Former Bucknell Strength Coach Charged with Aggravated Hazing After Freshman’s Death Linked to Sickle Cell–Related Rhabdomyolysis

Table of Contents

1. Key Highlights:
2. Introduction
3. What prosecutors say happened at the workout
4. The criminal charges: what they mean in practical terms
5. Sickle cell trait, rhabdomyolysis and exertional collapse: the medical facts
6. NCAA requirements and institutional responsibilities
7. The institutional response: Bucknell’s stance and the family’s civil suit
8. Coaching decisions under scrutiny: what separates poor judgment from criminal conduct
9. Broader patterns: conditioning sessions, culture and prior cases
10. Practical prevention: how athletic programs should respond now
11. What the criminal case and civil lawsuit could mean for Bucknell and college athletics
12. Defense perspectives and contested facts
13. Institutional culture: hazing definitions and prevention beyond policy language
14. Lessons for parents and prospective athletes
15. Potential reforms and policy changes likely to follow
16. Timeline and legal process going forward
17. Ethical dimensions: accountability beyond legal culpability
18. Final considerations
19. FAQ

Key Highlights:

• A former Bucknell strength and conditioning coach, Mark Kulbis, faces felony aggravated hazing plus misdemeanor counts after 18-year-old freshman Calvin “CJ” Dickey Jr. collapsed during a team workout and died two days later; prosecutors allege intense exercises continued despite known health information.
• The case centers on alleged failure to intervene during conditioning drills despite visible distress, intersecting medical science on sickle cell trait and rhabdomyolysis with NCAA screening rules, institutional responsibilities, and evolving legal scrutiny of hazing in athletics.
• The family has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Bucknell; criminal proceedings are underway while broader questions about coaching protocols, screening, and preventive measures are drawing renewed attention.

Introduction

An 18-year-old freshman collapsed during his first football team workout, then died two days later. Prosecutors have charged the strength and conditioning coach who led the session with aggravated hazing, involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and hazing. The allegations focus on a set of high-intensity conditioning drills performed despite the athlete’s vulnerability stemming from sickle cell trait and visible signs of distress.

This case sits at the intersection of sports medicine, coaching practice and criminal accountability. It raises precise questions: what duties do coaches and universities owe to athletes they evaluate and condition? How do medical screening rules—especially those related to sickle cell trait—translate into actionable steps in training environments? When does a coaching decision cross from poor judgment into criminal misconduct?

The facts laid out by prosecutors, the family’s civil suit, and the NCAA guidance on sickle cell trait together form a factual and legal framework that athletics programs must reckon with. The following analysis synthesizes the reported facts, explains the medical and legal issues at play, and outlines practical steps for preventing similar tragedies.

What prosecutors say happened at the workout

Prosecutors present a concise narrative: during a team conditioning session, the coach put Calvin “CJ” Dickey Jr. and other players through a battery of demanding exercises—reportedly 100 up-downs and several full-body planks. Investigators say other coaches warned that such exercises were inappropriate and unsafe in that context. According to the attorney general’s office, Dickey was “visibly struggling” during the drills and collapsed; help was not summoned until after he lost consciousness.

Those factual assertions matter because they establish two core elements prosecutors must prove: the existence of a coercive or dangerous hazing practice and a causal link between the conduct and the athlete’s collapse. Prosecutors have characterized the conduct as “intentional, deliberate hazing” by someone who knew the athlete’s specific vulnerability—an important aggravating factor.

The coach surrendered to authorities, was arraigned and released on $10,000 bail. A preliminary hearing was scheduled. The family has filed a wrongful-death suit alleging negligence and failure to protect a student the university had cleared to participate in sports despite knowledge of his sickle cell trait.

The criminal charges: what they mean in practical terms

The charges against the coach fall into three categories: aggravated hazing (a felony), and misdemeanor counts including involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and hazing. Each charge targets different elements of alleged wrongdoing.

• Aggravated hazing. Prosecutors describe conditioning that intentionally subjected a student to activities that posed a substantial risk of bodily injury. When a defendant acts despite knowledge of a victim’s vulnerability and medical information, prosecutors can argue that the conduct meets the higher threshold of aggravated hazing rather than ordinary hazing. A felony designation signals the state’s view that the conduct was especially dangerous or reckless.
• Involuntary manslaughter. This charge requires a showing that the defendant’s reckless or negligent conduct caused the death. The prosecution must prove that the coach’s behavior deviated substantially from the standard of care expected and that this deviation was a proximate cause of death.
• Reckless endangerment and misdemeanor hazing. These counts allow prosecutors to pursue criminal responsibility even if they cannot prove the stricter elements of a felony. Reckless endangerment focuses on conduct that created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another.

