the DNA test or not play. What has he been doing for the last four months? We know he hasn't been on the horn with other GMs. Why now? What changed.

Unfortunately for everyone involved, the turnaround time, per the lab that processes Maron's DNA test, is SIX WEEKS. Oops! That means, shucks, Eddy's stuck playing for the QO.

It stinks. Regardless of what actually ends up transpiring -- it's not at all clear to me that this is a legal thing for Paxson to do, and you can rest assured the NBAPA and Leon Rose (whose law firm handles a lot of genetic testing-related litigation) will fight this thing -- the fact that the Bulls would sink this low in a negotiation is really scraping rock bottom.

Be less than forthcoming with the medical issues via the media and essentially cover up an early clean bill of health from a doctor at the epicenter of the Reggie Lewis case. Pepper the media with half-truths and inaccuracies designed to scare and misinform the public ("you know, guys, Reggie Lewis would be alive today if he'd been DNA tested"). Angrily refuse to accommodate Eddy's request for a trade. Delay, dither, and drag heels with the ultimatum for a DNA test, so that even if Eddy wanted to take it, it's too late in regards to his contract.

I can't say I'm surprised, but I guess all summer I was hopeful that things would turn out differently. I should have known better.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> Sorry, but that's just preposterous.
> 
> Giving Paxson the ultimate benefit of the doubt, about the best I can come up with is that he has an exceptionally shaky grasp of the medical issues at hand. That pretty much strains credulity, though, given Paxson's overall intelligence and the expertise of the various doctors involved.
> 
> ...


I agree with you on a lot of this ScottMay. The timeline is fishy, and it doesn't reflect well on Paxson either IMO. The only question I wish to propose is whether Curry knew that this was Paxson's stance a while back. Perhaps it only recently was reported to us. Is that possible, or have I missed something?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

If the medical information was so overwhelmingly in favor of Curry never having any problems again, he'd have gotten insurance coverage. The rejection by the insurers has to play a part in Pax's thinking. And insurance companies have their own experts to look at medical tests - especially a company like Lloyd's of London, mentioned somewhere along the line as one of the firms with which Rosen was talking. If they saw a way of making money by issuing the insurance, they would have.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

Dudes,

You can say whatever you want the turth is that EC should take the dna test. This the test is not conclusive is bs. Eddie could die and if the test comes back positive he really does need to retire. He and his camp are putting money above his life. Are people posting here really thiniking about EC best interests. If EC was your son would you want him to keep playing if he could die. If it was my son i want ask him to take the test. Chicago needs EC alive more than it needs him to play.

david


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

The Chicago Bulls can rest assured that the ACLU will be a knocking. To require an employee to take a test that only predicts a predisposition of a disease is not going to fly. Also, all these posters on here trumpeting Paxson and the Bulls better remember that when you are required to take a DNA test at your next job interview and are then denied employment or health insurance because your genetic makeup shows a predisposition for canher or heart disease.

This does not disgust me as a basketball fan, this disgusts me as an American and a human.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



yodurk said:


> 2 of the 3 leading experts have cleared him. The other 1 has cleared him pending a DNA test, from what I heard recently. If that's what you mean by "most", then I guess you're right.


Every single doctor who has examined Eddy has diagnosed him with athlete's heart. He has no clinical signs whatsoever of HCM, and conventional medical practice -- per the American College of Cardiology, in a policy statement written by Dr. Barry Maron -- is to not DNA test for HCM in the absence of clinical HCM. 



> As far as future free agents, I think this situation will all be moot. This is an isolated incident that 99% of free agents will never have to go through.


Wow, you could not be more wrong about that. If somehow Eddy is made to take this test, then every single player in the NBA will have to take DNA tests. There are probably dozens of players in the NBA who don't have HCM and will never develop it, but it'll show up on the test and need to be dealt with. Probably those players will face drastically reduced salaries and invasive testing for the remainder of their careers, and for no good reason -- only one professional athlete in the world has died from HCM in the past X years, and there's even some debate whether it was HCM or not.

And if Eddy doesn't take the test, or Paxson does the ethical thing and rescinds the QO before 10/1 (probably what he wants, as that way Reinsdorf gets to keep the $5 million), I am pretty sure free agents have noticed the pitched battle Scott Skiles needed to have to get his money. And how the 47-26 starting point guard had to have another team determine how much of a raise he'd get. And how the Bulls treated Curry. And so on. You honestly don't think word gets around?

P.S. The 3% chance I pegged of Eddy coming back was way, way too high. My bad.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

One question I do have...Has Paxson ever said what the consequences of the test results would be for the BUlls re: Eddy Curry? If he has no predisposition he gets to play for the QO, if he does have a predisposition he is waived?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



giusd said:


> Dudes,
> 
> You can say whatever you want the turth is that EC should take the dna test. This the test is not conclusive is bs. Eddie could die and if the test comes back positive he really does need to retire. He and his camp are putting money above his life. Are people posting here really thiniking about EC best interests. If EC was your son would you want him to keep playing if he could die. If it was my son i want ask him to take the test. Chicago needs EC alive more than it needs him to play.
> 
> david


The test isn't conclusive -- you can refer to the fact sheet put out by the lab that processes Maron's DNA test.

http://www.hpcgg.org/LMM/comment/HCM Info Sheet.htm

In his Score interview, one of the hosts asked Paxson if he'd have his sons DNA tested. He answered -- "No . . . they don't have symptoms or signs of HCM." Just like Eddy!

I guess I'm touched to know that Paxson loves Eddy more than his own son.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



MemphisX said:


> One question I do have...Has Paxson ever said what the consequences of the test results would be for the BUlls re: Eddy Curry? If he has no predisposition he gets to play for the QO, if he does have a predisposition he is waived?


 he may have been asked... Any reporter worth their salt should have asked. hopefully someone did and they replay this thing.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



jnrjr79 said:


> I agree that this at least defeats the argument made by many that the "Evil Empire" have malice in their hearts when they are pressing Eddy to get this test.


The only thing that is clear is the "Evil Empire" thinks Curry is too stupid to make up his own mind about his own health risks or the "Evil Empire" is incredibly devious and have sunk to a new low in contract negotionaion. Which do you think it is?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



rocketeer said:


> i'm not sure how you can be so confident about it. it's great that you don't think curry has been mistreated. i bet curry and his agent feel differently. and if i was a bulls fan, i would want the bulls to be on good terms with players and their agents to make future negotiations much easier.


Dude, that's just ridiculous. 

Weren't you paying attention when we just snagged Malik Allen and Darius Songaila for more money than what other teams weren't offering them?

