# Tribune, Herald, Sun-times on Curry situation



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...curry,1,3570407.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines - Curry's agent asks for Sign and Trade.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp - Paxson says sides aren't close but the situation isn't all negative.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull07.html - Pax has heard the internet rumors, but there's nothing to them.

It's too early for the Daily Southtown to have put up new articles.

Interesting tone to all the articles - The Herald and Suntimes read a lot differently than the Tribune.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Thanks for the one-stop shopping, narek.

And I'm happy to see that the Bulls' beat writers are, you know, actually writing articles about the Bulls.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Curry's agent again, this time Eddy better not have to come out and deny that that is what he wants. But if this is coming from Eddy.................

Trading him straight up we definitly won't get fair value (which in this case is hard to measure because of his heart) but if we are forced to trade Eddy then maybe we should consider adding a Pike, a 1RP, 3M, and Nocioni to a deal(Boozer might be able to be had at that price). I think if we are in a position that trading Curry makes the most sense we should think about throwing Nocioni in a deal. I have complete and udder faith Deng will become a borderline all-star for us at the 3, and then with our 06' money adding somene like Al Harrington would make a lot of sense. Pax is thinking about the big picture and the only way way to take two steps forward may be to take one back now.

I don't know whether Pax and Eddy are not close to a deal because the overall money is not there or if Eddy is not willing to sign a contract that has a lot of heart clauses, it may be both, only a few know for sure. If the money is there and Eddy himself is afraid to take on a contract that is guaranteed as long he has no heart problems then I think we should trade him.

It is my understanding that Eddy is still not playing ball or doing any strenuous workouts due to his agents fear he will get injured and hurt his stock even more, if this is the case Eddy's value for us next year is significantly less than last year. He has a skill this team badly needs but....................


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Lorenzen Wright, Dahntay Jones, 2006 1st rounder

for

Eddy Curry and Pike


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Curry, Nocioni, and 1RP 06'

for

Boozer


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Pax also watered down the Jamal S and T option initially too and then got shirty when speculation was rife and came back and revisited

Did the same thing on the Jalen Rose trade too..and in fact backed out of the deal at first until things cooled a bit

What seems to be the case is that the onus is on Leon Rose to find a team that wants his client on longer term guaranteed money ..and then making it fit for the Bulls

The Bulls are obviously prepared to bring him back for 1 year guaranteed money and a team option on him

It would be in the Bulls best interests to persuade Leon Rose to have Eddy Curry accept this deal so they can control him next summer if he comes through

Equally ..it would be in Eddy Curry's best interests to resist so that the Bulls have no leverage over him next summer and which puts pressure back on them as they face the prospect of losing him for nothing 

With what may ultimately boil down to such a negative base in negotiations and if both parties "positioning" is so diametrically opposed to the other .. a sign and trade if it could be arranged which suited both parties goals would be the best outcome 

Pax is right on with the difficulties of a sign and trade as ( if my understanding of it is correct ):

1. If Eddy exceeds 120% of the QO he will be rendered a base year compensation player 

2. This means we can only accept back a player or a salary differential at half the cost of what we give out for him 

3. Therefore if Eddy signs greater than say $5.8M he's BYC and we can only accept back half his cost which means that in isolation a one on one trade doesn't work 

4. The only way it can work is if we use a salary large enough such as Antonio Davis's to manipulate the required differentials to make it compliant 

5. Then there are the smaller issues of 

a. Who wants him and is prepared to take on guaranteed risk for term
b. Who they would be prepared to give up in return 
c. Do they have salary big enough that is expiring ( so as to preserve cap space next summer ) to swap and manipulate the salary diffs

About the only team that can realistically make this work is New York as they would likely 

a. Have the will
b. Give up a forward like Sweetney ( who could be cleared by summer if his option is not exercised )
c. Include an expiring contract like Penny Hardaway who would be with us for 1 year and help

The only fly in this ointment is ..does Pax want to give up AD ?

Forget about getting equal quality back.. we're long past that . His market is just not there

We could keep him for 1 year where he could be a distraction and not much help given possible poor conditioning and "playing for contract' and then wave bye bye for nothing

Or we could cut it clean now ..platoon the middle .. and trial about the only guy we could realistically get back in return. Forget about Channing Frye etc ..its not happening 

About the only chance we have to add is if we could get Zeke to throw Trevor Ariza into the deal as well

This is about the only deal that could work .. given who you could realistically get and make work under the provisions of the CBA

No one has to like it ( and no one does given responses I got last week on the Sweets thread ) but its about the only thing that is doable if Rose insists on a S and T to get a g'teed deal


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Dallas could also work if Mark Cuban wanted him given Van Horn's expiring salary swapping out in the salary diffs with Antonio Davis ...and if he was prepared to make Josh Howard the principal

This is a deal I would be all over ..but I don't think Dallas would offer up Josh Howard for Eddy Curry at this point

Still.. a front court combo of Dampier, Curry and Nowitski is formidable..depends whether Marquis Daniels is healthy and good enough to start at the 2 with Terry running the point 

Bradley,Davis and Diop back up the front... Stack, Christie and Harris back up the wings/point

Would Mark Cuban bite on a $21M 3 year totally guaranteed deal for Eddy Curry where he had to give up Josh Howard ?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Stupid idiot Curry. You're not going to get a better offer anywhere else. Definitely not from anyone we're going to trade with.

****.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

The only way I'd be happy with a trade of Curry is if Petrius (sp) is involved.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Dallas could also work if Mark Cuban wanted him given Van Horn's expiring salary swapping out in the salary diffs with Antonio Davis ...and if he was prepared to make Josh Howard the principal
> 
> This is a deal I would be all over ..but I don't think Dallas would offer up Josh Howard for Eddy Curry at this point


Shoot. Thats a no-brainer for the Bulls. But then again, I'm a true believer when it comes to Josh Howard so take my opinion on the matter with a grain of salt.

Lose Curry/AD. Gain Van Horn/Howard. Lose Van Horn's expiring contract and end with Free Agent/Howard. Dreamy.


----------



## Chi-City (Jul 13, 2005)

what would it take for KG via S&T including Eddy?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Chi-City said:


> what would it take for KG via S&T including Eddy?


Eddy Curry, Kirk Hinrich, and Antonio Davis is all I would be prepared to part with in order to make it work under the CBA given Eddy's BYC status

And that's got about as much chance as me being Jessica Simpson's masseuse


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Lose Curry/AD. Gain Van Horn/Howard. Lose Van Horn's expiring contract and end with Free Agent/Howard. Dreamy.


Yah...of the Wet type


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I dunno. I just don't see this working out too well. From what I can gather from reading the different news sources, it isn't the total dollars that has Eddy's camp balking - it's the number of guaranteed years/incentives. From Pax's perspective, this would be a huge red flag. If Curry's heart is, in fact, just fine, why isn't he working out hard? I know he's supposedly working with Grover - but how strenuous are these workouts? I've got serious doubts that Curry is anywhere close to playing condition. It seems pretty clear that Curry's camp wants guaranteed dollars over multiple years. It also seems pretty clear that Pax/Reinsdorf aren't about to give him that. It also appears as if teams aren't knocking down Pax's door with S&T offers for the big guy. Sure, Isaiah is stupid enough to guarantee multiple years to Curry, but do they have anything worth taking back? Sweetney? Ugh. The only thing I'd want from the Knicks are picks and Ariza.

Curry demanding multiple years just smacks of a guy who really doesn't want to prove anything and wants to be paid before he performs. His whole heart issue makes matters worse. The reality of the situation is that no owner is going to risk even 10's of millions of dollars on him. Not without him having shown the ability to play a season without a recurrance of his irregular heartbeat. It's looking more and more like he's going to have to take the QO and play the season out. I just don't see that as being a real good situation for the team. I can just see Curry wanting to put up the best possible numbers as he can and straying from playing "team" ball and Skiles having fits with that mentality and benching him. Curry and Rose will cry foul to the press and claim that the Bulls are trying to drive down his value. It could get ugly.

I'd rather deal Curry now for whatever you can get for him - even if it's for future picks. Send him to the Hawks for future firsts. I just don't think any deal can get done because no owner is going to take on the risk of multiple years that Curry is wanting. This sure could have the makings of a nice little soap opera as the season progresses.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I dunno. I just don't see this working out too well. From what I can gather from reading the different news sources, it isn't the total dollars that has Eddy's camp balking - it's the number of guaranteed years/incentives. From Pax's perspective, this would be a huge red flag. If Curry's heart is, in fact, just fine, why isn't he working out hard? I know he's supposedly working with Grover - but how strenuous are these workouts? I've got serious doubts that Curry is anywhere close to playing condition.


This is been answered many times. Curry's following the standard routine for players not under contract because it'd be foolish to work out and get hurt the way Willy Green did a couple months back.

As far as I can tell, this is standard practice for every player in the NBA. It's the exact same thing Tyson Chandler did this summer. In short, there's no evidence to suggest Curry is approaching things differently from anyone else.



> It seems pretty clear that Curry's camp wants guaranteed dollars over multiple years. It also seems pretty clear that Pax/Reinsdorf aren't about to give him that. It also appears as if teams aren't knocking down Pax's door with S&T offers for the big guy. Sure, Isaiah is stupid enough to guarantee multiple years to Curry, but do they have anything worth taking back? Sweetney? Ugh. The only thing I'd want from the Knicks are picks and Ariza.


Again, unless there is something don't know about his heart condition, it doesn't appear at all unreasonable for Curry to want multiple years guaranteed. In fact, as I point out below, he'd be a lunatic not to.



> Curry demanding multiple years just smacks of a guy who really doesn't want to prove anything and wants to be paid before he performs.


Huh? That's downright ridiculous. Almost every player in the league wants multiple years. And almost every player that's done a damn thing gets them. 



> His whole heart issue makes matters worse. The reality of the situation is that no owner is going to risk even 10's of millions of dollars on him. Not without him having shown the ability to play a season without a recurrance of his irregular heartbeat. It's looking more and more like he's going to have to take the QO and play the season out. I just don't see that as being a real good situation for the team. I can just see Curry wanting to put up the best possible numbers as he can and straying from playing "team" ball and Skiles having fits with that mentality and benching him. Curry and Rose will cry foul to the press and claim that the Bulls are trying to drive down his value. It could get ugly.I'd rather deal Curry now for whatever you can get for him - even if it's for future picks. Send him to the Hawks for future firsts. I just don't think any deal can get done because no owner is going to take on the risk of multiple years that Curry is wanting. This sure could have the makings of a nice little soap opera as the season progresses.


The only thing I'm curious about is what conditions are attached to the guaranteed money. 

You also have to look at things from Curry's perspective too. Suppose he breaks his leg and the Bulls just drop him like a bad habit. That's what can happen if Curry takes a non-guaranteed deal, unless the guarantee is strictly contingent on the heart issue.

And that's Curry bearing a huge amount of risk that almost no player would or should willingly accept. Put bluntly, it's the Bulls using Curry's heart condition to leverage conditions that 1) they couldn't dream of getting under any normal circumstances and 2) are not contingent on the heard condition.

If that's the case, and it appears quite possible that it is, the Bulls are treating Curry quite shoddily and he has every right to think they're trying to pull one over on him because they are.

Curry's heart condition is excluded from insurance, not the rest of him. If he broke his leg and never played again, but was under contract, he'd be insured. If he signs a non-guaranteed deal, however, which the Bulls terminate, then it appears to me he wouldn't be insured for the part that gets terminated. In short, he'd get squat even though the insurance is willing to cover his legs.

*That is, I think if the Bulls' offer is truly non-guaranteed, it doesn't just remove Curry's insurance for his heart, it effectively removes it for everything.*

That'd be an utterly foolish offer for him to accept, and it'd be a pretty insulting offer for the Bulls to make.

From the Bulls perspective, they can't have their cake and eat it too. They need to try and minimize the risk that Curry's heart blows up, but conflating everything else (which, if they were worried about they missed the boat on doing something about) into that issue doesn't make any sense. Given that they won't get anything but garbage for him, they're better off taking the chance and reaping the reward that they get him for what turns out to be a good deal when (in all likelihood) he doesn't end up having to retire because of the heart issue.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> The only thing I'm curious about is what conditions are attached to the guaranteed money.
> 
> You also have to look at things from Curry's perspective too. Suppose he breaks his leg and the Bulls just drop him like a bad habit. That's what can happen if Curry takes a non-guaranteed deal, unless the guarantee is strictly contingent on the heart issue.
> 
> ...



I would have a hard time believing this is the case .. logic would dictate that he has an exclusion ...his heart

This is not what Pax has proven he's about


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> The only thing I'm curious about is what conditions are attached to the guaranteed money.
> 
> You also have to look at things from Curry's perspective too. Suppose he breaks his leg and the Bulls just drop him like a bad habit. That's what can happen if Curry takes a non-guaranteed deal, unless the guarantee is strictly contingent on the heart issue.
> 
> ...


Mike, I wrote something similar awhile back in the form of a question. 



> I was thinking about something with these contracts and being partially guaranteed with team vs. Eddy options. Can incentives be objective and tied to the option (not salary incentives, option incentives)? In other words, the team wouldn't have the "option" to re-up Eddy if he meets the objective incentives, the additional guaranteed years of the deal would just kick in.
> 
> Then there could also be a subjective clause that is a pure team option in the event the objective criteria are not satisfied (i.e., this subjective option is not triggered unless the objective incentives are not satisfied). That way, Eddy would, to a much greater degree than a pure team option, hold the fate of his extension in his own hands. He'd be the master of his universe barring health complications beyond his control.
> 
> ...


I have a hard time believing the health based incentives are based on anything other than his heart. I don't know one way or another, of course, but it would really surprise me. 

I think an option like the one I bolded is fair because, say Curry gets the broken leg, the heart issue might not be capable of adequate evaluation. Hence, the process starts over in the second year of the deal at Eddy's option, not the team's.

What do you think?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> The only thing I'm curious about is what conditions are attached to the guaranteed money.
> 
> You also have to look at things from Curry's perspective too. Suppose he breaks his leg and the Bulls just drop him like a bad habit. That's what can happen if Curry takes a non-guaranteed deal, unless the guarantee is strictly contingent on the heart issue.
> 
> ...



Sure, Curry has every right to get as much guaranteed as he can (and should). I agree with you that without knowing what specifics are supposed to be on the table with respect to subsequent years being guaranteed, and what those guarantees entail with respect to it just being his heart or can the Bulls dump him because they don't like his hairstyle.

The thing is, even if Eddy's heart is perfectly fine and he's never going to have another incident like he had towards the end of last season, he's going to have to prove his health. The only way to do that is to play. He's an incredible risk right now from a financial standpoint. I have no idea what Curry's mindset it right now. Would he jump at three years at $21 mil or is that too little? There may be some teams willing to risk taking on Curry with those terms, but would Curry accept those terms? It would seem to me that the more years you'd be willing to guarantee, the less you'd be willing to pay per year for that guarantee. If you'd guarantee three years, maybe you do that at $7mil per year. Wanna go four years? Maybe you do that at $6 mil per. If Curry wants more than that for more years, he's just not living in the real world. I think the really unanswered question is - What is Curry willing to accept and for how many years? I've read nothing citing actual dollars. Just that they want more than just one year guaranteed.

I just don't think Pax is going to budge much on what he's offering Curry. Also, it may well be in Curry's best interest to simply play the year out, stay healthy (hopefully) and get his payday next summer. His value would certainly have to be higher than it is now and you'd think he'd garner a decent payday with a years worth of play under his belt.

I just don't like where this is going from a team standpoint.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I can live without having Curry on the Bulls, even though his post presence will be missed. The thing that's hard to swallow is that his value is absolute rock bottom, and I just don't see a team giving up anything of value for him. It'd be a gamble for them, just like it's a gamble for us to sign him for more than 1 year guarenteed. As far as I'm concerned, our best option is give him the Qualifying Offer, let him build up his market value again, and then see who wants him at mid-season for a playoff run (Sam Smith says we can trade QO players now). And if we lose him for nothing next summer, then we'll just have to find a suitable replacement with our cap room. It sucks I know. But there aren't many options here.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> The only thing I'm curious about is what conditions are attached to the guaranteed money.
> 
> You also have to look at things from Curry's perspective too. Suppose he breaks his leg and the Bulls just drop him like a bad habit. That's what can happen if Curry takes a non-guaranteed deal, unless the guarantee is strictly contingent on the heart issue.
> 
> ...


Well said also signing that contract allows the Bulls to move him so Im sure he doesnt want to sign a small deal to stay with the Bulls only to see them start using him as a trading pawn.Im sure he wants to keep his options open to have a say on where he plays .


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Mike, I wrote something similar awhile back in the form of a question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think what you're writing is probably fair, but my guess at this point is that the Bulls aren't offering anything contingent like that, but rather are looking for a blanket guarantee/non-guarantee or team option.

Like you say, we really can't know, but by this point several articles have been written on the subject and none, I think, have said anything other than "he gets one-year guaranteed".

Wouldn't you think that, given several passes, one of the several Bulls beat writers would have made a distinction if it was there to make?

