Controversy and Indian Wrestlers is a perfect matchmaking. Over the years, there have been many incidents between the Indian wrestlers and some other departments. Now, the National Anti-drug Agency (NADA) suspended Bajrang Punia, India’s bronze medal-winning wrestler at the Tokyo Olympics, for four years after refusing to give a sample for a drug test on March 10 during the national team selection trials.
This decision came after NADA punished Bajrang Punia on April 23. For the identical violation, prompting a subsequent suspension by the World Governing Body, UWW. The suspension bars him from participating in competitive wrestling or seeking coaching jobs abroad. The 30-year-old has appealed the initial temporary ban. On May 31, NADA’s Anti-Disciplinary Doping Panel (ADDP) removed it temporarily until a formal notice of charges was filed.
NADA formally informed him of the charges on June 23. In response, Bajrang Punia, who had joined the Congress party alongside fellow wrestler Vinesh Phogat and taken leadership of the All India Kisan Congress, challenged the accusations on July 11. Hearings were held on September 20 and October 4. The ADDP concluded that Bajrang was accountable for sanctions under Article 10.3.1.
India is losing its global wrestling voice
This resulted in a four-year ban on his eligibility. Bajrang Punia has continuously stated that his participation in rallies against former Wrestling Federation of India President Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh resulted in unjust treatment in terms of doping testing. He stated that he never refused to deliver a sample. But rather sought clarity from NADA regarding his worries about the usage of expired testing kits that were sent for his samples in December of 2023.
NADA defended its conduct, stating that the Chaperone/Doping Control Officer (DCO) had correctly contacted him. They explained the need to produce a urine sample for examination. In his written defense, Bajrang stated that NADA’s previous actions had created mistrust, saying that the organization’s failure to acknowledge or respond to earlier events harmed his trust in the doping control process. He felt a moral obligation to address these concerns as a well-known athlete in the sports world.