Together, these charges indicate a prosecutorial theory that the workout was not merely a mistaken judgment but crossed into criminally culpable conduct because the coach allegedly ignored known medical information and warnings from others.

Sickle cell trait, rhabdomyolysis and exertional collapse: the medical facts

Sickle cell trait and sickle cell disease are related but distinct. Individuals with sickle cell trait carry one copy of the altered hemoglobin gene; most lead healthy lives and are asymptomatic. Nevertheless, medical authorities have recognized a measurable increase in risk for exertional complications, including exertional rhabdomyolysis, under conditions of extreme exertion, dehydration, heat stress, or when a person continues exercising despite marked fatigue.

Rhabdomyolysis occurs when muscle tissue breaks down and releases intracellular contents—most notably myoglobin—into the bloodstream. High levels of myoglobin can damage the kidneys and lead to kidney failure. Clinically, rhabdomyolysis presents with muscle pain, weakness, swelling, dark (tea-colored) urine, and elevated serum creatine kinase (CK) levels. In exertional forms, symptoms often begin during or soon after intense exercise.

Health professionals emphasize that exertional rhabdomyolysis is preventable. Key preventive measures include:

• Immediate cessation of exercise at the first signs of undue fatigue, severe muscle pain, or dark urine.
• Proper hydration and electrolytes.
• Gradual progression of training intensity and workload, particularly for newcomers and those returning from a layoff.
• Heat-acclimatization protocols.
• Individualized modifications for athletes with known risk factors, including sickle cell trait.

Emergency response matters. If an athlete collapses, prompt recognition and rapid medical intervention—cooling measures when heat stress is present, intravenous fluids, and transport for higher-level care—save lives and reduce complications.

NCAA requirements and institutional responsibilities

Athletic programs operate within a regulatory environment that imposes both medical screening requirements and coaching standards. The NCAA requires attention to sickle cell trait in its medical guidance; screening and education protocols have evolved to alert athletes and staff to the increased exertional risk associated with the trait.

Beyond formal screening, the NCAA’s coaching guidance emphasizes that conditioning sessions are where exertional deaths have clustered historically. The association directs coaches to:

• Use sound, scientifically based conditioning principles.
• Avoid conditioning protocols that unduly heighten risk.
• Monitor athletes closely and intervene when student-athletes show signs of distress.

A university’s duty extends to implementing screening, maintaining medical records, equipping staff with training about risk factors, and ensuring that emergency action plans and medical personnel are present and empowered to act. When a program learns of an athlete’s specific medical vulnerability, a higher duty of care attaches: individualized restrictions, documented communication to all relevant staff, and clear protocols to prevent exposure to dangerous conditioning environments.

The institutional response: Bucknell’s stance and the family’s civil suit

Bucknell has said it cooperated with investigators and declined additional comment pending ongoing criminal and civil proceedings. Public reporting indicates the coach left the university in January 2025. The parents of Calvin Dickey filed a wrongful-death lawsuit alleging the university knew of their son’s sickle cell trait and failed to adequately protect him after clearing him to participate.

Wrongful-death suits in cases like this typically allege negligence: that the institution breached its duty to provide a safe environment, and that breach caused the death. Plaintiffs may seek compensatory damages for medical expenses, funeral costs, loss of earnings, and non-economic damages such as loss of companionship. Civil discovery often uncovers internal communications, medical clearances, and training materials, which can inform both the public record and later policy reforms if the suit is settled or proceeds to trial.

Civil litigation proceeds independently of criminal charges. A criminal conviction may strengthen the family’s civil claim in the court of public opinion and sometimes in legal proceedings, but civil liability depends on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard rather than the higher criminal standard beyond a reasonable doubt.

Coaching decisions under scrutiny: what separates poor judgment from criminal conduct

Athletic coaching includes risk. Coaches often push athletes to exceed perceived limits to build resilience and capacity. The law recognizes that not every error or misjudgment is criminal. The line prosecutors must cross is that the coach acted with reckless indifference or intentional disregard for a known and substantial risk.

Three aspects are central to that inquiry:

1. Knowledge. Did the coach know—either because of disclosed medical records or direct communication—that the athlete had a condition that altered the risk calculus?
2. Warnings and visible signs. Were there contemporaneous warnings from other staff or unmistakable signs of an athlete in distress, and if so, did the coach fail to act?
3. Conduct. Were the activities imposed clearly excessive under the circumstances, particularly for a freshman or athlete newly initiated to team conditioning?