Players don't read the newspapers or form opinions on their own or talk with their peers about stuff like this anyway.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*











(more like this than raw deal, imo)


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> The test isn't conclusive -- you can refer to the fact sheet put out by the lab that processes Maron's DNA test.
> 
> http://www.hpcgg.org/LMM/comment/HCM Info Sheet.htm
> 
> ...


kind of puts to bed the bulls are doing this for eddy stuff, doesn't it?


----------



## Bull_Market (Aug 13, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

i've yet to have a chance to read all the posts in this thread, but i doubt somebody alluded to the following point:

one would HAVE to be naive to think that eddy didn't privately take a DNA test.

i mean, what possible reason could there be to not privately take it? think about that. maybe he could be afraid that somebody would find out the result, but i highly doubt that to be a good enough detterent to not take the test.

and since he probably knows the results of the DNA test (imho) - what could his refusal to make it known to the bulls org mean?

the obvious answer, of course, is that it could turn out that he indeed does have cardio myopa-wachamacalit-thingy, and very few ball clubs, if any, will let him play for them. and his market value would be shot forever.

but there could be other reasons.

maybe he doesn't want the press to find out that he's 35% caucasian...

maybe he doesn't want the press to know that he was born a woman (edna curry)

perhaps the DNA test will show that he has a tendency not to work much on his left hand hook, or up-and-under moves.

the DNA test may have also shown that his favorite song to sing in kareoke is "i wanna know what love is (i want you to show me)"

you know guys, i'm just trying to use common sense (enter moment-appropriate wise-a$$ smiley here)


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*


----------



## KwaZulu (Jul 7, 2003)

*Agree Bull_Market!*

The more this goes on the more I have the impression that everyone knows more about the medical situation than they're letting on. Which, if it is the case, means that what this really is about is $$$$$$$$$! I can understand Eddy wanting the best deal in a difficult situation. On the other hand, I can see why Pax doesn't want to put big bucks and a long term contract on an iffy player health-wise. We already have the limitations of the Rose deal, which are finally done after this season. We don't need to handicap ourselves again. From my perspective Pax seems to be saying that Eddy will get the money and the deal if he gives the Bulls proof health-wise. Eddy apparently won't. And now we're in a pickle. Frankly, it seems to me that Eddy's agent may have really screwed him, which is very unfortunate, both for the Bulls and for Eddy.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: Agree Bull_Market!*



KwaZulu said:


> The more this goes on the more I have the impression that everyone knows more about the medical situation than they're letting on. Which, if it is the case, means that what this really is about is $$$$$$$$$! I can understand Eddy wanting the best deal in a difficult situation. On the other hand, I can see why Pax doesn't want to put big bucks and a long term contract on an iffy player health-wise. We already have the limitations of the Rose deal, which are finally done after this season. We don't need to handicap ourselves again. * From my perspective Pax seems to be saying that Eddy will get the money and the deal if he gives the Bulls proof health-wise.* Eddy apparently won't. And now we're in a pickle. Frankly, it seems to me that Eddy's agent may have really screwed him, which is very unfortunate, both for the Bulls and for Eddy.



This is where you are wrong IMO.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



MemphisX said:


> The Chicago Bulls can rest assured that the ACLU will be a knocking. To require an employee to take a test that only predicts a predisposition of a disease is not going to fly. Also, all these posters on here trumpeting Paxson and the Bulls better remember that when you are required to take a DNA test at your next job interview and are then denied employment or health insurance because your genetic makeup shows a predisposition for canher or heart disease.
> 
> This does not disgust me as a basketball fan, this disgusts me as an American and a human.


There's a fundamental flaw with your reasoning. Curry is not an employee. He's a contractor. Kinda changes things. The relationship is different. Even tho the chicken little reaction is a nice touch.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



Bull_Market said:


> ii mean, what possible reason could there be to not privately take it?


If I went to 99% of the cardiologists in the country and asked to take the DNA test for HCM, and I didn't have clinical symptoms and a provable family history of HCM (as we know to be Curry's situation in the former instance and assume it to be his situation in the latter), probably none of them would let me take the DNA test. If I insisted on it, my insurance wouldn't cover the cost of it (it costs $4150 to have both panels tested). It simply isn't commonly accepted medical practice.

The doctors who want Curry to take the DNA test have arrived at the same clinical diagnosis as the ones who don't think it's necessary (if Maron/Doctor X thought Curry had clinical HCM, they would have ordered him to stop all physical activity, and we would have heard about it). My only guess is that Maron/Doctor X feel that a first-degree relative of Eddy's must have died from or currently has HCM, and the other doctors don't.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



fl_flash said:


> There's a fundamental flaw with your reasoning. Curry is not an employee. He's a contractor. Kinda changes things. The relationship is different. Even tho the chicken little reaction is a nice touch.


What you are saying is a nice touch unless you can tell me what Chicago does if he refuses to take the test? Is he allowed to 'contract' with every other team in the league or is he denied this?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> Sorry, but that's just preposterous.
> 
> Giving Paxson the ultimate benefit of the doubt, about the best I can come up with is that he has an exceptionally shaky grasp of the medical issues at hand. That pretty much strains credulity, though, given Paxson's overall intelligence and the expertise of the various doctors involved.
> 
> ...


Preposterous? Hardly. 

Pax has said he wants the DNA test all along. You have no idea what he's told Eddy's agent versus what Pax has told the media. It's naive to think that just because it's hitting the press today that this is definitely a new development. 

Your post is full or more mischaracterizations than I can address because I'm out the door. I would point out though that Pax didn't clear Eddy for physical activity. He merely stated that Eddy was "cleared" because Eddy never needed Pax's permission in the first place to work out. That's a totally different situation. 

Just because we're finding out now that Pax is insisting on the DNA test doesn't mean it hasn't always been his position with Eddy. He maybe just didn't want to press the issue in the media. Heck, maybe it is a new development? It doesn't make it evil. Atlanta and anyone else who was so inclined could have offered Eddy a contract. They didn't. Pax said he'll match? So what? They're not out anything if he does. So, now that Pax has this condition for Eddy to play doesn't make him some sort of demonic figure, as you would love to paint him. That's what's preposterous.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



johnston797 said:


> The only thing that is clear is the "Evil Empire" thinks Curry is too stupid to make up his own mind about his own health risks or the "Evil Empire" is incredibly devious and have sunk to a new low in contract negotionaion. Which do you think it is?