As time passes and more articles fail to say things like "one year guaranteed" and "team option" and nothing about health contingencies, I think we have to start concluding that it's just not being offered.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> I think what you're writing is probably fair, but my guess at this point is that the Bulls aren't offering anything contingent like that, but rather are looking for a blanket guarantee/non-guarantee or team option.
> 
> Like you say, we really can't know, but by this point several articles have been written on the subject and none, I think, have said anything other than "he gets one-year guaranteed".
> 
> ...


Are those articles saying "team option"? What I recall reading is that they've been saying "one year guaranteed" with the following years based on incentives. I don't recall reading that the rumored deal is one year guaranteed, with a team option, and the following years (if picked up) to be based on incentives. 

EDIT: I may have misread your post. I haven't changed mine though and will await clarification. 

I've been interpreting the articles to mean that the first season is absolutely guaranteed, with the following years to kick in if Eddy meets unspecified health based and/or performance based incentives. 

I'm not saying you are wrong about what the articles have been saying. I'm just basing this on my general recollection and the way I've been interpreting them.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

TW - OT in this thread , in the Herald Article McGraw gets *very specific* with Tysons contract numbers:



> It took two months of negotiations before the Bulls signed Tyson Chandler to a six-year, *$62.87-million* deal last week.


Maybe I missed it , but was the precise number posted before????

62.87 per 6... thats without the incentives.

can someone break this amount down with estimated max raise , I'd like to know how much cap we use , thanx!

(Dalembert will be making 8.8 mil next year - so it's close)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

For the record, I'm not trying to just hammer Bulls management here, but as best I can see they're not making an offer I would accept if I were Curry.

Best I can piece together, they're offering a similar deal to Chandler, except there's effectively a team option at the end of the first year, allowing the Bulls to part ways at their discretion and leave Eddy with very little to show for it. That's an absolutely enormous risk for Curry to bear, one many times greater than his heart problem risks, as far as I can see. For a basketball player, there's still a bigger risk that he's screw up his knee or back or ankle or leg than his heart, given the multiple clearances he's had.

Now, if the option at the end of this year were to be mutual, it would begin to be more realistic since Curry, if he plays well, could opt out and get a better deal and/or a fully insured deal if he can. That's pretty much what every player gets, but at the same time it keeps a fallback in place if everyone agrees to it. Basically, that's a better option than forcing Curry to play for the QO, both because then he can be traded and we maintain a positive framework for future negotations.

If his simply insists the Bulls give him a fully guaranteed deal for six years and bear all the risk, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Bulls to not do that. Yet, Curry has reasonable ground to stand on for asking that. He can, for instance, point out that 

1) The Big Z is getting exactly that sort of deal from Cleveland, and he appears to be a bigger risk than Curry
2) Even if Curry were to retire at the end of the year, the Bulls would still be able to add a $13M player to take his place.

From the Bulls' perspective, they should seriously consider giving Curry more than a one year guarantee if they can get a decent discount, and assuming what's been reported about his heart condition is accurate. They'll still have significant cap room next year, and while they run the risk of Curry's heart acting up, they also have a pretty good chance of getting a favorable contract on a player they couldn't otherwise get.

However, at this point I'm starting to seriously think there's more to the heart issue than is being let on. The Bulls must think there's a substantial chance of recurrence if they aren't willing to take a chance here.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Are those articles saying "team option"? What I recall reading is that they've been saying "one year guaranteed" with the following years based on incentives. I don't recall reading that the rumored deal is one year guaranteed, with a team option, and the following years (if picked up) to be based on incentives.
> 
> EDIT: I may have misread your post. I haven't changed mine though and will await clarification.
> 
> ...


It's probably semantics, but if there's no guarantee on any year after the first, it's implicitly at the team's option.

McGraw:


> Because the NBA’s insurance carrier refused to cover Curry’s next contract if a heart problem forces the 6-foot-11 center to stop playing, the Bulls are willing to guarantee only the first season, according to a team source.


From the earlier article on Chandler:




> The one major task still on Paxson’s to-do list is re-signing center Eddy Curry. When Paxson met Tuesday with Curry’s agent, Leon Rose, he left a contract offer to consider.
> 
> The offer to Curry is loaded with health- and performance-related incentives, according to a source. *The Bulls are willing to guarantee just one season for not much more than the qualifying offer of $5.14 million.*If he meets the incentives, the deal could grow into Chandler-sized figures of roughly $64 million over six years.


From the Sun Times


> Because of the irregular heartbeat that sidelined Curry late last season, no insurance company has been willing to cover any part of a guaranteed contract. Rose and Curry are seeking a longer-term deal, but the Bulls are reluctant to insure anything beyond the one-year qualifying offer.


From all of that, it appears the only thing the Bulls are guaranteeing is this coming year. Even the McGraw article that mentions health and performance related incentives doesn't tie them to the guarantee at all. It's more like the contract is guaranteed for a year, and if the Bulls do not terminate it, then there are numerous health and performance incentives.

Otherwise, it just doesn't make much sense. A contract dependent on a health condition is guaranteed, it's just contingent on something happening (Curry being healthy or not). Every time I've ever heard the term guaranteed or insured, it seems to mean the team can opt out if it wants to. I could, of course, be wrong, but it seems like one of these writers would want to explain things if it's not just a team option. Further, if I were the Bulls, I'd want it to be well known too, since it makes it clear they're not offering such a one sided deal.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> However, at this point I'm starting to seriously think there's more to the heart issue than is being let on. The Bulls must think there's a substantial chance of recurrence if they aren't willing to take a chance here.


I've been thinking that for a couple of weeks myself.

Question: *What possible motive could Eddy Curry have for NOT getting the DNA test performed privately?* There is no downside for him. 

If the test turns out well, he releases the results. If it is poor, he knows more about his own health and no one would ever need to know the results or the fact that the test was even taken.

I know this is the type of speculative stretch that I often condemn, but doesn't the lack of a release by Eddy that his DNA test turned out positively (or negatively, I suppose, is the proper medical term) concern anyone?

Its starting to concern me, however irrational that might be.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

I'm getting more and more nervous about this whole Eddy situation . . . I don't have nearly the amount of info on it that I'd like with me living away from home. It just sounds to me that there has to be more to the heart ailment than is being reported. This makes me listen to the prospect of a S&T even more, because I think that Eddy and filler can at least fetch a decent 2nd or 3rd string SG from some team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I've been thinking that for a couple of weeks myself.
> 
> Question: *What possible motive could Eddy Curry have for NOT getting the DNA test performed privately?* There is no downside for him.
> 
> ...


Maybe he was just sick and tired of being poked and prodded and stuck with needles on a regular basis.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I've been thinking that for a couple of weeks myself.
> 
> Question: *What possible motive could Eddy Curry have for NOT getting the DNA test performed privately?* There is no downside for him.
> 
> ...


There's plenty of downside in relation to the test's lack of conclusiveness -- both with the test itself (there are several genetic markers for HCP, so it's not always a clear-cut result) and what the result actually means in terms of his health (Curry could develop HCP later on regardless of his genetic predisposition to it; he could also never develop it despite a genetic profile that might heavily suggest that he will).

Furthermore, at least two of the world's preeminent specialists in the field are telling him he doesn't need to take a DNA test. And the one who DOES want him to take the DNA test has given Curry the exact same diagnosis as the two who have cleared him; he just sees the test as an extra precautionary step. 

And, importantly -- as far as I can recall, we have seen nothing to suggest that Curry's unwillingness to take a DNA test is what's keeping him from getting insurance. All the DNA stuff came up after Curry saw Dr. Maron and when the issue was whether Curry would be able to play, period.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mike:



> The offer to Curry *is loaded with health- and performance-related incentives*, according to a source. The Bulls are willing to guarantee just one season for not much more than the qualifying offer of $5.14 million.*If he meets the incentives, the deal could grow into Chandler-sized figures of roughly $64 million over six years*.


Right or wrong, the way I've been reading that type of language is that those incentives are included in the first year as well and, if met, lead to an extension of further years and further incentives. I think the articles are ambiguous, but your interpretation is certainly reasonable.

Thanks for the blurbs.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Maybe he was just sick and tired of being poked and prodded and stuck with needles on a regular basis.


If that is indeed the reason that he is risking a possible long term, $60 million dollar deal, then he's either an idiot or he has some type of phobia.

I find it unfathomable.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> *There's plenty of downside in relation to the test's lack of conclusiveness* -- both with the test itself (there are several genetic markers for HCP, so it's not always a clear-cut result) and what the result actually means in terms of his health (Curry could develop HCP later on regardless of his genetic predisposition to it; he could also never develop it despite a genetic profile that might heavily suggest that he will).
> 
> Furthermore, at least two of the world's preeminent specialists in the field are telling him he doesn't need to take a DNA test. And the one who DOES want him to take the DNA test has given Curry the exact same diagnosis as the two who have cleared him; he just sees the test as an extra precautionary step.
> 
> And, importantly -- as far as I can recall, we have seen nothing to suggest that Curry's unwillingness to take a DNA test is what's keeping him from getting insurance. All the DNA stuff came up after Curry saw Dr. Maron and when the issue was whether Curry would be able to play, period.


Conclusiveness is irrelevent to my question. I agree with every thing you wrote with the exception that it somehow represents a downside to *privately taking a test whose results (and the existence of the test itself) he can hide from the light of day at his own discretion.* 

I see no downside identified in what you wrote due to the simple fact that Eddy has 100% control over the information. 

If the test is positive (negative) Eddy can use it to bolster his stance that he is healthy. Is it a guarantee to riches? Is it the trump card to get insurance? I don't know. But I certainly don't see how it hurts his cause.

And lets look at it from a purely personal point of view and ignore the $. If it was my body, I'd like to have the results of a test whose significance may be inconclusive, but is at least advocated by one leading expert in the field. I can do what I want with the results. I can rely on them or not in determining my own future at my own discretion. But I'd rather have the information than not have it, wouldn't you? 

I'm not trying to defend anyone or set an agenda. *I'm just trying to logically think this through and I keep coming to one, admittedly speculative, conclusion: He took the test. The absence of reasons not to is deafening given his absolute control over the existence and results of the test.*


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I've been thinking that for a couple of weeks myself.
> 
> Question: *What possible motive could Eddy Curry have for NOT getting the DNA test performed privately?* There is no downside for him.
> 
> ...



I dont know about that I would think that if the test turned out bad he would have to under the terms of the cba alert the team to a serious health issue like that .By not taking the test he doesnt even have to make that decision good or bad .


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I dont know about that I would think that if the test turned out bad he would have to under the terms of the cba alert the team to a serious health issue like that .By not taking the test he doesnt even have to make that decision good or bad .


If that is indeed true, and there is something that would take the control of the existence and results of the test out of Curry's hands, then I'd immediately abandon what I wrote.

That would change everything.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Conclusiveness is irrelevent to my question. I agree with every thing you wrote with the exception that it somehow represents a downside to *privately taking a test whose results (and the existence of the test itself) he can hide from the light of day at his own discretion.*
> 
> I see no downside identified in what you wrote due to the simple fact that Eddy has 100% control over the information.
> 
> ...


I don't think your conclusion is logical at all. At the very least, it favors your hunches over the opinions of some of the world's very best doctors.

DaBullz's point about Curry's being fed up with testing is actually pretty relevant here. Curry has spent weeks getting tested and re-tested. If the doctors who've medically cleared him -- the same doctors whose diagnoses the Bulls and the NBA are comfortable enough with to let Curry resume playing professional basketball -- are saying this test is at best elective, Curry's reluctance to take the test is understandable.

The kicker is that Maron HIMSELF most likely told Curry that the DNA test is, to a incalculable degree, inconclusive with regards to HCP. A cardiologist with whom I've discussed the Curry case confirmed this.

So,

1. The doctors who got Curry back onto an NBA court have told Eddy the test isn't necessary.

2. The very same doctor who wants him to take the DNA test has told him the results won't 100% accurate.

3. There isn't, so far as we know, any connection whatsoever between Eddy's unwillingness to take a DNA test with his failure to secure third-party insurance for his contract.

As to whether or not I'd take the DNA test if I were in Eddy's shoes, it's tough to say. It'd probably depend on the extent of the testing that Gayle had following her heart attack.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm on the fence about the DNA test.

Truthhurts might be right on the money, but lets imagine he's not.

And let's suppose Curry takes the test and it indicates he has a genetic predisposition to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. What additional operable information does this provide Eddy?

I don't think it'd be enough to make him retire, since, clearly his heart did shrink with inactivity the last time, thus indicating that whatever happened was not cardiomyopathy.

It also wouldn't change my testing regime, since I'd already be as careful as I possibly could be to keep checking up on myself.

In short, I don't think getting a bad test result would change anything. If he has any sense (which is questionable), he's already doing everything he can do.

To draw a parallel, suppose it starts pouring rain when I get off work. Assume I'm already a careful driver who obeys all the laws. I can't be any "more" careful, but due to the rain, I have a significantly higher chance of having an accident on the way home. But whether it rains or not, I'm going home, and that doesn't really change.

On the other hand, I'd probably throw logic to the wind and get the test anyway. Then feel a constant sense of dread I can do nothing about when it turns out I do have a genetic predisposition.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Not to redredge up all this medical stuff, but I thought Currys' heart didn't shrink in the six weeks he laid off and that's why there was the need for additional tests and ultimately this whole DNA testing suggestion. In other words, after his six week rest, his heart didn't shrink down as was expected which gave the docs additional reasons for concern. The thickness in the wall of his heart did not reduce, which the docs hoped would happen.

Whether Curry has taken this DNA test or not I don't think is too relavent. As has been stated, the test in and of itself can only describe a predisposition towards hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (or whatever it's called!) and not that he actually has that particular condition.

I'm going to be curious to see in the ensuing weeks, with Pax having basically opened his office to any and all offers for Curry, if any semi-reliable rumours surface about teams contacting him regarding Curry. I'm interested to see if other teams stay away from Eddy even when his value is at an all-time low or will there be enough bargain shoppers around to possibly drive his value up to where it might make sense to trade him. Kinda like an E-Bay auction!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Just found this, FWIW:



> ''I was really thrilled when Mr. Reinsdorf came to visit me when I was in Rush Presbyterian Hospital. That was real nice of him. Everybody's been just great. But I had to lay low and keep quiet. I didn't return a lot of calls and talk to too many people because I just didn't have anything to say and I didn't want to say the wrong thing. I was waiting for other people to tell me what the situation was. But I didn't have to take a DNA test after all. The doctor said I didn't need it.''


http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-eddy24.html


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Not to redredge up all this medical stuff, but I thought Currys' heart didn't shrink in the six weeks he laid off and that's why there was the need for additional tests and ultimately this whole DNA testing suggestion. In other words, after his six week rest, his heart didn't shrink down as was expected which gave the docs additional reasons for concern. The thickness in the wall of his heart did not reduce, which the docs hoped would happen.


Six weeks is just a guideline, kind of like the timetable a doctor gives you to heal a broken bone or get over a case of the chicken pox. I remember there being some concern after six weeks, but the fact that the heart thickening diminished after seven or eight or twelve weeks is the important thing -- HCP is permanent and non-reversible.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Six weeks is just a guideline, kind of like the timetable a doctor gives you to heal a broken bone or get over a case of the chicken pox. I remember there being some concern after six weeks, but the fact that the heart thickening diminished after seven or eight or twelve weeks is the important thing -- HCP is permanent and non-reversible.


So, his heart actually did reduce in size over time? I just don't recall ever reading anything definative about that, but I know you've been on top of his whole medical condition a lot more than I. That really is good news for Curry.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I don't think your conclusion is logical at all.


That may very well be true. I admitted that it was irrational and speculative. Yet it is where I end up.



> At the very least, it favors your hunches over the opinions of some of the world's very best doctors.


That, however, is not true since one "of the world's very best doctors" has recommended it. It is that sole recommendation upon which I base my reasoning. 



> DaBullz's point about Curry's being fed up with testing is actually pretty relevant here. Curry has spent weeks getting tested and re-tested. If the doctors who've medically cleared him -- the same doctors whose diagnoses the Bulls and the NBA are comfortable enough with to let Curry resume playing professional basketball -- are saying this test is at best elective, Curry's reluctance to take the test is understandable.


Agree to disagree. If the reason is simply that he's tired of going to see doctors, he's an idiot. No one is ever going to convince me that this is a legitimate reason to not take the test under these circumstances. We are not talking about someone who has taken chemotherapy for years and has seen the quality of their life nosedive to the point that they simply don't think its worth the trouble. 

You guys are making Curry sound like a lab rat when it has widely been reported that he was been working out for over a month and even vacationing in Mexico.



> The kicker is that Maron HIMSELF most likely told Curry that the DNA test is, to a incalculable degree, inconclusive with regards to HCP. A cardiologist with whom I've discussed the Curry case confirmed this.


So? Dr. Maron, regardless of any supposed speech regarding inconclusiveness (which is hardly unusual in the medical field), *recommends the test.* Given the choice between no test and test, he suggests test. Thats the bottom line and his expertise is widely recognized though, with regard to this particular issue, obviously not followed by all of his peers. 



> So,
> 
> 1. The doctors who got Curry back onto an NBA court have told Eddy the test isn't necessary.
> 
> ...


