# McGraw: Curry contract update; Songaila to sign this week



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

> The Bulls’ contract offer to the fourth-year center is larger than what’s been reported, according to a team source. The deal contains several health and performance qualifiers, but it would *guarantee* Curry somewhere *between $19 million and $26 million*.





> *If Curry is forced to retire, those payments would be spread out for as long as 40 years*, but the deal could also grow considerably larger if he stays healthy and plays well.





> In other news, the Bulls should sign 6-foot-9 forward Darius Songaila to a $2.2 million offer sheet *this week*. *Songaila has been working out at the Berto Center since the beginning of the month* and Sacramento is expected to decline to match the offer sheet in short order.


We've added another gym rat with Songaila :clap: 

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=96218


----------



## greekadonis (Jul 28, 2005)

ity will be a sign and trade for songaila or we will sign him to an offer sheet?and do we know when this will happen?


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

If the Curry contract offer is true and there is 20 + million guaranteed no matter what, I actually think Paxson is being too generous. 

How can anybody say this is not fair in this situation? Obviously if he proves to be healthy he will get the large cash he wants. He is getting a guarantee of 20 million even if he isn't healthy. This is a great deal for Curry considering the circumstances. If this is true, and if he doesn't sign it, then he is truly an idiot.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Oh yeah, a new Curry thread! 

$19-26M guarenteed? What the hell is Eddy waiting for? That sounds like alot more than the 1-year guarentee that I was expecting (and which I was frankly ok with). And this is without the DNA test from the way it sounds. A favorable DNA test could land Eddy more. It boggles the mind how Eddy is taking this all-or-nothing approach this summer. The Bulls are sharing the risk with what sounds like a 3-year offer; I'm curious what exactly Eddy wants.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Kudos to Pax for finally making it clear that he won't sign Curry without a DNA test. I think his medical reasoning is flawed, but at least it's a morally consistent position.

But shame on Pax for not making his insistence clear back in May, when Maron's concerns were first revealed. I'm not even sure that if Eddy took a DNA test right this minute that they could have results back by the qualifying offer deadline. 

If this all has to go to a third-party arbitrator or the courts, I think Curry's case is a slam dunk. Nowhere in any medical literature can I find anything that suggests DNA testing be done on people without clinical evidence of HCM. Even the American College of Cardiology's policy statement on the matter -- written by Dr. Barry Maron! -- recommends not using it in such cases.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I have never seen a story with so many different versions. $5M guarenteed vs. $20M? That's a pretty big range.



ScottMay said:


> Kudos to Pax for finally making it clear that he won't sign Curry without a DNA test. I think his medical reasoning is flawed, but at least it's a morally consistent position.


McGraw makes it sound like Pax wants the test b/f Curry practices. Curry could sign the QO w/o taking the test. Is Pax really offering 19 to 26M plus incentives w/o the test?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Oh yeah, a new Curry thread!
> 
> And this is without the DNA test from the way it sounds.


Huh?



> The team is exploring what options it has to *require Curry to take a DNA test before practice begins Oct. 4,* whether Curry eventually accepts the Bulls’ contract offer or signs the one-year qualifying offer worth $5.14 million.


I'm not sure who to believe at this point -- some papers are saying the three-year deal's been pulled, some aren't. If the three-year deal is still in play, and if the guaranteed amount doesn't have any strings, then Curry should take it 

Paxson can try to make Curry take the test, but I'll be shocked if the NBA lets that happen. From what I can tell, David Stern probably doesn't want his legacy to be "the guy who introduced DNA testing to pro sports."

EDIT: Yodurk, my bad. As the article is written, you're right; it does imply that Paxson is willing to sign the deal, but not let Curry practice.

But that doesn't really make a lot of sense given how negotiations have gone so far. If he's going to shut Curry down if the DNA test is positive, I can't imagine the Bulls are willing to ante up $20+ million just to get Curry to show his hand.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

If the guaranteed amount doesn't have any strings *and the unguarenteed amount including incentives gets the contract into Chandler territory*, then Curry should take it.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

This whole situation is confusing.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

The trade market appears to be cold. Denver and Memphis have shown interest in Curry in the past, but have not made any offers this summer. A rumor that the Lakers are willing to swap Chris Mihm for Curry has not come to fruition.


I wish the trade market was better.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is there any reason you know of why the Bulls couldn't just refuse to allow Curry to practice without the test and keep him on the IL? I can't think of anything that would prohibit it. I think the league might just sit back and leave that one up to the Bulls.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Is there any reason you know of why the Bulls couldn't just refuse to allow Curry to practice without the test and keep him on the IL? I can't think of anything that would prohibit it. I think the league might just sit back and leave that one up to the Bulls.


In the past, teams had to cut players and pay them all guarenteed money rather than put the player on IR when they are not injured. So this would go to arbitration at a minimum.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Is there any reason you know of why the Bulls couldn't just refuse to allow Curry to practice without the test and keep him on the IL? I can't think of anything that would prohibit it. I think the league might just sit back and leave that one up to the Bulls.


I think this is why McGraw led off his piece with the notion that this could get ugly. Because if the Bulls shut down Curry when he has a clean bill of health from numerous world-renowned doctors, and the doctors that want the DNA test are arriving at the same CLINICAL diagnosis as those doctors, and conventional medical practice doesn't dictate DNA testing in the absence of clinical HCM, well, then everybody look out, because there's going to be a land rush of lawyers, NBAPA guys, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

As usual, McGraw seems to get the best info.

On the contract, you guys are looking at the numbers and going ga-ga without looking at the actual value of the contract 

I'm assuming that's a 3 year deal for $19-26M? If so Curry should pass on it unless the incentives are startling easy to reach and in his control. *That is basically a MLE deal.*

He'd be guaranteed $5.75M, $6.35M, and $6.96M. = $19.06M

If Curry believes he is healthy, what incentive does he have to sign this contract? Not a very big one. If he plays reasonably well, the absolute minimum he'd get as a UFA is the MLE next year. And that would give him pretty equivalent salary to what he's being guaranteed by the Bulls. More likely he'll get an above MLE offer that pushes him well beyond what he'd get. Suppose he plays for the QO and then signs a 6/$63M deal like Chandler got. 

Then he gets $5.1M (QO), $8.3M, $9.21M = $22.6M.

And of course there's always the possibility of adding incentives on his next contract too, which could raise this value higher well beyond whatever the incentives he's offering on this contract.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a horrible offer or anything, but it's not a slam dunk obvious decision he should accept it, given that if he's healthy he would likely make more money and get more security (longer deal). Even if he only got the MLE, he wouldn't stand to lose a whole lot, so there doesn't appear to be a big downside.

It seems to me that by slightly improving the guaranteed salary amounts, the Bulls wouldn't hurt their position very much but would give an offer Curry would have no reasonable expectation of matching in the free agent market. Simply adding $1M to each year would still give the Bulls plenty of cap space and would increase the offer to a size equal to about the best Eddy could hope to get as a FA.

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

The DNA thing is at once better- I'm glad to see the Bulls taking the moral high ground of clearly seperating it from the contract issues - and worse - I'm not sure the Bulls have a right to do what they're attempting to do. At least, though, they're staking out a principled and logical position and not changing it based on the type of deal Eddy accepts. That's a good thing no matter how you slice it.



Basghetti80 said:


> The trade market appears to be cold. Denver and Memphis have shown interest in Curry in the past, but have not made any offers this summer. A rumor that the Lakers are willing to swap Chris Mihm for Curry has not come to fruition.
> 
> 
> I wish the trade market was better.


Really? I never would have guessed.

No. C'mon. You're kidding, right?

:eek8:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

...


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Hahaha Mike. Hey at least you can say I am consistent. Having said that if that really is the contract offer Curry should take that. But I think an underlying issue in all this is that I think Curry is in HUGE debt and needs the huge contract in order to pay back some of that debt, which by the way is really sad.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Basghetti80 said:


> Hahaha Mike. Hey at least you can say I am consistent. Having said that if that really is the contract offer Curry should take that. But I think an underlying issue in all this is that I think Curry is in HUGE debt and needs the huge contract in order to pay back some of that debt, which by the way is really sad.


It is sad. Our entire nation is trillions of dollars in debt, up and down the economic spectrum. Go to school and set aside a nice chunk of everything you earn, boys and girls!


----------



## emplay (Jun 9, 2003)

Is it me or does that article paint Curry as the bad guy?

It sounds like Paxson has made all the overtures financially - but with Curry's health and well-being in mind.

You can't mortgage the future on a guy who may have a bad ticker - no?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Oh yeah, a new Curry thread!
> 
> $19-26M guarenteed? What the hell is Eddy waiting for? That sounds like alot more than the 1-year guarentee that I was expecting (and which I was frankly ok with). And this is without the DNA test from the way it sounds. A favorable DNA test could land Eddy more. It boggles the mind how Eddy is taking this all-or-nothing approach this summer. The Bulls are sharing the risk with what sounds like a 3-year offer; I'm curious what exactly Eddy wants.



the DNA stuff aside, just for a second, this sounds like a pretty favorable deal for eddy. of course if eddy didn't have _a posse the size of a small town_, it would be even more lucrative. i'm _not saying_ he shouldn't have to provide for his family/dependents/the agents cut because obviously he has those obligations...but maybe the young man will learn to keep a bit more money around instead of dropping it on the leeching homies. but that's a whole 'nother story for another day.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

emplay said:


> Is it me or does that article paint Curry as the bad guy?
> 
> It sounds like Paxson has made all the overtures financially - but with Curry's health and well-being in mind.
> 
> You can't mortgage the future on a guy who may have a bad ticker - no?


I dunno, I found it refreshingly objective. If you look at the :clown: the Trib is employing these days, who has used every article to run down Eddy, and the Sun-Times, which is about 50% <strike>Eddy Curry press agent</strike> Lacy Banks content, McGraw usually gives a pretty good view. At the very least, he didn't mangle up all the terms the way those other guys tend to.


----------



## emplay (Jun 9, 2003)

I didn't mean that as a slight on the writer - or that he threw Curry under a bus or anything. I think as well it was objective. It's just the conclusions to draw from the article would seem to be that Curry is the hold up more than Paxson. That Eddy is just being unreasonable - expecting the money he thought he would get - but not recognizing that with his heart issue - there's just not the market value for him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> the DNA stuff aside, just for a second, this sounds like a pretty favorable deal for eddy. of course if eddy didn't have _a posse the size of a small town_, it would be even more lucrative. i'm _not saying_ he shouldn't have to provide for his family/dependents/the agents cut because obviously he has those obligations...but maybe the young man will learn to keep a bit more money around instead of dropping it on the leeching homies. but that's a whole 'nother story for another day.


As MikeDC pointed out, this is an MLE deal. Are you really saying you think Curry is only worth the MLE?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

emplay said:


> You can't mortgage the future on a guy who may have a bad ticker - no?


How much of a "bad ticker" does Curry have... and how on earth does he clear himself from this damning label?

For instance, if Curry took and passed the DNA test, would this label be shed?

Also, from a medical standpoint, does playing 1 season of NBA basketball make any difference in the analysis of his health condition? If many doctors have cleared him to play, and he's working out rigorously under observation either in a medical facility or @ Hoops, is that enough of a prolonged workout program to simulate NBA games? What good will 1 season played without incident really do for Curry? Any, from a medical standpoint?

Is the only thing holding up a "clean bill of health" from the minority expert opinion this DNA test?

If Curry passed the test, would Paxson offer a Chandler type deal?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think both sides just have completely different perspectives on things. The only thing that really stood out as bad in this article to me is Paxson rehashing the DNA test thing. The doctors have cleared Curry to play and the DNA test was reccomended by some and not reccomended by others (doctors). All the test would do is determine a predisposition which is certainly no guarantee of anything. I don't know that Curry gets much benefit from such a thing. In any case, if Pax REALLY wanted the DNA test to be done, may was the time to be on a soapbox about it, at this point it is a moot issue and Pax bringing it up while he is in negotiating just seems disingenious to me.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> As MikeDC pointed out, this is an MLE deal. Are you really saying you think Curry is only worth the MLE?




yes. i guess i am.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> the DNA stuff aside, just for a second, this sounds like a pretty favorable deal for eddy. of course if eddy didn't have _a posse the size of a small town_, it would be even more lucrative. i'm _not saying_ he shouldn't have to provide for his family/dependents/the agents cut because obviously he has those obligations...but maybe the young man will learn to keep a bit more money around instead of dropping it on the leeching homies. but that's a whole 'nother story for another day.


Miz I was watching Saturday Night Live this weekend and I kept thinking...damn..that Tina Faye looks like our very own Miz....lol


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I've stayed out of this whole medical discussion regarding Curry. What I know is they call it "practicing" medicine for a reason. Nobody can really know about Curry's health with certainty. There's always a risk, whether someone is diagnosed with something or not. We saw Crawford take an awful spill and land on his head against the TWolves 2 seasons ago...