A pattern of ignoring clear medical information and continuing an intolerable exercise regimen makes criminal culpability more likely in prosecutors’ view. Defense strategies can include disputing knowledge, characterizing the conduct as consistent with accepted training practices, asserting that supervising coaches had authority to stop the session, or arguing that an underlying medical event would not have been prevented by different coaching choices.

Broader patterns: conditioning sessions, culture and prior cases

Public health reviews and sports medicine investigators have repeatedly identified conditioning sessions as the setting for many exertional emergencies. Military training, college football camps, and other team-based conditioning environments have produced cases of exertional heat illness and rhabdomyolysis. These instances reveal common factors: sudden spikes in workload, poor acclimatization, inadequate hydration, and failure to stop activity when athletes report or display severe fatigue.

High-profile deaths over the past decades prompted reforms in coaching protocols, medical screening and emergency preparedness. The NFL’s response to heat-related deaths, for example, prompted changes in staffing, practice timing and monitoring. At the collegiate level, the intersection of hazing culture and extreme conditioning has led to criminal prosecutions in a handful of cases where prosecutors concluded the conduct crossed into criminal hazing. Those prosecutions, along with civil litigation, have reshaped policy conversations on campus.

This case amplifies that persistent risk—when a single coach’s decisions, team culture, institutional policies, and a student’s medical vulnerability converge, the consequences can be catastrophic.

Practical prevention: how athletic programs should respond now

Universities and athletic departments can take specific, evidence-based steps to reduce risk and meet legal and ethical responsibilities. The measures below reflect best practices from sports medicine and risk management:

• Universal screening and clear documentation. Conduct and document comprehensive pre-participation evaluations that include sickle cell trait information, physician recommendations and athlete education. Ensure that relevant staff can access necessary medical information without violating privacy protections.
• Individualized restrictions and written plans. For athletes with known risk factors, develop written training modifications and distribute them to all strength coaches, positional coaches and athletic trainers.
• Consistent, enforceable protocols for conditioning. Standardize conditioning regimens by sport and athlete experience level. Limit the use of repetitive high-volume bodyweight calisthenics—especially for newcomers—unless tied to progressive overload plans.
• Empower medical staff and sideline authority. Give athletic trainers and team physicians clear authority to stop or modify workouts based on observed distress. Ensure those medical staff are present at critical workouts and that communication channels (whistles, radios) function.
• Training and accountability for coaches. Require certification in sports-specific conditioning principles, exertional illness recognition, and anti-hazing policies. Tie compliance to employment evaluations.
• Heat-acclimatization and hydration protocols. Implement gradual exposure to heat and workload for preseason training. Monitor environmental heat indexes, schedule high-intensity conditioning when safe, and mandate rest and hydration breaks.
• Immediate stop rules for symptoms. Institute a non-negotiable rule: any athlete reporting severe muscle pain, chest pain, shortness of breath, severe weakness, nausea, or exhibiting dark urine, cannot continue exercise and must be medically evaluated.
• Emergency action plans and drills. Maintain written emergency action plans addressing exertional collapse, rhabdomyolysis, and heat stroke. Conduct regular drills to ensure staff familiarity and speed of response.
• Education for athletes and families. Provide clear pre-season education to athletes and guardians on sickle cell trait implications, signs of rhabdo and the right to refuse dangerous drills.
• Anti-hazing policies and reporting mechanisms. Create confidential reporting systems for hazing, protect whistleblowers and investigate allegations thoroughly and promptly.

When these steps become routine rather than reactive, the likelihood of preventable tragedies falls significantly.

What the criminal case and civil lawsuit could mean for Bucknell and college athletics

Criminal prosecutions of coaches for hazing-related deaths are relatively rare but carry outsized reputational and legal consequences. For the university, civil liability may involve substantial financial exposure, but the damages go beyond money: institutional trust, recruiting, alumni relations and regulatory scrutiny can all suffer.

At a sector level, a criminal conviction or a high-profile civil settlement could prompt:

• Stronger state and federal oversight of athletic health protocols.
• Legislative updates clarifying standards for coach liability and institutional duties.
• Heightened insurance premiums for athletic departments.
• Media and public pressure pushing universities to adopt stricter conditioning limits and expanded medical staffing.

For coaches and athletic staff, the case underscores that customary practice is not necessarily an adequate legal defense. Training and decisions must align with current medical understanding and institutional policies. Coaches who disregard individualized medical information or override medical staff risk not only administrative discipline but criminal exposure in the most severe cases.