I think it's the former. It's also not unreasonable. Faced with millions and millions of dollars of potential income, a lot of us might take unwise risks with our own health.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



fl_flash said:


> There's a fundamental flaw with your reasoning. Curry is not an employee. He's a contractor. Kinda changes things. The relationship is different. Even tho the chicken little reaction is a nice touch.


I could of swore that Eddy was a basketball player, not a contractor. Lets not complicate this crap.

1. NBPA let something slip up in the new CBA.

2. Paxson has the right to do these tests.

3. Paxson is a SOB.

4. Paxson won't let Eddy play until Eddy passes the teams physical.

Now based on all this, even if I do think that Paxson is an S.O.B. he has the right to do this. No grudges here. He has the right to make a player take any test they feel is needed during a physical.

But here is what I am confused about. Does Eddy NEED to undergo a physical? I thought in the past, players resigning with their own team didn't have physicals. Can someone clear this up.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> Wow, you could not be more wrong about that. If somehow Eddy is made to take this test, then every single player in the NBA will have to take DNA tests. There are probably dozens of players in the NBA who don't have HCM and will never develop it, but it'll show up on the test and need to be dealt with. Probably those players will face drastically reduced salaries and invasive testing for the remainder of their careers, and for no good reason -- only one professional athlete in the world has died from HCM in the past X years, and there's even some debate whether it was HCM or not.



This slippery slope holds no weight. Just because someone who has shown clear signs of heart trouble might be asked to take a DNA test does not mean that all others will. It's downright silly to suggest otherwise.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



MemphisX said:


> What you are saying is a nice touch unless you can tell me what Chicago does if he refuses to take the test? Is he allowed to 'contract' with every other team in the league or is he denied this?


I don't understand the relavence of the question. If Curry actually signs the qualifying offer then he would technically be under contract. I suppose the Bulls could simply sit him and not play him. I'm not sure if they could "void" the contract citing that Curry failed his exam due to "medical conditions". I don't see why they would let it get to that. I'm guessing if Curry flat-out refuses, maybe Pax rescinds the QO. I would tend to think that he wouldn't let it get to the point of voiding the contract because of medical concerns. He'd cut him loose first and let some other team deal with this mess.

To try and be more clear, if Curry refuses I can see Pax pulling the QO or simply sitting Eddy until he takes the test.

As an aside. I think this whole situation stinks - for all parties involved. I don't think I can imagine an outcome that is going to work for all concerned. Personally, if this truly is Pax's stance, he should cut Curry loose. Trade him to GS for their injury exception and a draft pick. Much as I must be viewed as a "Pax apologist" I feel like he should just end this. If some other team is willing to take on what Pax obviously is not - he should let him go. I think that the Bulls are pretty sure of their legal position in requiring the test. I just don't think they should go there. Just end it Pax.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

One thing I will say is this, the issues on this subject are too fresh and have no definitive legal precedent. Both sides have legal reasoning for their position and this case might be settled by the Supremes if not settled between the NBA and the NBAPA. However, Curry might be left blowing in the wind either way.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> If I went to 99% of the cardiologists in the country and asked to take the DNA test for HCM, and I didn't have clinical symptoms and a provable family history of HCM (as we know to be Curry's situation in the former instance and assume it to be his situation in the latter), probably none of them would let me take the DNA test. If I insisted on it, my insurance wouldn't cover the cost of it (it costs $4150 to have both panels tested). It simply isn't commonly accepted medical practice.
> 
> The doctors who want Curry to take the DNA test have arrived at the same clinical diagnosis as the ones who don't think it's necessary (if Maron/Doctor X thought Curry had clinical HCM, they would have ordered him to stop all physical activity, and we would have heard about it). My only guess is that Maron/Doctor X feel that a first-degree relative of Eddy's must have died from or currently has HCM, and the other doctors don't.



Common medical practice could not be more irrelevant. You have to recognize the fundamental different between an at-will employee, which is almost everyone, and a contract employee, which is Eddy. A contract employee has lots more guaranteed money regardless of what happens. An at-will employee can be terminated at any time for absolutely no reason whatsoever. The type of digging that an employer will do for a contract employee is going to be a lot deeper than an at-will employee. What would seem too obtrusive to you and me might be reasonable for Eddy.

Again, I am not trying to say that this doesn't bring up good civil rights questions. I think this is potentially a dangerous precedent. However, I think the idea that Pax is doing this because of some dark-hearted motivation is just totally false. Some people just love conspiracy theories to no end. Pax is doing what he thinks is right for the Bulls. I think he also believes he thinks he's doing what's right for Eddy. It seems to me that it takes someone with a seriously cynical worldview to be finding this much negativity in every decision. Perhaps everyone just thinks they're doing the right and moral thing, but reasonable people can disagree on what that course of action is.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



fl_flash said:


> I don't understand the relavence of the question. If Curry actually signs the qualifying offer then he would technically be under contract. I suppose the Bulls could simply sit him and not play him. I'm not sure if they could "void" the contract citing that Curry failed his exam due to "medical conditions". I don't see why they would let it get to that. I'm guessing if Curry flat-out refuses, maybe Pax rescinds the QO. I would tend to think that he wouldn't let it get to the point of voiding the contract because of medical concerns. He'd cut him loose first and let some other team deal with this mess.
> 
> To try and be more clear, if Curry refuses I can see Pax pulling the QO or simply sitting Eddy until he takes the test.
> 
> As an aside. I think this whole situation stinks - for all parties involved. I don't think I can imagine an outcome that is going to work for all concerned. Personally, if this truly is Pax's stance, he should cut Curry loose. Trade him to GS for their injury exception and a draft pick. Much as I must be viewed as a "Pax apologist" I feel like he should just end this. If some other team is willing to take on what Pax obviously is not - he should let him go. I think that the Bulls are pretty sure of their legal position in requiring the test. I just don't think they should go there. Just end it Pax.


See that is the problem I have...what are the consequences of taking the test. It would seem that if the Bulls require the test as part of the physical and they deem him unfit to play that that is the equivalent of failing a physical and voiding the contract and thus making Eddy Curry an UFA. However, if Curry refuses the test then the BUlls can rightfully say he has a contract pending physical completion.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

A few things ( that I have been over and over in recent times )

#1

L-I-A-B-I-L_T-Y

3 Doctors -from what I can tell ( and I'm assuming ) two engaged by the Bulls and one by Camp Curry

Liability , in the form of a professional indemnity claim , only extends to they that commissioned advice that they acted and relied upon

Forget about the diagnosis Scott..Im sure Pax knows Eddy doesn't have HCM ...curiously the guy they sent him to for the 2nd opinion would not clear him to play without a DNA test 

Was Maron himself unnecessarily covering his arse , or without precedent , thinks there is some minute risk which he thinks is best if he returns serve to Paxson's camp to deal with the issue commercially as he sees fit - armed with the results of a test , if he can get it , that can give all possible information such that everyone's arse is covered on liability claim

That's what driving this ..not the actuality of a set of circumstances.. the realism is rooted in mitigating "at worst" commercial risk in playing a game of liability chess.

