Even IU has issues?

Donate To GopherHole

Oh Danny Barreiro and Sinkyn went to IU. They are gonna blast IU for years over this. ‘Tampa Bay Tampa Bay’ may have to take a back seat!!
 

This is a really weird one. The doctor apparently did rectal exams as part of the players physicals. There is no dispute there. The argument is boiling down to is a rectal/prostate exam an accepted part of a routine physical for an early 20 year old. It sounds like both sides have experts that say it is or isn't. Indiana conducted a review and said there was no wrongdoing.

I just get mine checked when I go to the dentist like everyone else, but I suppose a team doctor could do one too?
 

WoodburyTim said:
This is a really weird one. The doctor apparently did rectal exams as part of the players physicals. There is no dispute there. The argument is boiling down to is a rectal/prostate exam an accepted part of a routine physical for an early 20 year old. It sounds like both sides have experts that say it is or isn't. Indiana conducted a review and said there was no wrongdoing.

I just get mine checked when I go to the dentist like everyone else, but I suppose a team doctor could do one too?
Click to expand...
Moooon Riverrrrr
 

Attachments

  • R.jpeg
    R.jpeg
    12.1 KB · Views: 1

WoodburyTim said:
This is a really weird one. The doctor apparently did rectal exams as part of the players physicals. There is no dispute there. The argument is boiling down to is a rectal/prostate exam an accepted part of a routine physical for an early 20 year old. It sounds like both sides have experts that say it is or isn't. Indiana conducted a review and said there was no wrongdoing.

I just get mine checked when I go to the dentist like everyone else, but I suppose a team doctor could do one too?
Click to expand...
So glad you said that, I thought ny dentist might have been perverted; glad he’s not. I don’t like the extra charge for the lube. Says my cheap insurance doesn’t cover it, so I always need cash.
 


WoodburyTim said:
This is a really weird one. The doctor apparently did rectal exams as part of the players physicals. There is no dispute there. The argument is boiling down to is a rectal/prostate exam an accepted part of a routine physical for an early 20 year old. It sounds like both sides have experts that say it is or isn't. Indiana conducted a review and said there was no wrongdoing.

I just get mine checked when I go to the dentist like everyone else, but I suppose a team doctor could do one too?
Click to expand...
See....now that explains a lot of things. :)
 


WoodburyTim said:
This is a really weird one. The doctor apparently did rectal exams as part of the players physicals. There is no dispute there. The argument is boiling down to is a rectal/prostate exam an accepted part of a routine physical for an early 20 year old. It sounds like both sides have experts that say it is or isn't. Indiana conducted a review and said there was no wrongdoing.

I just get mine checked when I go to the dentist like everyone else, but I suppose a team doctor could do one too?
Click to expand...
If you are referring to the Jones Day report, it did not rule that there was no wrongdoing. It ruled that ". . . not clearly unreasonable for Dr. Bomba to include a DRE in the PPEs he performed for the IU men’s basketball team.” Essentially, that's like saying it's not just on its face clearly wrong (like Larry Nassar) but that does leave the opening that reasonable people could find a basis for saying that it was wrong . The report certainly could have read ". . .it is reasonable for Dr. Bomba to have performed. . . " but it did not.

I don't think the question is whether or not it is routine. Even the Jones Day report concluded that “exceeded” the baselines for a standard annual physical for a student-athlete that didn’t have a condition or history that would support it and that it was an "uncommon practice". They even admitted it might have been inappropriate.

This report was not an attempt to exonerate the doctor, it was an attempt to remove liability from IU. IU could really open themselves up for liability if there was a clearly unreasonable action taken by a physician and they failed to act. IU will use this report to say that "whether it was ultimately right or wrong is a question for Dr. Bomba and his discretion as a medical professional" but it wasn't so clearly unreasonable that we should be liable for our inaction.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
If you are referring to the Jones Day report, it did not rule that there was no wrongdoing. It ruled that ". . . not clearly unreasonable for Dr. Bomba to include a DRE in the PPEs he performed for the IU men’s basketball team.” Essentially, that's like saying it's not just on its face clearly wrong (like Larry Nassar) but that does leave the opening that reasonable people could find a basis for saying that it was wrong . The report certainly could have read ". . .it is reasonable for Dr. Bomba to have performed. . . " but it did not.

I don't think the question is whether or not it is routine. Even the Jones Day report concluded that “exceeded” the baselines for a standard annual physical for a student-athlete that didn’t have a condition or history that would support it and that it was an "uncommon practice". They even admitted it might have been inappropriate.

This report was not an attempt to exonerate the doctor, it was an attempt to remove liability from IU. IU could really open themselves up for liability if there was a clearly unreasonable action taken by a physician and they failed to act. IU will use this report to say that "whether it was ultimately right or wrong is a question for Dr. Bomba and his discretion as a medical professional" but it wasn't so clearly unreasonable that we should be liable for our inaction.
Click to expand...
Ahh. Gotcha. I just a read quick blurb, didn’t dig in.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom