Athletics

Athlete Parvej Khan’s Doping Ban Reduced to Five Years by Appeal Panel

  • Authored By: Sports Now
  • Updated Nov 4, 2026, 22:10 IST

The National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel has reduced athlete Parvej Khan’s suspension from six years to five, citing technical grounds regarding how his two separate anti-doping rule violations were combined.

Athlete Parvej Khan’s Doping Ban Reduced to Five Years by Appeal Panel

The National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel (NADAP) has issued a revised ruling regarding athlete Parvej Khan, reducing his total suspension period from six years to five. The decision follows a technical review of how the athlete’s two distinct anti-doping rule violations were processed by the initial disciplinary panel.

Parvej had originally received a six-year ban on August 6, 2025, after being found guilty of two separate infractions. The first involved three whereabouts failures recorded during 2023, for which he was notified on November 24, 2024. The second violation concerned an adverse analytical finding for EPO, of which he was notified on August 28, 2024. The appeal panel determined that under Article 10.9.3.1 of the anti-doping regulations, these two incidents should be treated as a single first anti-doping rule violation.

Details of the Revised Sanction and Legal Challenges

In its order, the NADAP stipulated that the athlete would serve the four-year sanction associated with the EPO violation, supplemented by an additional one-year period due to what the panel termed as aggravating circumstances. The suspension is backdated to August 28, 2024, to account for the time Parvej had already spent under provisional suspension.

Despite the reduction in the total duration of the ban, the athlete’s legal representative, Saurabh Mishra, has expressed significant reservations regarding the ruling. Mishra noted that while the athlete admitted to the EPO violation, he believes he was entitled to a further one-year reduction in his sentence based on that admission. Furthermore, the counsel raised concerns regarding the procedural handling of the aggravating circumstances that led to the additional year being added to the ban.

Mishra argued that these specific circumstances were not included in the original notice of charge, nor were they presented by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) during the initial proceedings. According to the counsel, the athlete was not given proper notice that an enhancement of his penalty was being considered, nor was he provided with an opportunity to mount a defense against that specific claim. Citing these concerns over procedural fairness, Mishra confirmed that the legal team intends to challenge the NADAP order at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).