Bajrang Punia, India’s Tokyo Olympics bronze medal-winning wrestler, was suspended by the Nationwide Anti-Doping Company (NADA) for 4 years for refusing to submit a pattern for a doping check on March 10 through the nationwide workforce choice trials. This choice got here after NADA had initially suspended Bajrang Punia on April 23 for a similar offence, which led to a subsequent suspension by the World Governing Physique, UWW.
India’s high wrestler Bajrang Punia was suspended for 4 years(Commonwealth Sport Twitter)
This suspension implies that he is not going to be allowed to take part in aggressive wrestling nor search teaching alternatives abroad, ought to he want to take action.
Bajrang contested the preliminary provisional suspension, and on Could 31, NADA’s Anti-Disciplinary Doping Panel (ADDP) lifted the suspension briefly till a proper discover of prices was issued. On June 23, NADA formally notified him of the costs.
The ADDP concluded that Bajrang was accountable for sanctions below Article 10.3.1, leading to a four-year ban on his eligibility.
“The Panel holds that the Athlete is liable for sanctions under Article 10.3.1 and liable for ineligibility for a period of 4 years,” the ADDP stated in its order.
“In the present case, since the Athlete had been provisionally suspended, the Panel accordingly holds that the Athlete’s period of his ineligibility for the period of 4 years shall commence from the date on which the notification was sent, i.e., 23.04.2024.
“Evidently that on account of the lifting of the provisional suspension for the interval from 31.05.2024 to 21.06.2024 shall not be credited into the whole interval of ineligibility of 4 years.”
Bajrang cries foul play
Bajrang has constantly claimed that he was subjected to unfair remedy relating to doping management on account of his involvement in protests towards the previous Wrestling Federation of India President, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. He insisted that he by no means outright refused to offer a pattern however slightly sought clarification from NADA relating to his considerations over using expired testing kits that had been despatched for his samples in December 2023.
NADA defended its actions, affirming that the Chaperone/Doping Management Officer (DCO) had correctly approached him, explaining the requirement to offer a urine pattern for evaluation. In his written protection, Bajrang expressed that NADA’s earlier conduct had led to distrust, claiming that the group’s lack of acknowledgment or response in previous incidents eroded his confidence within the doping management course of. He felt a way of ethical obligation to deal with these considerations as a outstanding athlete within the sports activities neighborhood.
Bajrang acknowledged that he was at all times keen to offer a pattern, contingent upon receiving sufficient responses from NADA relating to the expired kits. Nonetheless, NADA maintained that his refusal to cooperate was each intentional and deliberate, asserting that he has proven a blatant disregard for his tasks as outlined in Articles 20.1 and 20.2 of the Anti-Doping Guidelines, 2021.