I've addressed #1 and #3 previously. #2 is a guess you are making and the term "accurate" is not the same as "conclusive". And, as noted above, said doctor still advocates that Curry take the test.

I still don't see an argument for the downside *assuming Eddy has total control over the results and existence of the test.* Can someone provide me a concise argument that a downside exists, incorporating the bolded assumption? 

I realize the test is not conclusive, Scott, and you are the most knowledgable poster on this board when it comes to these medical issues. I rely heavily on, and trust, the accuracy of your factual statements when it comes to this. 

But the test inarguably supplies additional information and, *if positive (negative) it is information that can only help Curry's cause, it cannot hurt his position in any way.* If the information *is negative (positive) no one will ever know except Eddy*, and that is information that is his to use however he sees fit in making decisions about his life.

What is the actual downside to his negotiation position in taking the test privately?


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

Eddy playing with just the QO is perfect for the Bulls. Eddys severe history of laziness and add to that his "heart problems" makes him as bigger liability as Ron Artests fists. Its my thoughts that unless Pax gets the contract structured just the way he wants it, this is exactly what he'll play for. End of story. 

If he gets through the season and plays well, Pax will give im a juicy contract and he wont even look anywhere else. Pax has on his side that Eddy wants to stay in Chicago.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Its not going to happen plain as that. All this is is Isiah Thomas talking out of his *** about how he can work the magic and get Curry there with a big contract. Knicks don't have a big contract to offer him, just the MLE, so the Bulls don't have to sweat anything....and Knicks used their MLE, so LLE....they probaly spent that too, so the veterans minimum! Eddy will be back on the Bulls next year, simple as that.


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

sloth said:


> Its not going to happen plain as that. All this is is Isiah Thomas talking out of his *** about how he can work the magic and get Curry there with a big contract. Knicks don't have a big contract to offer him, just the MLE, so the Bulls don't have to sweat anything....and Knicks used their MLE, so LLE....they probaly spent that too, so the veterans minimum! *Eddy will be back on the Bulls next year, simple as that*.


Agreed. Its not as if other teams are lined up willing and waiting to pay Eddy big money. Paxson isnt being that one big bad GM that doesn't want to fork out for him. Eddy isnt a hot commodity right now. He will be playing for the bulls most likely for the QO and if not a new contract will be on Pax's terms. As Ive stated before, having Eddy on a 1 year deal is ideal for any season to make sure he's motivated.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Also, why do a sign and trade for Isiahs junk, we might get Sweetney, but we'd get tons of other crap with him, and Sweetney is closer to crap than above average. We can let Eddy walk and take his minimum contract with the Knicks. No need for us to do a sign and trade.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

sloth said:


> Its not going to happen plain as that. *All this is is Isiah Thomas talking out of his *** about how he can work the magic and get Curry there with a big contract*. Knicks don't have a big contract to offer him, just the MLE, so the Bulls don't have to sweat anything....and Knicks used their MLE, so LLE....they probaly spent that too, so the veterans minimum! Eddy will be back on the Bulls next year, simple as that.


Where is Isiah quoted anywhere in the article ?

also 

Eddys playing for the QO is not a good thing for the Bulls as they cant trade him without his permission and next year he can sign anywhere he wants for any amount he wants with the Bulls getting no compensation.Does anyone really believe Pax wants Eddy to play for the QO when he could have a huge year and never have a heart related problem again and the Bulls receive nothing in return .Nothing involving his illness is a sure thing it could go either way depending on whose opinion you would like to believe .


----------



## Shermitt (Nov 10, 2003)

Didn't Curry and Leon Rose asked the Bulls to give him a Max deal after hearing what Tyson got? The situation is going to get messy. The Bulls don't mind paying Curry the money he deserves, but they want to make sure he can play. However, Curry wants to be paid based on his potential and what he would have been paid if he didn't have his heart ailment. 
If his heart is fine, why isn't he going into full workout mode with Tim Grover and get into shape. With all this contract talk and Curry being idle, he's going to look like the Eddy Curry of 2 seasons ago. Checking into camp out of shape and being lost for the first several months of the season.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

In today's interview on the Score, Paxson repeated his desire to see Eddy take the DNA test.

Unless we haven't gotten the full medical story through the media, this desire is starting to smell like a rat.

Let me get this straight -- the Bulls are comfortable with the diagnoses of Cannom and Estes when it comes to getting Eddy clearance (possibly paving the way for a sign-and-trade), but when it comes to discussing a contract for Eddy to stay with the Bulls, they can't get around the DNA test?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

If Paxdorf still have genuine medical concerns/questions, it is high time to do what I've been asking them to do since April -- get all the doctors together in a room or on a conference call and let 'em talk it out. It happens every single day in the real world, and not for just elite rich people, either.

(Are you paying attention, Leon Rose?)


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

Let's just have faithin pax and see how this dilio works out... I am sure that Pax will set something straight with the bulls so we don't have a gaping hole in our post game... with or without curry


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> In today's interview on the Score, Paxson repeated his desire to see Eddy take the DNA test.
> 
> Unless we haven't gotten the full medical story through the media, this desire is starting to smell like a rat.
> 
> ...



I admit, I'm quite curious why Pax even mentioned the DNA test at all in the radio interview. I wouldn't say I "smell a rat" necessarily, but perhaps his lack of a DNA test impacts his ability to find an outside insurance carrier. That's really my best guess. Or maybe Pax was just rehashing old info based on the questions he was being asked...I only read the RealGM summary that mizenkay posted, so I'm not sure what the questions were.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I can live without having Curry on the Bulls, even though his post presence will be missed. The thing that's hard to swallow is that his value is absolute rock bottom, and I just don't see a team giving up anything of value for him. It'd be a gamble for them, just like it's a gamble for us to sign him for more than 1 year guarenteed. As far as I'm concerned, our best option is give him the Qualifying Offer, let him build up his market value again, and then see who wants him at mid-season for a playoff run (Sam Smith says we can trade QO players now). And if we lose him for nothing next summer, then we'll just have to find a suitable replacement with our cap room. It sucks I know. But there aren't many options here.


I can't think of one suitable replacement that can be signed next year. Nobody brings his post game to the table....at least, nobody that will sign with us for less money.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> In today's interview on the Score, Paxson repeated his desire to see Eddy take the DNA test.
> 
> Unless we haven't gotten the full medical story through the media, this desire is starting to smell like a rat.
> 
> ...



Yes, Paxson repeated his desire for Eddy to take the DNA test. In the context of what he was talking about, he referred to the test as a tool (his exact words). It's another piece of information that can be used to evaluate Eddy's risk. Pax even said the test is not the end-all-be-all of things. He acknowledged that all the test can do is to point to a predisposition of a potential problem and not to the problem itself. Pax is viewing the DNA test as more input with which to make an educated decision - that's all.

I can all but guarantee you that you (or I or anybody else in the media) don't know the full story here. You question Pax and Dorf's motives in allowing him to play but having problems giving him a contract and you say you smell a rat. Does Reindsorf also control every friggin' insurance company on the face of the planet also? Seems to me that while the insurance companies have no problem with Eddy playing - they just don't want the assumed risk of insuring him. Why not rail at the insurance companies like you go after Pax and Reinsdorf?

Paxson is not demanding that Eddy take a DNA test. He's stating that he'd like to have that additional information in order to make a better informed decision. Shame on him for wanting as much factual information as possible. He should just use his Magic 8-Ball. He's acknowledged that it is Eddy's right to take it or not. He's simply saying that without it, he has a more difficult decision to make. Is that so hard to fathom?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Yes, Paxson repeated his desire for Eddy to take the DNA test. In the context of what he was talking about, he referred to the test as a tool (his exact words). It's another piece of information that can be used to evaluate Eddy's risk. Pax even said the test is not the end-all-be-all of things. He acknowledged that all the test can do is to point to a predisposition of a potential problem and not to the problem itself. Pax is viewing the DNA test as more input with which to make an educated decision - that's all.
> 
> I can all but guarantee you that you (or I or anybody else in the media) don't know the full story here. You question Pax and Dorf's motives in allowing him to play but having problems giving him a contract and you say you smell a rat. Does Reindsorf also control every friggin' insurance company on the face of the planet also? Seems to me that while the insurance companies have no problem with Eddy playing - they just don't want the assumed risk of insuring him. Why not rail at the insurance companies like you go after Pax and Reinsdorf?
> 
> Paxson is not demanding that Eddy take a DNA test. He's stating that he'd like to have that additional information in order to make a better informed decision. Shame on him for wanting as much factual information as possible. He should just use his Magic 8-Ball. He's acknowledged that it is Eddy's right to take it or not. He's simply saying that without it, he has a more difficult decision to make. Is that so hard to fathom?


I'm not the one having trouble fathoming things. John Paxson is, at least if you assume that his questions in relation to the DNA test are genuine, not part of a disingenuous attempt to continue to squeeze Eddy between a rock and a hard place.

Shouldn't Paxson have all the medical issues completely and confidently wrapped up before he even considers offering Eddy ANY kind of a contract? We're talking about the guy's heart, after all. His heart! If Paxson has any nagging doubts at all, again, put all talk of a contract aside, call in the doctors, including a league-appointed doctor who would rule on whether or not Curry could qualify for medical retirement if it came down to that, and get the health stuff resolved once and for all. 

Tying in the DNA test to the duration and dollar amount of Eddy's contract is unethical at best, illegal at worst, and no matter how you slice it, just a rotten thing to do from a human-being perspective.

One more thing: pardon me for not giving a good goddamn about the insurance companies' refusing to pick up Eddy's contract. If insurance companies weren't regulated, no one under 30 would be able to drive a car, no one over 40 would be able to get medical insurance, and minorities probably wouldn't be able to get insurance of any kind whatsoever. So I don't consider their opinion to be a beacon of moral or economic clarity.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Why is a DNA test a bad thing again ?

Oh yeah .. that's right..no one might like what it implies

Eddy ( if he hasn't had one ) gets proper information 

The Bulls get proper information (if released info relates to heart with no entitlement to anything else ...that would circumvent all the Orwellian conspiracy theorists and The Whispering Class / Chardonnay set )

Eddy and his pimps were worried that any adverse info would have put his value in the toilet

Well..nothing to lose now seeing as though Eddy's value is so in the toilet... and its not even a nice toilet..y'know with a bidet...its like one of those Middle Easten crappers where you have to assume the position and put your feet in the starting blocks 

Just get it done already 

The Bulls wanted him to have it way back when .. Camp Curry. Pax hasn't wavered but has had to start dealing to some degree based on certain actions that have not been willing to be undertaken by Camp Curry that could have nipped it in the Bud earlier 

I would bet a lifetime of oral sex that Kamp Kurry has already had one on the QT


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Why is a DNA test a bad thing again ?
> 
> Eddy ( if he hasn't had one ) gets proper information
> 
> ...


Posts like these really make me regret I spent any time at all this summer reading up on Eddy's condition and attempting to convey what I know here.

Nothing personal, Abe.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I take it no one is going to directly answer my question as to what the downside of Curry getting the DNA test done privately would be. 

I'll assume that means we all agree that it can't possibly adversely affect his bargaining position, and can only either maintain the status quo or help his argument, assuming he has control over the release of the information and the existence of the test.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Posts like these really make me regret I spent any time at all this summer reading up on Eddy's condition and attempting to convey what I know here.
> 
> Nothing personal, Abe.


No offense taken

I must have missed that bit about why I would take it personal ???

We can read and convey and speculate about the subterfuge all we like 

At the end of the day no one knows 

We just wax on because its something to rap about 

At this point... I don't see why it wouldn't be done 

And if its not done ... then no worries ..say hello to the QO or a S and T 

There are all types of rights for all types of people . Everyone has rights. Everyone


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I take it no one is going to directly answer my question as to what the downside of Curry getting the DNA test done privately would be.
> 
> I'll assume that means we all agree that it can't possibly adversely affect his bargaining position, and can only either maintain the status quo or help his argument, assuming he has control over the release of the information and the existence of the test.


Exactly as I intimated Ronald 

Power to the people is the agenda with healthy lashings of death to the Dickensian oppressor


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I take it no one is going to directly answer my question as to what the downside of Curry getting the DNA test done privately would be.
> 
> I'll assume that means we all agree that it can't possibly adversely affect his bargaining position, and can only either maintain the status quo or help his argument, assuming he has control over the release of the information and the existence of the test.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2588938&postcount=29


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Well I guess that Pax wanted a unanimous decision 

And if I recall it was put forward to Camp Curry early and they refused

I agree ..its not the panacea and THE definitive document 

But with stuff all options ..at this point what harm does it actually do if you quarantine the data to the operative condition ?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Well I guess that Pax wanted a unanimous decision
> 
> And if I recall it was put forward to Camp Curry early and they refused
> 
> ...


Per the fact sheet put out by the lab at Harvard that processes Dr. Maron's tests, *DNA testing for HCM is accurate only 55-70% of the time, and -- very importantly -- that is in patients who actually have clinically evident / diagnosed HCP (which Eddy does not). *

http://www.hpcgg.org/LMM/comment/print/HCM_info.pdf

It is not normal cardiological process to perform an HCM DNA test on a patient w/o clinically evident HCM unless a first-degree relative has died from or been diagnosed with HCM.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2588938&postcount=29


As I said, that addresses conclusiveness and I agree with you. But conclusiveness has no bearing on whether or not a downside exists as to Curry's bargaining power (assuming he has total control over release of the existence and results of the test), a point you have skirted and failed to address. Presumably, because there is no downside.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> One more thing: pardon me for not giving a good goddamn about the insurance companies' refusing to pick up Eddy's contract. If insurance companies weren't regulated, no one under 30 would be able to drive a car, no one over 40 would be able to get medical insurance, and minorities probably wouldn't be able to get insurance of any kind whatsoever. So I don't consider their opinion to be a beacon of moral or economic clarity.




Yeah, ummm, NO. Actually, insurance companies would only insure people in their 20's (As they utilize insurance the least).

And having a DNA test is not unethical seeing as it has a very direct bearing on his ABILITY to LIVE and Work.

If Curry comes back and, God Forbid, dies on the court, people would be screaming more should've been done. They'll say there was a simple DNA test that would've shown if had a genetic defect that could KILL him by continuing his career. They'll go on to say, The Bulls or whichever rteam he's on, didn't care about him, they only cared about getting a seven footer with offensive skills on the court to win.

The thing that boggles my mind about this is that if I'm eddy, I'm atleast taking the test for my own purposes to know myself. Who knows, Eddy may have done that and not gotten the news we all pray he gets.



Final note from from wise parenting handbook - Just because the other kids are willing to jump off a building doesn't mean you should to.

We all want Eddy in a Uni, but health comes first.


PS - Even if the Bulls are doing this purely for business (which I don't believe)......Isn't that what Eddy is doing to as well, trying to take care of his business needs? Cause basketball is not the most important thing in life, your health is.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Per the fact sheet put out by the lab at Harvard that processes Dr. Maron's tests, *DNA testing for HCM is accurate only 55-70% of the time, and -- very importantly -- that is in patients who actually have clinically evident / diagnosed HCP (which Eddy does not). *
> 
> http://www.hpcgg.org/LMM/comment/print/HCM_info.pdf
> 
> It is not normal cardiological process to perform an HCM DNA test on a patient w/o clinically evident HCM unless a first-degree relative has died from or been diagnosed with HCM.


Thank you for the information, as always. It begs the question, why does Dr. Maron recommend the test?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Per the fact sheet put out by the lab at Harvard that processes Dr. Maron's tests, *DNA testing for HCM is accurate only 55-70% of the time, and -- very importantly -- that is in patients who actually have clinically evident / diagnosed HCP (which Eddy does not). *
> 
> http://www.hpcgg.org/LMM/comment/print/HCM_info.pdf
> 
> It is not normal cardiological process to perform an HCM DNA test on a patient w/o clinically evident HCM unless a first-degree relative has died from or been diagnosed with HCM.


OK 

So why did the good doctor state a preference for a DNA test

I am not arguing to its inconclusiveness 

Hell ..I am not even arguing as to its need right now

There is a certain politics to this that civil liberties aside should just be taken care of to shut the boss man up and take this angle away from him in the negotiation process 

I call it just getting on with it

But that's Eddy's right/decision not to do it which means he will likely play for the QO and still be up in the air next summer


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Thank you for the information, as always. It begs the question, why does Dr. Maron recommend the test?


 Just what I queried too


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

chifaninca said:


> The thing that boggles my mind about this is that if I'm eddy, I'm atleast taking the test for my own purposes to know myself. Who knows, Eddy may have done that and not gotten the news we all pray he gets.
> 
> PS - Even if the Bulls are doing this purely for business (which I don't believe)......Isn't that what Eddy is doing to as well, trying to take care of his business needs? Cause basketball is not the most important thing in life, your health is.


As to the first part, that, in a nutshell, is what I've been trying to get at in this thread. There is no logical (being tired of needles and doctors is not logical under the circumstances) explanation for Curry not privately taking the DNA test for his own purposes.

