The National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) has handed a four-year suspension to Bajrang Punia, barring him from competitive wrestling and potentially hindering any aspirations for coaching roles abroad. This decision stems from his alleged refusal to provide a sample during a doping test conducted on March 10, 2024, during national team selection trials.
Initially, NADA provisionally suspended the Tokyo Olympics bronze medallist on April 23, a move later supported by the United World Wrestling (UWW). Although Bajrang appealed against the provisional suspension, NADA’s Anti-Disciplinary Doping Panel (ADDP) temporarily revoked the suspension on May 31. However, on June 23, NADA issued a formal notice of charge. Bajrang subsequently challenged this charge in a written submission on July 11, with hearings conducted on September 20 and October 4.
The ADDP concluded that Bajrang had violated Article 10.3.1 of the Anti-Doping Rules, imposing a four-year ban starting from April 23, 2024, the date when the notification was issued. The panel clarified that the period between May 31 and June 21, during which the provisional suspension was lifted, would not count towards the four-year ineligibility.
Bajrang has consistently maintained that he faced biased and unfair treatment in doping control, citing his involvement in protests against former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) President Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. He claimed he never outright refused to provide a sample but requested clarity on why expired kits were used for testing in December 2023. Despite multiple emails to NADA seeking answers, Bajrang said he received no satisfactory response, which led to his mistrust of the doping control process.
In its defense, NADA asserted that its officials had appropriately informed Bajrang about the requirement to provide a urine sample for analysis. According to NADA, Bajrang’s refusal to comply was intentional and demonstrated a disregard for his responsibilities as outlined in Articles 20.1 and 20.2 of the Anti-Doping Rules, 2021. The agency emphasized that his actions were deliberate, undermining the integrity of the anti-doping framework.
Bajrang argued that his stance was not a refusal but a protest against procedural lapses, including NADA’s alleged mishandling of doping controls in previous instances. He stated that as a senior athlete, he felt compelled to hold NADA accountable for its actions, particularly in ensuring fairness and transparency in the doping control process.
Despite these assertions, the ADDP ruled in favor of NADA, emphasizing the athlete’s accountability in adhering to anti-doping regulations. This ruling signifies a significant setback for Bajrang’s wrestling career and raises broader questions about the relationship between athletes and anti-doping authorities.