Parvej Khan
Introduction
Parvej Khan is an Indian middle-distance runner from Haryana. On August 6, 2025, the NADA Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel suspended him for six years for two anti-doping rule violations: three whereabouts failures recorded in 2023 and an adverse analytical finding for the prohibited substance erythropoietin (EPO). In a decision reported on November 4, 2026, the National Anti-Doping Appeal Panel (NADAP) reduced the sanction to five years on technical grounds, ruling that the two violations had to be considered together as a single first violation. Khan, who admitted the EPO violation, remains banned until August 27, 2029. His lawyer is challenging the length of the sanction β not the underlying finding β at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Background Information
Khan won the 1500m at the 2024 SEC Outdoor Track & Field Championships in Florida and earlier won the 800m gold at the U-16 nationals in Mangalgiri. He was included in the National Anti-Doping Agency’s (NADA) Registered Testing Pool on December 10, 2022. The case grew out of three whereabouts failures recorded in 2023 and a separate adverse analytical finding for EPO from samples collected at the 63rd National Inter-State Senior Athletics Championships in Panchkula in June 2024. (Some reports, including the Times of India, spell his name Parvez.)
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Banned five years for doping. NADAP cut Khan’s six-year suspension to five years, running retrospectively from August 28, 2024 to August 27, 2029, with results from June 27, 2024 onward disqualified.
The Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel (ADDP) of the National Anti-Doping Agency imposed the six-year period of ineligibility on August 6, 2025, under Articles 10.2.1.1 and 10.9 of the National Anti-Doping Rules, 2021, for two violations: three whereabouts failures (an Article 2.4 violation) and an adverse analytical finding (AAF) for EPO.
The first whereabouts failure was recorded on May 12, 2023, when he was unavailable during his 60-minute testing window, reportedly because he was in the USA for training; he was notified on May 29 and accepted his mistake for not updating his whereabouts on ADAMS. A second missed test followed an unsuccessful testing attempt on July 10, 2023, after the doping control officer could not locate him at the SAI National Campers Hostel in Bengaluru, reportedly because he was in Kochi for naval duty. The third failure related to December 5, 2023, when he was again unavailable during his window; he argued he reported to the NADA office the same day and provided a sample that tested negative, but the missed test was recorded on November 11, 2024, and he was notified of the violation on November 27, 2024.
Separately, samples collected during the 63rd National Inter-State Senior Athletics Championships in Panchkula on June 27 and 28, 2024, returned AAFs for EPO. Khan was notified on August 28, 2024, did not dispute the analytical finding in Sample A, and did not seek analysis of Sample B.
The panel held the whereabouts violation could not be treated as a second violation: under Article 10.9.3.1, where the subsequent violation was committed before notification of the first, both must be treated as a single first violation β the whereabouts violation was notified only on November 27, 2024, after the EPO finding was communicated on August 28, 2024. It did not give Khan a complete reprieve: providing a sample later the same day did not nullify the missed test, and his repeated failures amounted to aggravating circumstances. The panel imposed the more severe sanction of four years for the AAF plus an additional one year for aggravating circumstances β five years total β running from August 28, 2024 because he had been provisionally suspended.
Public Reaction and Consequences
No public statement from Khan himself was reported; his response came through counsel, advocate Saurabh Mishra, who called the decision a significant development and, in his view, a first-of-its-kind case in Indian anti-doping jurisprudence. Mishra welcomed the reduction but said that because the athlete admitted his EPO violation, he was entitled to another one-year reduction. He also claimed NADA had followed a practice of imposing three-year sanctions in comparable cases, while Khan received four years without being specifically informed of that calculation. “These circumstances were neither mentioned in the Notice of Charge nor pleaded by NADA during the proceedings,” Mishra said of the aggravating-circumstances year, adding that the athlete was never put on notice that such an enhancement was being sought and was given no opportunity to defend himself against it β a fundamental question of procedural fairness. “While we welcome the panel’s acceptance of our central argument, the failure to apply Article 10.8.1 and the additional enhancement based on unpleaded aggravating circumstances cannot be sustained. We will challenge these aspects of the decision before the Court of Arbitration for Sport,” he said.
Current Status
The five-year ban runs retrospectively from August 28, 2024 β crediting his provisional suspension β until August 27, 2029. His competitive results from June 27, 2024 onward stand disqualified, subject to the exception where fairness requires otherwise. Mishra said the NADAP order would be challenged at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, a challenge directed at further reducing the sanction rather than overturning the admitted EPO violation. The appeal was heard by a three-member panel comprising advocate Gouri Karuna Mohanti (chairperson), Dr Lalit Kumar Gupta (medical member) and Indu Puri (sports member). Mishra also disclosed that after three hearings the matter had been reserved for orders, but a newly constituted panel held another hearing before delivering its decision.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The sanction keeps Khan out of competition until August 27, 2029 and disqualifies his competitive results from June 27, 2024 onward β the stretch that includes the Panchkula championships where he returned the EPO finding β subject to the exception where fairness requires otherwise. The admitted EPO violation itself is settled: he did not dispute Sample A and signed the acceptance form. What he is pursuing at CAS is a shorter sanction β a further one-year reduction and removal of the aggravating-circumstances enhancement β rather than any reversal of the finding. Until the appeal is decided, the adjudicated five-year ban stands.