Everyone can either accept this realism or they can't and continue to pontificate things as to the actuality that ceased being relevant some time ago.

#2 

As far as I'm aware from what came out the other day..Pax still has a deal for Eddy with guaranteed money ranging between $19M to $26M as reported by McGraw. IT seems as though it was previously incorrectly reported as being pulled from the table

I called it the other day before it came out that Pax will sign him to a deal but not necessarily play him until they can square of the "duty of care" issue in terms of action that they have been recommended to take by one of their consulting specialists

I said then that Eddy will sit on the IL until he takes that test

That now appears to be the case

But for the fact that Pax is prepared to gtee him money and hasn't rescinded that deal as previously reported ... I believe that deal has been made to Eddy ( over 3 years ) on the assumption that :

A. It is inconclusive , or ,

B. It shows a predisposition to developing HCM 

I am of the belief that the offer contract has been made factoring this into account in what is asssumed ..and they have to assume it because they Maron recommended that this be done back in May/June and Camp curry have not actioned this ..probably because they wanted to see what the new CBA provided for and secondly , and most importantly, whilst they would have privately had this information / requirement from the Bulls made known to them , it was obviously in no one's best interests to have this requirement put out there in the market place as :

A. It hurt Eddy's free agency market 

B. Lessened the Bulls sign and trade options if they wanted to keep all options open.

Because I am of the belief that :

A. The Bulls will play Eddy even if the test is inconclusive or shows a positive predisposition ,and ,

B. Have factored this into their contract offer accordingly 

Camp Curry , perhaps don't like the current set of circumstances in how they disfavour them , and are looking ahead to next year's free agency market because :

A. They obviously resent all the current legal implications and know that he doesn't currently have HCM

B. He may be a better insurable risk with a season without incident under his belt 

B. A team may want to commit to a longer term without a DNA testing 

Which is why I think they will do whatever it takes right now to bog this down and let Pax know next week that :

A. We will never give you a DNA test because even if a predisposition in not an issue for the Bulls and you guys have already factored it into the basis for how you want to retain Eddy in what's been on offer .. we think it unreasonably withholds his future earnings potential in that it may be a factor for other teams who may want to pay him less for shorter terms. 

B. Trade Eddy now because if you don't we will sit for a year on the QO because you won't let Eddy play without a DNA test and we will fight it through the courts that will be an unwelcome distraction to the team for something that is bound to get even uglier off the court

On this basis , serve will be returned to Pax , who will need to :

A. Fight it through the courts and reinforce his rights through the court ...and Eddy will sit for a season and still be no further along in giving anyone any comfort next summer ( Insurers or potential suitor ..so its not really in his interest for Leon Rose to take this gambit ) and in this scenario with things that acrimonous .. regardless of money involved ... he really won't be able to go back - I don't think the Bulls would want him back in these circumstances and I don't think he would really want to be back

B. If you accept A as a course of action above where we would likely lose Eddy for no compensation ..is it important enough for Pax to fight for the right that accrues to him ( and before anyone says anything ..like it or not .. the right does accrue to him to demand it for him to be cleared to play ) or should he walk away from "the right" and minimise collateral damage and trade him now for ending contracts and a 1st round draft pick without all the hoo haa and the inevitable distractions throughout the season

The smart thing to do right now IMO is to deal him and try and get a 1st round pick and a 1 year player for rent .... as it is not only about opportunity cost in losing Eddy Curry for no compensation or losing Eddy curry period ...but the holy grail of cap space that we have fought so hard for will be compromised to some degree the longer this is allowed to fester throughout the season - even though its not a big swinging dick free agency class.

Even so.. I think yiou have to protect that and you can do without all this ancillary crap which has some unwelcome impact.

What do I think will happen 

A. Camp Curry will buckle and submit to it 

B. Pax has to deal him for our sake and his sake if they dig their heels in - as they will lose and we will lose . In the circumstances , if they dig their heels in , its the best win/win for everybody your going to get given the circumstances.

#3

One final thing .. the 6 weeks for process of DNA testing is absurd if you want to blame that on Paxson 

Camp Curry has responsibilty on this one . Leon Rose has known of this requirement of John Paxson's as soon as Maron's advice came back

He's played a game of chicken with Paxson and Paxson hasn't blinked

Nice one Leon

Further suggestions that Pax has no medical understanding of the issues at hand just because you ,Scott ,have graduated with a Masters in Cardiology Cyber Research this summer is completely ridiculous

Here is a guy charged with running a multi zillion dollar going concern with the best advice to hand that money can buy ... and he has no grip ? Interesting perspective.

Common sense knows that he hasn't got HCM and he has factored in an at worst predisposition that he has to assume because Camp Curry won't agree to a test..but because of the liability issue he smartly has chosen to act off the advice of one of his consulting specialists because for whatever reason he has recommended that one be done .

Once its done and the liability issue is ticked off ..which may include some waiver from Camp Curry then play ball

Again.. there is a further seperation of the issues .and they are not as "packaged" as what some thought they all were ( re : earlier in the week when you and others were sure that the organisation was linking testing to contract offer and the relative size of which - in how they organisation gleefully saw this as an opportunity to have a poke in the cheeks )


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

I don't understand why this isn't a major news story. This is something every sports fan should pay attention to.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> A
> Here is a guy charged with running a multi zillion dollar going concern with the best advice to hand that money can buy ... and he has no grip ? Interesting perspective.


Best advice money can buy? The Bulls? Hardly. Did the Bulls have the best advice money could buy when they traded Ron Artest and Brad Miller for Jalen Rose? Brand for Chandler? When they drafted Marcus Fizer? We hardly even have the best advice money can buy for basketball operations, what makes you think we have the best advice money can buy when it comes to cardiology?

I have no question that there are people who post on this forum who are better in their fields than whoever is advising the Bulls. Case in point, Dan Rosenbaum.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



jnrjr79 said:


> Heck, maybe it is a new development? It doesn't make it evil. Atlanta and anyone else who was so inclined could have offered Eddy a contract. They didn't. Pax said he'll match? So what? They're not out anything if he does. So, now that Pax has this condition for Eddy to play doesn't make him some sort of demonic figure, as you would love to paint him. That's what's preposterous.