The only for sure thing is if Curry doesn't play, he's not at risk of his playing causing his heart to fail. This is regardless of what one group of doctors might say, or what some other group might say.

I'm no big supporter of Paxson, but in this case, I think he absolutely should have the right to demand the DNA test. In real life situations, unfettered by something like the CBA, Pax would just refuse to sign him and tell Curry to go find some other job or line of work. Curry has no "right" to play NBA basketball. But the CBA does make a mess of things. There's dates and contractual issues that force Pax to sign him or renounce him, whether Curry takes the test or not, or takes the test in a time frame that makes his employer happy.

If the Players' Association can bring action, it will. The League will do what's in its interests, regardless.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> porter of Paxson, but in this case, I think he absolutely should have the right to demand the DNA test. In real life situations, unfettered by something like the CBA, Pax would just refuse to sign him and tell Curry to go find some other job or line of work.


It does seem like Pax has a similar option to this... telling him to go find another job... with the New York Knicks.

Paxson still wants to get a proper return on Curry. He has said he won't trade him for garbage.

Curry has no "right" to play, I agree.... but there is a team willing to play him and give him a contract... the Knicks.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> It does seem like Pax has a similar option to this... telling him to go find another job... with the New York Knicks.
> 
> Paxson still wants to get a proper return on Curry. He has said he won't trade him for garbage.
> 
> Curry has no "right" to play, I agree.... but there is a team willing to play him and give him a contract... the Knicks.


Good point, but I think you are really raising a CBA issue.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

emplay said:


> I didn't mean that as a slight on the writer - or that he threw Curry under a bus or anything. I think as well it was objective. It's just the conclusions to draw from the article would seem to be that Curry is the hold up more than Paxson. That Eddy is just being unreasonable - expecting the money he thought he would get - but not recognizing that with his heart issue - there's just not the market value for him.


I don't really think so. As I wrote in my first post in this thread, Curry could reasonably expect to get a few million more if he takes the QO and becomes an UFA next year. At the same time, he should reasonably expect that if he doesn't get the really big sort of offer he wants next summer, he'll still get an MLE level offer, which is basically what the Bulls are offering.

So as long as he thinks he's gonna be healthy, it's perfectly reasonable for Curry to take the QO. There is, in fact, little but upside for him to do it.

And Curry has given every indication he's comfortable with his health, and appears convinced by the several specialists who have cleared him to play. Given their qualifications, that's certainly reasonable for him to believe.

That doesn't mean Curry would be reasonable (IMO) if he turned down a slightly better offer though. There's still a wide gulf between what Curry should accept and what Curry could have gotten had he not had the heart condition. My point is just that what the Bulls are offering makes it reasonable for Curry to hold out for more.

As far as the DNA test, it still seems reasonable to me for him to not take it. One remaining question is whether the Bulls offer is conditional on him taking the test. Given the tone of the article, it seems as if the Bulls' offer isn't conditional on taking the test, but the Bulls letting him play is. 

In that case, it's somewhat harder to say Curry's refusing the test to protect his value. It seems more like a matter of principle and a belief that the test doesn't do anything for him (which, based on the medical understanding I have, is also perfectly reasonable to believe). Maybe he's looking to his future value down the road. Or maybe he just thinks the Bulls shouldn't demand that, given that he's been cleared by renowned cardiologists.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Good point, but I think you are really raising a CBA issue.


Yah, probably right.

Ridding himself of Curry Knicks style does come with a cost of likely decreased financial flexibility.

Let’s hope all these decisions based on financial flexibility pay off. Chris Wilcox ain’t gonna do it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> As MikeDC pointed out, this is an MLE deal. Are you really saying you think Curry is only worth the MLE?


I didn't get a stinkin' thing done at work yesterday because of my fascination with this damn message board and the Curry issues being discussed, so I'm going to try and keep it light today. :angel: 

A few observations from this article and what is being discussed:

(a) We all need to keep in mind that this is yet one more article that is inconsistent with what preceded it. There is virtually no consensus of fact in the media with regard to ANY major issue in the Curry situation. But McGraw has a great rep and track record.

(b) The reported deal is, *at the minimum amount noted* ($19 mil) is an MLE deal *at least*. [This is why I quoted DaBullz and his reference to Mike's post] That is important. The deal as reported still contains health incentives. Eddy has a great incentive to take this deal in my opinion, assuming the contractual incentives (if realized) put him in the neighborhood of Chandler's deal. Frankly, the deal goes well beyond what I think the Bulls should guarantee. But thats just me. If he believes he's healthy, then he will get the type of money he "deserves" under this deal. If his belief in his health proves false, he has $19-26 million to live off of. I think the deal, if accurate, is a spectacular (and unwarranted) leap of faith on the part of the Bulls.

(c) Paxson is not "finally" resolving the moral considerations. It is obvious now that the Bulls' position all along has been that Eddy needs to take the DNA test to play. That it is simply *more clear* now *to the fans* means nothing as to how clear it has been made to *Eddy*. ScottMay's post suggests that there might not now be time to get the results, as though Eddy is reading McGraw's article today over his morning latte and discovering for the first time the concrete nature of the Bulls' expectation. Thats just silly.

(d) I can see something being set up here and I want to address it right now. The Bulls are clearly going to explore their right to sit Curry barring the DNA test. If they don't have that right, as decided by the league/arbitrator/court of law or whatever, and they then do play Curry there is no breach of morality. The Bulls will have tried their best to do what to them is right and been turned away by the law. No shame in that and it will validate their motives as being other than cold greed. In fact, I think the purity of their motive (not the accuracy of the medical foundation which I think is obviously up in the air) is validated already. 

Later skaters.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I've stayed out of this whole medical discussion regarding Curry. What I know is they call it "practicing" medicine for a reason. Nobody can really know about Curry's health with certainty. There's always a risk, whether someone is diagnosed with something or not. We saw Crawford take an awful spill and land on his head against the TWolves 2 seasons ago...
> 
> The only for sure thing is if Curry doesn't play, he's not at risk of his playing causing his heart to fail. This is regardless of what one group of doctors might say, or what some other group might say.
> 
> ...


From a libertarian perspective, does an employer have a right to go Gattica on an employee and deny him/her a job opportunity because of a genetic *predisposition*?

From my libertarian perspective at least, no. We aren't talking about an actual condition here, we're talking about a probability - and rather variable probability at that - that an actual medical condition will occur.

The justification for barring an individual with a given medical condition from a certain type of work known to be harmful to them is pretty clear even from a minimally paternalistic perspective. We desire to protect life. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable for the employer, who'd certainly face liability issues if they knowingly let a guy with a heart condition work in an active job, to deny such a person employment. And the employer, as an individual, should have the choice to 1) not face liability and 2) not consent to a situation which is likely to lead to another's death.

But a predisposition is a degree removed from actually having the condition. I'll concede it's a gray area, but in that case, it seems you're imposing a bigger burden on an individual to deny him employment, and the risk faced by the employer is smaller. The liability risk could probably be mitigated by language in the contract specifying that everyone understands the risks a predisposition to a medical condition holds, and absolving the employer of any responsibility.

What it gets down to with a predisposition- or checking for it- is making an unprovable judgement about what qualities an individual actually possesses. You're playing the odds as a shortcut vs. developing information about the given individual.

And that strikes me as not a very good thing. I cannot, for example, logically distinguish it from a whole host of very unsavory ideas. For example, one might say rather definitively, that certain tasks require a certain IQ level to perform. And one might say, if one believes such things, that statistically speaking, people of a given race are unlikely to fall into have that IQ level. Sure, there are outliers, but there is a strong predisposition to not have the requisite IQ. If you are employing people in the performance of that task, is it legitimate to require an IQ test? I'd say it probably is. But it's certainly not legitimate to bar members from the statistically predisposed race from even taking the test, even though it might be the "efficient" thing to do.

Please note, I'm not saying I believe all the stuff about race and IQ, I'm just pointing out an argument I've heard people - serious people - even make.

I'm just saying it seems very parallel to the argument with Curry. If a guy can be turned away simply because he's predisposed to, but doesn't have a condition, isn't that the same as saying a guy can be turned away because he's predisposed to not being very smart, whether he is or not?

That seems a step too far to me, and I think we're better off as individuals by not going there.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> From a libertarian perspective, does an employer have a right to go Gattica on an employee and deny him/her a job opportunity because of a genetic *predisposition*?
> 
> From my libertarian perspective at least, no. We aren't talking about an actual condition here, we're talking about a probability - and rather variable probability at that - that an actual medical condition will occur.
> 
> ...


From a purely libertarian perspective, Curry's should be allowed to sell his labor as he sees fit. It's via a contract between him and his employer. Whatever terms the two decide upon makes it a contract, as long as the legalities are acceptable (e.g. beneift for both parties, etc.). If the employer demands a DNA test, the employee can refuse it and sell his services elsewhere, or agree to the test and take the money.

But the CBA doesn't allow for the free negotiation of contracts. Far from it. If it did, Curry and the Bulls could agree to a lifetime $gazillion contract (which we know the CBA precludes). That's just scratching the surface.

Being in a position to make management decisions is something I have a couple of decades of experience. If I taught a business 101 class in school, the first rule (call it DaBullz' Law) would be "to make proper business decisions, it requires timely and accurate information."

In this case, the DNA test is a subset of "timely and accurate information," and I wouldn't read anything more into it than that.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I hope this Songaila deal is done by the end of the week , he ain't no future star or team savior , but imo he's worth the 2.2 mil we can offer (even slightly more - therefor , it's a good pick , at least as I see it).

19-26 mil gaurenteed for Eddy - that's more than I thought , and more than I'd offer if I was in Pax's shoes. It has to mean he'd have at least 2 years gaurenteed or maybe it's spread somehow in case he retires. I thought we should trade him a long time ago (lazy , no work ethic) , and now we're stuck with a close to impossible situation that could not have been forseen. It ain't an ideal situation to trade him anyway , cause offers would be lower than worth , but if we can pull something that includes a 1st rounder (and maybe a nice young big prospect alla Sweets) we should think about it.
Unless NY is offerring Sweets , Ariza and a 1st , we really got nothing to even think about from Zekes direction , so I'm glad the trade with Knicks was described as laughable:



> Paxson wasn’t happy that Curry’s agent, Leon Rose, floated a story to certain media outlets over the weekend that the New York Knicks are interested in trading for Curry. The idea is *laughable* , since the Knicks don’t have any players to trade that would interest the Bulls.


also , this Leon Rose is doing damage to Eddy as I see it. last year he could get a reasonable contract for Eddy , but he demanded something like an 85 mil contract for a guy who still did'nt prove he's worth half. I can only guess if he went for a 60 mil contract (just a personal assumption , so don't go all jumpy on me please) , Eddy would be settled for life , and it was closer (but still above) his worth based on what he showed at the time , not potential. Now he got on the wrong side of Pax , which will make negotiations even harder. If report is true , and Eddy can get around 20 mil gaurenteed from Bulls , he's absolutely killing Eddy by not wrapping this thing up. as things look right now , Eddy should take an offer that gaurentees him even slightly less than what he could get in the Market if he was healthy , but Rose is going for the biggest scam in the league (maybe trying to make himself a name on the back of easily influenced Eddy) instead of taking the best situation for his client , and maybe looking a little less shiny if Eddy clears and plays out his contract. although the agent is only doing his job , I just absolutely hate Agents , and Rose has topped them all in my list (well , I guess if I was a Cavs fan , it would be Boozers agent I hate , but there it clearly was Boozers desicion at the end of the day , or maybe Boozers wife as I remember). I find it hard to believe (though I don't have the full info on this , as all of us) that any team apart of NY would gaurentee Ed more than the sums discussed , it seems (to me) very generous given the situation. I mean the guy might get 20 mil and forced out of play shortly after season starts (or even worse , but we don't wanna even think of that , it's Eds desicion to take the risk , not Pax's) , and he would'nt make tons more in a completely regular situation. 
Bottomline for me - I think we gaurentee too much , but the worst thing that can happen to us is losing Eddy for nothing (top Bulls picks lost in thin air - J Williams #2 , Fizer #4 and possibly Ed #4). Giving him that much money gaurenteed might really screw us up , since we might be paying a player we lost for nothing due to health issues , and he'd be packing our cap at the same time. If we trade him for lower value - at least we don't choke on a worthless contract , but if we sign him and he's healthy it must come after a significant yield in contract turms by Curry , Rose has gotta take into account the risk the Bulls are taking with Eddy , not to mention he refuses to clear the cloudy (and perhaps worthless , I dunno) situation with a DNA test. You don't agree to prove health (chances) , but on the other hand you demand more than 20 mil gaurenteed money - please , just take Bulls cap , we like giving it away just for fun. I'd think it's enough we happily accomadated Erobs redicolous worthless contract , for me , 1 a decade is enough...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I didn't get a stinkin' thing done at work yesterday because of my fascination with this damn message board and the Curry issues being discussed, so I'm going to try and keep it light today. :angel:


Dude, seriously.