As to the second, evidently you didn't get the memo: People are allowed to make rational business decisions in their best financial interests. Corporations are not, at least not without being vilified for it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> As I said, that addresses conclusiveness and I agree with you. But conclusiveness has no bearing on whether or not a downside exists as to Curry's bargaining power (assuming he has total control over release of the existence and results of the test), a point you have skirted and failed to address. Presumably, because there is no downside.


Would you elect to have a spinal tap if you didn't have any symptoms of meningitis?

Would you get rabies shots if you hadn't been bitten by a wild animal?

Would you get a root canal on a tooth if it was perfectly healthy?

Extreme examples, perhaps, but approximate to what Maron's asking Curry to do. Current medical convention is not to DNA test for HCM in the absence of clinical symptoms AND a family history of the disease.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Would you elect to have a spinal tap if you didn't have any symptoms of meningitis?
> 
> Would you get rabies shots if you hadn't been bitten by a wild animal?
> 
> ...



Correct me if I am wrong here but isn't a DNA test rather simple and non invasive (non painful) compared to the things you mentioned above?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Correct me if I am wrong here but isn't a DNA test rather simple and non invasive (non painful) compared to the things you mentioned above?


It is! It can be done with blood, saliva, semen, skin, or any other tissue or fluid that contains genetic materials.

(My point wasn't that those tests are painful, just that they were unnecessary in the absence of clinical symptoms. Just like Eddy.)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Would you elect to have a spinal tap if you didn't have any symptoms of meningitis?
> 
> Would you get rabies shots if you hadn't been bitten by a wild animal?
> 
> ...


Your response isn't even in the same neighborhood as my simple question. What is the downside you are describing, the inconvenience of the test? If that is your answer, then fine, just say it. Though that has nothing to do with a downside to bargaining power.

Otherwise this is just page 3 of deflection from a very simple question. 

P.S. I doubt a nationally recognized expert in the field of root canals would recommend that I get one performed on a healthy tooth. Same as your other examples. 

The simple truth is, you can't get around the fact that one of a handful of nationally recognized experts recommends submission to the DNA test. This alone nullifies every suggestion you make about the Bulls "unethical" or "illegal" conduct. This alone justifies the existence of reason in the Bulls' conduct. 

What remains is merely an issue of the degree of that reasonableness, which can be fairly and logically debated. But any argument that begins with the premise of unreasonableness, is invalid on its face by operation of Maron's recommendation.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I'm not the one having trouble fathoming things. John Paxson is, at least if you assume that his questions in relation to the DNA test are genuine, not part of a disingenuous attempt to continue to squeeze Eddy between a rock and a hard place.


I really have no idea how you view the world. All Pax wants is a DNA test that one of the leading experts in the field suggested would be a good idea to do. There's no disingenuous squeezing of Curry or anything like that going on. Think it thru Scott. Why in the world would Pax be trying to further drive down Eddy's value if he ultimately doesn't want him on the team? Wouldn't it make more sense to do whatever he could to drive Curry's value up in the eyes of the rest of the league? You keep alluding to all these sinister alterior motives that make no sense from the Teams standpoint. It's really quite simple - one of the experts in the area has suggested this test as a means of gathering more information and Pax seems to think that's a reasonable thing to do.



> Shouldn't Paxson have all the medical issues completely and confidently wrapped up before he even considers offering Eddy ANY kind of a contract? We're talking about the guy's heart, after all. His heart! If Paxson has any nagging doubts at all, again, put all talk of a contract aside, call in the doctors, including a league-appointed doctor who would rule on whether or not Curry could qualify for medical retirement if it came down to that, and get the health stuff resolved once and for all.


Please, tell me, how can Pax have all the medical issues resolved when Curry refuses to take the DNA test? And yes, we are talking about the guys heart and from what I can gather, Pax is doing everything he can to make sure that Curry's ticker is fine - he's trying to make sure his boss makes a smart, informed investment rather than an uninformed one. Again, what's wrong with that? Regardless of all your postulating, there is not a consensus of opinion here. You constantly harp on the LA doctor as to clearing Curry and constantly ignore the others who have not. Do ya think maybe there might be some confusion or at least uncertainty about Eddy's heart here? You can have your medical pow-wow but the end result won't change - there will not be a meeting of the minds and a consensus of opinion. 



> Tying in the DNA test to the duration and dollar amount of Eddy's contract is unethical at best, illegal at worst, and no matter how you slice it, just a rotten thing to do from a human-being perspective.


Please show me where, exactly Paxson or Reinsdorf have tied the length and value of Eddy's contract to the DNA test. They have asked for it all along, but I've never heard, read or otherwise gleaned from any source anywhere that they are basing their decisions on Eddy's contract on the DNA test. If you have information to the contrary, I'd be very interested in seeing it.



> One more thing: pardon me for not giving a good goddamn about the insurance companies' refusing to pick up Eddy's contract. If insurance companies weren't regulated, no one under 30 would be able to drive a car, no one over 40 would be able to get medical insurance, and minorities probably wouldn't be able to get insurance of any kind whatsoever. So I don't consider their opinion to be a beacon of moral or economic clarity.


How convienent of you. Problem is, they are regulated and hence they HAVE to look at Curry and his insurability. Since their decisions don't fit your view of things, you disregard them. Just like the docs who aren't convinced Curry is "just fine", you simply choose to ignore them. Way to be open-minded about things. So, let's disregard the insurance companies. What about the 29 other GM's? Does their utter lack of any response to a supposedly fine Eddy Curry mean anything to you? I mean, a doctor in LA has cleared him to play, and in your mind, that should be more than sufficient for all parties involved. Everything else appears to be just a lot of noise generated by the evil triumverate of The Bulls, The Insurance Companies and all those other experts who really don't know anything. Forgive me if I don't happen to share your opinion on this.

The Bulls aren't tying the DNA test to the dollars and length of Eddy's contract. They want the test to help them make a better decision. If it were to come back in Curry's favor, I'm sure they'd be more inclined to offer more years. If it came back as bad news, they may well pull any offer and simply turn him loose. As it stands, they are dealing with the information they have. Why in the world is that such a bad thing? You're never going to get a medical consensus of opinion. It's just not going to happen. That's why this thing has drawn out for as long as it has and it will continue to do so. The heart is a complex muscle and anything short of opening up Curry's chest and having a good look-see is going to generate doubt and differences of opinion.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The simple truth is, you can't get around the fact that one of a handful of nationally recognized experts recommends submission to the DNA test. This alone nullifies every suggestion you make about the Bulls "unethical" or "illegal" conduct. This alone justifies the existence of reason in the Bulls' conduct.


The result of untreated HCM in a competitive athlete is, inevitably, death.

If the only way the Bulls feel 100% certain that Eddy won't die during a practice or game until he's had the DNA test, they should resolve that before offering him a contract of ANY length. 

Anything else strikes me as unethical. 

(Note: I remain supremely confident in Estes, Cannom, Maron, et. al's diagnosis -- I'm just looking at this from what must be the Bulls' point of view, given Paxson's continued invoking of the DNA test)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The simple truth is, you can't get around the fact that one of a handful of nationally recognized experts recommends submission to the DNA test.


Why do you think that Paxson chose to publicly embrace this minority opinion?

Why is the DNA Test... which the majority of doctors involved do not require and that has a questionable level of conclusiveness... what Paxson releases to the media?

All the information that Paxson has his in brain about this issue... and the DNA test... which your average person without medical training can't even really understand one way or the other... is what he chooses to release.

You go up to your average sports fan right now.... ask them about Curry's heart... I doubt you'll get more than "Well, Curry won't get this test done. What's up with that?"

Perhaps Paxson just feels he needs to be 100% sure about this before moving forward. I don't think that is realistic... even with the test results in his hand. He's going to have to take a risk at this point to retain Eddy Curry (like the Cavs made to retain Z). I think its in the best interest of the franchise to do so... to a reasonable deal like the one that you and SM agreed to the other day (which I also agree with).... if Curry goes QO... then Paxson really set the team back this offseason IMO. Eddy Curry's don't grow on trees. I think we'll see that when we're looking for a replacement.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> You constantly harp on the LA doctor as to clearing Curry and constantly ignore the others who have not.


We know that three doctors -- Dr. Mark Estes, Dr. David Cannom, and Dr. Barry Maron (yes! The very same dude who wants Curry to take the DNA test!) have diagnosed Eddy as having athlete's heart.

If you can provide the name of a single doctor who has not cleared Eddy, or one who has diagnosed Eddy with HCM, please go ahead and do so.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Would you elect to have a spinal tap if you didn't have any symptoms of meningitis?
> 
> Would you get rabies shots if you hadn't been bitten by a wild animal?
> 
> ...


ScottMay, thanks for the great info as always.

The only question I have is why this world-respected specialist would want Eddy to take a test that is meaningless and won't prove anything?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> We know that three doctors -- Dr. Mark Estes, Dr. David Cannom, and Dr. Barry Maron (yes! The very same dude who wants Curry to take the DNA test!) have diagnosed Eddy as having athlete's heart.
> 
> If you can provide the name of a single doctor who has not cleared Eddy, or one who has diagnosed Eddy with HCM, please go ahead and do so.


http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/curry_050623.html

I find it somewhat curious that this press release only mentions Cannom and not the other two docs. The latter two docs both saw (and tested) Curry prior to Cannom's review and if all three came to the same conclusion, why aren't they mentioned? Also, if all three docs have the same diagnosis, why all the hubbub? If all these world renowned experts have all cleared him and have basically stated that he has "athletes heart" and there is nothing to worry about - why the difficulty in getting insurance? (I know - insurance companies are also evil and hence are not worthy of your time, but humor me - OK?)

Now it's your turn. Please show me where all three Docs have arrived at the same conclusion and where all three docs have cleared him to play. I'll save you the time - you can't because it hasn't happened.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> ScottMay, thanks for the great info as always.
> 
> The only question I have is why this world-respected specialist would want Eddy to take a test that is meaningless and won't prove anything?


My best guess, assuming all the information we've gotten is more or less correct, is that in assessing Eddy's family history, Maron felt that one of Eddy's first-degree relatives, or one of his parent's first-degree relatives, had a profile suggestive of HCM, and the other doctors did not.

If Maron felt that Eddy had clinical signs of HCM, Eddy wouldn't be playing.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> ScottMay, thanks for the great info as always.
> 
> The only question I have is why this world-respected specialist would want Eddy to take a test that is meaningless and won't prove anything?


I agree... big thanks to SM on this stuff.

It does not seem like the test will prove anything. It may give some additional information that one doctor wants. But if the theashold of being "cleared to play" has been passed, even by the doctor requesting the DNA test, then at some point you just have to take a risk IMO. You can perform a multitude of tests and still not be 100% sure. 

For Paxson, does the risk of losing Eddy Curry for nothing of much value in return outweigh the risk of the Bulls losing some $$$ on this deal?

(at least this is my medically uneducated opinion  ... please correct me if i'm way off! )


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why do you think that Paxson chose to publicly embrace this minority opinion?
> 
> Why is the DNA Test... which the majority of doctors involved do not require and that has a questionable level of conclusiveness... what Paxson releases to the media?
> 
> ...


From the very first news conference, the Bulls (through Paxson) have said that things looked "good" and "encouraging". They have openly recognized Curry's clearance to play and offered him a contract based on that clearance. 

The DNA test is one of many things that have been discussed publicly by the organization. That it is still being mentioned is simply due to the fact that it is the one thing that remains unresolved. 

As for this being a minority opinion, its from a leading expert in the field. 










Does Not Equal:










If you'd like to learn more about Dr. Barry Maron, click here:

http://www.mplsheart.com/pages/DoctorProfile.asp?DoctorID=106

For information on Dr. Nick Riviera, click here:

http://www.httpcity.com/ronq/simp/comedy.html


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/curry_050623.html
> 
> I find it somewhat curious that this press release only mentions Cannom and not the other two docs. The latter two docs both saw (and tested) Curry prior to Cannom's review and if all three came to the same conclusion, why aren't they mentioned? Also, if all three docs have the same diagnosis, why all the hubbub? If all these world renowned experts have all cleared him and have basically stated that he has "athletes heart" and there is nothing to worry about - why the difficulty in getting insurance? (I know - insurance companies are also evil and hence are not worthy of your time, but humor me - OK?)
> 
> Now it's your turn. Please show me where all three Docs have arrived at the same conclusion and where all three docs have cleared him to play. I'll save you the time - you can't because it hasn't happened.


From K.C. Johnson's article entitled "O.K. Near For Curry" from June 23, 2005 (it's archived):



> *Sources said Cannom's diagnosis is consistent with that of Dr. Mark Estes, another prominent cardiologist Curry saw in Boston shortly after experiencing an irregular heartbeat before a March 30 game in Charlotte.*
> 
> "I just feel relieved because I want to start working out again," Curry said Wednesday in a phone interview. "I miss playing basketball. I feel weird not playing."
> 
> ...


Estes was the first specialist Curry saw, and the doctor whose initial hopeful diagnosis was discussed at the first Curry press conference.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> As for this being a minority opinion, its from a leading expert in the field.


LOL.

It seems to be a minority opinion from those qualified to make such an opinion and that have issued one. 

Any cartoon characters would not be in this group.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> My best guess, assuming all the information we've gotten is more or less correct, is that in assessing Eddy's family history, Maron felt that one of Eddy's first-degree relatives, or one of his parent's first-degree relatives, had a profile suggestive of HCM, and the other doctors did not.
> 
> If Maron felt that Eddy had clinical signs of HCM, Eddy wouldn't be playing.


Thanks, that makes perfect sense.

What doesn't make sense to me is why Eddy refuses to take the test. If he is predisposed to deadly HCM, he should want to know that it seems to me. And one doctor thinks there is chance enough that he is predisposed to want to do a DNA test which would rule out HCM, right?

Considering the fact that even Lloyd's of London won't insure him, and considering the reports that the Bulls are offering only one year guaranteed, and considering the direct quote from Paxson that nobody has called him to discuss a sign and trade, IMHO if I were Eddy I'd be taking the test tomorrow because it seemingly can't hurt. Meaning things like contract offers.

Of course nobody can force Eddy to take the test, I just can't see why he wouldn't do it for his own good. If the test results are negative, maybe some team would offer him a full MLE deal guaranteed even without insurance. 5 years and $30 million doesn't seem like too much for a team to pay a player who has been cleared by all 3 of his doctors.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> LOL.
> 
> It seems to be a minority opinion from those qualified to make such an opinion and that have issued one.
> 
> Any cartoon characters would not be in this group.


1 out of 3 leading experts in the field. Not exactly a huge minority. Certainly sufficient to establish the existence of reason in the Bulls' preference for a DNA test.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The simpsons picture has me convinced.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> ScottMay, thanks for the great info as always.
> 
> The only question I have is why this world-respected specialist would want Eddy to take a test that is meaningless and won't prove anything?


I believe I answered this question yesterday too. 

The first point is that a doctor might find it meaningful to know if the patient is predisposed to HCM regardless of whether he actually has it. It increases certainty of diagnosis, and thus, in the long-run, what you can do about it if it develops

However, (and someone tell me if I'm wrong) I don't believe it changes the short-term conclusions of 1) What Curry actually has (vs. being predisposed to) and 2) what steps can be taken to do anything about it or 3) the probability that he develops HCM over the course of his career, or 4) the probability he ever develops HCM.

Thus, the test could say something and still not have any meaningful impact on Curry's basketball career regardless of the result.

To approach things another way, lets assume he did take the test and he is predisposed to HCM. How does that change anyone's decision-making process? Unless I've missed something, it shouldn't.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I believe I answered this question yesterday too.
> 
> The first point is that a doctor might find it meaningful to know if the patient is predisposed to HCM regardless of whether he actually has it. It increases certainty of diagnosis, and thus, in the long-run, what you can do about it if it develops
> 
> ...


From the doctor's standpoint, any test that might be even (very) remotely relevent should be done. It helps when the lawsuit comes.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> To approach things another way, lets assume he did take the test and he is predisposed to HCM. How does that change anyone's decision-making process? Unless I've missed something, it shouldn't.


As long as Maron is diagnosing that Eddy doesn't have HCM at this time, you're right. Eddy might need to have tests of his heart on a fairly regular basis, but the differences between athlete's heart and HCM are apparently easy to spot via echocardiogram as Dr. Maron himself writes here:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/cardiomyopathy/athlete's_heart.htm

EDIT: this didn't parse as a URL automatically for some reason; it should work now.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> As long as Maron is diagnosing that Eddy doesn't have HCM at this time, you're right. Eddy might need to have tests of his heart on a fairly regular basis, but the differences between athlete's heart and HCM are apparently easy to spot via echocardiogram as Dr. Maron himself writes here:
> 
> http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/cardiomyopathy/athlete's_heart.htm


I don't think your link works (didn't work for me, anyway). But if it says what you describe, that makes it even more curious that he is recommending the DNA test for Eddy.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> I believe I answered this question yesterday too.
> 
> The first point is that a doctor might find it meaningful to know if the patient is predisposed to HCM regardless of whether he actually has it. It increases certainty of diagnosis, and thus, in the long-run, what you can do about it if it develops
> 
> ...


If you answered it yesterday I missed it, I was gone literally all day and night to Orlando saying goodbye to friends and family after my Dr's appointment.