Defense perspectives and contested facts

The coach’s attorney asserted that the strength and conditioning program was appropriate and conformed to training Mr. Kulbis had received and to applicable standards. Defense strategies will likely focus on several themes:

• The workout followed accepted protocols for conditioning.
• The coach lacked knowledge of specific medical restrictions or did not have notice sufficient to impose criminal liability.
• Other coaches had responsibility for stopping the session, or the medical emergency developed too quickly to have been prevented by different conduct.
• Scientific uncertainty about whether the athlete’s collapse could have been prevented even with earlier intervention.

Criminal prosecutions hinge on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel will contest the causal link between the workout and the fatal outcome, the degree of recklessness, and the factual assertions that the coach disregarded warnings or the athlete’s visible struggle.

Civil litigation requires a lower burden of proof. Discovery may surface emails, medical clearance forms, staff training records and eyewitness accounts that expand or constrain the factual record. Settlements are common in wrongful-death suits to avoid lengthy and costly trials.

Institutional culture: hazing definitions and prevention beyond policy language

Hazing encompasses a range of behaviors designed to humiliate, degrade or coerce newcomers into group membership. When hazing involves physical risk—especially when it targets individuals with known vulnerabilities—it becomes a criminal matter in many jurisdictions.

A prevention strategy that focuses only on punitive measures misses the broader work of culture change. Athletic departments must foster cultures where:

• Athlete well-being is prioritized over hazing rituals or displays of toughness.
• Experienced players and coaches model restraint and safety.
• Reporting and accountability structures are trusted and effective.

Culture change requires consistent leadership messages, investment in training, transparent disciplinary systems and collaboration among coaches, trainers, athletic directors and university administrators.

Lessons for parents and prospective athletes

Families evaluating collegiate athletic programs should ask targeted questions:

• How does the program screen for medical conditions like sickle cell trait, and how are results communicated to coaching and medical staff?
• What are the team’s conditioning practices for newcomers during pre-season?
• Which medical staff are present during high-risk workouts, and what authority do they have to stop or modify sessions?
• How does the program handle anti-hazing education and reporting?

Prospective athletes should insist on full disclosure of medical history and be empowered to refuse drills that feel unsafe. Athletic departments must cultivate an environment where refusal does not lead to retaliation or diminished playing opportunities.

Potential reforms and policy changes likely to follow

High-profile cases drive policy reform. Expected areas of regulatory and institutional attention include:

• Strengthened documentation and disclosure requirements for medical clearances, including mandated distribution of individualized restrictions to all staff members with training responsibilities.
• Tighter control over conditioning drills, particularly those that emphasize repeating calisthenic movements to failure as a form of initiation or punishment.
• Mandatory certification programs for strength and conditioning coaches tied to employment and hiring.
• Greater routine presence of licensed athletic trainers at all conditioning sessions.
• Statutory clarification of criminal hazing definitions to capture organizational responsibility when institutional systemic failures are present.

These changes will not prevent all tragedies, but clearer rules and enforcement create safer baselines and reduce legal ambiguity.

Timeline and legal process going forward

After an arraignment and release on bail, criminal cases proceed through pretrial stages: discovery, motions, and, often, a preliminary hearing to assess whether sufficient evidence supports proceeding to trial. Prosecutors and defense counsel may negotiate plea agreements, or the case may go to trial.

Civil litigation progresses on an independent track, with discovery likely to produce additional factual detail. Plaintiffs may seek damages in court or negotiate a settlement.

Public scrutiny, media reporting, and internal reviews frequently run in parallel with legal proceedings. Universities sometimes commission independent investigations to assess institutional policies and recommend reforms regardless of litigation outcomes.

Ethical dimensions: accountability beyond legal culpability

Even without a criminal conviction, ethical accountability remains central. Coaches and athletic administrators carry moral responsibility for the safety of students entrusted to their care. A legal system focused on assigning guilt or innocence does not fully address the ethical failures that allow preventable harm.

Ethical responsibility includes transparently acknowledging serious failures when they occur, implementing corrective measures, and taking steps to repair trust with affected families and the broader campus community. Restorative steps may include revising training protocols, expanding medical staffing, and offering support services to athletes who may have witnessed traumatic events.

Final considerations

This case crystallizes the stakes involved when coaching practice, medical vulnerability and institutional systems interact. The criminal charges highlight an emerging readiness by some prosecutors to treat extreme conditioning and hazing as matters of criminal law when the factual record suggests deliberate disregard for known risks. Athletic departments must absorb hard lessons: rigorous screening and documentation, clear authority for medical staff, enforceable conditioning limits, and a culture that privileges safety over ritualized toughness.