You should have saved whatever time you spent attempting to make a real point and just skipped to the above.

I would default to the "It's Eddy's fault for not getting offers!" argument, too, if my best defense otherwise was to admit Pax wanted the test back in May and opted to misrepresent the situation to the media all summer, even going so far as to say Eddy was totally cleared without physical restrictions and that the Bulls and Eddy were proceeding on the basis of Dr. Cannom's recommendations.

Yikes.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



jnrjr79 said:


> I think it's the former. It's also not unreasonable. Faced with millions and millions of dollars of potential income, a lot of us might take unwise risks with our own health.



Me too 

Camp Curry have taken some dumb turns this summer


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



 futuristxen said:


> Best advice money can buy? The Bulls? Hardly. Did the Bulls have the best advice money could buy when they traded Ron Artest and Brad Miller for Jalen Rose? Brand for Chandler? When they drafted Marcus Fizer? We hardly even have the best advice money can buy for basketball operations, what makes you think we have the best advice money can buy when it comes to cardiology?


Figure of speech Fut

Dr May has been espousing the virtues of Dr's Estes, Cannom and Maron all summer long 

I'll defer to him on this one as to whether they are the leaders in the field of Cardiology or at very least whether they would now more than the casually obsessed graduate from Internet U


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



MemphisX said:


> this disgusts me as an American and a human.


sorry man..I thought it pretty funny that you had to identify as both 

:laugh:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> Further suggestions that Pax has no medical understanding of the issues at hand just because you ,Scott ,have graduated with a Masters in Cardiology Cyber Research this summer is completely ridiculous
> 
> Here is a guy charged with running a multi zillion dollar going concern with the best advice to hand that money can buy ... and he has no grip ? Interesting perspective.


What's with the repeated put-downs? I can't figure out why it rankles you that I spent a few hours reading medical journals and trying to learn about something that'd benefit my understanding of a complicated condition I previously knew nothing about.

From now on I'll spend my spare time dreaming up wack-*** trades that have absolutely no chance of happening and presenting them to the board in a rambling and incoherent fashion.

As for Pax's understanding of the medical issues, I am forced to conclude that a guy who in his last radio interview said,

"You know, guys, Reggie Lewis would be alive if they'd DNA tested him."

and

Q: John, would you have this test done on your sons?
A: No, I wouldn't. They don't have any symptoms or signs of the disease.

. . . doesn't fully grasp the whole medical picture, or

. . . is intentionally misleading the public as to Curry's health.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



futuristxen said:


> I have no question that there are people who post on this forum who are better in their fields than whoever is advising the Bulls. Case in point, Dan Rosenbaum.


Dan's great 

But he has limited vision IMO where the focus is too narrow on the data rather than the actuality 

I think Dan mentioned the other day on another Curry thread that we would be better off with Othella Harrington in Eddy's minutes

He's a specialist no doubt ..that has been commissioned for specific advice and has been published and more power to him for it 

But like most specialists the view is sometimes too skewed to their specific specialty in where they try and convince you the Centre of the Universe is

No diss on Dan..he's the shiz fo sho


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> What's with the repeated put-downs? I can't figure out why it rankles you that I spent a few hours reading medical journals and trying to learn about something that'd benefit my understanding of a complicated condition I previously knew nothing about.
> 
> From now on I'll spend my spare time dreaming up wack-*** trades that have absolutely no chance of happening and presenting them to the board in a rambling and incoherent fashion.


From the King of Smart Arses and smug put downs himself !

A bit touchy aren't we ? Maybe someone needs a hug

Me rankled ?

Not me guy

Judging from your churlish reply it seems to me the rankles/issues are yours 

I sincerely admire your interest for further knowledge . Good for you.

To be completely honest with you I think it presumptious and irresponsible to be sprouting your new found knowledge to the crazed levels that you do in this now scarily weird obsession that you have about the hopelessness of the Bulls front office 

You do come up with some good stuff but the constant spin and bash gets tired , and for me , derides from a lot of other good stuff you post and contribute

Hey I'm no Reinsdorf or Paxson apologist and I have certainly vented my displeasure over some stuff over the years that I've thought are f'd .. Pax's handling of this issue if not one of them IMO



> As for Pax's understanding of the medical issues, I am forced to conclude that a guy who in his last radio interview said,
> 
> "You know, guys, Reggie Lewis would be alive if they'd DNA tested him."


I'll agree on this. contextually.. this is not smart territory for him to be stepping into and is too much of an easy mark

has nothing to do with his medical understanding of the issues though...just a cheap and easy comment to make for mainstream media in mainstream reference to get validation in mainstream politicking on his insistence that for yay it will be done




> and
> 
> Q: John, would you have this test done on your sons?
> A: No, I wouldn't. They don't have any symptoms or signs of the disease.


Empty and imprecise question for an equally empty and imprecise answer

Perhaps his answer would have been different if the question was 

_based on your consulting specialists opinion that your son should have this test if he had a bout of arrythima would you have it done ..or as a parent would you ignore your doctor's advice_

I would think most of us her who are parents would most times take on board the recommendation of our consulting specialist if we recommended we needed further testing for our children as an extra precaution.. or maybe that's just me


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

I just heard that Eddy's lawyers are going to fight this and they believe that the NBAPA will back them up. 

I'll have audio of Pax's comments in about 2 hours.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



jnrjr79 said:


> Preposterous? Hardly.
> 
> Pax has said he wants the DNA test all along. *You have no idea what he's told Eddy's agent versus what Pax has told the media. It's naive to think that just because it's hitting the press today that this is definitely a new development.*
> 
> ...


It would be impossible to write a post on this subject that is more rational and realistic, so I won't try. Well done.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

Thanks Spongy, as usual you are always updating us with great media.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



"This is our reality right now"


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



Ron Cey said:


> It would be impossible to write a post on this subject that is more rational and realistic, so I won't try. Well done.


I guess it's just a wild coincidence Curry's bioethics attorney made a public statement about all of this for the first time tonight.

He meant to respond back in May when Pax originally made his unqualifed "test or don't play" ultimatum, and he's just been busy with other stuff for the last four months.