> A few observations from this article and what is being discussed:
> 
> (a) We all need to keep in mind that this is yet one more article that is inconsistent with what preceded it. There is virtually no consensus of fact in the media with regard to ANY major issue in the Curry situation. But McGraw has a great rep and track record.


Agreed -- I think this fact must be considered when discussing your item (c).



> (b) The reported deal is, *at the minimum amount noted* ($19 mil) is an MLE deal *at least*. [This is why I quoted DaBullz and his reference to Mike's post] That is important. The deal as reported still contains health incentives. Eddy has a great incentive to take this deal in my opinion, assuming the contractual incentives (if realized) put him in the neighborhood of Chandler's deal. Frankly, the deal goes well beyond what I think the Bulls should guarantee. But thats just me. If he believes he's healthy, then he will get the type of money he "deserves" under this deal. If his belief in his health proves false, he has $19-26 million to live off of. I think the deal, if accurate, is a spectacular (and unwarranted) leap of faith on the part of the Bulls.


I have no beef with the deal, even if the incentives aren't in line with the Rose request (which, again, I think was a brilliant counteroffer). I would want to see the guaranteed amount on the higher end of that scale, or closer to $30 million, but everything else seems about right. I guess this is somewhat inconsistent with my views on Eddy's health, but I think it's not unreasonable for Eddy to play for a discount while the logistics of monitoring his heart are figured out.



> (c) Paxson is not "finally" resolving the moral considerations. It is obvious now that the Bulls' position all along has been that Eddy needs to take the DNA test to play. That it is simply *more clear* now *to the fans* means nothing as to how clear it has been made to *Eddy*. ScottMay's post suggests that there might not now be time to get the results, as though Eddy is reading McGraw's article today over his morning latte and discovering for the first time the concrete nature of the Bulls' expectation. Thats just silly.


This I disagree with -- at least that you can assert this with any degree of certainty. It seems implausible that we wouldn't have heard about Pax's stipulation before. 

And it's a brilliant move by Pax -- there isn't enough time for Eddy to get results (assuming he hasn't taken the test already) by the qualifying deadline. So if he wants guaranteed money this year, he has to sign it before he can get results. He seemingly has Curry backed into a corner, although I think the league / arbitrators will get Curry out of it.



> (d) I can see something being set up here and I want to address it right now. The Bulls are clearly going to explore their right to sit Curry barring the DNA test. If they don't have that right, as decided by the league/arbitrator/court of law or whatever, and they then do play Curry there is no breach of morality. The Bulls will have tried their best to do what to them is right and been turned away by the law. No shame in that and it will validate their motives as being other than cold greed. In fact, I think the purity of their motive (not the accuracy of the medical foundation which I think is obviously up in the air) is validated already.


Three things still bug me:

1. Pax should have completely separated the health/contract issues early on -- pass the DNA test, or you don't get a contract offer. This truly and unassailably would have been the right thing to do. 

2. Because, again, of the timing, Pax hasn't allowed for the possibility of Eddy getting something closer to a fair market deal if he passes a DNA test (willingly or unwillingly). 

3. I'm not sure whether or not this might not actually increase the likelihood of Eddy playing for the QO and bolting (which as I've said all along is the only outcome I'll find unacceptable -- I don't care if Eddy plays for $1 million or $100 million, as long as he's a Bull). If he knows that the DNA test is out-of-bounds for any prospective suitor, and he's been given a clinical clean bill of health, he might decide to take his chances (I'm sure Eddy can use his QO and an unsecured loan vs. his future earnings to stave off whatever near-term financial problems he's having).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Dude, seriously.


That was supposed to be a light joke. Sort of. Pretty pathetic, eh?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

bullet said:


> also , this Leon Rose is doing damage to Eddy as I see it. last year he could get a reasonable contract for Eddy , but he demanded something like an 85 mil contract for a guy who still did'nt prove he's worth half. I can only guess if he went for a 60 mil contract (just a personal assumption , so don't go all jumpy on me please) ,


Rose wasn't even Curry's agent last year. And from a financial standpoint, Rose would do the best if he get Eddy to sign Pax's long term offer. If Curry goes QO, who is to say that Curry won't switch agents again this fall.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> 1. Pax should have completely separated the health/contract issues early on -- pass the DNA test, or you don't get a contract offer. This truly and unassailably would have been the right thing to do.





> But Paxson isn't impressed. He stands by a leading heart specialist who declined to give Curry clearance months ago and instead asked Curry to undergo DNA testing to determine if he is predisposed to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which can be fatal. Curry declined to take the test but sought the opinion of another respected specialist, Dr. David Cannom, in Los Angeles.
> 
> Paxson said one supporting opinion that Rose offered came from a doctor based in the same medical group as Cannom. He said an opinion from another doctor suggested Curry undergo genetic testing.
> 
> *"This is what we've been saying all along," Paxson said.*


From my point of view, it looks like the DNA test has been requested from the very beginning of this process. Yet again, I do not know where you have inferred this notion that the DNA test is some recent development or negotiating ploy.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> From my point of view, it looks like the DNA test has been requested from the very beginning of this process. Yet again, I do not know where you have inferred this notion that the DNA test is some recent development or negotiating ploy.


Not once in this process prior to today have we heard that Paxson would not let Eddy practice or play until he'd taken the DNA test. In fact, with the articles that came out at the time Cannom cleared Eddy to resume workouts, we heard pretty much the opposite.

I agree that the flow of information regarding this stuff has been imperfect at best, but from what we DO know, it's pretty hard for me to come to the inference that all along Paxson has been explicitly making the DNA test a prerequisite either for Eddy to play OR get his contract.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

MikeDC, 

I agree $19 million is too low, and Curry shouldn't take that. 

However, *if *the deal is actually $26 million, it is an even better offer than the one Kwame Brown received from the Lakers. 

Kwame's deal = 3 yrs, $25M, only 2 yrs guaranteed (team option after 2nd year)

Curry's deal (high end estimate) = 3 yrs, $26M, all $26M guaranteed. 

And Kwame was the number 1 pick in his class, while Curry was number 4. Someone earlier suggested Curry should get less than Tyson because Tyson was the 2nd pick and Curry the 4th. Well in this scenario Curry would make even more than the 1st pick.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

SALO said:


> MikeDC,
> 
> $19 million is too low, and if I were Curry I would not take it.
> 
> ...


Agreed - if it's $26M guaranteed, he's a fool to pass it up.

I don't think he's necessarily stupid to take it if it's $19M, but then the nature of the incentives and buyouts becomes absolutely crucial, and I can easily see it being worthwhile to pass. 

Problem is that there's still a lot of leeway being reported in terms of guaranteed money, let alone what the incentives are and how things are paid out. Sounds like its pretty close to being right, but its really impossible to say without knowing the details.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

We have had two very good threads on Eddy Curry the last two days. With training camp just around the corner, dicussion is increasing. 

I have some simple comments to say on this then I will read what others have to say. 

1. It has been clear to me that John has asked for the DNA test all along. It is also clear Eddy said no. So, how can Eddy expect anymore than he is getting? John has the right to ask for a DNA test. He is Eddy's employer or "super" so to speak. 

2. The contract John offered Eddy is not all that bad, if the incentives kick in. Correct me if I am wrong but if this contract is filled with incentives, couldn't Eddy make a hell of a lot more than the MLE that many of you are throwing around? Seems to me that point is being missed in all of this. 

3. As for not playing or practicing Eddy, he could do that. Just because he was cleared by some doctors does not mean Pax should practice him or play him. Beisdes, just because Eddy is practicing on his own does not mean he is 100% healthy. Practicing and real games are two different things. 

4. We are discussing fact and speculation on here as if this is "all that is being talked about," between these two parties. I will not believe for a minute that this is true. There have been things said all along the last few months that we do not know anything about! Nor will we ever know the complete details of the real negotiation. So, even though it does make good discussion and it is clear camps have been drawn to either defend Eddy or Paxson, neither camp knows for a certainty if what they are saying is exactly what has been said all the way through. 


I will add something else. Someone bashed Paxson for talking to the press about the negotiations. Well he had no choice. Eddy's agent is talking and talking loud. This is not the first agent to do this with Curry. Remember last winter, his mother wanted him traded? Other things were being said by Eddy as well? He went to the press. So Eddy is not 100% innocent in this. 

All of this being said and done, you know my position on this. I think Eddy will be making a big mistake if he plays for QO and if he plays the way I expect him to play.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Sometimes the frustration of athletes believing they do not have to apply the standards and practices of a business to their chosen careers wears me down. If Eddy Curry was in any other line of work any test his employer asked him to take he would either have the right to refuse and look elsewhere for another job or take the test. Frankly, if it is a 3 year guaranteed deal up to 26 million with the DNA test and Curry believes he is healthy then why not do it? He'll pass the test and play his contract out. If he blows up he can simply ask the Bulls for a lucrative extension before he hits UFA after his 3rd year. He plays two years at a discounted price and then cashes in. My point is that if Eddy Curry feels he could get a better deal then why hasn't he received an offer? Several teams this summer could have offered Eddy big money but refrained from doing so. Why? Perhaps risking a large guaranteed sum of money on an overweight center who has shown no competitive fire and may have a heart condition doesn't exactly scream like it will become a good investment.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> My point is that if Eddy Curry feels he could get a better deal then why hasn't he received an offer? Several teams this summer could have offered Eddy big money but refrained from doing so. Why?


Chandler didn't get one either from another team.

Not that many teams willing or able to play the UFA game for a big man that costs more than MLE.

Also, Paxson's "we'll match" played a strong role as well, IMO.

Chandler is a more attractive big man FA than Curry... and he didn't get any offers in this not-so-free market. So Curry not getting one is not much of a surprise in hindsight.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

truebluefan said:



> 1. It has been clear to me that John has asked for the DNA test all along. It is also clear Eddy said no. So, how can Eddy expect anymore than he is getting? John has the right to ask for a DNA test. He is Eddy's employer or "super" so to speak.
> 
> 3. As for not playing or practicing Eddy, he could do that. Just because he was cleared by some doctors does not mean Pax should practice him or play him. Beisdes, just because Eddy is practicing on his own does not mean he is 100% healthy. Practicing and real games are two different things.


From John Jackson's article in the Sun-Times, July 3, 2005:



> Though the Bulls haven't made an official announcement, operations chief John Paxson confirmed Saturday that center Eddy Curry -- sidelined since suffering an irregular heartbeat before a game March 30 -- has received medical clearance to begin working out again.





> "Dr. Cannom has cleared Eddy to resume activity," Paxson said. "The reality of it is as of [Friday], Eddy didn't need us or any team to clear him. He's got a doctor that said he can go ahead and resume activity, and *we're* going to follow Dr. Cannom's guidelines."
> 
> For now, Curry will begin working out with personal trainer Tim Grover at Hoops the Gym on the Near West Side. *According to Paxson, there are no restrictions on Curry's work load.*


No mention of the DNA test being a requirement before letting Eddy practice, you'll notice -- quite the opposite, in fact. And this is well AFTER Eddy's visit with Maron and his recommendation for the DNA test. As far as we know, Eddy has not been back to see Dr. Maron.

Again, admitting for the possibility that we don't have all the information (even though this particular article seems essentially beyond reproach or doubt), it is impossible for me to look at the summer's events and conclude that Paxson has been insisting on the DNA test to the extent that he would use it as a prerequisite to let Eddy practice or play.

EDIT: one more thing. People with HCM must dramatically curb their physical activity and change their lifestyles to avoid overexertion. Again, if Paxson believes Eddy has HCM until a DNA test proves otherwise, practicing and playing ARE, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. Even mild exertion would be too much for a person with that condition.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> From John Jackson's article in the Sun-Times, July 3, 2005:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That article also contains this tidbit:



> "The reality of it is as of [Friday], Eddy didn't need us or any team to clear him.


I think its equally logical that the Bulls "approval" is simply a hollow gesture. They don't control what he does right now, but they will when pre-season begins. Its certainly very easy to conclude that the Bulls told Curry, "We can't stop you, so go ahead. But we want the test and, when you come in for training camp, if you still refuse to take it, you won't play." 

The article is hardly "beyond reproach or doubt" as to the inference you draw.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

just so we can further parse the available details until we drive ourselves absolutely nuts, the nbapa has the new CBA online. here is what i found with regards to whether or not eddy can be made to take the DNA test (or any other test for that matter):



> (h) The following provisions shall govern an agreement (to be set forth in Exhibit 6 to a Uniform Player Contract) establishing that the player must report for and submit to a physical examination to be performed by a physician designated by the Team:
> 
> 
> (i) *The player must report for such physical examination at the time designated by the Team (which shall be no later than the third business day following the execution of the Contract), and must, upon reporting, supply all information reasonably requested of him, provide complete and truthful answers to all questions posed to him, and submit to all examinations and tests requested of him. The determination of whether the player has passed the physical examination shall be made by the Team in its sole discretion. If the player does not pass the physical examination, the Team shall so notify the player no later than the sixth business day following the execution of the Contract. *
> ...



from section 12. general. 

http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles/article-II.php


get back to work, ron cey! :smilewink


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Chandler didn't get one either from another team.
> 
> Not that many teams willing or able to play the UFA game for a big man that costs more than MLE.
> 
> ...


Tyson didn't receive an offer from anyone else because he refused to visit anyone. The Atlanta Hawks wanted to schedule Tyson for a visit but he refused to even meet with them. They had the ability to offer him a max contract but he didn't care at all. 

I think Tyson knew all along he wanted to stay with the Bulls and that's why he didn't bother making trips to see other teams.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> get back to work, ron cey! :smilewink


I'm eating lunch. :chee:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

also - i did send mike mcgraw a follow-up email today and asked him what he knew in terms of what doctors have said what. 'cause even with the great detail that scottmay has gone into, and it is MUCH appreciated, miz still is a bit confused. 

here is what mike wrote back:



> I don't have knowledge of every doctor that Curry has seen this summer. I don't think Dr. Cannom is the only one who thought his condition is consistent with "athlete's heat."
> 
> The Bulls consider Dr. Maron the leading authority, since he's done extensive study on sudden cardiac death in young athletes. I've heard that the insurance companies also value Maron's opinion.
> 
> ...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

SALO said:


> Tyson didn't receive an offer from anyone else because he refused to visit anyone. The Atlanta Hawks wanted to schedule Tyson for a visit but he refused to even meet with them. They had the ability to offer him a max contract but he didn't care at all.
> 
> I think Tyson knew all along he wanted to stay with the Bulls and that's why he didn't bother making trips to see other teams.


And Curry only made a half-hearted attempt at an Atlanta visit (to his detriment, if Atlanta's interest was even legitamate to begin with).

I think the same is true with Curry... not wanting to play in Atlanta. Or perhaps he's just stupid.

I just don't like the the "look... no other team made an offer" argument in regards to Curry. Given RFA, Pax's ploys, the teams available that could make and offer and Chandler's lack of offers... I don't think it carries much weight.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That article also contains this tidbit:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ron,

Who is the "we" Paxson is referring to, then? If we were speaking German here, I could see a possibility for confusion, but that's pretty clear-cut.

And what other possible interpretations can be read into "there are no restrictions on his workload"?

I don't think it's easy to infer that Paxson's comments mean "Do whatever you want until training camp" at all. I think that is a huge stretch, in fact.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ok, and one more thing...it is my understanding that if no agreement is reached prior to oct. 1st the QO automatically goes into effect. now here is the question: isn't it technically already in effect? i ask this with specific regards to whether or not eddy is "allowed" to work out in a full-court atmosphere ie: pick-up games, contact drills and things of that nature.

what i am VERY worried about is that eddy arrives at camp REALLY out of shape because, despite his protestations to the contrary that he feels GREAT and healthy, isn't grover keeping him from doing hard work-outs?

i don't know, therefore this is why i ask. thanks.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> As usual, McGraw seems to get the best info.
> 
> On the contract, you guys are looking at the numbers and going ga-ga without looking at the actual value of the contract
> 
> ...


Keep in mind that if Curry signs with someone else next year, the maximum length he can sign for is five years. Only with us could he sign for six. Often, it's the guaranteed sixth that really makes the contract figure balloon. Keep this in mind when suggesting how much another team could offer Curry next year.

(Please tell me if I am wrong, but this is how I read the highlights from the new CBA I have read.)


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> From John Jackson's article in the Sun-Times, July 3, 2005:
> 
> John Paxson confirmed Saturday that center Eddy Curry -- sidelined since suffering an irregular heartbeat before a game March 30 -- has received medical clearance to begin *working out again.*





> "Dr. Cannom has cleared Eddy to *resume activity*," Paxson said.





> For now, Curry will begin working out with personal trainer Tim Grover at Hoops the Gym on the Near West Side. According to Paxson, there are *no restrictions on Curry's work load*.


"working out and resume activity" are key words here. 

Curry was basically ordered to become a couch potato for six weeks. Once that period was over, he was told he could "resume activity" again. To me, it is ambiguous in that I'm not sure if he was actually cleared to play in an NBA game. I see it as being cleared to exercise again, as opposed to just sitting on his bum. I could be wrong though, as this whole situation has been rather confusing to me. :whoknows:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> also - i did send mike mcgraw a follow-up email today and asked him what he knew in terms of what doctors have said what. 'cause even with the great detail that scottmay has gone into, and it is MUCH appreciated, miz still is a bit confused.
> 
> here is what mike wrote back:


That is nice of McGraw to help clear that up. That much is pretty consistent with what everyone's reported.

I'm curious as to why the Bulls sought out Mark Estes's opinion before Maron's if they (back in April) considered Maron to be the industry leader.

Incidentally, Maron's studies of sudden cardiac death in young athletes are definitely well-regarded. But, fwiw, by Maron's own definitions, Eddy falls well outside that range (12-18). Apparently there's something about the heart growing (the normal way) that is opportunistic for HCM to present itself. Eddy's pretty much out of the woods as far as that goes, and it's another reason why to my (limited) knowledge no pro athlete has ever died from complications related to HCM.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Ron,
> 
> Who is the "we" Paxson is referring to, then? If we were speaking German here, I could see a possibility for confusion, but that's pretty clear-cut.
> 
> ...


To me, the key phrase in the article is Paxson's statement that the team has no control over what Eddy does. That makes the "approval" meaningless. Why wouldn't they go along. What would they have to gain by instructing Eddy to disregard Cannom's recommendations when he could just tell them to shag off?

Let me say that I think your interpretation of this article is a valid one. But I think it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation given not only its contents, but the Bulls consistent request for the DNA test all summer coupled with Paxson's intimations about what would happen after "October 1st" coupled again with today's article. 

In short, I think its fair to say that I went too far in stating that the Bulls "obviously" required the DNA test all along. Though I still believe that is the more reasonable interpretation, and its definitely my interpretation (which might be why I consider it more reasonable :grinning. 

I think the absolute truth will come out. If the Bulls just sprung this today as a requirement, as you believe, I think Camp Curry will respond publicly. The gloves appear to be off. :boxing: If we hear no such protestation as to timeliness, I think its fair to *assume* that the requirement was expressed quite a while back.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SALO said:


> "working out and resume activity" are key words here.
> 
> Curry was basically ordered to become a couch potato for six weeks. Once that period was over, he was told he could "resume activity" again. To me, it is ambiguous in that I don't think he was actually cleared to play in an *NBA game*. I see it as being cleared to exercise again, as opposed to just sitting on his bum.


I am not a linguist or a legal scholar, or even someone with an immodest command of English.

But to me, "there are no restrictions on Curry's workload" is unambiguous, the fact that no NBA games are being played in early July notwithstanding. There are plenty of things that Curry could do (and presumably HAS done) that would put as much or MORE stress on his heart than playing in an NBA game -- extended treadmill or bike work, just to name a couple.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

With McGraw quoting 19-26 million of guarantee money, how do we know it is only for a 3 year deal? 

Curry might have got the go-ahead to practice via Dr. Cannon, however, there is a big difference between practicing with the Bulls, and the Bulls giving a big money longterm deal to a potential health risk...common sense tells you that you do whatever it takes to protect your ***.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I am not a linguist or a legal scholar, or even someone with an immodest command of English.
> 
> But to me, "there are no restrictions on Curry's workload" is unambiguous, the fact that no NBA games are being played in early July notwithstanding. There are plenty of things that Curry could do (and presumably HAS done) that would put as much or MORE stress on his heart than playing in an NBA game -- extended treadmill or bike work, just to name a couple.


The thing that confuses me is that Paxson can't restrict Curry from working out at Hoops with Grover. He never could, not in previous summers, and not now.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

remlover said:


> With McGraw quoting 19-26 million of guarantee money, how do we know it is only for a 3 year deal?
> 
> Curry might have got the go-ahead to practice via Dr. Cannon, however, there is a big difference between practicing with the Bulls, and the Bulls giving a big money longterm deal to a potential health risk...common sense tells you that you do whatever it takes to protect your ***.


Yeah, but this takes us back to two pretty fundamental points.

1. The go-ahead from Cannom and Estes and others to resume unrestricted physical activity is hardly insignificant. They are as legally vulnerable as anyone here, including the Bulls.

2. If the Bulls / Maron are presuming Eddy has HCM until a DNA test rules it out (to the limited extent that it can), not only would they not allow him to practice with the team, they would want him to go back to being a couch potato again. HCM and exertion are a deadly combination.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Yeah, but this takes us back to two pretty fundamental points.
> 
> 1. The go-ahead from Cannom and Estes and others to resume unrestricted physical activity is hardly insignificant. They are as legally vulnerable as anyone here, including the Bulls.
> 
> 2. If the Bulls / Maron are presuming Eddy has HCM until a DNA test rules it out (to the limited extent that it can), not only would they not allow him to practice with the team, they would want him to go back to being a couch potato again. HCM and exertion are a deadly combination.


Speaking of liability, if that's the concern, Paxson shouldn't (or wouldn't) have given even tacit approval to begin working out this summer.

I'm back to being confused by their approach.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Does anyone know what kind of shape Curry is in? I don't want to wait for him to produce consistently until March again...


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

CiMa said:


> Does anyone know what kind of shape Curry is in? I don't want to wait for him to produce consistently until March again...


He can't be in that good of shape. Part of why I hate that Paxson has dragged this out. Yes we might get Eddy on the cheap, but what kind of Eddy are we going to get for the first half of the season? This whole affair seems destined to sabatoge our season. But I guess it's okay. We'll have a lottery pick and cap space next summer.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Speaking of liability, if that's the concern, Paxson shouldn't (or wouldn't) have given even tacit approval to begin working out this summer.
> 
> I'm back to being confused by their approach.



i have a theory mike its called misdirection.

try on this scenerio

cling to one small sticking point a prominant doctor has , although even that doctor has endorsed curry working out after the 6 week period to test for a condition curry was proven not to have.

wait all summer to make a supposed serious attempt at signing a player when he according to john paxson was top priorty in the fall, winter and spring, making him the last player pursued despite during the entire tenure of your appointment he was at worst the top option , at worst the 2nd for resigning, according to what you have said.

make a contract offer that is clearly below what curry wants or will accept....and when he says no revoke it, playing a very hard line, but tell the world about it so it looks like you gave a good attempt at resigning him, often turning public opinion against the player in question. 

say its ok for eddy to work out ....but as time approaches for for training camp you let out that he cant work out for you and that you wont even sign him unless he submits to a test , he doesn't want to take.

make a big issue of a test that no one in my knowledge has to take but eddy curry in the civilized world for a deal...also a test curry is apparently out of the danger age(12-18) group for having this affliction anyway.

i remember reading on more than one occasion that jerry reinsdorf is extremely competitive at making deals and is always determined to "win deals" in these situations with nba players he would often play good cop to krause's bad cop...in which krause would talk up and down about how bad he would want a player and demean and annoy the player in the process of aquiring them. often agents of players would go above krause's head and deal with reinsdorf who gives them an offer far above the "lowball" krause was offering, but at about the amount reinsdorf had intended on all along and the agents even though they knew of this ploy would fall for it anyway just to be rid of krause and nuisance the negotiations had become.

krause is gone but negotiations with the bulls have for the most part stayed antagonistic. my thinking now maybe it was a part JR has his GM play.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> He'd be guaranteed $5.75M, $6.35M, and $6.96M. = $19.06M


And before the incentives kick in ( if they ever do ) my read of it is that Eddy is not BYC ..making him tradeable 

My previous sums were that he could not exceed around $5.7M to $5.8M if the Bulls wanted to keep him outside of BYC territoty, thus, making it much easier to keep the trade option open

If Camp Curry is happy enough with this deal then Kudos to Pax for keeping this option open 



> The DNA thing is at once better- I'm glad to see the Bulls taking the moral high ground of clearly seperating it from the contract issues - and worse - I'm not sure the Bulls have a right to do what they're attempting to do. At least, though, they're staking out a principled and logical position and not changing it based on the type of deal Eddy accepts. That's a good thing no matter how you slice it.


