Ex-Indiana doc refuses sex abuse questions

Attorneys for two former Indiana University basketball players asked a judge Thursday to compel former team physician Dr. Bradford Bomba Sr., to answer questions about his conduct — including his conversations with then-coach Bobby Knight — as part of a Title IX lawsuit that alleges Bomba sexually abused multiple male athletes.

Bomba refused to answer 45 questions during a 75-minute deposition on Dec. 4, on the advice of his attorneys citing his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination and his right to due process, according to the filing.

On Oct. 15, Haris Mujezinovic and Charlie Miller, who played for the Hoosiers in the mid-1990s, filed a class-action lawsuit against Indiana University alleging that they and their teammates “were routinely and repeatedly subjected to medically unnecessary, invasive, and abusive digital rectal examinations” by Bomba.

Bomba started working with Indiana athletes in the 1960s and was the team doctor for most of Knight’s tenure. He left the program in the late 1990s.

The lawsuit alleges that the athletic department required athletes to see Bomba for their physicals and that the doctor routinely performed prostate exams on them. The lawsuit notes that prostate exams, recommended “at the earliest” for men 40 or older, are unnecessary for college-aged men.

Bomba’s reputation for the frequent exams was a topic of discussion among players in the presence of assistant coaches, athletic trainers and other athletic department staff, according to the lawsuit. It alleges that university officials — despite knowing of the behavior — failed to stop Bomba, allowing him to continue the abuse, and perpetuated “a policy of deliberate indifference.”

“When Mujezinovic’s teammates saw that he was assigned to Dr. Bomba, Sr., they warned Mujezinovic to prepare for ‘the finger,'” it states, noting that Bomba was referred to as “Frankenstein” for the size of his hands and fingers.

Bomba’s attorneys failed earlier this month in their attempt to argue the 88-year-old was incompetent to testify. A judge ruled he could answer questions under certain guidelines.

Parties in a civil lawsuit can typically refuse to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment in cases where they could also be facing criminal liability. The plaintiffs’ attorneys noted Bomba had a right to invoke the Fifth Amendment in some questions.

“He refused to answer questions that would likely have self-incriminating answers, including the following: ‘was it your routine and general practice to perform digital rectal exams during every student athlete physical at IU?’; ‘[d]id you get informed consent from student athletes before you performed digital rectal examinations on them?’; ‘how did you conduct digital rectal exams on IU players?'” the motion states.

But the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued in their motion that Bomba refused to answer questions on basic “innocuous” details and ones that carried no potential of criminal prosecution.

Attorneys representing the university and Bomba did not respond to emails asking why Bomba was instructed not to answer. The university’s response to the lawsuit is due Tuesday.

Most sex crimes in Indiana have a statute of limitations that ranges in duration depending on the circumstance, and recent amendments have added exceptions if there is new DNA evidence, a recording of the crime or admission by the alleged perpetrator.

Several of the questions Bomba refused to answer pertained to his interactions with Knight, who died in November 2023, including questions such as, “Did Coach Knight express an interest to you in the overall health of his players?” and, “Dr. Bomba, did you travel with the I.U. men’s basketball team to games in Illinois?”

The plaintiffs’ motion also notes that Bomba refused to answer questions about basic medical care, his understanding of Title IX, and questions about student complaints, including whether any Indiana athletes complained about the prostate exams.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Kathleen DeLaney said she believed Bomba didn’t answer the questions “because the answers wouldn’t have been good for him or for Indiana University.”

She said it was important to understand Bomba’s interactions with Knight to know how many people in a position of authority might have known “what was going on during these exams,” and the more people who knew, “the harder it would be for the university to deny what it knew was going on.”

When asked about Bomba’s refusal to answer, a spokesperson for Indiana referred ESPN to a statement the university issued in September after the allegations became public, saying it had hired an outside firm to conduct an internal investigation into the allegations. The spokesperson did not provide an update on that investigation.