Doctor accused of abusing Indiana University athletes didn't act in 'bad faith,' law firm says
A law firm hired by Indiana University has concluded that former basketball team doctor Bradford Bomba Sr. did not act 'in bad faith or with an improper purpose' when he performed rectal exams on hundreds of young players during routine physicals.
But the medical experts brought on by the Jones Day law firm to help conduct an independent investigation into the allegations against Bomba wrote that "it was uncommon" for physicians to perform invasive exams like this on "college-age student athletes without pertinent history of complaints."
Still, the experts wrote in the 874-page report, Bomba's method of doing these exams was "professional and clinical."
"We uncovered no evidence — no witness interview, player account, documentation, or evidence regarding any general predilection of Dr. Bomba — that indicated Dr. Bomba had any sexual purpose or derived any sexual gratification from administering the DREs," the report states, using the acronym for digital rectal exams.
IU hired Jones Day in September to look into the allegations against the now 88-year-old retired doctor after a former player named Haris Mujezinovic sent the school a letter accusing Bomba of performing unnecessary rectal exams on heathy young athletes and saying school officials did nothing to stop him.
'The report did not help me understand the rationale for Dr. Bomba Sr.'s actions or for IU's failure to act," Mujezinovic said in a statement released by his lawyers Kathleen DeLaney, Matthew Gutwein and Alexander Pantos after the Jones Day report was released Thursday. "It seems to me that IU stayed quiet at the expense of me and the other players.'
Mujezinovic is one five former Indiana players, including one-time NBA player and former Toronto Raptors coach Butch Carter, who are suing the university trustees and former athletic trainer Tim Garl for allegedly ignoring warnings about Bomba, who they allege performed medically unnecessarily rectal exams on the young men.
Delaney, in an email Friday to NBC News, said "this report helps our litigation case and we are continuing to pursue the case with vigor."
"The Jones Day report is flawed in many respects, but it unequivocally confirms that Dr. Bomba, Sr. routinely abused IU student athletes for decades and that the university's Head Athletic Trainer knew about it at the time and did nothing to stop it," Delany wrote. "Even the hired experts Jones Day engaged — two out of three of them — stopped short of endorsing Dr. Bomba, Sr.'s digital rectal examinations as 'medically appropriate.''
Delaney said the Jones Day investigators did not interview Bomba and noted that in December the retired doctor invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination dozens of times during a deposition for the lawsuit.
The Jones Day report, Delaney added, also called Garl's behavior "unprofessional" for "razzing" players about the rectal exams at the hands of Bomba.
Garl, who had been the head men's basketball trainer at the school since 1981, was informed last month that IU would not be renewing his contract.
"This report completely exonerates Tim Garl," his lawyer, Christopher Lee, told NBC News, who added they have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against Garl.
NBC News has also reached out to Bomba's attorney for comment on the findings in the Jones Day report.
When asked if the university had anything else to say about the report, IU spokesperson Mark Bode referred a reporter to the school's statement which said, in part, "The review by Jones Day was fully independent from the university and followed the evidence."
Bomba, who is not listed as a defendant, provided medical care to all its sports teams from 1962 to 1970 and was the Hoosier's men's basketball team physician from 1979 until the late 1990s.
Mujezinovic and Charlie Miller, who played for the Hoosiers in the 1990s under the late and legendary coach Bob Knight, were the first of the former players to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana alleging that their coaches and trainers were aware that Bomba was subjecting basketball players to unnecessary prostate examinations and did nothing to stop him.
They sued under Title IX, a federal law that requires all colleges and universities that receive federal funds to put safeguards in place to protect students from discrimination based on sex, including sexual harassment and sexual violence.
'Dr. Bomba, Sr.'s routine sexual assaults were openly discussed by the Hoosier men's basketball players in the locker room in the presence of IU employees, including assistant coaches, athletic trainers, and other Hoosier men's basketball staff,' according to the lawsuit.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Karen Read trial live updates: Can crash reconstruction expert help the defense?