Well I did call this yesterday before it broke when there were plenty who were linking the two to screw the boy

And another thing..I would not expect to see David Stern anywhere near this 

This is a contractual employer/employee issue ... liability/duty of care v privacy/civil rights... again as I called over the last couple of days

Yeah sure you'll have everyone wanting to pitch and indeed it may be arbitrated if Camp Curry remains unwilling 

But if no predisposition is proven and with a season without incident ..maybe all of the uncertainty re gtees and when they kick in go away just like that..so in this respect , in an individual sense , I don't know what Camp Curry is waiting for

And if predisposition is proven it doesn't mean that the Bulls have him over a barrel..if anything it allows both parties to approach with caution and perhaps the contract takes on a different structural form to reflect this 

Doesn't mean that incentives and bigger money can't come into play..just means that the Bulls have shown to exercise all proper duty of care and have ( at least legally ) put themselves in a stronger position to protect against liability claims

Given how he handled the Jay Williams case and now with what appears to be coming to light in the Eddy Curry case ( at least to me ) I think Pax , whilst a tough nut , has some currency as a fair man who genuinely is trying to do the right thing by everybody - commercially and morally

And they are frequently extraordinarily difficult and different animals to manage


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> In any case, if Pax REALLY wanted the DNA test to be done, may was the time to be on a soapbox about it.


I'll put a different slant on it ..

On the surface of it ..yeah I kind of agree that the Bulls position should have been more crystal clear on it at that time 

But then by making a big hulabaloo about it at that time and really putting it out there as the terms under which they will clear him to play again so they can tick the liability box off ... would have IMO

1. Dampened Eddy's free agency options ( as it turns out it wasn't strong anyway ) 

2. Dampened the Bulls options in case an attractive offer came in for Eddy that had a kick arse S and T package attached to it , that in Pax's opinion , bettered the Bulls position

Scott is still talking about Eddy being backed into a corner and PaxSidious manipulating him unfairly

What I have just suggested is an equally plausible and rational explanation as to why greater focus of terms/intent wasn't made known way back when and has only become more an issue a few weeks out from Camp when its clear that Eddy and the Bulls don't have the same options open to them that in theory could have been available to them back in May.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Anyway .. I thought this was supposed to be a joint thread about Darius Songaila

What's with all this Eddy Curry obsession anyway ?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I'll put a different slant on it ..
> 
> On the surface of it ..yeah I kind of agree that the Bulls position should have been more crystal clear on it at that time
> 
> ...



very, very good point, sausage. 



i emailed mcgraw back to thank him for answering my question about the doctors (see his reply in post #51 of this thread) and asked him what he thought about the possibility of eddy signing a contract - be it the QO or some form of multi-year deal - and then the bulls having him not play until he completes the DNA test. this is mike's reply:





> _It's possible their desire for Eddy to take the DNA test could go to arbitration eventually and the Bulls would abide by the decision. It sounds like the team is trying to cover all the bases, both for piece[sic] of mind and liability reasons, before he gets on the practice court.
> 
> Talk to you later....mike_


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> What's with all this Eddy Curry obsession anyway ?


I know! He's replaceable anyway... what's the big deal!??!?!


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I know! He's replaceable anyway... what's the big deal!??!?!


Well he is replaceable and yah I said it and yah I stand by it

Contrary to what anyone may think I would prefer he stay a Bull but if he is a negative impact on this team with all this business ( as I think there is a real possibility that his situation will be ) or if the organisation has to wear dumb risk that could hamstring the basketball team.. then frankly , let my Cameron go

No one piece to me is bigger than the total


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> very, very good point, sausage.
> 
> 
> 
> i emailed mcgraw back to thank him for answering my question about the doctors (see his reply in post #51 of this thread) and asked him what he thought about the possibility of eddy signing a contract - be it the QO or some form of multi-year deal - and then the bulls having him not play until he completes the DNA test. this is mike's reply:


Thanks miz

Mike's reply is _exactly_ what I consider it to be all about 

Thanks for sharing your snippets as you have been doing


----------



## KwaZulu (Jul 7, 2003)

*Why the insistence on the DNA test?*

I think the bottom line is a legal CYA. If Eddy drops dead from heart related issues we all know what happens next. Family, friends, and posse will file lawsuits against the Bulls. It won't matter that these same people are currently pushing for the Bulls to forget about a lot of these issues, and even castigating them for insisting on the safeguards. I think Pax is just being a good businessman and ensuring that every possible due diligence test has been met before taking a calculated risk on Eddy. And yes, it is a calculated risk. The recent deaths of several athletes from heart related issues has brought that very painfully to the fore. Its easy for some of us to be critical when its someone else's money and risk. I suspect that if we were in the Bull's shoes, with access to all the info they have, we would also be very careful. It also explains, to some extent, why only the Hawks were willing to even take a look at Eddy. The parallel arguement is the one that's less palatable, which is that the league doesn't rate Eddy that highly at this point. Of course, those of you who at times seem to come across as the unpaid arm of the Curry PR campaign might differ, but then again, it isn't your money or legal a** that's on the line here. I think Pax is just being very prudent, and also fair in the offer made.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> just so we can further parse the available details until we drive ourselves absolutely nuts, the nbapa has the new CBA online. here is what i found with regards to whether or not eddy can be made to take the DNA test (or any other test for that matter):
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...



Ok, I don't think this CBA language can be stressed enough. To me, it seems to indicate that the Bulls can have Eddy take the DNA test if they want to. All they have to do is sign him and make it a part of the physical. It would be no big deal to offer him a sizable deal, because if he failed the physical due to an unsatisfactory DNA result, then his contract is void. If he comes out ok on the DNA test, that should not be a problem either as Eddy would deserve a pretty big deal if he has a clean bill of health. 

Is the only issue that the Bulls don't want to be the ones to force him to take the test? Are they worried that contrary to the appearance of this CBA language that Eddy may be able to fight and win on this issue and end up not taking it? Is this all just subterfuge in order to keep his market value low and the Bulls are actualy already satisfied about his medical condition? This situation seems confusing to me if it truly would be as easy as making the DNA test part of the required physical.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ok, I don't think this CBA language can be stressed enough. To me, it seems to indicate that the Bulls can have Eddy take the DNA test if they want to. All they have to do is sign him and make it a part of the physical. It would be no big deal to offer him a sizable deal, because if he failed the physical due to an unsatisfactory DNA result, then his contract is void. If he comes out ok on the DNA test, that should not be a problem either as Eddy would deserve a pretty big deal if he has a clean bill of health.
> 
> Is the only issue that the Bulls don't want to be the ones to force him to take the test? Are they worried that contrary to the appearance of this CBA language that Eddy may be able to fight and win on this issue and end up not taking it? Is this all just subterfuge in order to keep his market value low and the Bulls are actualy already satisfied about his medical condition? This situation seems confusing to me if it truly would be as easy as making the DNA test part of the required physical.


I don't think it can be stressed enough that:

A. A "failed" DNA test has no meaningful predictive worth in telling WHEN or even IF Eddy will develop clinical HCM. It's the clinical HCM that matters, and there are tens of millions of people, and probably lots of NBA players, who have the genetic predisposition for HCM yet won't develop it over the course of their entire lives.

B. From what I can gather, it is highly unusual to perform a DNA test for HCM in the absence of clinical HCM. At least according to the position papers of the American College of Cardiology -- written by Dr. Maron. So while the CBA language is fairly blunt, I have a feeling there must be a way for a player to appeal to get out of a test that's deemed non-conventional or overly invasive.

Point A is the most important, though, and it relates to the "slippery slope" some of the pundits have mentioned. A lot of NBA players will die of a genetically inherited condition -- but virtually 100% will die from those conditions long after their playing days are over. But if a DNA test were made part and parcel of an NBA physical, the players would likely suffer steep economic penalties because of the infinitesimal likelihood of being afflicted with an inheritable disease during their playing years.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay, you know I always defer to your superior knowledge on the whole medical thing, but looking at the new CBA, it definitely seems as if the Bulls have a right to ask for the test, no matter how insignificant the results are.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Taking a breather from Eddy talk, am i the only one that thinks that Darius Songaila will be the opening night PF for the Bulls? 

Let's not forget that he was the starting PF for the Kings while Webber was out.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

remlover said:


> Taking a breather from Eddy talk, am i the only one that thinks that Darius Songaila will be the opening night PF for the Bulls?


No your not the only one 

Me too


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I don't think it can be stressed enough that:
> 
> A. A "failed" DNA test has no meaningful predictive worth in telling WHEN or even IF Eddy will develop clinical HCM. It's the clinical HCM that matters, and there are tens of millions of people, and probably lots of NBA players, who have the genetic predisposition for HCM yet won't develop it over the course of their entire lives.
> 
> ...



Methinks you miss my point. I was not writing that post from the perspective of what I consider the ethical/moral course of action to be. All I was saying is that if the Bulls are really bent out of shape about getting the DNA test, the CBA language seems to offer a relatively straightforward and risk-free method of getting Eddy to take it. The fact that the Bulls don't just sign him and use the physical as the means to achieving that goal raises some interesting questions.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Methinks you miss my point. I was not writing that post from the perspective of what I consider the ethical/moral course of action to be. All I was saying is that if the Bulls are really bent out of shape about getting the DNA test, the CBA language seems to offer a relatively straightforward and risk-free method of getting Eddy to take it. The fact that the Bulls don't just sign him and use the physical as the means to achieving that goal raises some interesting questions.


My point A wasn't a moral or ethical observation, it was a medical one, and there are conventional medical rules that supersede employer contracts like the CBA. Curry or any other player doesn't have to submit to every single test that the team physician recommends, especially if there is no sound medical precedent to do so.

And for you and Bullsville -- however strong the CBA language is, you can almost rest assured that somewhere else in the CBA there is something that gives the player the right to arbitrate an issue like this one (I'm not of a mind right now to read every article to find it). I did read the article about medical treatment, however, and it states there is a committee of NBA physicians that meets to discuss player health issues, and that the NBAPA has the right to send its own representatives to their meetings. It seems like that would be the first place this will go.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> My point A wasn't a moral or ethical observation, it was a medical one, and there are conventional medical rules that supersede employer contracts like the CBA. Curry or any other player doesn't have to submit to every single test that the team physician recommends, especially if there is no sound medical precedent to do so.


Like what? It seems to me anything that would supersede the CBA would be a legal rule (that might have to do with medicine). I'm not saying you're incorrect, I just don't follow.



ScottMay said:


> And for you and Bullsville -- however strong the CBA language is, you can almost rest assured that somewhere else in the CBA there is something that gives the player the right to arbitrate an issue like this one (I'm not of a mind right now to read every article to find it). I did read the article about medical treatment, however, and it states there is a committee of NBA physicians that meets to discuss player health issues, and that the NBAPA has the right to send its own representatives to their meetings. It seems like that would be the first place this will go.



I wouldn't be shocked about that either. I have been meaning to sit down and read the CBA on some weekend (yikes at what passes for fun) so maybe I'll check it out. I'm just saying that the excerpted portion makes it seem like Pax could force the issue if he wanted to, and I'm wondering why he hasn't. Is it because he doesn't want to force it? Is it because there is other language in the CBA that might make it not so easy? Are there other legal concerns? Is it because he isn't as serious about the test as he seems? I just don't know.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

In the CBA, the paragraph in question says "The player must...supply all information *reasonably *requested of him, provide complete and truthful answers to all questions posed to him, and *submit to all examinations and tests requested of him*. The determination of whether the player has passed the physical examination *shall be made by the Team in its sole discretion*."

If it goes to arbitration and/or court, you can be sure Curry, the Players Association, and likely the ACLU will argue that the results of a DNA test are not reasonable bits of information to request.

The language provided here isn't all that clear. The Bulls could certainly argue the qualifier "reasonably" seems only to apply to "information requests", but the player is forced to submit to "all examinations and tests", thus, I guess, giving the Bulls the results. 

I have no idea how a judge would rule on that. It seems pretty up in the air to me. Any of you law guys wanna jump in and offer your opinions?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> In the CBA, the paragraph in question says "The player must...supply all information *reasonably *requested of him, provide complete and truthful answers to all questions posed to him, and *submit to all examinations and tests requested of him*. The determination of whether the player has passed the physical examination *shall be made by the Team in its sole discretion*."
> 
> If it goes to arbitration and/or court, you can be sure Curry, the Players Association, and likely the ACLU will argue that the results of a DNA test are not reasonable bits of information to request.
> 
> ...


As one of those "law guys" the way I read that, the reasonableness requirement does not extend to the examinations and tests portions. However, I don't think that's 100% clear and I would guarantee you that Curry's lawyer and whoever else would absolutely say that reasonableness is required for all of those various items.

