Third IU men’s basketball player joins lawsuit against university
Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A third former Indiana University men’s basketball player has been added to a lawsuit alleging the university did nothing to stop repeated rectal exams the players received from former team physician Dr. Brad Bomba Sr., acts that they say constituted sexual abuse.
John Flowers, a 1981 McDonald’s All-American high school player who played at IU from 1981-1982, has joined the complaint as an additional plaintiff.
Flowers joins former players Charlie Miller and Haris Mujezinovic as plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Indianapolis.
Kathleen Delaney of DeLaney & DeLaney LLC, who is representing the three former IU players, also announced that the lawsuit has been expanded to bring claims for alleged federal constitutional violations against Tim Garl, IU’s long-time head trainer for the men’s basketball program and Bomba’s supervisor.
The players alleged that Bomba, the team’s physician, routinely and repeatedly subjected the players to medically unnecessary, invasive, and sexually abusive rectal examinations
Delaney said in a released statement, “I’m proud of my clients for taking a stand against what we now believe to have been widespread sexual abuse spanning decades. Following the deposition of Dr. Bomba, Sr., who invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than forty-five times, we have expanded the case to include claims against Tim Garl, who Dr. Bomba, Sr. testified was his supervisor during the time he worked for Indiana University. We hope that Indiana University and Mr. Garl will acknowledge this dark chapter in the athletic department’s history and follow the example set by the University of Michigan and other Big Ten schools by compensating the victims of abuse.”
IU spokesman Mark Bode told Indiana Lawyer the university does not comment on litigation.
Bode provided a link to the university’s September 2024 statement where IU announced that, in response to learning of the allegation, the university retained international law firm Jones Day to conduct an independent review.
That review was to include witness interviews, a review of available documentation and engagement with medical experts to determine: 1) the background facts related to the annual physicals of IU student athletes conducted by Bomba; 2) if the conduct was appropriate, necessary, or within the standard of care; and 3) what medical professionals and athletic department or university officials were aware of the conduct and, if warranted, what action did they take.
The lawsuit alleges that IU knew about ongoing sexual abuse and failed to act on this knowledge by systemically mishandling and turning a blind eye to players’ complaints of Bomba’s sexual assaults.
It also alleges that IU’s failure to prevent sexual assaults allowed the team doctor’s abusive behavior to persist for years, caused harm to students, and perpetuated a policy of deliberate indifference to and tacit acceptance of Bomba’s sexual assaults.
Garl allegedly continued to assign players to Bomba for physical examinations, despite knowing that, when he did so, the doctor would sexually assault those players, according to the lawsuit.
Court documents showed the plaintiffs deposed Bomba on Dec. 4.
They alleged that during a deposition lasting less than 75 minutes of on-the-record time, “Dr.Bomba, Sr. invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer more than 45 questions, on the advice of legal counsel.”
In a plaintiff’s brief in support of a motion to compel Bomba to answer certified deposition questions, it was noted that Bomba’s family filed papers in Monroe County to establish guardianship over him.
The district court denied a motion to quash filed on Bomba’s behalf, finding that the doctor had “recollection of his education and understanding of basic concepts,” “was able to accurately identify the difference between the truth and a lie,” and had “awareness of the general nature of the proceedings and the identification and role of his attorneys and that he would follow their advice.”