Yup, that's rational and realistic.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

Good job Spongy..reliable as ever with the good gear

Well guys... they are either bluffing or by turning it into a zero sum game which is lose for lose for both teams they are basically forcing Pax into a sign and trade

Pax can stand on his principle - and be right - as to his legal and commercial entitlement and see them in Court

Or he can walk away from letting the Bulls be a guinea pig on this issue , divorce himself from the surrounding collateral damage and do the smart thing and walk away.. S and T him so long as he can get player for rent and a first round pick..and its possible some deals that fit that description are on offer

Pax did the right thing on the Eddie Robinson issue and cut him when there were plenty that said you don't cave into player demands out of principle , in that , if they are on the hook and you got to pay them , then don't let them go - make them stay but tell them to stay the heck away

Well Pax is a practical man and he did the right thing then , he was astute enough to do the right thing in the Jamal Crawford sign and trade and he was morally strong enough to do the right thing in the Jay Williams saga

Plus..he was calm enough and humble enough to get out of the way when Coach Skiles needed a hug and got one from Pappy.

In a fairly short period of time Pax has shown himself to come out of difficult circumstances where he has proven to have equipped himself well when challenged with hard things to deal with 

I think he has to treat the threat from Camp Curry as serious . So therefore I think he will switch to practical Pax and try and get a deal done for him that also fits in with the Bulls bigger structural objectives ( in terms of payroll /roster management )

Its just that we won't be getting equal quality back...but I said that all along when I was getting howled at weeks ago for suggesting a Mike Sweetney trade and discussed the cap compliance aspects of a trade for Chris Mihm....knowing that something like this was reasonably likely


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> I guess it's just a wild coincidence Curry's bioethics attorney made a public statement about all of this for the first time tonight.
> 
> He meant to respond back in May when Pax originally made his unqualifed "test or don't play" ultimatum, and he's just been busy with other stuff for the last four months.
> 
> Yup, that's rational and realistic.


From this I take it you believe his agent would have been of the opinion that to play it in such a way back then would have no impacts on his free agency market...which was thin at best ( and which he would have known as to his client's likely range of options at the time )


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> From this I take it you believe his agent would have been of the opinion that to play it in such a way back then would have no impacts on his free agency market...which was thin at best ( and which he would have known as to his client's likely range of options at the time )


Atlanta's doctors were aware of Maron's desire to have Eddy take a DNA test, and they gave the thumbs-up to Hawks brass.



> When the Hawks looked into signing Curry in July . . . the doctor the Hawks asked to look at Curry's records gave him a clean bill of health.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9331174/

As for other prospective teams, who knows? My guess is if any of them had made it clear to Eddy that he would be required to take a DNA test, they would have either been crossed off Eddy's list or responded to in the same way that Milstein responded to Paxson's recent demand today.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> Atlanta's doctors were aware of Maron's desire to have Eddy take a DNA test, and they gave the thumbs-up to Hawks brass.


Because Maron wasn't engaged by them to provide advice to them with a recommendation on what they should do

Their own doctor gave the thumbs up and they were dandy 

Look if it makes you feel any better ..I agree with you in that with clearances and advices in what's out there as a matter of record .. Eddy doesn't currently have HCM

I think what your not seeing that its not really about this 

Its a legal liability issue and sometimes ( as they say in the classics) the law's an azz

And as to the inference in the article about the Bulls scare mongering on the blower to the Hawks..please. That is just dumb journalism in the extreme . Look , man you can't give us blue blood sources to make your points and then throw us Sean freaking Devaney.Please.

If what he suggested was real the Bulls are looking down the barrel of a different type of litiguous bomb if it were proven . I take it ( from a sane interpretation ) as to issue that was known out of ccircumstance not in any conspiracist led "keep Eddy down so we can low ball him and make him our biyatch"

C'mon ..your better than all this shyte


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

I'll never understand what possessed my mother to put her faith in God's hands, rather than her local geneticist.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



futuristxen said:


> I'll never understand what possessed my mother to put her faith in God's hands, rather than her local geneticist.


Is that from Gattica? LOL.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> Is that from Gattica? LOL.


Did you know Paltrow's character in Gattaca, was kept out of the job she wanted because of an unacceptable risk of heart failure? It's really kind of freaky where we're going with this mess.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> I think what your not seeing that its not really about this
> 
> Its a legal liability issue and sometimes ( as they say in the classics) the law's an azz


I think you maybe aren't sure about how medical liability works in this country. Donna Lewis didn't sue the Celtics or the NBA. She sued doctors and hospitals (and lost after about ten years of litigation and two appeals).



> And as to the inference in the article about the Bulls scare mongering on the blower to the Hawks..please. That is just dumb journalism in the extreme . Look , man you can't give us blue blood sources to make your points and then throw us Sean freaking Devaney.Please.


I didn't cut and paste that bit for the "scaremongering"; I cut and pasted it to show that at least one team was comfortable with the majority opinion of the doctors who'd examined Curry. Maron is indeed a world-class doctor, but so are Estes (the Bulls' first choice, and a guy that Paxson has yet to mention by name) and Cannom. It's not like Maron is head and shoulders above the others, and that is reflected in Atlanta's opinion of Eddy's health.



> If what he suggested was real the Bulls are looking down the barrel of a different type of litiguous bomb if it were proven . I take it ( from a sane interpretation ) as to issue that was known out of ccircumstance not in any conspiracist led "keep Eddy down so we can low ball him and make him our biyatch"
> 
> C'mon ..your better than all this shyte


I have no idea what any of this means, or what standard any of what I wrote in my previous post I failed to meet.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

We have the right to do certain things to make sure he's capable of playing


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> I think you maybe aren't sure about how medical liability works in this country. Donna Lewis didn't sue the Celtics or the NBA. She sued doctors and hospitals (and lost after about ten years of litigation and two appeals).


Well forget about me and what you think I don't understand and look at the facts of the circumstances as what's driving behaviour here in terms of who is couching their positions and how they are doing it 

This commercial positioning should tell you plenty about the liability issue

miz has also posted excerpts from McGraw's emails to her that basically comes straight out and says it - _after I was referencing it last week as a driver _

So again..forget about me and go back to this email in what McGraw said 

No doubt the Bulls mindset on this issue is being driven by legal advice





> I didn't cut and paste that bit for the "scaremongering"; I cut and pasted it to show that at least one team was comfortable with the majority opinion of the doctors who'd examined Curry. Maron is indeed a world-class doctor, but so are Estes (the Bulls' first choice, and a guy that Paxson has yet to mention by name) and Cannom. It's not like Maron is head and shoulders above the others, and that is reflected in Atlanta's opinion of Eddy's health.


Whatever

What about the part where you specifically included the clumsy inference from Deveney that suggested the Bulls were talking Eddy down with the Hawks

I quote :

_When the Hawks looked into signing Curry in July, they were given dire warnings by the Bulls_





> I have no idea what any of this means, or what standard any of what I wrote in my previous post I failed to meet.