I would say though, the way I read it, I would be inclined to disagree. It says "submit to 
_all_ examinations and tests." This seems exactly the opposite of submitting to reasonable examinations and tests. If the reasonable requirement was intended to apply to these tests, this is certainly some very sloppy drafting. I would expect in a deal this big that the quality of the language would be better if that was the intention.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> As one of those "law guys" the way I read that, the reasonableness requirement does not extend to the examinations and tests portions. However, I don't think that's 100% clear and I would guarantee you that Curry's lawyer and whoever else would absolutely say that reasonableness is required for all of those various items.
> 
> I would say though, the way I read it, I would be inclined to disagree. It says "submit to
> _all_ examinations and tests." This seems exactly the opposite of submitting to reasonable examinations and tests. If the reasonable requirement was intended to apply to these tests, this is certainly some very sloppy drafting. I would expect in a deal this big that the quality of the language would be better if that was the intention.


It does seem very sloppy to me. Let me ask though - what does the word "reasonably" mean as it's used there?

Perhaps more importantly, what's the difference between "providing information" and submitting to a test or an examination?

If I were Curry, I'd build my argument this way; I'd point out that the word "reasonably" isn't meaningless- there must be some bits of information Curry is entitled to keep to himself if the Bulls ask.

But, if those pieces of information were collectable through a test, which the Bulls could force no matter how un/reasonable, it would nullify the meaning of the reasonability clause entirely.

And since one typically presumes that people don't put in such words and intend them to mean nothing, it would seem to go against the meaning of the document as a whole to say teams couldn't gather whatever "information" they wish, but can test however they wish.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Like what? It seems to me anything that would supersede the CBA would be a legal rule (that might have to do with medicine). I'm not saying you're incorrect, I just don't follow.


I don't know how various employer contracts might affect this, but at the most basic level, a doctor cannot perform a procedure or examination or test without a patient's consent.



> I wouldn't be shocked about that either. I have been meaning to sit down and read the CBA on some weekend (yikes at what passes for fun) so maybe I'll check it out. I'm just saying that the excerpted portion makes it seem like Pax could force the issue if he wanted to, and I'm wondering why he hasn't. Is it because he doesn't want to force it? Is it because there is other language in the CBA that might make it not so easy? Are there other legal concerns? Is it because he isn't as serious about the test as he seems? I just don't know.


There are plenty of legal concerns. I know that some states, Massachusetts for sure, have passed laws that rule DNA testing may not be performed by employers unless it is to diagnose an existing condition (in other words, you can't be penalized for something you might get but don't actually have). Putting two and two together, this could very well be why I've read so much about DNA testing not being done in the absence of clinical HCM -- in fact, the lab that tests Maron's patients is located in Massachusetts.

I am also fairly certain that there is national privacy legislation in the works re DNA. So this issue could be much, much bigger than the scope of the CBA.

Any chance that you could look up what laws are on the books in regards to DNA testing by employers/insurers in the state of Illinois? :smile:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Illinois does have something called the Genetic Information Privacy Act:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/pubact90/acts/90-0025.html

Does anything in here look like it applies to our situation?

EDIT: I am terrible at deciphering legalese, but my first impression is that Paxson is out of luck, and it ain't even close.

EDIT 2: I am less sure of that upon a second reading. Can one of the law guys take a crack at it?


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

for pax i think the biggest thing that the dna test is, is a chip to lower eddy's value.not sayin pax doesnt care for eddys welbeing but if pax can use it to lower the amount he has to pay his big man im sure he will/is usein it.

for eddy its 50/50 if the test comes back - he gets a big pay day,if it comes back + he lose's everything.so i complety understand where he is coming from, but i would want to know..

so why dont they write up a contract(if pax really wants eddy back) that meets the amount that eddy is worth,but have something in there that says if eddy dies(the bulls cant be sued,becuase they tried to get him to take the test) or if he cant play anymore BECAUSE of his heart then the bulls only have to pay that years $.
its win win,if eddy plays he gets his money and the bulls get their C,if something happens then the bulls are coverd and eddy will atleast have the rest of that seasons money comin to him.thats the only FAIR way to do this with nither side takin a huge risk and this would end all of the EC:more years more money Pax:no test no big bucks and have this team complete and ready for training camp..

if the bulls and eddy arent willing to do something like this then just trade the guy, end this BS and move on b4 our player have to be on the court..


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

bulls said:


> for pax i think the biggest thing that the dna test is, is a chip to lower eddy's value.not sayin pax doesnt care for eddys welbeing but if pax can use it to lower the amount he has to pay his big man im sure he will/is usein it.
> 
> for eddy its 50/50 if the test comes back - he gets a big pay day,if it comes back + he lose's everything.


The thing is, if I was Eddy I would want to know if I had this condition. I ("Eddy Curry") have a job which required a great amount of cardiovascular work. I don't want to die.

If I was Eddy, I would want to take that test, whether I reported the results or not. But if the test result was positive, I may have lost my basketball career but saved my life.

Everything can change in the blink of an eye. Seriously. Lots of people die from heart attacks every day. It's scary stuff.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> The thing is, if I was Eddy I would want to know if I had this condition. I ("Eddy Curry") have a job which required a great amount of cardiovascular work. I don't want to die.
> 
> If I was Eddy, I would want to take that test, whether I reported the results or not. But if the test result was positive, I may have lost my basketball career but saved my life.
> 
> Everything can change in the blink of an eye. Seriously. Lots of people die from heart attacks every day. It's scary stuff.


But the test doesn't tell Curry if he has the condition. Only if he is more likely to have it. I (Curry) may have decided that the risk is still low enough that I will play with or without a good DNA test. If so, why take it?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> 1. Pax should have completely separated the health/contract issues early on -- pass the DNA test, or you don't get a contract offer. This truly and unassailably would have been the right thing to do.


The article reads as if Pax has completely separated the health contract issue. He does it differentely than you suggest however.



Daily Herald said:


> The team is exploring what options it has to require Curry to take a DNA test before practice begins Oct. 4, whether Curry eventually accepts the Bulls’ contract offer or signs the one-year qualifying offer worth $5.14 million.


This reads that the DNA test is a prereq not for signing a contract but practicing. Not sure this makes sense as it doens't seem likely JR will pay out $19M money if Curry's DNA test comes back with poor results. But that's what it says.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I am beginning to wonder if Eddy has taken the DNA test privately and thats why he won't take one for the bulls? 

If ths was me, I would take the test. I would want to know. I thnk Eddy knows.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> But the test doesn't tell Curry if he has the condition. Only if he is more likely to have it. I (Curry) may have decided that the risk is still low enough that I will play with or without a good DNA test. If so, why take it?


Eddie Curry is certainly well within his right to elect NOT to take the test.Evander Holyfield is certainly well within his right to elect to continue fighting.

The difference is Holyfield fully accepts the consequences as Curry has never quite figured out there is an equal reaction for every action.

Curry has never taken dieting or training seriously and it has not only impacted his game but the manner in which he is viewed in the NBA.

So why should he give in to managements demands now??

He is no more legally/morally bound to take that test than he was to train diligently and come into camp in the best shape possible.As he never saw the value/obligation in doing that,he is merely continuing on the very same path.

Eddie is just being Eddie....

The wakeup call just rang a bit earlier than expected


----------



## jminges (Aug 25, 2005)

The test is to see if there are any other surprize ailments that may effect his career, not just his heart.

Eddy will opt not to take this DNA test, until he signs a maximum contract, otherwise he'd severely hurt his chances of landing big money (which Chandler got) by taking the test. If it wasn't for Atlanta forcing him to test before they offer a contract, Eddy would be a Hawk right now. The NBA won't insure Eddy's contract until after he takes a test, which is why Paxson says he'll force Eddy to test before camp. It's rumored that Chicago has taken their multi-year deal off the table, they're just holding out for a sign and trade or the deadline for the qualifying offer. By the way, Eddy could refuse the test and still play for the Bulls next year (I didn't know this), there isn't a stipulation that a player has to have health insurance to play in the NBA; however, Eddy will be the only player that will be next year, if he doesn't take the test.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

truebluefan said:


> I am beginning to wonder if Eddy has taken the DNA test privately and thats why he won't take one for the bulls?
> 
> If ths was me, I would take the test. I would want to know. I thnk Eddy knows.


...welcome to the club TBF


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

truebluefan said:


> I am beginning to wonder if Eddy has taken the DNA test privately and thats why he won't take one for the bulls?
> 
> If ths was me, I would take the test. I would want to know. I thnk Eddy knows.



I suggested this possibility a couple of weeks ago


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> It does seem very sloppy to me. Let me ask though - what does the word "reasonably" mean as it's used there?
> 
> Perhaps more importantly, what's the difference between "providing information" and submitting to a test or an examination?
> 
> ...


"Reasonable" is a legal term of art. It is specific generally to the nature of the situation. Here, it means, what would the reasonable NBA franchise do in this situation? Information would be reasonably requested of Eddy generally speaking if other franchises in the course of their business could normally desire the same information. It can't be so intrusive that a franchise in the same situation would not feel as though it was information to which they were entitled or should seek out.

For further help, here's what my trusty law dictionary says is "unreasonable": 

Arbitrary, capricious, absurd, immoderate, or exorbitant. not conformable to reason, irrational, beyond the bounds of reason or moderation.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Illinois does have something called the Genetic Information Privacy Act:
> http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/pubact90/acts/90-0025.html
> 
> Does anything in here look like it applies to our situation?
> ...



Nice find, Scott. I'll take a look sometime today.

EDIT:

Ok, after a quick 5 minute read, here are my first impressions.

1. The results of Eddy's DNA testing would be confidential and he would have to consent to its release to the Bulls. Otherwise, they cannot have it. To me, this may supersede the CBA and impose a requirement that Eddy actually say that it's ok for the Bulls to have the information. There may be a waiver of that right just by signing an NBA contract, however.

This was interesting to me:

(d) Results of genetic testing that indicate that the
individual tested is at the time of the test afflicted with a
disease, whether or not currently symptomatic, are not
subject to the confidentiality requirements of this Act.

I don't think that if the DNA test as Scott May explains it would actually show a disease, so I don't think Eddy would have to worry about this.

Also of interest:

Section 20. Use of genetic testing information for
insurance purposes.
(a) An insurer may not seek information derived from
genetic testing for use in connection with a policy of
accident and health insurance. Except as provided in
subsection (b), an insurer that receives information derived
from genetic testing may not use the information for a
nontherapeutic purpose as it relates to a policy of accident
and health insurance.
(b) An insurer may consider the results of genetic
testing in connection with a policy of accident and health
insurance if the individual voluntarily submits the results
and the results are favorable to the individual.

So, it looks like submitting to a DNA test would not pose a substantial insurance risk to Eddy. However, since this is just an IL state law, I'd be interested to see how far it can cover insurers. I suppose it would apply no matter what if the policy was based in IL. Also, keep in mind, the genetic testing information and all of that would need to be in IL as well to fall under this law.

In any event, if this law were to have any effect on what we're talking about, I think it would strengthen Eddy's position to refuse the test or keep test results confidential. I don't know that it is a slam dunk though and I think Pax would be within his legal rights to attempt to get Eddy to consent to sharing this confidential information.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

for me, there are only 2 reasons, why someone in the case od eddy curry wouldnt take a test.

1.he already knows it. and tries to get as much money has possible before the truth is unveiled.

2.he's afraid of getting a negative result, and doesnt wanna know the truth

but i have a feeling eddy knows, why one earth would someone pass on 20-40 mil $ (?), for not taking a test ???


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> "Reasonable" is a legal term of art. It is specific generally to the nature of the situation. Here, it means, what would the reasonable NBA franchise do in this situation? Information would be reasonably requested of Eddy generally speaking if other franchises in the course of their business could normally desire the same information. It can't be so intrusive that a franchise in the same situation would not feel as though it was information to which they were entitled or should seek out.
> 
> For further help, here's what my trusty law dictionary says is "unreasonable":
> 
> Arbitrary, capricious, absurd, immoderate, or exorbitant. not conformable to reason, irrational, beyond the bounds of reason or moderation.


It's obviously "reasonable" for the Bulls to ask for the DNA test or any other test related to Curry's health. Anything to do with it, in fact. 

If there's a sense of irony in all this...

That ScottMay has been reading about and posting about all this medical information about Curry's condition, and that Paxson has talked about it in the press (for you, Miz), I'm inclined to believe the union absolutely has a leg to stand on.

In fact, I'm wondering if Curry might not have an outright discrimination suit against the Bulls - one where he might sue for $millions and win. His case would be that the Bulls have used his medical situation to discriminate against him, to drive his market value down, to deny him a contract he'd be worthy of, etc. 

