Curry's DNA fight with Bulls 'bigger than sports world'

gotpitbull

G-League
Found this article quite interesting, wanted to here other's input.

By Jim Litke
Associated Press

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2174877

CHICAGO -- Until last spring, Eddy Curry was just another cautionary tale about kids drafted before their time. The Chicago Bulls plucked the 6-foot-11 manchild out of high school in 2001, and he played his first three seasons more flabby than feared. But Curry showed up for the final year of his rookie contract 40 pounds lighter, converted some of that enormous potential into production, and made the Bulls think they might yet see a return on their considerable investment.

Then, before a March 30 game at Charlotte, Curry's heart skipped a few beats.

And then, a few more.

Nearly six months later, after a diagnosis of benign arrythmia sent the 22-year-old scurrying to cardiologists from coast to coast and cost him the rest of the season, Curry finds himself in a fight with Bulls management his lawyer calls "far bigger than just the sports world."

At issue is the one-year, $5 million deal Chicago offered Curry, with this proviso: before he sets foot on the court, Curry must submit to DNA testing.

"Think about what's at stake here," said Alan Milstein, Curry's attorney. "As far as DNA testing, we're just at the beginning of that universe. Pretty soon, though, we'll know whether someone is predisposed to cancer, alcoholism, obesity, baldness and who knows what else.

"Hand that information to an employer," he added, "and imagine the implications. If the NBA were to get away with it, what about everyone else in this country looking for a job."

Chicago general manager John Paxson insists the Bulls can test Curry as part of a routine physical when training camp opens next week. Milstein calls that notion "flat-out wrong," and one already rejected by the players' union during the last collective bargaining agreement.

"Besides, there are privacy laws on the books, both state and federal, so there's no way they'd win," he added. "It makes you wonder what they're really worried about."

Milstein isn't the only one asking. Miami Heat forward Antoine Walker, like Curry a Chicago native, played pickup games alongside the youngster the last three weeks, and the dispute has him shaking his head.

"He looked fine, but a lot of teams seem concerned with risks nowadays. Maybe because the investments in players have become so big," Walker said. "Maybe the Bulls want Eddy long-term, and maybe this is some kind of bargaining chip. Either way, DNA testing is taking things a little too far."

Paxson says the team's only motive is to learn whether Curry's genetic makeup leaves him susceptible to cardiomyopathy, a heart condition that combined with arrythmia, could prove fatal. He said the DNA test was suggested by Barry Maron, a world-renowned specialist in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and complained the team's stance is unfairly being portrayed as though "we have some other motive.

"The bottom line," Paxson added, "is if Eddy had not had any incident and a doctor hadn't suggested it, we wouldn't be asking for it."

Curry has already been cleared to play by several prominent cardiologists, but he can't get disability insurance for his contract should he be sidelined again -- or worse -- with heart problems.

"There's one guy who isn't sure," Curry told the Chicago Tribune on Tuesday, making his first comments in a while. "I can live with that because of what the other doctors say."

If this was a private medical dispute, chances are the hype would be less and the stakes lower. But because of the liability issues, Curry's high profile, and the value a healthy, motivated big man can command in the NBA marketplace, it's become an expensive, mean-spirited mess.

Besides arguing over medial opinions and the science underpinning DNA testing, both camps have recently invoked the deaths of former Celtics star Reggie Lewis and Loyola Marymount's Hank Gathers. Both suffered from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy when they collapsed and died; what the Bulls and Curry's advisers disagree over is whether he is treading the same path.

"My best guess?" Milstein said. "Eddy shows up at camp, refuses the test, we go to arbitration and the arbitrator tells the Bulls they simply can't compel him. We'll find out soon enough."

That's what scares Jerome Stanley, Lewis' agent. He recalled the ride through Boston with Lewis' family in a limousine on the way to the funeral as one of the toughest things he ever had to do. Stanley said Tuesday he wishes now that DNA testing had been an option.