Still have no idea what collusion means or conspiring to limit a market in the exchange of goods and servcies ?

I assumed because you were so particular to include this in your quote that you were still persisting with the morally and ethically bankrupt evil empire thing.... even if it risked a whole new range of litigation by being seeing to engage in such behaviour that Deveney infers.

Understand now ?

Glib response awaited


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> Well forget about me and what you think I don't understand and look at the facts of the circumstances as what's driving behaviour here in terms of who is couching their positions and how they are doing it
> 
> This commercial positioning should tell you plenty about the liability issue
> 
> ...


If that's the case, then it's bad legal advice. There can be no liability for the Bulls, just as there wasn't for the Celtics with Lewis, because the Bulls aren't in a position to rule on Eddy's health. Doctors are. A doctor making an incorrect diagnosis that permitted Eddy to return to the court would be on the hook, so to speak, not the Bulls. And not pursuing Maron's recommendation is hardly grounds for negligence on the Bulls' part.

Note: deaths of college and high school athletes have an entirely different framework due to in loco parentis.



> Whatever
> 
> What about the part where you specifically included the clumsy inference from Deveney that suggested the Bulls were talking Eddy down with the Hawks
> 
> ...


The offending Deveney quote has been pared to its bare essence so as to avoid further misapprehension . . . whatever you're going on about simply wasn't my jist.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> If that's the case, then it's bad legal advice. There can be no liability for the Bulls, just as there wasn't for the Celtics with Lewis, because the Bulls aren't in a position to rule on Eddy's health. Doctors are. A doctor making an incorrect diagnosis that permitted Eddy to return to the court would be on the hook, so to speak, not the Bulls. And not pursuing Maron's recommendation is hardly grounds for negligence on the Bulls' part.


Well..I'm offcially blue in the face and I couldn't be f'd anymore 

But you have done your research ( which I have commended you for ) and now have a handle on all the legal liability issues in play in terms of duty of care under current contracts ( as opposed to say the contracts that Lewis would have played under ) and also ..extensions of liability and availability of recourse surrounding who engages/commissions advice from which commercial action may be taken.. Gee maybe liability has changed a bit in the last 10 years - plus - Eddy is not a coker to start with ( which is maybe why Ms Lewis went the hospitals in the first place because if she had of gone the league Reggie would have been in violation of his contract anyway and the league would have proven that it was the coke that killed him )

I'm comfortable in what I know ( and no doubt you are comfortable in what you believe - so much so that you have called someone out for not being a Dcotor when they have been coming to this board for a couple of years and identified themselves as such - long before all this BS. ) 

For the record I have already outlined how I reckon it will play out - and I've already been right with what's happened over the last week - after I had put it into the various debate. And that's the only thing I will say about any of that..it's all here in the record of threads and subsequent release of official info.

From this point ..I am officially retired from process led debate in Eddy Curry threads

I still reserve the right to throw my rambling , incoherent wacky assed trade scenarios out there that never have any chance of happening 





> The offending Deveney quote has been pared to its bare essence so as to avoid further misapprehension . . . whatever you're going on about simply wasn't my jist.


So brutal in your accusations and now the innocence ?

Well you say Pax and Skiles are bipolar ..at least they are two people


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

I am trying to understand why this entire thing could not have been settled by having Eddy sign a waiver and giving him a market level 6 year contract that renewed itself upon every healthy (heart related issues only) season. Make the waiver public knowledge. That way if Eddy is unable to play due to heart reasons, there is a *prearranged* buyout for the rest of his contract and it would be off the Bulls cap the following offseason.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



MemphisX said:


> I am trying to understand why this entire thing could not have been settled by having Eddy sign a waiver and giving him a market level 6 year contract that renewed itself upon every healthy (heart related issues only) season. Make the waiver public knowledge. That way if Eddy is unable to play due to heart reasons, there is a *prearranged* buyout for the rest of his contract and it would be off the Bulls cap the following offseason.


I suggested blanket waivers some time ago too

I would be surprised if this was not offered by the Bulls

But see kukoc4ever ..down troddin working man..I'm going to get mine from masser schtick in this thread , that I think, captures the non preparedness for Camp Curry to play ball on this basis

Counsel would refuse anyway even if Eddy wanted to do it.... bad precedent for the brotherhood and all that crap


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

*I'm sure the Bulls already have some EC DNA maybe they know something...*

We're talking about millions of dollars. Maybe the Bulls already know. I would definately have the test done if I owned or was in control of the Bulls. I'm sure they've taken his blood or got some hair and tested it. Now they need public proof to make the next move.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

lorgg man, i had to merge your thread with this one. we already have FIVE EDDY CURRY threads, ok?

thanks.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/multimedia.asp

"this is our reality"

first video link.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I always come across sounding like an a-hole with my opinion regarding this but the bottomline for me is that Paxson is not running some charity here. He is running a professional NBA franchise and he hasx to do what is right by this team. He is doing that. He genuinely is concerned about Eddy and his health while Camp Curry is just concerned about the benjamins. I really do not want this distraction on the team this year. We are poised to have another really good year and this black cloud may impair that. Hopefully some other team steps up to the plate, says they would not require a DNA test, and then they offer some deal to Paxson that he is okay with. Long story short. I am behind Paxson. I trust him to do what is right for the Chicago Bulls. I wish Curry all the best on and off the court. I just hope he can get some better people advicing him that are concerned about Eddy the person and not Eddy the kid that I can make a bunch of money off of.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Basghetti80 said:


> I always come across sounding like an a-hole with my opinion regarding this


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I am not going to stoop down to your level and sling mud.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Couldn't agree more.



he has a right to his opinion mike, just like you do.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> You should have saved whatever time you spent attempting to make a real point and just skipped to the above.
> 
> I would default to the "It's Eddy's fault for not getting offers!" argument, too, if my best defense otherwise was to admit Pax wanted the test back in May and opted to misrepresent the situation to the media all summer, even going so far as to say Eddy was totally cleared without physical restrictions and that the Bulls and Eddy were proceeding on the basis of Dr. Cannom's recommendations.
> 
> Yikes.



You misrepresent the situation again. Pax said that it's not the Bulls place one way or another to say whether Eddy can work out. 

Pax has said he wants the DNA test all along. When it became a deal-breaker, I don't know.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> I guess it's just a wild coincidence Curry's bioethics attorney made a public statement about all of this for the first time tonight.
> 
> He meant to respond back in May when Pax originally made his unqualifed "test or don't play" ultimatum, and he's just been busy with other stuff for the last four months.
> 
> Yup, that's rational and realistic.