The bolded part is what I don't understand, if Eddy's predisposition to HCM doesn't change anyone's decision-making process, why bother taking the test to see if Eddy is pre-disposed or not?

Are there preventative measures against developing HCM (diet, medication, lifestyle)? If not, it really doesn't matter if he is predisposed to something that is completely unpreventible. 

I guess the test's "vagueness" (for lack of a better word) is what has me wondering why Eddy doesn't just take the test, since it seemingly won't change much of anything if he proves to be "predisposed".


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Are there preventative measures against developing HCM (diet, medication, lifestyle)? If not, it really doesn't matter if he is predisposed to something that is completely unpreventible.


It's not a matter of prevention, it's a matter of whether the mutated genes ever actually develop into HCM. The fact that someone is genetically predisposed to HCM doesn't mean that he'll ever develop it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't think your link works (didn't work for me, anyway). But if it says what you describe, that makes it even more curious that he is recommending the DNA test for Eddy.


We know that he recommended it at six weeks, when after de-conditioning, Eddy's heart hadn't come down to an acceptable baseline. We're not sure what he thinks post Cannom/Estes.

This is why I think it's pretty imperative for the Bulls to get all the doctors together to discuss where Eddy is today and where he'll be in the future.

I fail to see the downside to that -- again, doctors with differing opinions do this sort of thing every single day.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> If you answered it yesterday I missed it, I was gone literally all day and night to Orlando saying goodbye to friends and family after my Dr's appointment.
> 
> The bolded part is what I don't understand, if Eddy's predisposition to HCM doesn't change anyone's decision-making process, why bother taking the test to see if Eddy is pre-disposed or not?


Well, look at all the confusion and jockeying for position that seems to have taken place over the course of this fiasco. When I said it wouldn't change anyone's decision-making process, what I meant was it doesn't appear to change the underlying probabilities of Eddy having a problem and it doesn't appear to change the preventative measures one could take (which I assume Eddy's already taking).

However, none of that matters if people are more concerned about the perceptions of things, people are using the information for bargaining power, and/or people simply go off and make their own decisions without understanding or buying into the finer points of the issue.



> Are there preventative measures against developing HCM (diet, medication, lifestyle)? If not, it really doesn't matter if he is predisposed to something that is completely unpreventible.
> 
> I guess the test's "vagueness" (for lack of a better word) is what has me wondering why Eddy doesn't just take the test, since it seemingly won't change much of anything if he proves to be "predisposed".


Probably because if the test comes back positive it wouldn't do anything to change the underlying chances of him having problems but he runs the real risk of being deemed even more uninsurable and unguaranteeable than he is now, due to extremely risk averse folks not looking at those finer points discussed above.

Take how you've brought up heart problems other players had over the last few months as "semi-OT" as if it were related to Curry in any way. The reality is that from a strict medical sense what Curry had is no more related to what, say, Fred Hoiberg had than if they both broke their legs.

It wouldn't make any sense to say oh, Curry broke his leg, and now look, Fred broke his leg too, and he might never be able to play again because of it. Different legs, different breaks, different issues. Just like how Reggie Lewis keeps getting brought up.

But because it's uncommon, we see "heart problem" and lump everything together people start thinking "oh, maybe this is a problem Curry will face down the road", at least at some level, and it makes Eddy look like a riskier proposition. Same with the DNA test. If it comes back positive, then whether its has any meaningful effect or not, it's a real obstacle that has to be overcome. If it's negative, then it seems to me he's got very little to gain, because I don't see the Bulls or anyone else suddenly being willing to offer him more. It will only rule out one possible cause of his problem (which seems at this point to have mostly been ruled out anyway), but as we've been over, it's not conclusive of anything.

In short, he's got something to lose by taking it, and probably little to gain.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I fail to see the downside to that -- again, doctors with differing opinions do this sort of thing every single day.


I fail to see the downside to that as well. In fact, Curry can very easily make that happen. The Bulls? They cannot make that happen without Curry's consent. Or, at least, they aren't privy to the results of that meeting without Curry's consent. 

The only one who has evidenced any obstructionist behavior here is Curry. Given his refusal to follow the recommendation of one of the 3 doctors, I don't know that he would want them to get together.

You are putting the ball in the wrong court. Lets focus on Curry when it comes to this very reasonable idea of yours.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> In short, he's got something to lose by taking it, and probably little to gain.


I assume you are referring only to a scenario in which Curry submits to the test at the team's request, thereby empowering them with the knowledge that the test was administered and that a result exists. 

If that is the premise of what you wrote, I agree.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> It's not a matter of prevention, it's a matter of whether the mutated genes ever actually develop into HCM. The fact that someone is genetically predisposed to HCM doesn't mean that he'll ever develop it.


So there is no form of prevention, even if someone is genetically predisposed? Thanks, that's what I was wondering.

You being the "expert" (on this board you are easily the best informed), from what you have read if Eddy takes the DNA test and isn't predisposed, that means he is pretty much 100% healthy, right? (outside of the very common athlete's heart) So if he "passes" the DNA test, he doesn't have to worry about his heart for the duration of his career, right? Just the average yearly physical?

How would that change if he took the test and found out he IS susceptible to HCM? Obviously just being susceptible wouldn't make him retire because there is no way to know if he would ever even develop it, but what would the process be? Would he have to be monitored constantly on the floor wearing a tiny electronic 'whatever' to keep an eye on his heart? Or are we talking weekly, monthly... basically, what's up if a person is susceptible to HCM?

How does a person with HCM even find out they have it? Is it impossible to tell until the autopsy, or are there HCM tests available?

I know it's your opinion that Eddy is 100% healthy (other than the athlete's heart), so where's the danger in taking the test? If you can test for HCM, I'm sure Eddy and his family would want to know if he's susceptible so he can take the regular tests at the regular times to make sure he isn't developing HCM.

It seems very low risk to me, if taking the test makes Pax happy, take it! If there are more millions of dollars involved because Pax and JR are more comfortable because you take a fairly meaningless test, take the test Eddy! You're getting more money that way.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I fail to see the downside to that as well. In fact, Curry can very easily make that happen. The Bulls? They cannot make that happen without Curry's consent. Or, at least, they aren't privy to the results of that meeting without Curry's consent.
> 
> The only one who has evidenced any obstructionist behavior here is Curry. Given his refusal to follow the recommendation of one of the 3 doctors, I don't know that he would want them to get together.
> 
> You are putting the ball in the wrong court. Lets focus on Curry when it comes to this very reasonable idea of yours.


Let's not split ridiculous hairs here. I'm pretty sure Curry didn't give Paxson and Bulls "sources" consent to spread word of the DNA test far and wide, so I think it wouldn't be a major breach of protocol for Paxson to suggest the idea to Eddy and his representation.

After all,

"Eddy's health is our No. 1 concern. It's one thing we take very seriously, and we're going to do everything we possibly can to be sure he's right before we put him back on the floor.

"Obviously, he won't be a part of this playoff run. But hopefully, there are a ton of playoff runs for the Bulls that he'll be part of.

''He's a restricted free agent. Everybody wants to make him an unrestricted free agent. He's a restricted free agent, and that puts the ball in our court. He's going to be back here."


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I assume you are referring only to a scenario in which Curry submits to the test at the team's request, thereby empowering them with the knowledge that the test was administered and that a result exists.
> 
> If that is the premise of what you wrote, I agree.


That seems to be the operative point, I doubt Pax is getting on the Score to push Curry into taking a test he doesn't want to know the results of 

From a purely personal perspective, like I mentioned yesterday, I don't know how the info helps Curry at all. Suppose you learn you have a genetic predisposition that makes you more likely to drop dead in your mid-50s and that there's nothing beyond what you're already doing that can be done about it.

Have you made yourself more or less happy by gaining that info?

I'd probably want to know, but I'm not sure I'd be more happy, and I certainly wouldn't presume wanting to know is the right answers.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> So there is no form of prevention, even if someone is genetically predisposed? Thanks, that's what I was wondering.
> 
> You being the "expert" (on this board you are easily the best informed), from what you have read if Eddy takes the DNA test and isn't predisposed, that means he is pretty much 100% healthy, right? (outside of the very common athlete's heart) So if he "passes" the DNA test, he doesn't have to worry about his heart for the duration of his career, right? Just the average yearly physical?


Eddy will need to get frequent echocardiograms to make sure that the caliber and extent of his heart wall thickness is constant. The cardiologists think his rhythm problems were a fluke. So as long as he's asymptomatic (which is expected) and his heart structure compares favorably to the baseline measurements, he'll be fine.



> How would that change if he took the test and found out he IS susceptible to HCM? Obviously just being susceptible wouldn't make him retire because there is no way to know if he would ever even develop it, but what would the process be? Would he have to be monitored constantly on the floor wearing a tiny electronic 'whatever' to keep an eye on his heart? Or are we talking weekly, monthly... basically, what's up if a person is susceptible to HCM?


It wouldn't change. The susceptibility to HCM isn't what causes symptoms, actually having HCM does.



> How does a person with HCM even find out they have it? Is it impossible to tell until the autopsy, or are there HCM tests available?


This is all pretty simply laid out in some of the links I've provided in this thread.



> I know it's your opinion that Eddy is 100% healthy (other than the athlete's heart), so where's the danger in taking the test? If you can test for HCM, I'm sure Eddy and his family would want to know if he's susceptible so he can take the regular tests at the regular times to make sure he isn't developing HCM.
> 
> It seems very low risk to me, if taking the test makes Pax happy, take it! If there are more millions of dollars involved because Pax and JR are more comfortable because you take a fairly meaningless test, take the test Eddy! You're getting more money that way.


There's no real difference in the frequency or way in which Eddy would be tested whether the DNA test turned up positive or negative. It's not a perfect analogy, but consider Lance Armstrong -- he is as healthy and as physically optimal as any human can possibly be, but he probably gets tested for cancer a hell of a lot more frequently than other elite cyclists. It's just medical convention to follow up certain things more carefully than others.

It's also worth mentioning that most sudden cardiac death from HCM in athletes happens between the ages of 12-20, while the heart is still developing. In all of the articles I've read about this, I can't recall a single instance of a professional athlete who died from sudden cardiac death brought on by HCM.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> Well, look at all the confusion and jockeying for position that seems to have taken place over the course of this fiasco. When I said it wouldn't change anyone's decision-making process, what I meant was it doesn't appear to change the underlying probabilities of Eddy having a problem and it doesn't appear to change the preventative measures one could take (which I assume Eddy's already taking).
> 
> However, none of that matters if people are more concerned about the perceptions of things, people are using the information for bargaining power, and/or people simply go off and make their own decisions without understanding or buying into the finer points of the issue.


Agreed. 



> Probably because if the test comes back positive it wouldn't do anything to change the underlying chances of him having problems but he runs the real risk of being deemed even more uninsurable and unguaranteeable than he is now, due to extremely risk averse folks not looking at those finer points discussed above.


I agree with that, it's just my opinion that his value couldn't be much lower than it is right now so he doesn't have much to lose. I see what you are saying, that a negative test would adversely effect his future insurability- what I disagree with is the notion that he will get insured any time soon either way. I look at Z, who has played problem free since Dec of 2001 (almost 4 full seasons) and still couldn't get insured this summer. IMHO, even a problem-free season for Eddy won't allow him to get insured next summer, I think it will take longer than that (if it ever happens). I'm most certainly no insurance expert, but when even Lloyd's of London won't insure you, I don't think that's a good sign.



> Take how you've brought up heart problems other players had over the last few months as "semi-OT" as if it were related to Curry in any way. The reality is that from a strict medical sense what Curry had is no more related to what, say, Fred Hoiberg had than if they both broke their legs.
> 
> It wouldn't make any sense to say oh, Curry broke his leg, and now look, Fred broke his leg too, and he might never be able to play again because of it. Different legs, different breaks, different issues. Just like how Reggie Lewis keeps getting brought up.
> 
> ...


I bring up others with heart problems because of my ignorance on the subject. That's why you see me asking ScottMay and yourself so many questions about it, you guys are 1-2 on the subject here in my book. If one of those guys has a similar heart problem, it's relevant. If they don't, it's obviously not relevant, but I honestly don't know either way unless I bring it up and someone tells me the difference. 

As for the broken leg example you gave, that's kind of what I'm getting at. If 2 guys have the same break of the same bone, or same surgery on the same ligament, you can compare them for possible recovery times. When I bring up a different guy who had a heart problem, I know I can count on you or ScottMay to make the comparison, and I can count on your guys' answers to be accurate.

*And while bringing up every athlete in the world with a heart problem and speculating on Eddy's future problems can certainly bring down Eddy's value among message board fans, I doubt any NBA front offices are so easily tricked. (Well, not counting Zeke, of course) *


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> That seems to be the operative point, I doubt Pax is getting on the Score to push Curry into taking a test he doesn't want to know the results of
> 
> From a purely personal perspective, like I mentioned yesterday, I don't know how the info helps Curry at all. *Suppose you learn you have a genetic predisposition that makes you more likely to drop dead in your mid-50s and that there's nothing beyond what you're already doing that can be done about it.
> 
> Have you made yourself more or less happy by gaining that info?*


If the discovery of that information was accompanied by the recommendation that quitting my current job would significantly increase my life expectancy while simulateously decreasing the risk of sudden death, I'd be damn happy to have that information and so would my family. Then I'd quit my job and do something else. 

That is precisely what the risk is when it comes to mixing HCM and strenuous physical activity.

I'd rather be concerned, cautious and alive for the next 35 years, than blissful, bountiful, and then dead in the next 3.

No downside.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Thanks for all your help, except this one:


bullsville said:


> How does a person with HCM even find out they have it? Is it impossible to tell until the autopsy, or are there HCM tests available?





ScottMay said:


> This is all pretty simply laid out in some of the links I've provided in this thread.


If I could keep up with all the terms and medical technology in all the links you've provided on the subject, I wouldn't need your expertise to be answering any of my questions!! :cheers: 

You're just a hater.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Let's not split ridiculous hairs here. I'm pretty sure Curry didn't give Paxson and Bulls "sources" consent to spread word of the DNA test far and wide, *so I think it wouldn't be a major breach of protocol for Paxson to suggest the idea to Eddy and his representation.*
> 
> After all,
> 
> ...


So you concede the requirement of Eddy's approval and involvement? The "Bulls" can't just do it, which is what you requested. Like I said, putting the ball in the wrong court.

Thats not hairsplitting. You want to convince that this is the Bulls obligation and if they don't "get the doctors together" they have dropped the ball. That is not the case. The ultimate decision maker is Curry as you concede. So from now on, when this comes up, why don't you simply direct that request at Curry or Leon Rose.

The rest of your post is just manipulation of outdated quotes to suggest that Paxson is taking a "dewy-eyed" position now that this is all about Eddy's health, and not about business: a position that he quite obviously is not taking given all his public talk about risk allocation. Certainly health is still an issue, but the majority of his public comments recently go to the contract and what is best for the organization from a business perspective.

We're way past the situation as it existed at the press conference. But maybe thats why you didn't provide a link to those quotes.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

what if another team were actually to take up the "call for sign and trade" that leon rose has reportedly asked for and offered eddy a much larger sum of guaranteed money/years BUT he had to take the DNA test to get it?

i bet he'd take that test in a new york minute.

:twocents:


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

I have some questions for you guys with more info then I have on Eddy and the Bulls. If the Bulls think Eddy Curry has a life threatning heart condition, why are they agreeable to letting him play for them for one season? If you *really* thought a player had a condition that could kill him, would you even let him play? If the condition is just 'career threatning', what other than the lack of insurance seperates this from any other injury?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> what if another team were actually to take up the "call for sign and trade" that leon rose has reportedly asked for and offered eddy a much larger sum of guaranteed money/years BUT he had to take the DNA test to get it?
> 
> i bet he'd take that test in a new york minute.
> 
> :twocents:


And if he still refused, we'd know that he has already taken the DNA test on his own and it wasn't good news.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> what if another team were actually to take up the "call for sign and trade" that leon rose has reportedly asked for and offered eddy a much larger sum of guaranteed money/years BUT he had to take the DNA test to get it?
> 
> i bet he'd take that test in a new york minute.
> 
> :twocents:


If this was true, then it really goes to show what Curry thinks about Paxson's stance on the DNA test.

If Paxson would offer a long term, guaranteed money deal if he took the test and passed, then do you think Eddy would take the test?

Seems like Eddy does not feel Paxson would offer a long-term fair $$$ deal either way, if you are right.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> If the discovery of that information was accompanied by the recommendation that quitting my current job would significantly increase my life expectancy while simulateously decreasing the risk of sudden death, I'd be damn happy to have that information and so would my family. Then I'd quit my job and do something else.
> 
> That is precisely what the risk is when it comes to mixing HCM and strenuous physical activity.
> 
> ...


Err... you conceeded there was no upside from the practical perspective a while back.

And from the personal perspective you're addressing here, you are conflating taking the test to Curry 1) actually having HCM and 2) actually having a form that would be dangerous to having strenuous physical activity.

Again, the test DNA will not tell Curry either of these things, let alone both.



bullsville said:


> How does a person with HCM even find out they have it? Is it impossible to tell until the autopsy, or are there HCM tests available?