"I've seen this movie before," he said. "Eddy Curry and his family and his agent do not believe he can drop dead and die. You know what? He can drop dead and die. It goes just like that.

"If I'm the team, let the insurance be your guide," Stanley said. "The insurance won't insure it, that should tell you something. They've got the biggest group of risk managers.

"Now maybe they're wrong," he added. "But if you lose the bet, you don't just lose the player. The player dies."
 
I can understand the Bulls being concerned as they should be but DNA testing? I think if the cardiologists say he can play then he should, if not then he shouldn't. Too many athletes are dying and although some exercise is good for your heart, too much can be life threatening. Whatever they decide I wish him well, his health must come first, and not from the insurance standpoint.
 
I don't see what the big deal is. No one is putting a gun to Curry's head. If you don't want to take the DNA test, sign with a team that won't require you to take the test. Take the DNA test and, if it goes well, the Bulls pay you $5 million dollars. If the test does not go well, why would you want to jeopardize your life by playing basketball?
 
I side with Chicago in this circumstance; Eddy Curry certainly has the right to refuse DNA testing; the Bulls have the right to not have Eddy Curry's death on their "hands," so to speak.

I found this quote from the late Reggie Lewis' agent to be particularly poignant:

"I've seen this movie before," [Stanley] said. "Eddy Curry and his family and his agent do not believe he can drop dead and die. You know what? He can drop dead and die. It goes just like that...

"Now maybe they're wrong," he added. "But if you lose the bet, you don't just lose the player. The player dies."
I'll admit to being a little apprehensive about the precedent that could be set here, but I'm even more apprehensive about Eddy Curry collapsing on the basketball court and dying because he had a fatal heart condition that he didn't know about, and refused to find out about.

Question: are there any means currently available, besides DNA testing, to determine whether someone is succeptible to cardiomyopathy, or is DNA is the only way to be one hundred percent certain?
 
In the medical realm, I thought doctor-patient relationship is more important, also I believe there are confidentiality conflicts occuring here.....yes even though his employer wants to know of his condition, this violates the dr-pat relation, ethically speaking........Similarly, insurance company can't discriminate or raise one's premium b/c of one's genetic susceptiblity to a disorder, there are laws that protect us and I'm not going to go into detail about that......that's my 2 cents
 
Did Gattica come out too soon? I think it flopped because there had yet been a case where the situation was relevent.
 
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
Question: are there any means currently available, besides DNA testing, to determine whether someone is succeptible to cardiomyopathy, or is DNA is the only way to be one hundred percent certain?

Family history is usually the only other risk factor I know of. I do know it runs in families - I have a few acquaintances at the heart board I hang at who have 4-5 family members with HCM. DNA testing might be the only way to confirm succeptilibity, but I'm not sure.

Perhaps I'm just being dense, but I don't understand why the Bulls want this. I could understand if they were just about to sign a big prospect draft pick and wanted to be sure he's not predisposed, but it changes nothing about Curry's condition, so why insist on it? I don't see what they hope to gain from it.

For those more curious, here's a link for more info on HCM:
http://heart.healthcentersonline.com/cardiomyopathy/hypertrophiccardiomyopathy2.cfm
 
My WAG would be that, to Chicago, it makes the difference between whether or not they decide to pay him; isn't he a free agent?
 
I still don't understand how the testing figures in. If Curry's an FA, the question is simply whether the Bulls want to take the risk. Curry's condition is obviously well-managed enough for the docs to clear him to play, but that's not a guarantee that he won't have another serious arrhythmic episode. I'm think this might be a CYA move to protect themselves in the event they refuse to sign Curry and he tries to take them to court over it. Even then, I don't see what good it would do.
 