The second murder trial of Karen Read resumed Friday with testimony from a defense accident reconstruction witness, after the trial took a one-day pause due to sweltering heat in the Massachusetts court room. Daniel Michael Wolfe, an accident reconstruction expert, began testifying about his analysis of whether Read could have killed her Boston police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe with her car. Read's defense team has sought to prove that she was framed for the death of O'Keefe, who was found underneath the snow outside the home of another cop in January 2022 after the couple went out drinking one night with friends. Prosecutors say Read backed into O'Keefe with her Lexus SUV in a drunken rage after dropping him off at the home for a house party and then left him to die outside during a historic blizzard. She has been charged with second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. Discover WITNESS: Access our exclusive collection of true crime stories, podcasts, videos and more More: Karen Read trial: Prosecution rests its case after 6 weeks. What's next in the case? Earlier in the week, jurors heard from a woman who went to the bar with Read and O'Keefe the night before his body was found and a Canton, Massachusetts, snow plow driver who said he did not see O'Keefe's body in the yard of now-retired Boston Police Officer Brian Albert as he passed by the morning of Jan. 29, 2022. This is her second trial, after her first ended last year in a hung jury. Jury instructions filed by Read's lawyers suggest that the Massachusetts woman may not testify in the retrial. They include a section informing the jury of Read's Fifth Amendment right not to testify, telling them they 'may not hold that against her.' Christopher Dearborn, a law professor at Suffolk University in Boston who has followed the case closely, said the instructions are likely a 'harbinger' that Read's attorneys are not going to call her to the stand, though he noted that they could change their mind. 'Frankly, I don't think it would make a lot of sense to call her at this point,' Dearborn said, noting the number of public statements Read has made that could be used against her. The court has already heard from Read in the trial through clips prosecutors played of interviews conducted in which she questioned whether she 'clipped' O'Keefe and admitted to driving while inebriated. Dearborn told USA TODAY that there are two schools of thought around whether to include a section on a defendant's right not to testify in jury instructions. Some defense lawyers don't include the section because they don't want to "draw a bull's eye" around the fact that the defendant didn't testify and cause jurors to "speculate," Dearborn said. Other times, he said, its the "elephant in the room" and the specific instructions telling the jury they can't hold the defendant's lack of testimony against them are necessary. CourtTV has been covering the case against Read and the criminal investigation since early 2022, when O'Keefe's body was found outside a Massachusetts home. You can watch CourtTV's live feed of the Read trial proceedings from Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts. Proceedings began at 9 a.m. ET. Contributing: Christopher Cann, USA TODAY This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Karen Read trial updates: Defense turns to crash reconstruction expert
USA Today
7 hours ago
- USA Today
Karen Read trial live updates: Can crash reconstruction expert help the defense?