Actually, the fact that now the attorneys are getting involved with the media now isn't inconsistent at all with that. 

Also, when did Eddy hire a bioethics attorney? I'm sure he always had one on retainer. Sure. 

The fact that statements are made in th emedia shortly before the situation comes to a head isn't surprising or unnatural in the slightest.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> If that's the case, then it's bad legal advice. There can be no liability for the Bulls, just as there wasn't for the Celtics with Lewis, because the Bulls aren't in a position to rule on Eddy's health. Doctors are. A doctor making an incorrect diagnosis that permitted Eddy to return to the court would be on the hook, so to speak, not the Bulls. And not pursuing Maron's recommendation is hardly grounds for negligence on the Bulls' part.
> 
> Note: deaths of college and high school athletes have an entirely different framework due to in loco parentis.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't be so sure that just bc/ the Lewis case didn't involve the Celtics that it's impossible that Eddy's would. They are not totally shielded from liability here necessarily.

Also, you have to recognize what one of the chief legal purposes of CYA tactics are. You don't want to set yourself up so you win in litigation, you want to set yourself up to be so safe that you never get sued in the first place. It costs lots of money to defend suits you win, you know.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



jnrjr79 said:


> You want to set yourself up to be so safe that you never get sued in the first place. It costs lots of money to defend suits you win, you know.


If this is Pax's goal, he has failed miserably. Bulls' sources agree that is probably going to arbitration. I doubt it will be Pro-Bono work to defend the Bulls position.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

Let the record show that I am actually against Curry being forced to take a DNA test. i think forcing employees to do that is too risky to require. My only issue here is I think people are attributing evil motivations and all sorts of doom and gloom scenarios when there aren't any. I think both sides believe they are doing the right thing. I understand good arguments for either camp. At the end of the day though, I think this is too intrusive. I understand why it's wanted, and I think Pax honestly believes he's just trying to do the right thing, but it's too much. I think it's unfortunate that the CBA language seems to support Pax's position, but I understand why he would exploit those terms.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

the longer the delay, the more I dont want to sign Curry to a long term contract. i m not a medical expert, but from the common sense point of view, why is it so hard for curry to take a private DNA test, if hes fine, he will show Paxson the result, or take it again for the public. the longer hes refusing to take the DNA test, the more I think he knows he's going to fail.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

I do not know the exact details of how accurate a DNA test is. I wish I have kept up on reading this material since I'm interested in Biology/Medicine. But my view on this whole situation comes down to this:

Both sides are right, but there is a limit. 

Eddy will surely want as much money as he can make, and who wouldn't. However, I can understand Pax making a request for the DNA test before shelling out a 6yr/60million-ish deal. But for the QO and even the rumored 3year?/19-26million, I don't see why Eddy would have to take the DNA test. I think this will hurt the Bulls reputation to what it was in the year 2000 (TMac, Hill, Duncan, Jones Summer). 

I hope the rumors are not true of Paxson asking for a DNA test of Eddy's parents. 
I hope things do not get ugly and hurt the Bulls. I am already expecting us to take a big step back this year, since Eddy will not be part of the team. I do not see Malik or Darius replacing Eddy. 

Sadly, if we have to trade Eddy away, I rather not get any players back (unless expiring deals, or on rookie contracst), but future draft picks from a team like NYK or the other rumor deals.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*

Anyone listen to the Norm van lier segment on 670? TER-RI-BLE

Not for people with a brain


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



fleetwood macbull said:


> yes I would agree Mike. But I know it would help out the Bulls in making their decisions.


It'd also decisively help the Bulls to wiretap all their players' phones, and those of their agents. And I'd gather that some folks here (not directed at you personally fleet) would defend those practices, as well, on the grounds that if it helps the Bulls then it's not a bad thing.



jnrjr said:


> Let the record show that I am actually against Curry being forced to take a DNA test. i think forcing employees to do that is too risky to require. My only issue here is I think people are attributing evil motivations and all sorts of doom and gloom scenarios when there aren't any. I think both sides believe they are doing the right thing.


I don't know if it's an "evil" motivation, but I've seen enough to see it's not a wholly good one. For one, it's hardly a "right way" thing to do to ask for things you don't have any right to ask for. I also find the Bulls' "concern" for Eddy to increasingly be a bunch of disinginuous garbage. I think they have every right to concern themselves with their bottom line, but this serving it up as "we're concerned for his health" when the wrong answer will apparently see you taking millions of dollars off the table is a bunch of tripe. I'd prefer to cut the horse**** and just be honest about it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> I'm comfortable in what I know ( and no doubt you are comfortable in what you believe - so much so that you have called someone out for not being a Dcotor when they have been coming to this board for a couple of years and identified themselves as such - long before all this BS. )


To be perfectly clear: I did not accuse that poster of misrepresenting himself as a doctor. I have no doubt that he's a doctor, but in a specialty that has nothing to do with cardiology or internal medicine. I felt that he was using his job as a bully pulpit when in fact he wasn't speaking from any real position of authority. 



> From this point ..I am officially retired from process led debate in Eddy Curry threads


That's too bad.



> I still reserve the right to throw my rambling , incoherent wacky assed trade scenarios out there that never have any chance of happening


Please. You deserved and earned that barb, and you know it.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

:laugh:

Scott

I wasn't getting pissed ..as to the official retirement of participating in the debate of process re Eddy Curry contract disputes

I suppose I should have amplified what I meant a bit more..and that is ..I have said all I can say on the matter in terms of what I think and what I think will happen

Can't suck the marrow out of this one any further m'man.

The last comment of yours was a pearl , and indeed , I do take it as a compliment ( a backhanded one ...but sod it ...a compliment is a compliment )

PEACE


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Pax draws the line in the sand about the DNA test for Eddy*



ScottMay said:


> To be perfectly clear: I did not accuse that poster of misrepresenting himself as a doctor. I have no doubt that he's a doctor, but in a specialty that has nothing to do with cardiology or internal medicine. I felt that he was using his job as a bully pulpit when in fact he wasn't speaking from any real position of authority.


And you are in a position of authority?????? Oh, this just gets better and better. It's all well and good for you to question an MD who at least has spent his professional career in the field of medicine, but woe be anybody that questions the Great ScottMay. I don't even know what the hell you do other than to spend an inordinate amount of time on this (and other) message boards spouting your expertise on anything and everything. Who's better equipped to speak on medical information, you or someone who has spent his career in the field of medicine - specifically someone who is an MD?

Again, the term "get over yourself" comes to mind.


----------

