That's what I wrote this past weekend after learning that the Bulls and Eddy Curry's representatives will likely have an arbitration battle over management's 'requirement' that Eddy Curry take a DNA test before letting him play next season. As this gets deeper into employer/employee rights I feel safe just letting the experts grapple over it.
I certainly acknowledge the slippery slope argument regarding these DNA tests and what other genetic predispositions other teams could test for if the Bulls' 'demand' is ruled legitimate. But isn't there some sort of 'probable cause' (I don't mean that term in the literal legal use) that can be applied to this specific case? Eddy isn't being asked for a test out of the clear blue, he had an episode with his heart, and saw a heart specialist who recommended the test. While it's true that other experts Eddy visited said the test wasn't necessary, I don't see any malice intended in the Bulls wanting to follow the advice of 'their guy'.
I think it's a stretch that a team would use this one instance with Eddy Curry as precedent to start testing for every kind of potential problem to reduce cost uncertainty.