Karen Read trial live updates: Can crash reconstruction expert help the defense? Show Caption Hide Caption Karen Read's second murder trial begins with new jury Karen Read is starting her second trial after being prosecuted for the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, last year. The second murder trial of Karen Read resumed Friday with testimony from a defense accident reconstruction witness, after the trial took a one-day pause due to sweltering heat in the Massachusetts court room. Daniel Michael Wolfe, an accident reconstruction expert, began testifying about his analysis of whether Read could have killed her Boston police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe with her car. Read's defense team has sought to prove that she was framed for the death of O'Keefe, who was found underneath the snow outside the home of another cop in January 2022 after the couple went out drinking one night with friends. Prosecutors say Read backed into O'Keefe with her Lexus SUV in a drunken rage after dropping him off at the home for a house party and then left him to die outside during a historic blizzard. She has been charged with second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. Discover WITNESS: Access our exclusive collection of true crime stories, podcasts, videos and more More: Karen Read trial: Prosecution rests its case after 6 weeks. What's next in the case? Earlier in the week, jurors heard from a woman who went to the bar with Read and O'Keefe the night before his body was found and a Canton, Massachusetts, snow plow driver who said he did not see O'Keefe's body in the yard of now-retired Boston Police Officer Brian Albert as he passed by the morning of Jan. 29, 2022. This is her second trial, after her first ended last year in a hung jury. Jury instructions filed by Read's lawyers suggest that the Massachusetts woman may not testify in the retrial. They include a section informing the jury of Read's Fifth Amendment right not to testify, telling them they 'may not hold that against her.' Christopher Dearborn, a law professor at Suffolk University in Boston who has followed the case closely, said the instructions are likely a 'harbinger' that Read's attorneys are not going to call her to the stand, though he noted that they could change their mind. 'Frankly, I don't think it would make a lot of sense to call her at this point,' Dearborn said, noting the number of public statements Read has made that could be used against her. The court has already heard from Read in the trial through clips prosecutors played of interviews conducted in which she questioned whether she 'clipped' O'Keefe and admitted to driving while inebriated. Dearborn told USA TODAY that there are two schools of thought around whether to include a section on a defendant's right not to testify in jury instructions. Some defense lawyers don't include the section because they don't want to "draw a bull's eye" around the fact that the defendant didn't testify and cause jurors to "speculate," Dearborn said. Other times, he said, its the "elephant in the room" and the specific instructions telling the jury they can't hold the defendant's lack of testimony against them are necessary. CourtTV has been covering the case against Read and the criminal investigation since early 2022, when O'Keefe's body was found outside a Massachusetts home. You can watch CourtTV's live feed of the Read trial proceedings from Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts. Proceedings began at 9 a.m. ET. Contributing: Christopher Cann, USA TODAY
Business Wire
a day ago
- Business Wire
Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce That University of California Researchers Have Filed a Class Action Lawsuit Against the Trump Administration for the Illegal and Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Lieff Cabraser & Farella Braun + Martel Announce that a group of six University of California faculty and other researchers have filed a class action in federal court against the Trump Administration on behalf of all UC researchers whose previously approved agency grants were terminated pursuant to Executive Orders or other directives of President Trump, as implemented through the Department of Government Efficiency ('DOGE'). University of California Researchers File Class Action Suit Against Trump Administration for Illegal & Unconstitutional Termination of Critical Research Grants Plaintiffs seek a declaration that these grant terminations violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, and the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, as well as statutes that govern agencies' missions and grantmaking and the Administrative Procedure Act. As detailed in the Complaint, these abrupt cancellations of already awarded grants 'ignored or contradicted the purposes for which Congress created the granting agencies and appropriated funds, and dispensed with the regular procedures and due process afforded grantees under the Administrative Procedure Act, in implementing the Trump Administration's political 'cost-cutting' agenda and ideological purity campaign.' According to UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional law scholar and co-counsel on the case, 'President Trump and DOGE have arbitrarily cut off funding to researchers throughout the University of California system in clear violation of the Constitution and federal laws. There has not been a semblance of due process or compliance with the procedures required by federal statutes and regulations. This has caused great harm to a large number of faculty and other researchers and the UC research enterprise as a whole, with potentially grave consequences to everyone in society who benefits from the research in a myriad of disciplines." As described by Plaintiff Dr. Neeta Thakur, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at UCSF, 'The EPA has abruptly terminated a three-year grant that was supporting research on how wildfire smoke affects the lungs, heart, and brain of all