WPF begins anti-doping testing at the European Open today. What it has clarified, what is still open, and what would make the programme credible.
Ali Bey Club Manavgat, about 80 km from Antalya, has spent this week hosting the 2026 European Pickleball Open powered by the APP across 18 courts, from 3 to 8 November. For most players today is draws, warm-ups and a hunt for shade. For one group, it is not. As testing begins at the European Open today, players in a designated category can be selected for an official anti-doping test, under a programme run by WPF with the European Pickleball Federation (EPF).
WPF and EPF call it “a historic first for the tournament”, and it deserves to be taken seriously in both directions. Taken seriously as progress, because someone had to go first. Taken seriously as a system, because a test is only worth as much as the rules, laboratory and hearing that sit behind it.
We first reported the plan on 21 October and raised questions about it. WPF’s President, Kim Wagner, responded with clarifications, which we added to that article. We have since sent WPF nine further questions. This piece sets out what is now clear, what is still open and what would help.
What has WPF actually done?
Quite a lot, and it is worth saying first. WPF’s anti-doping page now carries a 67-page rulebook, a TUE overview and application form, guidance on strict liability and medication, a “consequences of doping” explainer, and safeguarding and whistleblowing policies. None of that writes itself.
The joint WPF and EPF announcement says testing will take place “within a designated tournament category, in accordance with established international anti-doping practices and the applicable WPF anti-doping rules”, that all players in that category have been notified, and that “education will form an integral part” of the work.
Ms Wagner’s clarifications, published as an update to our original article, added three useful details. An independent professional provider will collect the samples. Athlete selection and testing fall under WPF’s programme, not the tournament organisers. And WPF has prepared guidance on prohibited substances, medications, TUEs, testing procedures and athlete rights.
She was also candid about WPF’s status. WPF is not currently a signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code, and she said: “We do not imply that WADA has endorsed or approved WPF’s programme.” She described the European Open as “an important first step” rather than “a once-off testing exercise.” Governing bodies rarely volunteer the limits of their own programmes. That is encouraging.
Which rules apply to today’s tests?
We put this question first because everything else depends on it. WPF’s Integrity page says its WADA Code-aligned rules and policies take effect on 1 October 2026. Its anti-doping page says the rules take effect on 1 January 2027. The rulebook itself says “Effective 1 January 2027” on its cover, and Article 24.3 says the rules “shall enter into force and shall apply in full as of 1 January 2027”. Today falls between those two dates, 92 days apart.
Ms Wagner’s explanation is reasonable. She said 1 October reflects the intended initial implementation of WPF’s anti-doping framework, including today’s testing, while 1 January 2027 coincides with the revised World Anti-Doping Code and International Standards, which WPF is taking into account as it develops its policies. WADA approved those in Busan last December, and they come into force on 1 January 2027. Writing new rules to the new Code makes sense. Nobody wants to rewrite a rulebook twice in three months.
She also said WPF was reviewing its published information to make the distinction clear and to make sure athletes could see the applicable rules before testing. When we checked on Wednesday morning, both pages still showed different dates, and the rulebook file had last been modified on 29 October. That leaves the practical question open. If a sample collected today led to a case, which document would a hearing panel apply? The answer may be simple, but it should be written down. WPF had not answered our further questions by the time of publication.
What do players in the category need to know?
The basics are in WPF’s own guidance, and they are the same as in any Code-based sport. Under strict liability, a player is responsible for any prohibited substance found in their sample, regardless of intent, fault or negligence. WPF recommends checking medications on GlobalDRO and warns about supplements, which is wise. A pre-workout tub bought online is not a defence, however convincing the label.
The list that matters today is WADA’s 2026 Prohibited List. WADA publishes each new list in October, and it comes into force on 1 January, so the 2027 version does not yet apply.
Medical exemptions are more complicated. WPF’s TUE overview asks athletes to apply before using a medication. For substances banned only in competition, it asks them to apply at least 30 days before the event, “unless it is an emergency or exceptional situation”. We do not know when players in the category were first told; the public announcement came 15 days before today. A practical question for players who need a TUE is how they would manage that within the notice period. Athletes who are not International-Level apply to their national anti-doping organisation, and the guidance says they may apply to WPF for a retroactive TUE if they are tested without one. WPF does not automatically recognise TUEs granted by national bodies; athletes must ask it to. That route is fair, but amateur players with an asthma inhaler and a 9am match need it spelt out. We have asked what event-specific guidance players received, and whether education was compulsory.
Who collects, who analyses, who decides?
These are the three things that make a test credible, and so far only the first is partly answered.
Collection will be by an independent professional provider, but it has not been named. The rulebook allows WPF to delegate testing to a Delegated Third Party “such as the International Testing Agency (ITA)”. It also rules out delegating to national federations because of conflicts of interest. That is the right instinct.
The anti-doping page lists “analysis at WADA-accredited laboratories”. Türkiye has one: the Turkish Doping Control Center at Hacettepe University in Ankara is on WADA’s list of accredited laboratories. WPF has not said which lab will be used, and we make no assumption. We also do not know which category was chosen or how many players could be tested.
On results management, the rulebook provides a WPF Disciplinary Commission with an independent chair and independent members. Adjudication can be delegated to the CAS Anti-Doping Division, and appeals go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. On paper, that is a sound structure. In practice, the panel needs people, and the published rulebook does not yet specify the panel size.
Why does WADA signatory status matter?
WPF is not on WADA’s list of Code signatories, and it says so itself. Its Integrity page describes signatory status as something that “follows separately as part of WPF’s pathway toward IOC recognition”. Being Code-aligned without being a signatory is not unusual for a young federation. But it raises a fair question for players: would a sanction from today be recognised by national anti-doping bodies, or by other pickleball organisations?
That matters more in pickleball than in most sports, because pickleball still has more than one body claiming the international role. The Global Pickleball Federation (GPF) has taken a different path. It describes itself as a partner of the ITA, and its clean-sport webinars began in February. Another followed on 28 October. We have written about how GPF frames its own Olympic case. Two clean-sport programmes are better than none. Two that do not recognise each other’s sanctions would leave a gap.
Is this a one-off or a programme?
Ms Wagner has said it is a first step, not a one-off, and we take her at her word. The rulebook says that “WPF maintains no Testing Pool as of the effective date of these Rules”, which is normal for a new programme. Credible programmes still need a plan: a calendar of tested events, out-of-competition testing once a pool exists, and a budget that does not depend on goodwill. One test day is a start. Clean sport is built over seasons.
What would make it credible?
None of this is expensive, and WPF has already written most of it.
- A one-page “rules in force” notice. State which rules, Code version and Prohibited List apply until 31 December, and how the 2027 rules take over, on both the Integrity and anti-doping pages.
- Name the provider and the laboratory. It costs nothing and reassures players.
- Confirm the results panel. Publish the Disciplinary Commission’s chair and members, or confirm that cases go to the CAS Anti-Doping Division.
- Publish anonymised numbers. Samples collected and, in time, any adverse findings. A short annual report would do.
- A 2027 testing plan and budget. Name the next tested events, even provisionally, and explain how the work will be funded.
- A signatory roadmap and mutual recognition. Set a timeline for WADA signatory status, and seek agreements with GPF and national bodies so that a sanction in one system counts in the others.
The players in today’s category did not ask to be pioneers. WPF has given them a rulebook, guidance and an independent collector, and that is real progress. What will make today count is what WPF publishes afterwards: the rules that apply, the lab that tests, the panel that decides and the next date in the diary. Four answers, one page.
We asked WPF to answer nine questions by midday on Wednesday 4 November.
