Fri, March 06, 2026
World Athletics v Twinkle Chaudhary
A decision in the case of World Athletics (“WA”) against Ms Twinkle Chaudhary has been issued by the Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal.
On 23 October 2025, the Athletics Integrity Unit (“AIU”), acting on behalf of WA, issued Ms Chaudhary with a Notice of Charge asserting two Anti-Doping Rule Violations (“ADRVs”) under the 2025 World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules (“ADR”): Presence of a Prohibited Substance (Rule 2.1 ADR) and Use of a Prohibited Substance (Rule 2.2 ADR). The charges arose from an Adverse Analytical Finding (“AAF”) for Metabolites of Methyltestosterone in an In-Competition urine Sample (the “Sample”) collected from Ms Chaudhary on 30 May 2025 at the 26th Asian Athletics Championships in Gumi, South Korea. Ms Chaudhary was provisionally suspended with effect from 24 June 2025.
The Sample, analysed by a WADA-accredited laboratory in Seoul (the “Laboratory”), was found to contain 17α-methyl-5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol and 17α-methyl-5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol, which are Metabolites of Methyltestosterone, a Non-Specified, Non-Threshold Substance prohibited at all times under Category S1.1 of the WADA 2025 Prohibited List.
Ms Chaudhary denied the ADRVs and, on 20 November 2025, referred the matter to the Disciplinary and Appeals Tribunal for adjudication (the “DAT”). The Chairperson of the DAT, Mr Charles Hollander KC, appointed himself as Chair of the panel, alongside Ms Anna Smirnova and Mr Hannu Kalkas as members (together, the “Panel”). An oral hearing was conducted by video conference on 12 February 2026.
Ms Chaudhary denied intentional ingestion and was unable to identify the source of the Methyltestosterone. She submitted that there was no evidence of deliberate Use, citing her clean Testing history, the absence of any prior ADRVs, the lack of a sporting motive, and the absence of any pattern of Use. She also suggested that the Sample might not have been hers or could have been subject to Tampering. During the Results Management phase, she requested that the AIU conduct DNA testing to verify the Sample’s integrity and provenance; however, the AIU declined. Ms Chaudhary renewed this request at the hearing.
The AIU argued that the AAF, confirmed by a WADA-accredited Laboratory and complete chain of custody, was sufficient to establish ADRVs under Rules 2.1 and 2.2 ADR, and that intent, Fault, or motive were irrelevant to liability. It submitted that Ms Chaudhary had not met the burden of proving that the ADRVs were not intentional as she could not establish the source of the Prohibited Substance, and that there was no evidence of departures from the International Standards to justify DNA testing.
The AIU also raised an additional allegation, that Ms Chaudhary may have breached her Provisional Suspension by participating at the Khelo India University Games in Rajasthan, India (the “Event”). Ms Chaudhary disputed this, explaining that she had travelled to the Event to meet friends rather than to compete, that she was over the age limit for the Event, and that she did not know who had entered her or why. After hearing her oral evidence, and cross-examination on this matter, the Panel accepted her explanation and found that this allegation was not established.
The Panel was comfortably satisfied that the presence of Metabolites of Methyltestosterone in the Sample established ADRVs under Rules 2.1 and 2.2 ADR. The Panel found that Ms Chaudhary had failed to prove that the ADRVs were not intentional and was therefore obliged, under Rule 10.2.1 ADR, to impose a four (4) year period of Ineligibility for a Non-Specified Substance. Her assertions of innocence, clean record, and lack of motive were insufficient to demonstrate lack of intent under Rule 10.2.3 ADR.
The Panel also dismissed Ms Chaudhary’s request for DNA testing, concluding that there was no evidence of any departure from the International Standards, nor any irregularity in the collection, handling, or analysis of the Sample that could reasonably have caused the AAF or called into question the Sample’s integrity.
Accordingly, the Panel imposed a period of Ineligibility of four (4) years, commencing on the date of the decision, with credit for the Provisional Suspension served since 24 June 2025, in accordance with Rule 10.13 ADR. In addition, Ms Chaudhary’s results at the 26th Asian Athletics Championships, and all competitive results from 24 June 2025 are Disqualified.
Sport Resolutions is the independent Secretariat to the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal.
A copy of the full decision can be accessed via the related links tab on the right-hand side.