 
Through a variety of tests (EKG, imaging, seeing whether the heart shrinks) you determine the structure of the heart wall. As an analogy, imagine using a studfinder on a wall to see whether you're hitting into anything solid. A heart with HCM will display a different structure than a heart that's healthy but thickened through conditioning.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Err... you conceeded there was no upside from the practical perspective a while back.
> 
> And from the personal perspective you're addressing here, you are conflating taking the test to Curry 1) actually having HCM and 2) actually having a form that would be dangerous to having strenuous physical activity.
> 
> ...


Lets spell this out. From what I understand:
1. Based on the tests Curry had, they concluded his heart did not have the structure of a heart with HCM.
2. A DNA test will only show a genetic probability, not the presence of HCM.
3. HCM usually manifests itself (is evident on tests) at ages younger than Eddy.

In short, even if Curry were to have a positive DNA test, it appears exceedingly unlikely he has or will ever have HCM, due to the fact that actual observation of his heart led doctors to conclude he did not have HCM and he is outside the age where HCM was going to be evident if its going to develop.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Yet arguably the leading expert in the field in the entire country recommends the test, which is something I can't quite get past.

And in what post did I concede that there was *no* practical upside to taking the test? Regardless, having a conceivably limited upside is hugely different than having no downside. 

Like I've said about 10 times now, no one has made a compelling argument that a *downside* exists to taking the test so long as Eddy controls the information. The lack of a downside, and the presumption that Curry and his handlers are not complete morons, leads me to speculate that the test has already taken and that the results were poor (positive). Based on what is known, this is the only conclusion I come to that is logical to me, personally.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Yet arguably the leading expert in the field in the entire country recommends the test, which is something I can't quite get past.


I see that.



> And in what post did I concede that there was *no* practical upside to taking the test? Regardless, having a conceivably limited upside is hugely different than having no downside.


Posts 93 and 95 in this thread should answer that.

And in this case the limited/no upside lawyerly distinction you're making doesn't wash. In truth it is no upside. It will neither help Curry in negotiations nor give Curry any sort of answer about his true state of health.



> Like I've said about 10 times now, no one has made a compelling argument that a *downside* exists to taking the test so long as Eddy controls the information. The lack of a downside, and the presumption that Curry and his handlers are not complete morons, leads me to speculate that the test has already taken and that the results were poor (positive). Based on what is known, this is the only conclusion I come to that is logical to me, personally.


The second part of that conclusion renders the first meaningless. Eddy does not control the information under any circumstance a conclusion logic forces you to reach. Hence, we're back to the point I made in post #93, to which you conceeded. 

Couple that with the fact the test gives no operable advice to Curry that I can tell about whether he actually has HCM or will develop it, and it still seems to be nothing but a negotiating foil on the part of the Bulls.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Posts 93 and 95 in this thread should answer that.


They don't. My response to your post is based only on the assumption that Eddy would have no control over the information. So, only given that assumption, would I agree with you.



> And in this case the limited/no upside lawyerly distinction you're making doesn't wash. In truth it is no upside. *It will neither help Curry in negotiations nor give Curry any sort of answer about his true state of health.*


You can't possibly know that as to the negotiation issue.



> The second part of that conclusion renders the first meaningless. Eddy does not control the information under any circumstance a conclusion logic forces you to reach. Hence, we're back to the point I made in post #93, to which you conceeded.


I disagree with that. My whole point in starting to discuss the question of the DNA test was whether or not Eddy had taken it already of his own accord. I was not addressing a situation in which the Bulls forced him to do it. Like I said, I agree with you ONLY if its the latter scenario we are talking about.

My original speculative theory, that I still maintain, is that Curry has already taken the test because there is no downside to doing so if he controls the information. Logic does not "force" me to reach a conclusion that the Bulls would have access to information of a test already taken at Curry's election. Down the road if compelled by the team is a completely different scenario. I think you are mixing the scenarios as one, and they aren't.



> Couple that with the fact the test gives no operable advice to Curry that I can tell about whether he actually has HCM or will develop it, and it still seems to be nothing but a negotiating foil on the part of the Bulls.


Dr. Maron must be getting paid by the Bulls to include the test as part of his recommended course of action. The existence of that recommendation makes your theory that this is a negotiation ploy a conclusion based purely on a predisposition to find a malicious motive. Either that, or you really do think Maron is a puppet.

I think I'll just start responding to these theories with a photograph of Dr. Maron. If he backs of his recommendation, you won't hear another word out of me about any of this.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> They don't. My response to your post is based only on the assumption that Eddy would have no control over the information. So, only given that assumption, would I agree with you.
> 
> You can't possibly know that as to the negotiation issue.


You're right in a technical sense, but you agreed with my supposition that its quite unlikely, so, again, it seems pretty inconsistent for you to step back and argue against it after previously agreeing.



> I disagree with that. My whole point in starting to discuss the question of the DNA test was whether or not Eddy had taken it already of his own accord. I was not addressing a situation in which the Bulls forced him to do it. Like I said, I agree with you ONLY if its the latter scenario we are talking about.


Yet, the nature of the information at hand, as you astutely point out, makes it irrelevant whether Curry takes the test of his own accord or not, or is forced. 



> My original speculative theory, that I still maintain, is that Curry has already taken the test because there is no downside to doing so if he controls the information. Logic does not "force" me to reach a conclusion that the Bulls would have access to information of a test already taken at Curry's election.


Yet, using logic, you've accessed information on Curry's test results. Are you saying the Bulls are ilogical? Because, if they use the same kind of common sense logic you do, they develop the same sort of information. Whether this information is useful to determining the risk Curry faces by playing ball or not, it's certainly a piece of information for all to see, just as much as if Curry took out a full page ad in the Trib and published it.

Be clear. *It does not matter whether Curry has a paper right to privacy here or not. The Bulls, by publically calling for it, have created a situation in which Curry effectively reveals the results whether he says anything or not. *

That's elementary game theory.



> Dr. Maron must be getting paid by the Bulls to include the test as part of his recommended course of action. The existence of that recommendation makes your theory that this is a negotiation ploy a conclusion based purely on a predisposition to find a malicious motive. Either that, or you really do think Maron is a puppet.


Alternatively, as I outlined in detail, it could be that Dr. Maron is simply recommending a test that can be valid for other reasons but has an infinitisimally low chance of addressing the concerns surrounding his heart condition and ability to play basketball. 

Rather than "purely a predisposition to find a malicious motive", Dr. Maron's desire for a test is completely plausible in light of facts meaningless to basketball. However, the Bulls harping on the DNA test appears plausible mostly in light of a negotiation ploy.



> I think I'll just start responding to these theories with a photograph of Dr. Maron. If he backs of his recommendation, you won't hear another word out of me about any of this.


Oooh, that'll be convincing.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

OK, there are only several possibilities.

1. Curry is forced to take the test reveal the results and is 

a) Positive. The Bulls use this to hammer down his value.

b) Negative. The Bulls say the test was never conclusive of anything in the first place since it isn't.



2. Curry does not take the test or takes the test privately.

c) Does not reveal the results. The Bulls do the logical thing and assume he tested positive and won't reveal the results. This reverts to state a) above.

d) Reveals the results. Depending on the results, this reverts to either state a) or state b).



Those are the only possibilities. Given that 

1. Based on the tests Curry had, they concluded his heart did not have the structure of a heart with HCM.
2. A DNA test will only show a genetic probability, not the presence of HCM.
3. HCM usually manifests itself (is evident on tests) at ages younger than Eddy.

taking the test appears to only have negative consequences for Eddy, because, if there's a difference anywhere, it's that if he actually doesn't take the test, he can't be formally asked about it under certain insurance situations, I believe. Oh, and he avoids a potentially significant legal mess with the players association, the league, privacy advocates and the like.

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

As a side note, who, who has kids, got all of the pre-natal birth defect and genetic screening done?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> As a side note, who, who has kids, got all of the pre-natal birth defect and genetic screening done?


Around here, anyway, those tests are pretty much mandatory if you're having an MD-assisted hospital birth, even if you're low-risk (under 35, no family history, etc.). My wife took the AFP/triple screen test -- it has a huge false positive rate (I think something like 90%) and (even worse) a not-insignificant false negative rate.

I'm interested to see why you asked this question.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Around here, anyway, those tests are pretty much mandatory if you're having an MD-assisted hospital birth, even if you're low-risk (under 35, no family history, etc.). My wife took the AFP/triple screen test -- it has a huge false positive rate (I think something like 90%) and (even worse) a not-insignificant false negative rate.
> 
> I'm interested to see why you asked this question.


You don't see the parallels?

Mr. Cey is arguing the DNA test has "no downside" from a _personal_ perspective. I tried to point out why this might not be the case several times, and this is another attempt. The AFP series is a legitimate and widely used method of genetic screening that doesn't even get into the privacy/workplace/legal pitfalls we're facing here.

Yet, as you point out, there are many reasons to doubt the efficacy of the test. There is significant reason, as you point out, to doubt their value. For the individuals taking them, they raise difficult moral issues. 

And perhaps most importantly in this context, even though they're typically presented as mandatory, they most certainly are not. Doctors strongly suggest them and badger the hell out of you to get them because it's one more tick box on the "cover my *** from a malpractice suit" mental checklist at least as much as, if not more than, the likely predictive value they have.

In short, there are real downsides to genetic testing of fetuses and the genetic testing of Eddy Curry appears to present exactly the same downsides. 

In a pregancy case, the failure to test is probably a plaintiffs' goldmine in a malpractice case, even in the presence of a waiver. That's in large part because juries are made up of non-experts who will say exactly what Ron's saying - what's the downside of a test?

For Curry's condition, I'd imagine every doctor doesn't suggest a test for a couple reasons. First, it's not a part of the mainstream protocol (which is, itself, obviously much less standardized and frequently used than for pre-natal care). Second, as we've read from several sources, it's likely less conclusive than the AFP test anyway.

In short, the detection of birth defects is a much more clearcut case where genetic testing might be used than in Curry's case. And even there we find questionable upsides and significant downsides for getting tested.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> You don't see the parallels?


I do.

Clearly, some people decide not to go through all the testing b/c there is no way that they would choose to end a pregnency.

Similarily, Curry may have gathered enough information to KNOW THAT he is going to play basketball even though it's a risk. And a positive DNA result or a negative DNA result are not going to change that.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I have been reading these posts and i think there is one serious misunderstanding. EC already has cardiomyopathy. That is how this all started. He had an irregular heart beat and when he was worked up they found an enlarged heart. To suggest he may or may not have HCM is silly. Weather it is HCM or just cardiomyopathy does not really matter.

He is by defination at an increased risk of sudden death and if he has HCM that risk goes even higher since he already has an enlarged heart. So all this he doesn't have HCM is just off the mark.

Taking the DNA test helps EC make a very tough decission about his life and the risks of playing bball. He should most definately take the test. It is about his health and not some contract.

If you dont have your health what do you have.

david


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

giusd said:


> I have been reading these posts and i think there is one serious misunderstanding. EC already has cardiomyopathy. That is how this all started. He had an irregular heart beat and when he was worked up they found an enlarged heart. To suggest he may or may not have HCM is silly. Weather it is HCM or just cardiomyopathy does not really matter.
> 
> He is by defination at an increased risk of sudden death and if he has HCM that risk goes even higher since he already has an enlarged heart. So all this he doesn't have HCM is just off the mark.
> 
> ...


Strictly speaking, I guess. But here's a pretty good explanation of how athete's heart is a benign type of heart thickening (by Dr. Barry Maron).

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/cardiomyopathy/athlete's_heart.htm


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> You don't see the parallels?
> 
> Mr. Cey is arguing the DNA test has "no downside" from a _personal_ perspective. I tried to point out why this might not be the case several times, and this is another attempt. The AFP series is a legitimate and widely used method of genetic screening that doesn't even get into the privacy/workplace/legal pitfalls we're facing here.
> 
> ...


Interesting . . . I guess I didn't immediately make the connection because I can't imagine anyone could ever successfully sue an OB/GYN because they had a kid with a genetic defect the likes of which would be detected by a triple-screen, amnio, or CVS. AFAIK those defects happen real early in pregnancy, probably before most women even know they're pregnant.

I wish that the doctors in question would just meet and sort it all out, and I'd love to be a fly on the wall.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

a. I am not a cardiologist but your URL has nothing to due with EC. We know two things. First EC has already a had an irregular heart beat so he has by defination some pathology. Second, as printed in the papers they (his docs) put him on minimal activity for almost two months and his repeat echo showed no change in his heart muscle thickness. Red flag. He does not have "athlete's heart" and if he did there would be no question as weather he could and should play again. Futhermore, two cadiologists have recommended the DNA test before they would sign off on his playing again. Duh.

b. my wife is on staff at hopkins so if i need info on this i dont need to read some web page. If i need some advice all i have to do is ask. And i can assure you EC does not have "athlete's heart".

c. The cadiologist at Harvard who signed off on Reggie Lewis spent almost five years in court for letting him continue to play ball. Weather he was right or not i have no idea but i can tell you this his career was shot. So just because one doc signs off on eddy playing would not be enough for me. If it was my life i would like to know for sure. Is money worth all that? I think not.

david


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

giusd said:


> a. I am not a cardiologist but your URL has nothing to due with EC. We know two things. First EC has already a had an irregular heart beat so he has by defination some pathology. Second, as printed in the papers they (his docs) put him on minimal activity for almost two months and his repeat echo showed no change in his heart muscle thickness. Red flag. He does not have "athlete's heart" and if he did there would be no question as weather he could and should play again. Futhermore, two cadiologists have recommended the DNA test before they would sign off on his playing again. Duh.


The above paragraph is riddled with errors. 

1. Does someone who experiences an irregular heartbeat due to caffeine, stress, or diet have, by definition, a pathology? 

2. Curry's repeat echo did show a change in his heart muscle thickness -- it just didn't happen within the initial six-week period of deconditioning.

3. Curry has been diagnosed with athlete's heart by Dr. Mark Estes, Dr. David Cannom, and (provisionally) Dr. Barry Maron.

4. One doctor has recommended the DNA test -- Maron.



> b. my wife is on staff at hopkins so if i need info on this i dont need to read some web page. If i need some advice all i have to do is ask. And i can assure you EC does not have "athlete's heart".


Your wife must be a great doctor. The link, though, is written by one of the foremost cardiologists involved in sports medicine (Maron). Just thought it'd be helpful . . . 



> c. The cadiologist at Harvard who signed off on Reggie Lewis spent almost five years in court for letting him continue to play ball. Weather he was right or not i have no idea but i can tell you this his career was shot. So just because one doc signs off on eddy playing would not be enough for me. If it was my life i would like to know for sure. Is money worth all that? I think not.
> 
> david


Lewis wasn't ever cleared by a doctor. He was given an alternative diagnosis by a doctor who later changed his opinion. Lewis disregarded that doctor's orders to cease all physical activity and died during a light workout. As mentioned before, two doctors have given Eddy the unqualified go-ahead to play pro basketball, and their diagnosis is consistent with the doctor who wants the DNA test.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

giusd said:


> I have been reading these posts and i think there is one serious misunderstanding. EC already has cardiomyopathy. That is how this all started. He had an irregular heart beat and when he was worked up they found an enlarged heart. To suggest he may or may not have HCM is silly. Weather it is HCM or just cardiomyopathy does not really matter.
> 
> *He is by defination at an increased risk of sudden death and if he has HCM that risk goes even higher since he already has an enlarged heart. So all this he doesn't have HCM is just off the mark.*
> 
> ...


This a really, really misleading. First, Eddy Curry was diagnosed with athlete's heart and cleared to start working out again, unless I misread some things. Also, saying he does not have HCM is not "off the mark" because he doesn't have it as far as anything that has been made public.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Those are the only possibilities. Given that
> 
> 1. Based on the tests Curry had, they concluded his heart did not have the structure of a heart with HCM.
> 2. A DNA test will only show a genetic probability, not the presence of HCM.
> 3. HCM usually manifests itself (is evident on tests) at ages younger than Eddy.



I have a question as to #2. If the test can say that you have the genetic makeup of someone who _could_ develop HCM, can it conversely tell you that you have the genetic makeup of someone who _can't_? I mean, if you're lacking the gene or series of genes that cause it, is that a fairly definitive indication that HCM won't ever be present?

I feel like there are two sets of interests that may not be entirely consistent for Eddy. First, you have his personal interest in living a long and healthy life. Second, you have his basketball/financial interests. If it's me, from a personal perspective, I normally would want all the answers I can get, though I might want to keep my own medical information private from my employer. From a basketball/financial interest, I understand he wants to make all the moves that max his ability to achieve financial security. For me, however, the personal interest would trump the financial one. I don't know that that means that he should have the test, because I feel I'm still unclear on exactly what information could be provided to Eddy by taking it.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

EC has only been cleared by one doc based on my reading of the papers and at least two other's have not cleared him. So to say he has been cleared to play is not exactly correct. These two want a DNA test before they will clear him. 

david


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I have a question as to #2. If the test can say that you have the genetic makeup of someone who _could_ develop HCM, can it conversely tell you that you have the genetic makeup of someone who _can't_? I mean, if you're lacking the gene or series of genes that cause it, is that a fairly definitive indication that HCM won't ever be present?


No and No, as I understand it. If you do not have the gene, you have no higher risk than the general population, which is to say it's a rare but occasional occurrance. Given that Eddy has had this thing happen already, I'd guess he'd still be looked at as having an elevated risk.

The detection rate of genetic mutation in patients exhibiting symptoms of HCM is about 50-70%. I'm not sure, in the literature, what "exhibiting symptoms" means. It could mean that HCM is already suspected and things like athlete's heart are sort of ruled out, or it could mean that generic "symptoms" are present that make HCM a possibility. In any case, you can certainly have HCM or something HCM like and not have a genetic mutation.

From that perspective, testing negative doesn't seem to definitively change Eddy's outlook. He'll still want/need significant increased monitoring.

If he did test positive, then it's not clear to me that what he has now is actually HCM. If the EKGs and MRIs indicate his heart is normally structured, that's evidence the HCM causing mutation, while present, isn't in operation. I'll confess, though, I don't know how likely or when it's likely to kick in, if its there.



> I feel like there are two sets of interests that may not be entirely consistent for Eddy. First, you have his personal interest in living a long and healthy life. Second, you have his basketball/financial interests. If it's me, from a personal perspective, I normally would want all the answers I can get, though I might want to keep my own medical information private from my employer. From a basketball/financial interest, I understand he wants to make all the moves that max his ability to achieve financial security. For me, however, the personal interest would trump the financial one. I don't know that that means that he should have the test, because I feel I'm still unclear on exactly what information could be provided to Eddy by taking it.


Me either. At least, I think the information would be pretty indecisive, whether its good or bad. We often want these things to be matters of certainty, but unfortunately they're matters of probability.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> You don't see the parallels?
> 
> Mr. Cey is arguing the DNA test has "no downside" from a _personal_ perspective. I tried to point out why this might not be the case several times, and this is another attempt. The AFP series is a legitimate and widely used method of genetic screening that doesn't even get into the privacy/workplace/legal pitfalls we're facing here.
> 
> ...


The conclusiveness of the test, as I've stated repeatedly, is irrelevent *assuming Eddy controls the information.* You have to include that assumption in addressing what I've said in this thread regarding whether or not Eddy took the test. It is the key assumption and, if false, I've repeatedly stated that my opinion would change virtually 100%. 

Eddy would be aware of the inconclusiveness and, therefore, has the freedom to weigh that in considering the results and how they do or do not affect his life choices.

Other than inconclusiveness, what are these "exact same downsides" you are referring to, Mike?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The conclusiveness of the test, as I've stated repeatedly, is irrelevent *assuming Eddy controls the information.*




LOL. Perhaps you should also include an "assuming we live in fantasyland" qualifier, since, as you observed, Eddy does not control the information in any real sense.



> You have to include that assumption in addressing what I've said in this thread regarding whether or not Eddy took the test. It is the key assumption and, if false, I've repeatedly stated that my opinion would change virtually 100%.


OK, I included that assumption, and you (have already) concluded its falsehood. Thus, I stopped including it.



> Eddy would be aware of the inconclusiveness and, therefore, has the freedom to weigh that in considering the results and how they do or do not affect his life choices.
> 
> Other than inconclusiveness, what are these "exact same downsides" you are referring to, Mike?


Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

If EC does have the DNA tests the results are his and his alone. Only he could allow the results to be made public. There are rules regard medical info. So if ec did privately get the test the results would only be shared with him and his doc.

david


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> [/b]
> 
> LOL. Perhaps you should also include an "assuming we live in fantasyland" qualifier, since, as you observed, Eddy does not control the information in any real sense.
> 
> ...


*

First, I did not conclude the falsity of that assumption anywhere. Don't misrepresent me to contest what I've written. It is intellectually cheap.

As to the conclusiveness issue, I don't accept that as a downside. It is simply an aspect of the test to be weighed by Curry. 

I think, perhaps, we've exhausted this argument.*


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> First, I did not conclude the falsity of that assumption anywhere. Don't misrepresent me to contest what I've written. It is intellectually cheap.


I'm sorry, I suppose I'm having trouble understanding what you concluded. I'll try to use your own words as much as possible to ensure I'm not misrepresenting you.

You're arguing strenuously for the possible validity of the assumption "Eddy Controls the Information". (Post 127)

However, you also said "no one has made a compelling argument that a *downside* exists to taking the test so long as Eddy controls the information. The lack of a downside, and the presumption that Curry and his handlers are not complete morons, leads me to speculate that the test has already taken and that the results were poor (positive). Based on what is known, this is the only conclusion I come to that is logical to me, personally". (Post 110)

*Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how "Eddy Controls the Information" if the real world situation in which he is placed allows you to reach only one logical conclusion about the information?*



> As to the conclusiveness issue, I don't accept that as a downside. It is simply an aspect of the test to be weighed by Curry.


:clown: 



> I think, perhaps, we've exhausted this argument.


I agree.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Another bit of food for thought. The DNA test may be OBE since they typically take 4-6 weeks to get processed and there is less than that amount of time before camp anyway.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I'm sorry, I suppose I'm having trouble understanding what you concluded.


Obviously. 



> *Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how "Eddy Controls the Information" if the real world situation in which he is placed allows you to reach only one logical conclusion about the information?*


My admittedly speculative conclusion, that I've already repeatedly expressed, is that Eddy has already taken the test. The basis for that conclusion is that due to confidentiality laws (the laws that apply to "real world situations"), he would have total control over the existence and results of the test and I see no downside to acquiring the information in confidence. I expressly reject a degree of inconclusiveness as a "downside". Many, many medical tests are inconclusive, yet they exist and are used as tools for diagnosis. 

I consider this an elementary argument. I also consider it to be speculation on my part with regard to what Eddy has done. Therefore, my conclusion is not actual information, but a guess, as I have repeatedly acknowledged. Let me state it this way: My speculation does not equal fact. Therein lies the difference and therein lies Curry's control over the information the test yields. I hope that is the "enlightenment" you were seeking. 

You put up a clown face regarding the conclusiveness issue. I take it then that you reject the benefits of medical tests that are not entirely conclusive. I suspect many physicians would disagree with you on that point. In fact, I suspect many physicians would agree that the more information generated to weigh and consider, the better. But I'm not a physician, so what do I know?

I don't have anything else to add and, really, I think I'm just repeating myself over and over at this point. You think one way, I think another. Lets just leave it at that.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> My admittedly speculative conclusion, that I've already repeatedly expressed, is that Eddy has already taken the test. The basis for that conclusion is that due to confidentiality laws (the laws that apply to "real world situations"), he would have total control over the existence and results of the test and I see no downside to acquiring the information in confidence. I expressly reject a degree of inconclusiveness as a "downside". Many, many medical tests are inconclusive, yet they exist and are used as tools for diagnosis.
> 
> I consider this an elementary argument. I also consider it to be speculation on my part with regard to what Eddy has done. Therefore, my conclusion is not actual information, but a guess, as I have repeatedly acknowledged.


:rotf: 

You certainly have a legal and/or political career in front of you if you chose to take it. At this point, however, you're verging pretty far into the field of unintentional irony by simultaneously arguing there's "no downside" to an inconclusive test and talking your self blue to make some sort of distinction between "actual information" and the plain, common sense truth that Eddy's silence broadcasts the likely test result just as much as pubishing them. Perhaps the latter observation is "less conclusive" than being handed the test results, but that's certainly no downside. It's still a tool of diagnosis for Paxson to use.

I'm not sure what "actual information" is, but the facts present here are really quite simple. Which of these do you dispute?

1. The fact Eddy has not revealed a negative test result is a piece of information.
2. It's a piece of information that is, by definition, completely outside of Eddy's control.
3. It's a piece of information that gives an educated guess as to the true state of Eddy's medical condition.
4. The Bulls can make this educated guess.

Do you disagree with any of those 4 statements? I don't see how anyone with a brain could. And taken together, they state that the Bulls, by observing Eddy's actions, which they can do without his consent, can achieve an educated guess as to the result of his test. Is it as "conclusive" as having the test results in your hands?

I guess not (though even then one might suggest the possibility of fraud), but it seems rather conclusive since the probability of Curry not taking test, a thinking person such as yourself would argue, is low, and the probability of Curry revealing a negative (good) result is obviously rather rather high.



> You put up a clown face regarding the conclusiveness issue. I take it then that you reject the benefits of medical tests that are not entirely conclusive. I suspect many physicians would disagree with you on that point. In fact, I suspect many physicians would agree that the more information generated to weigh and consider, the better. But I'm not a physician, so what do I know?


Apparently you are pretty well versed at continuously talking around issues while studiously ignoring posts that get to the heart of the issue. So far, you've ignored the liability incentive faced by doctors, which is an obvious reason they are inclined to "overtest" and you've ignored the costly (to the testee) moral ("I have to live with this information"), practical ("OK, given the results, its still little help in whether I should play again, but it could cost me big bling anyway"), and legal ("If I get this test, I'm getting in the middle of a big legal mess") issues of getting a test with little conclusive benefit.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> :rotf:
> 
> You certainly have a legal and/or political career in front of you if you chose to take it. At this point, however, you're verging pretty far into the field of unintentional irony by simultaneously arguing there's "no downside" to an inconclusive test and talking your self blue to make some sort of distinction between "actual information" and the plain, common sense truth that Eddy's silence broadcasts the likely test result just as much as pubishing them. Perhaps the latter observation is "less conclusive" than being handed the test results, but that's certainly no downside. It's still a tool of diagnosis for Paxson to use.
> 
> ...



Mike you heavy hitters are getting pretty verbose here with all these essay like posts. I feel as if I need to write a Masters thesis just to be on the same court as you guys. But seriously, I have been doing a lot of pondering on this issue as well and since you are the "Lead Goose" by proclamation of one of our posters I thougt I might direct a question to you. If Curry DID take the test and the results are negative, doesn't that mean that he has a PREDISPOSITION towards heart disease which may or may not ever mean anything? Particularly regarding his basketball career since he may not have a serious infraction until he reaches a ripe old age. I'm hoping as Lead Goose around here you can clarify for all of us underlings who are unable to formulate our own opinions and thoughts! Thanks in advance.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm glad to see we got this issue nailed down in the 2 weeks I've been off moving...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> :rotf:
> 
> You certainly have a legal and/or political career in front of you if you chose to take it. At this point, however, you're verging pretty far into the field of unintentional irony by simultaneously arguing there's "no downside" to an inconclusive test and talking your self blue to make some sort of distinction between "actual information" and the plain, common sense truth that Eddy's silence broadcasts the likely test result just as much as pubishing them. Perhaps the latter observation is "less conclusive" than being handed the test results, but that's certainly no downside. It's still a tool of diagnosis for Paxson to use.


I'm not sure what is so funny about the debate. 

Simply put, you are equating the power of guesswork with actual knowledge, which is absurd. It is a distinction that I draw, that you do not. I'm starting to lose track of whatever point it is you are trying to make, other than to argue with me as part of an intellectual exercise. In fact, you don't even seem to be disputing the logic or accuracy of my conclusion anymore. 

You seem to be simply saying that the existence of that conclusion, creates a downside to Eddy seeking the test because, Paxson most likely has reached the same conclusion I have. This is nonsensical if this is your position. It simply reinforces the fact that there is no practical downside because the worst outcome is already being assumed by observers such as Paxson. Therefore, a positive test result would have no impact while a negative one could do nothing but help. 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point though.



> I'm not sure what "actual information" is, but the facts present here are really quite simple.


The actual existence of a test and the actual results of a test are actual information. Everything else is speculation.



> Which of these do you dispute?
> 
> 1. The fact Eddy has not revealed a negative test result is a piece of information.
> 2. It's a piece of information that is, by definition, completely outside of Eddy's control.
> ...


#1 is true unless it assumes the existence of a test, in which case it is speculation.

#2 is true, but it is not the "information" that I'm referring to. The "information" I claim Curry controls are the actual existence of a test and the actual results of that test. I am certainly not suggesting that Curry controls public speculation and/or perception.

#3 is interesting to me, considering that you don't think the test has reasonable merit. But sure, its true although, again, that is not the information I'm referring to.

#4 is true with the qualifiers I noted as to #3.



> I don't see how anyone with a brain could. And taken together, they state that the Bulls, by observing Eddy's actions, which they can do without his consent, can achieve an educated guess *as to the result of his test.* Is it as "conclusive" as having the test results in your hands?


No it is not as conclusive. And it also assumes that the Bulls would even be aware of the existence of the test which, under my set of assumptions, they would not be. It may be this critical difference that is causing us to disagree.

Do you think that is possible? Are you assuming the Bulls would be aware that a test was given? Because my speculation is based on the premise that the Bulls would not even be aware that Curry had submitted to the test in the first place. The existence of the test is part of the "information" I am saying Curry controls due to physcian/patient confidentiality laws.



> I guess not (though even then one might suggest the possibility of fraud), but it seems rather conclusive since the probability of Curry not taking test, a thinking person such as yourself would argue, is low, and the probability of Curry revealing a negative (good) result is obviously rather rather high.


So are you even disagreeing with my theory that Curry has already submitted to the test? If not, then I don't even understand what we are debating anymore. It is growing obvious that you are attributing a position to me that I have not taken.



> *Apparently you are pretty well versed at continuously talking around issues while studiously ignoring posts that get to the heart of the issue.* So far, you've ignored the liability incentive faced by doctors, which is an obvious reason they are inclined to "overtest" and you've ignored the costly (to the testee) moral ("I have to live with this information"), practical ("OK, given the results, its still little help in whether I should play again, but it could cost me big bling anyway"), and legal ("If I get this test, I'm getting in the middle of a big legal mess") issues of getting a test with little conclusive benefit.


Its interesting, because to me this is precisely what you are doing. Either that or you are hopelessly confused.

As to the rest:

(a) morality: I'd rather have the result of a test recommended by one of the leading experts in the field than not. I think most would. "I have to live with this information" to my mind is preferrable to a logical person that possibly dying prematurely due to a lack of that information. If one prefers ignorance, then I can see the "moral dilemna". 

(b) practicality: For all you know, a favorable result on that test could get Eddy 2 more guaranteed years out of the Bulls and insurance. You are speculating and masquerading it as a fact. At the very least, I acknowledge when I'm engaging in guesswork. 

(c) legal: That doesn't even make sense. He's in a legal mess either way. The taking of the test and the not taking of it could have significant repercussions depending on what happens with his health.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Mike you heavy hitters are getting pretty verbose here with all these essay like posts. I feel as if I need to write a Masters thesis just to be on the same court as you guys. But seriously, I have been doing a lot of pondering on this issue as well and since you are the "Lead Goose" by proclamation of one of our posters I thougt I might direct a question to you. *If Curry DID take the test and the results are negative, doesn't that mean that he has a PREDISPOSITION towards heart disease which may or may not ever mean anything? *Particularly regarding his basketball career since he may not have a serious infraction until he reaches a ripe old age. I'm hoping as Lead Goose around here you can clarify for all of us underlings who are unable to formulate our own opinions and thoughts! Thanks in advance.


Guh. I don't want to speak for anyone, to be honest.

But as I understand it:

1. A positive result is bad, a negative result is good. Positive means one of several mutated genes which predispose the carrier to HCM are present.

2. Right, that doesn't mean he has HCM now, and he might never have HCM.

As I understand it, the doctors who examined him concluded, based on the fact his heart did shrink after inactivity and based on various tests that the structure of his heart, that he did not currently have HCM. If he did, the structure of the heart wall would show it and his heart would not shrink at all after a period of inactivity.

Thus, if he is genetically predisposed to HCM, it's certainly cause for concern, but I think it can be detected by ECHO, EKG, or MRI tests on the heart. The reason it can be detected is that in addition to just being thicker than a normal heart, the cellular formation of the heart with HCM is different than in a healthy heart thickened by exercise.










The picture on the left is the cells of a normal heart, the picture on the right is the cells of a heart with HCM. The heart beats through the smooth transmission of electrical impulses through the muscle. Its easy to see how that happens in the heart on the left and why it might stop happening in the heart on the right. Tests like the EKG measure this, so if Eddy is getting regular tests they ought to be able to see if something changes in his cellular structure.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm not sure what is so funny about the debate.
> 
> Simply put, you are equating the power of guesswork with actual knowledge, which is absurd.


From any practical perspective, it is clearly not absurd. Especially in the presence of sufficiently high probabilities. Absurdity is arguing the opposite, and trying to act like decisions aren't made on guesswork. If you want an intellectual point, there is almost no such thing as "actual knowledge". Everything is only true to some level of probability.



> It is a distinction that I draw, that you do not. I'm starting to lose track of whatever point it is you are trying to make, other than to argue with me as part of an intellectual exercise. In fact, you don't even seem to be disputing the logic or accuracy of my conclusion anymore.


You're trying to say there's more than an intellectual distinction between a guess in which you're, say 99.99% sure and actually knowing with 100% certainty. Sure, there's a difference of .01%. When it comes to negotiations, that level of certainty becomes important. That's the important point, but you seem to be inconsistent in applying it.