Hrmm... my interpretation of that article was that the doctors cleared him to play with the arrythmia; I got the sense that nobody else even considered the possible combination of arrythmia and cardiomyopathy until Dr. Maron brought it up. It seems to me that Curry's doctors are saying, "he's cleared to play with Condition A," and the specialist is saying, "yeah, but if he has Condition B on TOP of Condition A, then he could die," and the Bulls are saying, "well, he's not going to be insurable if he has Condition B, so let's make sure that he doesn't have Condition B before we give him more money."

YMMV, of course.
 
Okay, I misread the article - I thought he had already been diagnosed with HCM. Yes, the testing might determine predisposition, but that's no guarantee he will develop it. If I were Curry, I'd refuse. Aside from the privacy issue, it could set a dangerous precedent - genetic discrimination, and I do't even want to go there.
 
I'm concerned about the precedent myself. That said, I side with the Bulls; I wouldn't want to be in the position that they're in right now, and I certainly wouldn't want to have to face the scrutiny that would undoubtedly come if they signed him, knowing that playing basketball could kill him, and then he died.

Like I said, Curry has the right to preserve his privacy, and the Bulls have the right to not have his death on their conscience (in a worst-case scenario, of course).
 
Aside - What do WAG and YMMV mean?

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

As far as the article goes, if Eddie Curry has a condition that can kill him if he plays basketball, then for God's sake, they should do everything they can ahead of time to find out about it.

This is about a man's life. Not about a silly game. I agree with S£im - privacy is one thing. Hiring someone to do a job that doesn't require the employee to put his life on the line should mean just that. If Curry stepping on the court might actually result in his death, then he should find another career.
 
Last edited:
I have more or less been on the Bulls side in this dispute -- indeed, the only reason I could think of for Curry NOT to get such a test is because he fears it might say exactly what everyone fears it will.

But that said, there is definitely something to be said about the precedent here. Imagine a world where employers were able to require genetic tests before you could work with them, and to actually make employmnet decisions based on them. Especially as our knowledge of genetic makeup increases exponentially over the next few decades. Anyone seen the move Gattaca?
 
At what point is it Curry's responsibility? I mean if he's refusing to submit to the tests and still wants to play and all, at some point that has to be on him and he is taking that chance.

If I'm the Bulls I may not offer him a contract at all if he refuses the tests. If the concern is really this "condition B" and he won't submit to the tests, I would rescind the offer. I would not be willing to risk the death of a player like that, even if it was Curry's decision to start with. Who wants to have that kind of a thing on thier mind conscience?
 
allrightythen said:
At what point is it Curry's responsibility? I mean if he's refusing to submit to the tests and still wants to play and all, at some point that has to be on him and he is taking that chance.

If I'm the Bulls I may not offer him a contract at all if he refuses the tests. If the concern is really this "condition B" and he won't submit to the tests, I would rescind the offer. I would not be willing to risk the death of a player like that, even if it was Curry's decision to start with. Who wants to have that kind of a thing on thier mind conscience?

Agreed.

It's not a prerequisite to initial employment. The whole issue has come to the forefront solely because Curry has had MAJOR problems and now wants to receive a hefty contract to continue to play. I don't think it's at all out of line for the Bulls to want to do everything they possibly can to determine whether or not it would be practical, cost-effective, logical, etc. to sign Curry with the possibility he could fall to the floor dead at some undeterminable time in the future? Financial considerations aside, you don't want to be the one considered responsible for allowing a young man to do something he knew could very easily kill him, especially if it isn't a normal option for the profession involved.
 
allrightythen said:
At what point is it Curry's responsibility?

Since it's Curry's life that's potentially at stake, it is HIS responsibility alone. However, that doesn't mean the Bulls are going to let him potentially die on their watch. That's a tragedy, a huge PR stain, a big bite out of Reinsdorf's wallet, and a potential lawsuit by Curry's family.

Sucks for the Bulls, but so far they've been smarter than Curry.
 
