A federal magistrate on Tuesday discarded a legal action brought against Indiana University. This action, initiated by former men’s basketball players, alleged inappropriate sexual conduct by a past team physician. The dismissal occurred because the players’ grievance was submitted significantly beyond the two-year legal time limit.
Lodged in October 2024, the Title IX legal action contended that campus administrators — among them, erstwhile head coach Bobby Knight, who passed away in 2023 — neglected to prevent purported misdeeds by former team doctor Dr. Bradford Bomba, notwithstanding indications that they had prior knowledge of grievances regarding his conduct.
Dr. Bomba, during the 1980s and 1990s, habitually conducted rectal examinations on male student-athletes during their medical check-ups. This occurred despite contemporary medical guidance that did not advocate these procedures for young adult males in higher education, an action the legal challenge classifies as sexual impropriety.
Claimant Haris Mujezinovic, who competed for Indiana during the late 1990s, expressed in a digital message relayed by his legal counsel: “We are disheartened by the tribunal’s ruling, yet we are dedicating time to assess our alternatives and determine judicious courses of action moving forward.”
A representative of the institution failed to reply to numerous inquiries from ESPN.
The legal representatives for the athletes had contended that their patrons remained within the state’s two-year legal time limit for disclosing the purported sexual mistreatment. This argument was based on their assertion that they did not realize until 2024 that Bomba’s deeds amounted to sexual mistreatment under Title IX, the federal legislation promoting gender fairness, which forbids discrimination based on sex in learning environments, sports included.
In her directive to discard the legal challenge, U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, presiding over Indiana’s Southern District, penned that the athletes weakened their contention. This was because they asserted they were cognizant, decades earlier when they claimed the mistreatment transpired, that the purported aggressions were “broadly acknowledged by campus personnel” and that those administrators possessed “the power to initiate remedial measures.”
“The claimants thus assert they were aware the Defendants instigated their purported harms well prior to 2024,” she noted.
The claimants’ contention has proved effective in additional instances of purported sexual mistreatment. This includes the 2018 legal action targeting erstwhile Ohio State University doctor Dr. Richard Strauss, who was determined to have habitually mistreated male learners during health evaluations throughout the 1970s and 1990s.
In that specific instance, an appellate tribunal determined that the claimants remained within Ohio’s two-year legal time limit. This was because the countdown commenced solely when the claimants were aware or ought to have been aware that Ohio State administrators were cognizant of Strauss’s behavior and neglected to implement suitable measures. The matter remains unresolved.
Pratt stated her tribunal was not bound by the determination in the Ohio State matter, as it originated from a distinct legal territory. She also referenced other judgments that affirm the claimants’ awareness of the actions, rather than their understanding of its illegality, “initiates the time constraint.”
Dr. Bomba, who served as an Indiana men’s basketball squad doctor for almost three decades, passed away in May of last year at 89 years old. He was not identified as a claimant in the legal action, and an independent inquiry initiated by the institution exonerated him of sexual impropriety last year. He notably declined to address numerous inquiries regarding the assertions during sworn testimony in 2024.
Tim Garl, identified as a respondent, held the position of Indiana’s chief athletic therapist from 1981 until the previous year, at which point the institution declared it would not extend his tenure for a 45th season. Legal counsel representing Garl did not promptly reply to a query for remarks.