For families, athletes and universities, the core takeaway is practical: known medical vulnerabilities require meaningful and documented accommodation; visible signs of distress in an athletic setting require immediate intervention; and persistent hazing or coercive conditioning must be treated as a safety and legal priority.

FAQ

Q: What is being alleged against the former coach? A: Prosecutors allege the coach led intensive conditioning drills that ignored warnings and the athlete’s known medical vulnerability, creating hazardous conditions that contributed to the athlete’s collapse and subsequent death. Charges include felony aggravated hazing and misdemeanor counts such as involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment.

Q: What is aggravated hazing and how does it differ from ordinary hazing? A: Aggravated hazing generally refers to conduct that imposes a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death, or targets individuals with known vulnerabilities. It elevates the severity of the offense and can carry felony penalties. Ordinary hazing may involve humiliation or minor harm but not the same level of physical danger.

Q: What is sickle cell trait and why does it matter in athletic training? A: Sickle cell trait means carrying one copy of the altered hemoglobin gene. Most carriers live normal lives, but they have an elevated risk of exertional complications—such as rhabdomyolysis—under extreme exertion, dehydration or heat stress. Coaches and medical staff must account for this increased risk when designing workouts.

Q: What is rhabdomyolysis and how do coaches recognize it? A: Rhabdomyolysis is rapid muscle breakdown that releases myoglobin into the bloodstream, potentially causing kidney damage. Signs include severe muscle pain, weakness, swelling, dark urine and extreme fatigue. Coaches must stop activity at the first signs of severe distress and seek medical evaluation promptly.

Q: Did the NCAA require screening for sickle cell trait? A: The NCAA provides guidance and requirements addressing sickle cell trait screening and education. Athletic programs are expected to screen, document, and implement medical accommodations consistent with NCAA guidance and accepted medical practice.

Q: How could this have been prevented? A: Prevention depends on robust medical screening, individualized accommodations, meaningful distribution of medical restrictions to all training staff, progressive conditioning protocols for newcomers, rapid intervention when athletes show signs of distress, and a culture that forbids hazing and coerced overexertion.

Q: What happens to the university while criminal and civil proceedings continue? A: The university may cooperate with investigators, conduct internal reviews and potentially revise policies. The civil lawsuit will proceed in parallel, and discovery in that case may bring fuller details of internal communications and training practices to light.

Q: Could the coach be convicted? A: Conviction depends on the prosecution proving the elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense will contest elements including knowledge, causation and the nature of the conduct. Outcomes range from acquittal to conviction or plea agreements.

Q: What can other athletic programs learn from this case? A: Athletic programs should prioritize clear, documented medical protocols; empower medical staff to stop unsafe activities; require coach certifications and enforce conditioning standards; and maintain transparent anti-hazing enforcement mechanisms.

Q: How should athletes and families advocate for safety? A: Ask direct questions about screening procedures, medical staff presence, conditioning protocols, and anti-hazing policies. Insist on written documentation of any accommodations related to medical conditions and trust your athletes to speak up about unsafe drills.

Q: Are conditioning sessions the most common setting for these kinds of tragedies? A: Conditioning sessions have historically been a common setting for exertional emergencies because they often involve sustained, high-intensity exercise, particularly among athletes unaccustomed to the workload. Proper structure, monitoring and medical oversight reduce risk.

Q: What reforms are likely after incidents like this? A: Possible reforms include stricter documentation and distribution of medical restrictions, mandated coach certifications, expanded medical staffing, clearer statutes addressing hazing, and enforced limits on high-volume conditioning practices for new athletes.

Q: What immediate steps should universities take now? A: Conduct thorough reviews of conditioning policies, confirm that medical records and restrictions are effectively communicated, increase medical presence at high-risk sessions, retrain coaching staff on signs of exertional illness and anti-hazing rules, and ensure emergency action plans are current and practiced.

Q: Where can I find authoritative information about sickle cell trait and sport participation? A: Sports medicine professional organizations, institutional athletic health services and public health agencies publish guidance on sickle cell trait and exertional illness. Athletic trainers and team physicians can provide sport-specific recommendations.

Q: If I suspect hazing in my program, how do I report it? A: Use your institution’s confidential reporting mechanisms, contact campus public safety or the athletic department’s compliance office, and, if necessary, report to local law enforcement. Many schools also maintain hotlines for reporting hazing or other misconduct.