> You seem to be simply saying that the existence of that conclusion, creates a downside to Eddy seeking the test because, Paxson most likely has reached the same conclusion I have. This is nonsensical if this is your position. It simply reinforces the fact that there is no practical downside because the worst outcome is already being assumed by observers such as Paxson. Therefore, a positive test result would have no impact while a negative one could do nothing but help.
> 
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point though.


You agreed with me that Curry's "got something to lose by taking it, and probably little to gain.", provided the Bulls know he was tested. In short, that there's a downside.

I said that really, it doesn't matter whether the Bulls officially know or not, they should assume he has taken and failed it with a high degree of probability. Not sure why you have such a hard time agreeing with that.

However that still doesn't mean Curry has nowhere to go but up by taking the test. While its true the Bulls assume the worst in the absence of the test, as you've strenuously argued, that's only a well informed guess, not a certainty. To the extent that .1% of doubt makes a difference, it favors Curry, thereby constituting a reason not to test (or to act as if he hasn't).

The real difference comes in all the other downsides (the "something to lose") I posted in #93, which you agree existed as downsides if the Bulls know he the results. I don't think those downsides are entirely the same if there's a published, verified report vs. an outstanding uncertainty. It's a downside in any case, but he's still better off minimizing the impact of them by not testing (or admitting he tested).

All I'm trying to get at is the truth of the matter. The truth as I see it is that the Bulls are going to assume the worst case scenario but Curry is better off not testing since an assumed worst case is better than a verified worst case. And in the wider market, unverified rumor and concern is better than verified but hard to understand results. How much better? Only slightly, but there's no reason to forfeit a even slight advantage.

Slight advantages can be meaningful, and that's why I'm trying to point these things out.



> No it is not as conclusive. And it also assumes that the Bulls would even be aware of the existence of the test which, under my set of assumptions, they would not be. It may be this critical difference that is causing us to disagree.


You see how this is a recursive problem though, don't you? The operative thing for the Bulls is to assume the test is done, but so long as there is some doubt it works to Curry's advantage. 



> Do you think that is possible? Are you assuming the Bulls would be aware that a test was given? Because my speculation is based on the premise that the Bulls would not even be aware that Curry had submitted to the test in the first place. The existence of the test is part of the "information" I am saying Curry controls due to physcian/patient confidentiality laws.


But you can't logically square why Curry wouldn't just have the test and admit the results. If the world is as you think it is, wouldn't Curry have just admitted the results of the test to the Bulls since you think they would assume the worst anyway?

Clearly, that hasn't happened.

I'm trying to provide an explanation of why that hasn't happened.



> So are you even disagreeing with my theory that Curry has already submitted to the test? If not, then I don't even understand what we are debating anymore. It is growing obvious that you are attributing a position to me that I have not taken.


No. What we're debating is whether the Bulls know Curry took the test and what it means. You seem to think they don't, but I think they can, should, and are assuming to a high practical certainty that he has and tested positive.

The import is this is obviously bad for Curry, but there's a slightly worse case scenario by having a verified positive test even if the Bulls themselves (and anyone who thinks about it) can safely assume it.

For this debate, my position is consistent with the reality we see. A standoff and lots of uncertainty over the test, due to the fact Curry has something to lose by testing and revealing. Your position, as I understand it, is inconsistent with that reality, because by the logic you're applying, Curry wouldn't have anything to lose by taking the test and revealing the result.



> (a) morality: I'd rather have the result of a test recommended by one of the leading experts in the field than not. I think most would. "I have to live with this information" to my mind is preferrable to a logical person that possibly dying prematurely due to a lack of that information. If one prefers ignorance, then I can see the "moral dilemna".


Lots of folks do prefer ignorance. It's a perfectly rational approach to take in many situations.



> (b) practicality: For all you know, a favorable result on that test could get Eddy 2 more guaranteed years out of the Bulls and insurance. You are speculating and masquerading it as a fact. At the very least, I acknowledge when I'm engaging in guesswork.


You didn't acknowledge it just then.



> (c) legal: That doesn't even make sense. He's in a legal mess either way. The taking of the test and the not taking of it could have significant repercussions depending on what happens with his health.


Taking the test puts him behind the 8 ball in any legal dispute I can see. Suppose the NBAPA decides he's going to give the results and threatens suit to enjoin him from doing so. Given their stated stance, that seems a possibility. Not taking the test - how does that _hurt _him legally? If there's a legal ramification, it's that down the road he or his survivors sue the Bulls for not _making_ him take the test or some BS like that. That's certainly a legal issue, but it's not a problem from Curry's perspective.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> *Taking the test puts him behind the 8 ball in any legal dispute I can see. * Suppose the NBAPA decides he's going to give the results and threatens suit to enjoin him from doing so. Given their stated stance, that seems a possibility. Not taking the test - how does that _hurt _him legally? If there's a legal ramification, it's that down the road he or his survivors sue the Bulls for not _making_ him take the test or some BS like that. That's certainly a legal issue, but it's not a problem from Curry's perspective.


One thing you didn’t acknowledge is that "Not taking the test also puts him behind the 8 ball in any business (meaning contract) negotiation you can see".

If this is the case, Eddy is screwed either way. Taking or not taking the test is a moot point as of now IMHO.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> One thing you didn’t acknowledge is that "Not taking the test also puts him behind the 8 ball in any business (meaning contract) negotiation you can see".


Huh? I think if you re-read my post, the whole point i was making was that he has more to gain by NOT taking/revealing the test in this respect. I acknowledge the concept pretty clearly, I just disagree for the reasons I laid out. If not taking the test disadvantaged him, he'd take the test!

The fact he's refusing the test (or refusing to admit he took it) is pretty strong evidence against your assertion. At least if you believe (as is reasonable) that Eddy is trying to get the best deal he can.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Huh? I think if you re-read my post, the whole point i was making was that he has more to gain by NOT taking/revealing the test in this respect. I acknowledge the concept pretty clearly, I just disagree for the reasons I laid out. If not taking the test disadvantaged him, he'd take the test!
> 
> The fact he's refusing the test (or refusing to admit he took it) is pretty strong evidence against your assertion. At least if you believe (as is reasonable) that Eddy is trying to get the best deal he can.


Sure you can say he has more to gain by not taking the test. The only reason I said he was screwed either way is that even though he didn't take the test to gain more leverage in the negotiation (according to you), the matter of fact is that he didn't get a single offer yet other than Paxon's. So far the reality indicated that not taking test didn't do its magic as he desired or you indicated, hence Eddy is in the situation where he is in now. 

I just don't see any real advantage he got from not taking the test. He may has more to lose by taking test but he sure doesn't get any leverage by not taking the test. If any of these even make sense.
:yes:

In the end, i think it will come down to how much financial deep hole Eddy is in. If he needs big money right away at the expense of total and long term better deal, he will eventually take Paxon's offer (one year guarantee and 5 year deal, am I right?). If he is not in deep ****, he will definetly take QO and go for the BIG money next year (whether big money will be there waiting for him after the next year is anybody's guess at this point. My personal prediction is that if Eddy take QO and test free agent market next year, he will probably get a contract with longer guaranteed year but the gross total of contract won't be anywhere near what Eddy was dreaming one year ago.)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

After reading your last post, I realize that there is a clear miscommunication going on here and that we don't actually disagree on a lot of this. 



> You agreed with me that Curry's "got something to lose by taking it, and probably little to gain.", *provided the Bulls know he was tested.* In short, that there's a downside.


Yes. "Provided the Bulls know". In my premise, unlike your premise, they don't know Eddy took the test. 



> I said that really, it doesn't matter whether the Bulls officially know or not, they should assume he has taken and failed it with a high degree of probability. Not sure why you have such a hard time agreeing with that.


I do agree with that. Like I said, its the logical conclusion that he took the test and that the results are poor. You simply disagree with part of my reasoning that led me to that conclusion, which is that there was no downside for Eddy to take it because he would never have to disclose that fact. That would leave the Bulls with 99% speculation as opposed to 100% certainty, as you have explained so well below. 

No downside. He takes the test and keeps it to himself. The Bulls can't know for certain, even though they can guess as I have done. No downside to Curry, only the potential for an upside if the results are favorable.



> However that still doesn't mean Curry has nowhere to go but up by taking the test. While its true the Bulls assume the worst in the absence of the test, as you've strenuously argued, that's only a well informed guess, not a certainty. To the extent that .1% of doubt makes a difference, it favors Curry, thereby constituting a reason not to test *(or to act as if he hasn't)*.


I agree with you as to the bolded part. In fact, thats basically my whole point. There is no downside *to taking the test* and, if the results were positive, acting as if he hasn't by not releasing the existence of the test or the results, which is information that is completely within his control.



> The real difference comes in all the other downsides (the "something to lose") I posted in #93, which you agree existed as downsides *if the Bulls know he the results*. I don't think those downsides are entirely the same if there's a published, verified report vs. an outstanding uncertainty. It's a downside in any case, but he's still better off minimizing the impact of them by not testing *(or admitting he tested).*


And I maintain that agreement, which includes the presumption that the Bulls know the test was taken. A presumption that, in my hypothetical, does not exist. 

Again, totally agree there is a downside to admitting the existence of the test if the results were unfavorable. I never even came close to suggesting otherwise. 



> All I'm trying to get at is the truth of the matter. The truth as I see it is that the Bulls are going to assume the worst case scenario but Curry is better off not testing since an assumed worst case is better than a verified worst case. And in the wider market, unverified rumor and concern is better than verified but hard to understand results. How much better? Only slightly, but there's no reason to forfeit a even slight advantage.


Agreed.



> Slight advantages can be meaningful, and that's why I'm trying to point these things out.


Agreed.



> You see how this is a recursive problem though, don't you? The operative thing for the Bulls is to assume the test is done, but so long as there is some doubt it works to Curry's advantage.


Agreed.



> *But you can't logically square why Curry wouldn't just have the test and admit the results. * If the world is as you think it is, wouldn't Curry have just admitted the results of the test to the Bulls since you think they would assume the worst anyway?


You are right. I can't logically square it. Thats because it is illogical and, therefore, why I've never suggested that Curry should "just have the test and admit the results." I can't believe that after all I've written that you interpreted this to be my position. 

And hell no Curry shouldn't admit the results if they were unfavorable. I never said otherwise.



> Clearly, that hasn't happened.
> 
> I'm trying to provide an explanation of why that hasn't happened.


I don't need an explanation. Curry would be an imbecile to release unfavorable results.



> No. *What we're debating is whether the Bulls know Curry took the test and what it means.* You seem to think they don't, but I think they can, should, and are assuming to a high practical certainty that he has and tested positive.


That is not what I was debating at all. I agree that the Bulls should reach the same conclusion I did. I wouldn't have advocated that conclusion if I believed it to be without merit or illogical.



> The import is this is obviously bad for Curry, but there's a slightly worse case scenario by having a verified positive test even if the Bulls themselves (and anyone who thinks about it) can safely assume it.


Agreed.



> For this debate, my position is consistent with the reality we see. A standoff and lots of uncertainty over the test, due to the fact Curry has *something to lose by testing and revealing.* Your position, as I understand it, is inconsistent with that reality, because by the logic you're applying, *Curry wouldn't have anything to lose by taking the test and revealing the result.*


This verifies that you have grossly misunderstood my position, which might be my fault (though I thought I was being painfully and repetitiously clear). He has nothing to lose *by testing * because he has the legal right to keep the existence of the test to himself. He certainly has something to lose by revealing the result if the result is bad. There are two steps: (a) the test, which has no downside; and (b) releasing the results which, depending on the results, could have a downside or an upside. Sitting on the results has no downside at all since thats, in effect, what we have right now.

The last bolded part is, more or less, the opposite of what I've been saying. My point has always been this: I conclude that Curry took the test because he controls, first, the release of whether or not he took it and, second, what the results are. Therefore, there is no downside in the taking itself. There is only a downside in the release, which would only apply if the test were positive. But he logically wouldn't release that information were it unfavorable. Hence, the second part of my conclusion which is that the results were poor. 





> Lots of folks do prefer ignorance. It's a perfectly rational approach to take in many situations.


I don't consider this to be one of those situations.





> You didn't acknowledge it just then.


I wrote "for all you know" which, to me, connotes that speculation is what is being discussed. Perhaps you don't use the phrase that way.





> Taking the test puts him behind the 8 ball in any legal dispute I can see. Suppose the NBAPA decides he's going to give the results and threatens suit to enjoin him from doing so. Given their stated stance, that seems a possibility. Not taking the test - how does that _hurt _him legally? If there's a legal ramification, it's that down the road he or his survivors sue the Bulls for not _making_ him take the test or some BS like that. That's certainly a legal issue, but it's not a problem from Curry's perspective.


I don't see how the NBAPA could contest a decision by Curry to submit to the test. They would have no standing. 

But you are right, not taking the test probably wouldn't hurt Curry because if legal action were taken he'd presumably be a corpse. But it would hurt his estate's position in the lawsuit.

I hope I've sufficiently explained it all this time.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mike, here is my original post in this thread regarding the test:



> I've been thinking that for a couple of weeks myself.
> 
> Question: What possible motive could Eddy Curry have for NOT *getting the DNA test performed * privately? *There is no downside for him*.
> 
> ...


This seems very simple and clear to me, so I don't know where the confusion came from. I'm saying there is no downside in taking the test. I'm not saying there is no downside in releasing the results. 

Indeed, I'm saying he would only release the results of they were favorable to him and, otherwise, he'd sit on them. I don't know how it got all confused, but I hope that clarifies things.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Sure you can say he has more to gain by not taking the test. The only reason I said he was screwed either way is that even though he didn't take the test to gain more leverage in the negotiation (according to you), the matter of fact is that he didn't get a single offer yet other than Paxon's. So far the reality indicated that not taking test didn't do its magic as he desired or you indicated, hence Eddy is in the situation where he is in now.


:sigh: But I didn't argue not taking the test would do any magic. Rather, I pretty clearly said that it was a bad situation for Eddy in either case, but that I figured it was slightly worse to actually take the test (or at least, to report the results). 



> I just don't see any real advantage he got from not taking the test. He may has more to lose by taking test but he sure doesn't get any leverage by not taking the test. If any of these even make sense.
> :yes:
> 
> In the end, i think it will come down to how much financial deep hole Eddy is in. If he needs big money right away at the expense of total and long term better deal, he will eventually take Paxon's offer (one year guarantee and 5 year deal, am I right?). If he is not in deep ****, he will definetly take QO and go for the BIG money next year (whether big money will be there waiting for him after the next year is anybody's guess at this point. My personal prediction is that if Eddy take QO and test free agent market next year, he will probably get a contract with longer guaranteed year but the gross total of contract won't be anywhere near what Eddy was dreaming one year ago.)


Quite possible. I'm not sure why the total would go down, but I agree with most everything else.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Mike, here is my original post in this thread regarding the test:
> 
> This seems very simple and clear to me, so I don't know where the confusion came from. I'm saying there is no downside in taking the test. I'm not saying there is no downside in releasing the results.
> 
> Indeed, I'm saying he would only release the results of they were favorable to him and, otherwise, he'd sit on them. I don't know how it got all confused, but I hope that clarifies things.


OK, I get it now. I do think there are personal downsides to getting the test done, but that's not really the big issue here, and I think we actually basically agree on that. {Edit: "That" being releasing the results.}

Edit: One final point however: I do see a couple business related downsides to actually taking the tests that were sort of hovering around in my mind but I didn't express very well.

1. Right to privacy or not, there are plenty of ways this info can leak out if Eddy actually has the test. There was the "Eddy contemplating retirement rumor" a while back, complete with Eddy's family wanting him to. Suppose he has the test, is positive, and one of his family members, fraught that Eddy would decide to play basketball in light of the test, spills the beans. Or maybe its some flunky in the testing lab who really likes the Bulls. Or a friend of a friend of Curry's wife. Secrets are hard to keep.

2. By not taking the test, Eddy's not actually breaching a trust or lying if asked. Legally having the right not to tell and actually doing it are two different things. Lying probably doesn't count as much for a lot of people, but even for the dishonorable folks for whom lying is no problem, we're talking about something potentially on the order of a $60M lie here. That sort of thing requires some cool to carry off, both now and in the future, and it can easily become a burden. Conversely, if the truth ever became known, it'd be a huge blow to Curry's reputation and his working relationship with the Bulls. By not taking the test, Curry isn't put in a position where he has to lie if asked. Down the road, that could mean a lot.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> OK, I get it now. I do think there are personal downsides to getting the test done, but that's not really the big issue here, and I think we actually basically agree on that. {Edit: "That" being releasing the results.}
> 
> Edit: One final point however: I do see a couple business related downsides to actually taking the tests that were sort of hovering around in my mind but I didn't express very well.
> 
> ...


Those are both excellent points, and impossible for me to disagree with. In fact, in order to avoid an allegation of fraud, Eddy might have to respond with a refusal to answer questions about the test which, would most certainly suggest (fair or not) that the test was taken. Then we fall back into the further assumptions an onlooker would make regarding the results.

Those are completely legitimate arguments that a downside to even merely taking the test exists.


----------