Californians. My colleagues and I at UCSF and UC Berkeley have worked on this important project for two years, and its sudden end — communicated through a simple form letter — puts our progress in danger. This decision disrupts our ongoing work with community-based organizations and stops us from generating life-saving information designed to improve public health and protect the well-being of all Californians, especially those living in at-risk communities.' Plaintiff Jedda Foreman, the Director of the Center for Environmental Learning at the Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley, explains, 'My team and I at the Lawrence Hall of Science earned NSF grants to make science education more accessible to all learners. Instilling a love of science is critical to envisioning and creating a better future for us all. In one day, we lost two projects, and nearly 75% of our funding, because of terminations by NSF. A week later, NSF terminated yet another one of our projects. These terminations haven't just affected our team, but also our longtime community partners and thousands of students across the United States.' These are just two of hundreds of examples of the damage wrought by the Trump Administration's illegal and unconstitutional terminations. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, seeks a return to the pre-Trump Administration process of orderly grantmaking that aligns with congressionally authorized purposes, and affords due process to grant-funded researchers. Plaintiffs seek, for themselves and the class of UC researchers who have suffered unlawful grant terminations, an injunction restoring their lost funding, providing them sufficient time to complete the work for which their grants were originally approved, and preventing further illegal grant terminations. Plaintiffs will be filing a motion for a temporary restraining order on June 5, 2025. The case, No. 3:25-cv-4737, is assigned to the Honorable Rita F. Lin. Background on the Lawsuit Each year, researchers in the UC system receive hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from the full spectrum of federal agencies, ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency, to the National Science Foundation, to the National Institutes of Health. These grants fund the production of new knowledge and fuel the development of discoveries that greatly benefit society at large. The grants have also been key to the innovation that has consistently earned the UC system pride of place among research institutions, including first place in the list of universities with the most utility patents. They have also made the UC Berkeley campus the number one ranked public research in institution in the world for nine of the past ten years. Before President Trump took office, federal grantmaking proceeded under the authority of Congress, which appropriated taxpayer funds for specific public purposes. For decades, agencies carried out these statutory directives and observed due process in making, renewing, and (only seldom) terminating grants. They each adhered to their own grant regulations and followed Administrative Procedure Act processes when modifying such regulations. On the rare occasions when agencies terminated grants, they did so pursuant to predictable, regularized processes and terminated grants only for reasons stated in the regulations. All of this changed abruptly on January 20, 2025 (Inauguration Day). After January 20, 2025, Defendants Donald J. Trump and DOGE, through a flurry of Executive Orders and other directives, commanded the Federal Agency Defendants to terminate scores of previously awarded research grants. As the Complaint notes, the 'abrupt, wholesale, and unilateral termination of these grants has violated the Constitution's bedrock principle of separation of powers and its guarantees of freedom of speech and due process; flouted the Impoundment Control Act limits on the Executive's ability to withhold or redirect congressionally appropriated money; ignored statutory requirements that agencies fulfill their substantive missions and fund congressionally specified activities; contravened agency-specific grant-making regulations that cannot by law be revised on an abrupt, unexplained, chaotic basis; and violated the Administrative Procedure Act through this arbitrary, capricious, and ultra vires conduct.' As further detailed in the Complaint, grounds the agencies have offered for such terminations were spurious. In some cases, agency correspondence to grantees asserted that grant termination would reduce public costs and promote government efficiency, although no evidence was provided to support this claim. In other cases, agency communications made it clear that grants were being terminated to further Defendant Trump's political objectives, which included the elimination of research on climate, environmental justice, 'gender ideology,' and 'DEI.' These grant terminations are occurring not because the grant-funded research departed from its originally approved purpose, but because that purpose now offends the political agenda and ideological requirements of the Trump Administration. In terminating these grants, the agencies have violated the Constitution, numerous federal statutes, and their own regulations. Plaintiff UC researchers have suffered concrete financial, professional, and other harms from Defendants' unilateral termination of grants for projects to which they have already dedicated time and effort; for research upon which they have staked careers and reputations; and for work with research teams through which they endeavored to train a next generation. These terminations have impaired and will impair the public-serving research mission of the UC system and the concern for public welfare that undergirds it. Named Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class will continue to suffer such harms on an ongoing basis, and will experience increasing and irreparable harm absent the court declaration and injunction they seek through this lawsuit.