Gargamel said:
Since it's Curry's life that's potentially at stake, it is HIS responsibility alone. However, that doesn't mean the Bulls are going to let him potentially die on their watch. That's a tragedy, a huge PR stain, a big bite out of Reinsdorf's wallet, and a potential lawsuit by Curry's family.

Sucks for the Bulls, but so far they've been smarter than Curry.
There would be no lawsuit, reason being he can't be insured.
 
Gargamel said:
Since it's Curry's life that's potentially at stake, it is HIS responsibility alone. However, that doesn't mean the Bulls are going to let him potentially die on their watch. That's a tragedy, a huge PR stain, a big bite out of Reinsdorf's wallet, and a potential lawsuit by Curry's family.

Sucks for the Bulls, but so far they've been smarter than Curry.

Thats exactly what I mean. Beyond all business and PR and financial reasons, I personally wouldn't do it simply because I wouldn't be able to live with myself if something did happen to the guy. I'd be willing to pass on the possible success that might come of him succeeding and being a great compliment to Chandler for years to come, to keep him alive. Could you imagine being that GM (Paxson?) and having something happen to Curry while he was playing and to look back and say, I took that risk? Not something I would put myself or the player or the organization through.
 
Looks like its not the Bulls problem anymore. Just read this on another board.


Bulls send Curry to Knicks for Sweetny & Thomas
 
The Bulls aren't that worried about Eddie dying on the court for their team or they would just go ahead and trade him. As it stands he will STILL be coming back to their team next year for the qualifying offer. All the Bulls are worried abiout is their long term FINANCIAL responsibilities to Curry. Indeed, if he was willing to work for a series of one year $5 million contracts, I doubt they ever get rid of him, risk of death or not.



Again, there is an interesting subtext here which is a little troubling.

You are at work, you are up for a promotion, one day you have a fainting spell. You go to the doctor and he diagnoses the problem. You want to come back to work for the promotion, but now the employer says not so fast -- there's a lot of stress in that job, and you can't have it unless you submit to a genetic test to see if you've got an exotic disorder. If you do, sorry, tough luck, that position is going to somebody else. Furthermore, nobody else in the industry wants to hire you either unless you get that test.

The difference here is the guaranteed contract situation -- increases the employer's risk. But nonetheless that's a slippery slope once you open that door.
 
Bricklayer said:
You are at work, you are up for a promotion, one day you have a fainting spell. You go to the doctor and he diagnoses the problem. You want to come back to work for the promotion, but now the employer says not so fast -- there's a lot of stress in that job, and you can't have it unless you submit to a genetic test to see if you've got an exotic disorder. If you do, sorry, tough luck, that position is going to somebody else. Furthermore, nobody else in the industry wants to hire you either unless you get that test.

GATTACA...
 
Bricklayer said:
The Bulls aren't that worried about Eddie dying on the court for their team or they would just go ahead and trade him. As it stands he will STILL be coming back to their team next year for the qualifying offer. All the Bulls are worried abiout is their long term FINANCIAL responsibilities to Curry. Indeed, if he was willing to work for a series of one year $5 million contracts, I doubt they ever get rid of him, risk of death or not.



Again, there is an interesting subtext here which is a little troubling.

You are at work, you are up for a promotion, one day you have a fainting spell. You go to the doctor and he diagnoses the problem. You want to come back to work for the promotion, but now the employer says not so fast -- there's a lot of stress in that job, and you can't have it unless you submit to a genetic test to see if you've got an exotic disorder. If you do, sorry, tough luck, that position is going to somebody else. Furthermore, nobody else in the industry wants to hire you either unless you get that test.

The difference here is the guaranteed contract situation -- increases the employer's risk. But nonetheless that's a slippery slope once you open that door.

Very true about the Bulls being worried about the financial stuff, thats always the deal, but thats not what they are claiming. I have an unfair advantage when analyzing the situation as have nothing invested in the situation. I would hope that they are concerned about his welfare on some level though. Hate to see the day when your little subtext somes true.
 
Back
Top