This is not some attempt to bash Paxson here. Not only do I believe Curry might have a case against the Bulls, but against the League, and also the Hawks. Maybe even the Players' Association, too.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

This is what I am getting from seeing this develop. First I don't think there has been one article that is 100% on point. IMO this is what has gone on: (1) the Bulls put a multi year contract on the table that was 100% contingent upon a DNA test and have not wavered from that stance, (2) a positive DNA result (no predisposition) would net Eddy the guranteed portion of his contract but not the full deal, (3) the full amount of the contract is contingent on Eddy not having any more heart related problems and reaching certain performance markers that are not known. I think #1 is why the talks have been more and more ugly. Now, even as a rabid supporter of Curry, I cannot fault the Bulls for having a consistent desire for the DNA test for any amount of guaranteed dollars. That is their right because it is their money. I don't think the Bulls are going change their stance whether Curry has a healthy season or not...the DNA test is a must for them. Whether it is ethical or not (I have no problem with it) does not matter. In fact, I think that leads to the next logical step, seeing if they can prevent him from practicing without the DNA test.

However, you have to understand Curry's stance also because once the genie is out of the bottle (predisposition for HCM) there is no getting around it. The legal ramifications fpr any team wanting to sign Curry are not only unknown but for a lot of teams it won't even be worth the trouble of dealing with it. However, Curry and his people have to know that a healthy, productive season without the DNA test will open up more possibilities for him and is a better option for Curry then taking a chance on not only blowing a chance at a guaranteed contract but he might get the QO pulled and not get signed period.

I think it ends in Curry taking the QO having a similar year to last season and then leaving in a S&T next summer because the BUlls will not have to deal with any BYC issues due to being under the cap.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> The thing is, if I was Eddy I would want to know if I had this condition. I ("Eddy Curry") have a job which required a great amount of cardiovascular work. I don't want to die.
> 
> If I was Eddy, I would want to take that test, whether I reported the results or not. But if the test result was positive, I may have lost my basketball career but saved my life.
> 
> Everything can change in the blink of an eye. Seriously. Lots of people die from heart attacks every day. It's scary stuff.


If the result was positive, nothing about Eddy's current health would change. For the thousandth time, a genetic predisposition for HCM doesn't necessarily mean a person will develop clinical HCM. And there is some evidence to suggest that if a person who has a clinical predisposition for HCM makes it through their teens without developing clinical HCM, the odds of their developing it at all drop even further.

And yeah, thousands of people die every day from heart attacks. I have no idea what bearing that has on Eddy's situation. After lots and lots of searching, I have found only one instance of a professional athlete who died from clinical HCM -- a Cameroon soccer player named Marc-Vivien Foe (2003).


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> If the result was positive, nothing about Eddy's current health would change. For the thousandth time, a genetic predisposition for HCM doesn't necessarily mean a person will develop clinical HCM. And there is some evidence to suggest that if a person who has a clinical predisposition for HCM makes it through their teens without developing clinical HCM, the odds of their developing it at all drop even further.
> 
> And yeah, thousands of people die every day from heart attacks. I have no idea what bearing that has on Eddy's situation. After lots and lots of searching, I have found only one instance of a professional athlete who died from clinical HCM -- a Cameroon soccer player named Marc-Vivien Foe (2003).


My wording was not as clear as it should have been ScottMay, but you don't think it would be a good idea to know if he has the genetic predisposition at this point? You think it has no bearing?

Have any of the doctors suggested that despite a theoretical positive test result in combination with the irregular hearbeat incident, it would still be permissable to play out an NBA career?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> My wording was not as clear as it should have been ScottMay, but you don't think it would be a good idea to know if he has the genetic predisposition at this point? You think it has no bearing?
> 
> Have any of the doctors suggested that despite a theoretical positive test result in combination with the irregular hearbeat incident, it would still be permissable to play out an NBA career?


The key thing to me is that whether Eddy has the predisposition or not, his heart is going to be monitored for the rest of his career to an extent that it would be pretty unlikely HCM could develop clinically without being caught. 

The other key thing to me is that the testing is pretty imprecise -- it only "catches" the predisposition 50-70% of the time when clinical HCM is present and cells are already mutating. I haven't been able to find a percentage of how often the test "catches" the predisposition in non-clinical patients (probably because those patients seldom, if ever, take the DNA test). So I think Paxson is being a little misleading when he's saying the DNA test will rule things out.

The irregular heartbeat, I'm pretty sure, has been ruled as a fluke. As for the theoretical positive result, as MikeDC has pointed out repeatedly, it pretty much brings us to the same place a negative result does. Curry would have to stop playing if he exhibited clinical signs of HCM (which are very easy to spot and distinct in a mature heart). Until that happens, there's no reason for him to do anything other than be monitored carefully, regardless of the result of a DNA test, and a positive DNA result wouldn't even tell us IF Curry would develop clinical manifestations, let alone WHEN.

I'm not sure if that makes things clearer. The DNA test seems to be most useful to a younger person whose heart is still developing and in which clinical HCM is harder to spot via conventional means.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I suggested this possibility a couple of weeks ago


I can't reach any other conclusion. I think he absolutely has taken the test and knows for a fact that the results are poor. I debated the logical foundation of this theory for about 2 days with ScottMay and MikeDC, so I'll spare us all a regurgitation of my reasoning.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I can't reach any other conclusion. I think he absolutely has taken the test and knows for a fact that the results are poor. I debated the logical foundation of this theory for about 2 days with ScottMay and MikeDC, so I'll spare us all a regurgitation of my reasoning.



i also suspect he has taken the test and the results are not favorable. if this can be proven, then eddy and leon rose have not been negotiating in good faith.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i also suspect he has taken the test and the results are not favorable. if this can be proven, then eddy and leon rose have not been negotiating in good faith.


I don't follow.

If Eddy has taken the test and received a positive result, what changes about the current situation?

He doesn't have clinical HCM. There is an excellent chance he'll never have clinical HCM, or that if he does, it'll develop in middle or old age. His heart will be monitored carefully in either case.

Then throw in the fact that Illinois law protects an employee from having to divulge genetic testing results to an employer.

It seems to me that making the results of a genetic test a condition of employment/compensation is much worse than not negotiating in good faith, it's probably illegal.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

scott, my comment is based on a hunch. a hunch that others share with me, but a hunch nonetheless. regardless of the outcome of the test, and i admit again, it's just a guess on my part, then wouldn't eddy and leon and company have been LYING? to me that isn't good faith.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> scott, my comment is based on a hunch. a hunch that others share with me, but a hunch nonetheless. regardless of the outcome of the test, and i admit again, it's just a guess on my part, then wouldn't eddy and leon and company have been LYING? to me that isn't good faith.


What exactly is this "lie" you have a hunch about?

I don't see it.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> What exactly is this "lie" you have a hunch about?
> 
> I don't see it.



see my post above. it's pretty clear to me at least.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> scott, my comment is based on a hunch. a hunch that others share with me, but a hunch nonetheless. regardless of the outcome of the test, and i admit again, it's just a guess on my part, then wouldn't eddy and leon and company have been LYING? to me that isn't good faith.


How is it lying to not divulge confidential medical information that Illinois law expressly prohibits an employer from even asking about?

And I guess, philosophically speaking, you're not a big Fifth Amendment fan.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Eddy Curry is entitled to protect the results of the test, if taken. He is entitled to refuse the test. But he also must accept the consequences those decisions have on his contract negotations.

Miz, I don't think it can really be called bad faith unless he actually does lie. He has an absolute right to keep the existence of the test and the results to himself.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> How is it lying to not divulge confidential medical information that Illinois law expressly prohibits an employer from even asking about?
> 
> And I guess, philosophically speaking, you're not a big Fifth Amendment fan.


For Miz.

What he said.

It would be a lie if Rose and/or Curry were asked if they did have the DNA test and they said "no." But only if he really did have the test done.

I'm still not seeing it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Eddy Curry is entitled to protect the results of the test, if taken. He is entitled to refuse the test. But he also must accept the consequences those decisions have on his contract negotations.


Actually, in the absence of clinical disease, it appears that it might be illegal for the Bulls to attach ANY consequence to Eddy's unwillingness to divulge results.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Eddy Curry is entitled to protect the results of the test, if taken. He is entitled to refuse the test. But he also must accept the consequences those decisions have on his contract negotations.
> 
> Miz, I don't think it can really be called bad faith unless he actually does lie. He has an absolute right to keep the existence of the test and the results to himself.



yes, yes and yes.

i guess my point is that IF eddy has taken the test, regardless of the results, and he and his agents have said to pax - and to the media - that they HAVEN'T taken it, wouldn't that constitute a BIG FAT lie? 

and yes, he has every right to keep the result to himself, so i guess we will never know.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

First, I want to say that I think this is probably the most well thought out, interesting thread I've ever seen. I'm learning a lot.

Now, I'll offer my 2 cents on some of these things.



Mikedc said:


> In the CBA, the paragraph in question says "The player must...supply all information *reasonably *requested of him, provide complete and truthful answers to all questions posed to him, and *submit to all examinations and tests requested of him*. The determination of whether the player has passed the physical examination *shall be made by the Team in its sole discretion*."


I read your theory about the opposing interpretations, and I think you are right that this is the position each side must take. I share jnrjr's interpretation of the provision.

The term "reasonable" under standard common law rules of contract construction would run to the "information requested" portion. It would not run to what follows. The testing language is different and absolute. It does not contain a reasonableness requirement. That the term "reasonable" was specifically tied to the former and specifically excluded from the latter would, in my opinion, most likely lead a court to determine that it did not apply to testing. 

Moreover, "information" and "testing" are addressed separately indicating that they do not overlap as a concept. 

For example, "information" and the "reasonableness" of it could be "are you gay?" That would be an "unreasonable" request for "information". There are limitless examples of things that would be unreasonable.

But lets say "reasonableness" does apply to the testing language. I suspect that Maron's recommendation alone would render it reasonable. Remember, its "reasonable" not "absolutely medically correct". The dispute between Maron and Cannom/Estes actually would lend support to the reasonabless of the request, rather than detract from it. But thats all moot, because I can't see a judge interpreting the reasonableness requirement to apply to the testing portion cited.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Actually, in the absence of clinical disease, it appears that it might be illegal for the Bulls to attach ANY consequence to Eddy's unwillingness to divulge results.


I'm looking at the statute now. I'll comment on this in a minute. You might be right.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> yes, yes and yes.
> 
> i guess my point is that IF eddy has taken the test, regardless of the results, and he and his agents have said to pax - and to the media - that they HAVEN'T taken it, wouldn't that constitute a BIG FAT lie?
> 
> and yes, he has every right to keep the result to himself, so i guess we will never know.


Interestingly, one portion of the CBA cited earlier reads as follows:



> provide complete and truthful answers to all questions posed to him


However, if the statute cited by Scott bars such a question as to the results or existence of a DNA test, then the answer would be irrelevent because the question itself would be void. I'll follow up once I read the statute.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Actually, in the absence of clinical disease, it appears that it might be illegal for the Bulls to attach ANY consequence to Eddy's unwillingness to divulge results.


I'm surprised nobody responded to my post about how Curry may have a discrimination law suit.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> But lets say "reasonableness" does apply to the testing language. I suspect that Maron's recommendation alone would render it reasonable. Remember, its "reasonable" not "absolutely medically correct". The dispute between Maron and Cannom/Estes actually would lend support to the reasonabless of the request, rather than detract from it. But thats all moot, because I can't see a judge interpreting the reasonableness requirement to apply to the testing portion cited.


I could see a judge applying reasonableness to the testing portion, since otherwise doing otherwise would seem to obviate the term as used in the "requested information" requirement. 

I do think the medical dispute, and the fact that the standard procedures for diagnosis of HCM do not include a DNA test might raise a question of whether it's reasonable, but I agree that in the final analysis, I don't see how it's unreasonable. The fact that it's not part of the standard practicum doesn't make it wrong .Incidentally, such questions arising on liability issues are why doctors are so hesitant to do anything non-standard in the first place! Even when it's a pretty benign issue (from a medical perspective) doing things that aren't in the standard book of procedures for whatever you're doing always seems to attract a lawyer's attention these days. 

Coupling this up with the Illinois statute Scott brought up, however, and it starts looking like an expensive situation to me.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I could see a judge applying reasonableness to the testing portion, since otherwise doing otherwise would seem to obviate the term as used in the "observation" requirement.


Where is the "observation" requirement? I didn't see that.



> Coupling this up with the Illinois statute Scott brought up, however, and it starts looking like an expensive situation to me.


Undoubtedly.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Coupling this up with the Illinois statute Scott brought up, however, and it starts looking like an expensive situation to me.


If I were a betting man, I'd wager that the Bulls bring more lawyers to the courtroom or arbitration hearing.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I'm surprised nobody responded to my post about how Curry may have a discrimination law suit.


I'm surprised at your post, given your response to mine yesterday!

Granted, I was speaking in abstract terms of right and wrong, but the point I was getting at was the appropriateness of the Bulls asking for what they are asking for. Your response then was that you'd get all the info you could, and didn't see a problem with it.

