Bajrang Punia suspended by NADA over refusal to dope test

Bajrang Punia: Wrestling Star Suspended by NADA Amid Doping Test Refusal

Written by: Supriya Kadu

Edited by: Omkar Devadkar

Last Updated: May 06, 2024

Summary: The National Anti-Doping Agency has provisionally suspended Indian Olympic medalist Bajrang Punia for failing to give his urine sample on time.

The National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) has temporarily prohibited Tokyo Olympics medalist Bajrang Punia for failing to provide a dope sample during the March trials in Sonipat, according to a source. Bajrang refused to submit a urine sample during the trials in Sonipat after storming out when he lost to Rohit Kumar.

Punia left the Sports Authority of India (SAI) Center in a fury after being eliminated. The National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) attempted to collect a sample for a dope test from Punia, but he did not return even for the third-fourth place battle. Punia had trained in Russia in preparation for the trials, organized by the IOA's ad hoc panel.

Punia will not be allowed to compete in tournaments or trials until his suspension is overturned. If the charges remain in the hearing, he may also be banned from participating in the upcoming Olympic trials.

After due process, NADA sent Punia a notice on April 23rd, requesting him to clarify his position by May 7th. With no reply, the agency had no choice but to temporarily suspend his participation in all competitions until a final disciplinary hearing.

Now that he has spoken out, the wrestler has criticized NADA for allegedly having different testing procedures. In a video statement, he said, “I want to clarify the report that I was requested to take a dope test!!! I never refused to provide a sample to NADA officials. I requested that they first respond to my question about what action they took with the expired kit they provided to gather my sample before performing my dope test. My lawyer, Vidush Singhania, will respond to this letter in due time.”

He also threatened to sue using his attorney, claiming that the suspension was unfairly imposed due to "faulty" equipment.