Lawsuit Filed By Former Indiana Men’s Basketball Players Alleging Abuse Continues

Jones Day reported that “nearly all of the accounts” from former players stated that Bomba acted “in a professional and clinical manner.”  He used a glove, lubricant and did not engage in sexually provocative comments, the report said. Jones Day’s report states that “there was no suggestion they were sexual in nature.”

Jones Day also reported that former basketball players who later became doctors described Bomba’s care as “appropriate.” Players reached as part of the investigation who turned pro noted that Bomba’s practices were consistent with what they experienced as professional athletes.

Jones Day noted that 11 players they reached expressed concern with Bomba’s practices. The report stated that some felt uncomfortable at the time and some felt uncomfortable in hindsight. Jones Day said that three former players they spoke with “felt violated or humiliated” after the exam.

Central to the class-action suit is the Title IX claim that the university was aware of Bomba’s practices and did nothing about it.

Jones Day’s report notes that one player – later revealed to be Carter – raised objections to Bomba’s digital rectal exam at the time it happened. When Carter was added to the lawsuit, his legal representatives claimed that Carter took his complaint to Knight, team trainer Bob Young and then-special assistant to the president George Taliaferro about Bomba. Carter did not see Bomba again after he raised his complaint.

Jones Day acknowledged Carter’s account in its report.

“We were unable to uncover any evidence of what, if anything, may have been done in response to this player’s complaints,” the report stated.

Indiana’s knowledge of Bomba’s practices extended to Garl and his participation in “locker room banter” on Bomba’s DRE practices.

Jones Day noted that Garl said “no players complained about the exams being inappropriate or sexual in any manner.”

However, the report also criticized Garl, stating that medical professionals they spoke with said “engaging in jokes like this about medical procedures is unprofessional.”

The third component of Jones Day’s investigation was whether Bomba’s digital rectal exams were accepted medical practice as part of a physical examination.

Jones Day checked documentation from accepted experts on athletic physical exams. The investigation also wanted to ascertain what Bomba was taught as a medical student and whether that influenced his decision to conduct the digital rectal exams. The investigation also wanted to understand whether the exams were an accepted part of physicals and whether it was uncommon to conduct them.

 “Although the experts agreed that the provision of (digital rectal exams) in a collegiate (pre-participation physical exam) without any relevant medical history or symptoms was an uncommon practice, their opinions differed on the propriety of Dr. Bomba’s practice of including (digital rectal exams) in student athletes’ annual physicals,” Jones Day’s summary of the report stated.

Jones Day spoke with three doctors. One stated a digital rectal exam was an unusual practice as part of a physical; one doctor said it wasn’t. A third doctor said it wasn’t something that could be seen “in black-and-white terms.”

“Dr. Bomba’s decision to perform a (digital rectal exam) as a part of a routine (pre-participation physical exam) could be viewed as reasonable medical judgment for the majority of Dr. Bomba’s career. By the late 1990s, however, standardization of (pre-participation physical exams) started to take hold and a medical consensus began to emerge that (digital rectal exams) were not a supportable method for identifying malignancies in college-age patients,” Jones Day’s report said this doctor stated.

“The expert thus opines that the decision to continue performing (digital rectal exams) toward the end of Dr. Bomba’s tenure, though likely well-meaning, was outdated and no longer reasonable,” the report continued.

Jones Day’s conclusion was favorable to Bomba.

“Given that lack of uniformity, our ultimate assessment is that it was not clearly unreasonable for Dr. Bomba to include a (digital rectal exam) in the (pre-participation physical exams) he performed for the IU men’s basketball team,” Jones Day stated.

The report also included outreach from Bomba’s son – Brad Bomba Jr. – a physician who occasionally helped his father with physicals for Indiana players. Bomba Jr. is not accused in the class-action suit and claimed he did not perform digital rectal exams on Indiana players. Bomba Jr. did note that he conducted those exams on his non-athletic patients into the early 2000s before he altered the practice based on evolving medical norms.

“Dr. Bomba, Jr. explained that it can take time to change practices based on recommendations, so it does not surprise him that his father continued including (digital rectal exams) as a part of pre-participation physicals because he would have viewed that as consistent with providing the best care,” Jones Day stated.

Jones Day acknowledged limitations in its report.

Many witnesses have died since the relevant period – the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Many former employees, former players and third-party witnesses declined to participate in the Jones Day investigation. No one aside from Garl who are specific parties to the class-action lawsuit took part in the Jones Day investigation.

Jones Day also said that patients it sought were only those who reached it via a hotline it set up.

Jones Day also acknowledged that, “we were unable to locate most documents of greatest relevance to our investigation.” Medical records were presumably destroyed due to the passage of time and many athletes did not have documentation of their case when they were student-athletes.

“We were unable to independently corroborate the accounts provided to us by former patients via documentary evidence. Nonetheless, common details and accounts emerged from our interviews of Dr. Bomba’s former patients such that we are confident in our findings regarding the practices of Dr. Bomba and the characteristics of his exams,” Jones Day stated.

DeLaney & DeLaney, the law firm representing the players, said the Jones Day report confirmed what they allege in their lawsuit.

“The Jones Day report confirms that IU officials knew that Dr. Bomba, Sr. was penetrating these young athletes’ rectums and IU refused to stop it,” said attorney Kathleen DeLaney in a press release from DeLaney & DeLaney.

 “The report did not help me understand the rationale for Dr. Bomba Sr.’s actions or for IU’s failure to act. It seems to me that IU stayed quiet at the expense of me and the other players,” Mujezinovic said in the same press release.

The Indiana Daily Student reported after the release of the Jones Day investigation that Indiana was aware of the allegations on June 21, 2024 via a letter that was sent by one of the accusers. The Jones Day report did not mention this letter in its investigation. 

The Jones Day investigation said that Indiana first received notice of the alleged abuse when it received a letter from the legal representative of one of the accusing players in August.

No trial date has been set for the class-action suit.