So I'm kind of surprised to see you think the Bulls' reasonable request might give rise to a legitimate and winnable suit by Curry.

I actually wouldn't go that far because establishing causal harm (and therefore damages) in this case would be very difficult to any legal certainty. You conceivably have a duty (by the Bulls to not ask for genetic information not pursuant to an actual medical condition Curry has), and a breech of that duty. 

But I don't see how anyone can say that breech is what caused Curry to not get a huge contract. There are lots of other factors with Eddy that could have caused this. You'd have Atlanta's testimony that they were all set to throw money at them and he spurned them and left without saying goodby. You'd have the normal variability in NBA contracts that makes establishing his prospective contract value - and thus the exact harm - very difficult.

Thus, I don't think he could win a suit unless he got very lucky with the jury and happened to get one composed of the type of people who don't care about the law and just want to give lots of money to people with sad stories.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Where is the "observation" requirement? I didn't see that.


Me either. I meant to say "information" requirement - the requirement that the player provide reasonably requestion information. Have no idea why I wrote observation :eek8:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I suggested this possibility a couple of weeks ago


Great minds think a like


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I'm surprised at your post, given your response to mine yesterday!
> 
> Granted, I was speaking in abstract terms of right and wrong, but the point I was getting at was the appropriateness of the Bulls asking for what they are asking for. Your response then was that you'd get all the info you could, and didn't see a problem with it.
> 
> So I'm kind of surprised to see you think the Bulls' reasonable request might give rise to a legitimate and winnable suit by Curry.


You asked a hypothetical question and I gave that kind of answer. The CBA makes it a managed economy and not a free market, and adds all kinds of other regulations.



> I actually wouldn't go that far because establishing causal harm (and therefore damages) in this case would be very difficult to any legal certainty. You conceivably have a duty (by the Bulls to not ask for genetic information not pursuant to an actual medical condition Curry has), and a breech of that duty.
> 
> But I don't see how anyone can say that breech is what caused Curry to not get a huge contract. There are lots of other factors with Eddy that could have caused this. You'd have Atlanta's testimony that they were all set to throw money at them and he spurned them and left without saying goodby. You'd have the normal variability in NBA contracts that makes establishing his prospective contract value - and thus the exact harm - very difficult.
> 
> Thus, I don't think he could win a suit unless he got very lucky with the jury and happened to get one composed of the type of people who don't care about the law and just want to give lots of money to people with sad stories.


Seems to me the damages are identifiable - the difference between the QO and what Chandler got (or what Dalembert got). Those are the traditional means to value a player's worth, contractually, in arbitration and law suits.

Talking publicly about Curry's condition is the cause. Atlanta's testimony would definately be required, as I see Curry having a claim against them, too. But I see it as being good for Curry's case, not something against it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Okay. The Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"). First, again, I read jnrjr's interpretation and I think he has set it out correctly. 

There is another section that I wanted to point out:



> Sec. 25. Use of genetic testing information by employers. (a) An employer shall treat genetic testing information in such a manner that is consistent with the requirements of federal law, including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
> 
> (b) An employer may release genetic testing information only in accordance with Section 30.


This is a can of worms. First and foremost, on the face of GIPA (that sounds funny to me), the statute does not address whether an employer has the right to request a DNA test. All it says is that the employer will "treat" existing information with confidentiality and will not use that existing information in such a way that is inconsistent with the ADA.

Moreover, the statute assumes a scenario wherein a person has already voluntarily (or involuntarily if part of a criminal investigation) submitted to genetic testing. It deals only with the information yielded, not with how one came to take the test in the first place.

GIPA does give a person the right to keep confidential the results of a test if taken. Frankly, this is just a statutory recognition of pre-existing patient/physician confidentiality laws and regulations. 

I don't know what is or is not inconsistent with the ADA when it comes to genetic testing information. There was litigation on this subject a few years ago, but it dealt with an employer obtaining DNA samples from employees and then testing that sample without the consent of the employee. That case was settled and does not address what we have here with Eddy.

But it is this reference to the ADA that could provide a legal basis for Eddy to contest the request of a DNA test as void. But I don't know. I was unable to locate any case law dealing with this issue. The ADA, though, does not expressly address genetic testing.

Also, there is no case law in Illinois to aid us in interpreting GIPA. 

My conclusions:

(a) GIPA does not make it illigal for the Bulls to request that the test be taken, but it would make it illegal for them to compel Eddy to release the results to them unless he consents. How's that for a legal catch-22? 

(b) The ADA *could conceivably* bar the Bulls from requiring the test, but that is an unknown. If so, it would be precedent setting.

Another unknown was raised by jnrjnr and I think its a great point. The CBA, or some other agreement, may include waivers and releases that would compel a player to either release test results to the team or face the voiding of a contract as a result of the failure to do so. In fact, the quoted portion of the CBA discussed earlier suggests this very thing.

The bottom line is that litigation is a distinct possibility due to the lack of clarity under the law.

*DaBullz*, I don't think there would be any merit to the type of discrimination suit you pondered. Those would probably be common law claims for defamation or intentional interference with a business expectency. In order to state those types of claims, there must be an intentional wrongful act of some kind. Unless it could be proven that Dr. Maron is colluding with the Bulls and providing a deliberately false medical recommendation, there is no intentional "wrongful act" here.

EDIT: Plus, what MikeDC wrote above regarding a causal connection is accurate as well, DaBullz. It wouldn't be impossible to prove, but it would be extremely difficult.

Anyway, bear in mind that what I wrote here, with the exception of the actual language of GIPA, is all off the top of my head. So take it for what its worth.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Okay. The Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"). First, again, I read jnrjr's interpretation and I think he has set it out correctly.
> 
> There is another section that I wanted to point out:
> 
> ...


Seems like we should probably un-off-topic that Rehnquist/John Roberts thread!

The ADA is the single messiest and confusing thing I have ever voluntarily attempted to read in my life. There are at least a couple of pieces of legislation pending that would explictly prohibit employers and insurers from DNA testing except to confirm existing diseases, and it seems that the majority of lawmakers and constituents agree that this is a good thing, but in typical Washington fashion little bits and pieces of things that have nothing to do with the intent of the legislation have gotten tacked onto the bills and they're all stuck somewhere. 

It's also worth pointing out that Leon Rose is actually an attorney, and his firm seems to have dealt with DNA discrimination cases in the past. 

Thanks for your translation of the Illinois statute, Ron.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Thanks for your translation of the Illinois statute, Ron.


Anytime, and you are welcome. This is all fascinating to me. Eddy's situation could prove to be a *revolutionary* one if contested to a final determination in the courts. I don't think I'm overstating that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> *DaBullz*, I don't think there would be any merit to the type of discrimination suit you pondered. Those would probably be common law claims for defamation or intentional interference with a business expectency. In order to state those types of claims, there must be an intentional wrongful act of some kind. Unless it could be proven that Dr. Maron is colluding with the Bulls and providing a deliberately false medical recommendation, there is no intentional "wrongful act" here.
> 
> EDIT: Plus, what MikeDC wrote above regarding a causal connection is accurate as well, DaBullz. It wouldn't be impossible to prove, but it would be extremely difficult.
> 
> Anyway, bear in mind that what I wrote here, with the exception of the actual language of GIPA, is all off the top of my head. So take it for what its worth.


I don't think Maron has anything to do with a claim Curry could make. What he did was to compound the act of wrongdoing after it was made a public affair. 

Though maybe HE should be made party to the suit, too. Did Curry give him permission to go talk to the press about his medical condition?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I don't think Maron has anything to do with a claim Curry could make. What he did was to compound the act of wrongdoing after it was made a public affair.
> 
> Though maybe HE should be made party to the suit, too. *Did Curry give him permission to go talk to the press about his medical condition?*


The only basis for a suit would be if Curry never consented to the public release ("public affair") surrounding his situation. However, Exhibit A for the defense would be a picture of him sitting front and center at the news conference releasing the information. Exhibit B would be copies of each article in which he talked about his own health and what the doctors had been telling him. 

Obviously, Eddy not only consented to, but participated it, the "public affair" that you describe. That the information is out there is not enough for a lawsuit. Like I said, there must be some wrongful act, and here there is not one.

P.S. As to the bolded part, I'm not aware of any of the physicians (Cannom/Estes/Maron) making statements to the press.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Anytime, and you are welcome. This is all fascinating to me. Eddy's situation could prove to be a *revolutionary* one if contested to a final determination in the courts. I don't think I'm overstating that.


Wouldn't that Burlington Northern carpal tunnel case set a pretty good precedent?

From what I've read of it (which is admittedly through archives on the ACLU and other civil liberties' organizations specific to genetic testing), it seems that they ruled against the company not just because they trampled the notion of consent, but also because the DNA test was found to have no meaningful predictive value. And that would seem to be the same problem with the test for HCM, from what I can tell.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I don't think Maron has anything to do with a claim Curry could make. What he did was to compound the act of wrongdoing after it was made a public affair.
> 
> Though maybe HE should be made party to the suit, too. Did Curry give him permission to go talk to the press about his medical condition?


Did he actually talk to the press?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Wouldn't that Burlington Northern carpal tunnel case set a pretty good precedent?
> 
> From what I've read of it (which is admittedly through archives on the ACLU and other civil liberties' organizations specific to genetic testing), it seems that they ruled against the company not just because they trampled the notion of consent, but also because the DNA test was found to have no meaningful predictive value. And that would seem to be the same problem with the test for HCM, from what I can tell.


That is the ADA case I was referring to. But, to my recollection, that case was settled. Therefore, the legal issues it raised are unresolved.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mike: no doctor has talked to press directly as far as I know. So there's yet another possible legal angle for both sides to ponder -- how did that information become public?

Ron: You are right about Burlington Northern. There were some court proceedings to obtain injunctions to cease and desist the testing, but it doesn't seem like it ever went to trial.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Me either. I meant to say "information" requirement - the requirement that the player provide reasonably requestion information. Have no idea why I wrote observation :eek8:


I tried to address that. "Information" is separately categorized and includes a reasonableness requirement. "Testing" is separately categorized and is addressed in absolutes with no qualifier.

In short, although the word "information" can include virtually everthing, as drafted it does not include testing. The latter is not a subset of the former. A court would likely determine that if it were intended that way, it would have been drafted that way. That is the bottom line logic to contract construction.

Moreover, this interpretation does not render the "information" section worthless. Virtually every type of information that is not separately identified below it (which would exclude testing) could fall within this reasonableness requirement. My example was sexual preference, but there are innumerable others.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

OK, I've come to the conclusion Curry has no lawsuit.

It'd be a defamation suit, and it turns out the truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim.


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

so when will we sign songaila ? The week is already half over


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

Wow! Fascinating thread guys, more info to read and digest than I've ever seen on a thread, especially impressed with the research and professional input. I've learned a lot, not the least of which being all of the new pneumonic (sp?) abreviations. My favorite to pronounce out loud is GIPA, (GEE-pah). Now that I've taken it all in I have one final question for our renowned Bulls scholars...

When is opening night again?

Seriously, nice work!


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

hoopsworld says Curry will accept QO. 










But I don't see an article or anything. If you follow the link, it'll lead you to a sign-up and subscribe page for $7 a month. Then I check out their boards : http://www.hoopsworld.com/board3/showthread.php?tid=552

If I ran a site like this, I'd have to avoid all mirrors.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

The QO is best for all parties. I just wonder if he will even play, and if he does what exactly we can expect.

Curry's energy and effort has always been a question before this. Many times he is lethargic, lacking aggression on the court. 

He must be worried about the heart problem. If you take a guy who struggled with energy and effort and put a thought in his head that he could drop dead, do you expect to see him to play with more or less energy? When he was in his mind perfectly healthy, he had most of us banging our heads from the lack of energy and effort he showed. He needed to show much more on the effort side. Now he is going to step it up from his previous low energy level with a possibility he could die? I think he regresses big time.

No way can you offer this guy big money. I personally think he is finished with the Bulls after this season, and maybe for good. No team is going to offer him big money with this potential problem and no insurance.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> He must be worried about the heart problem. If you take a guy who struggled with energy and effort and put a thought in his head that he could drop dead, do you expect to see him to play with more or less energy? ....
> 
> No team is going to offer him big money with this potential problem and no insurance.


Is he really that worried? He is definetely not trying to maximize his guarenteed money or he would have talked to teams like the Knicks about the MLE. All insight into his state of mind from 2nd parties show no sign he even thinks this is very serious. Just a few skipped beats.

If he plays, his play may be affected the first few months. But all the guy needs to do is play well after the All-Star break and some team is going to offer him $50M+.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> OK, I've come to the conclusion Curry has no lawsuit.
> 
> It'd be a defamation suit, and it turns out *the truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim*.


Imagine that.


----------

