Badminton World Federation
Anti-Doping Regulations

Effective Date
1 January 2015

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 - Amended 25 May 2017

1

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 3
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................................... 3
FUNDAMENTAL RATIONALE FOR THE CODE AND BWF'S ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS .................................... 3
SCOPE OF THESE ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONS .................................................................................................... 4
ARTICLE 1

DEFINITION OF DOPING ............................................................................................................... 5

ARTICLE 2

ANTI‐DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS .................................................................................................. 5

ARTICLE 3

PROOF OF DOPING .....................................................................................................................10

ARTICLE 4

THE PROHIBITED LIST ..................................................................................................................11

ARTICLE 5

TESTING AND INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................................................................16

ARTICLE 6

ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES................................................................................................................21

ARTICLE 7

RESULTS MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................22

ARTICLE 8

RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING ..........................................................................................................29

ARTICLE 9

AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS ...........................................................31

ARTICLE 10SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS ......................................................................................................31

ARTICLE 11

CONSEQUENCES TO TEAMS .........................................................................................................43

ARTICLE 12SANCTIONS AND COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST SPORTING BODIES ..................................................44

ARTICLE 13

APPEALS .....................................................................................................................................45

ARTICLE 14

CONFIDENTIALITY AND REPORTING ............................................................................................50

ARTICLE 15

APPLICATION AND RECOGNITION OF DECISIONS .........................................................................53

ARTICLE 16 INCORPORATION OF BWF ANTI‐DOPING REGULATIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERASSOCIATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................54
ARTICLE 17

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS...........................................................................................................55

ARTICLE 18

BWF COMPLIANCE REPORTS TO WADA .......................................................................................55

ARTICLE 19

EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................55

ARTICLE 20

AMENDMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF ANTI‐DOPING REGULATIONS ........................................55

ARTICLE 21

INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE...................................................................................................57

ARTICLE 22

ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PLAYERS AND OTHER PERSONS ...........................57

APPENDIX 1

DEFINITIONS ..............................................................................................................................59

APPENDIX 2

EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 10 .........................................................................68

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 - Amended 25 May 20172

BWF ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONSINTRODUCTION
Preface
These Anti-Doping Regulations are adopted and implemented in accordance with
BWF's responsibilities under the Code, and in furtherance of BWF's continuing
efforts to eradicate doping in sport.
These Anti-Doping Regulations are sport regulations governing the conditions underwhich sport is played. These regulations aim to enforce anti-doping principles in a
global and harmonized manner.
The regulations are distinct in nature from criminal and civil laws, and are notintended to be subject to or limited by any national requirements and legal
standards applicable to criminal or civil proceedings.
When reviewing the facts and the law of a given case, all courts, arbitral tribunals
and other adjudicating bodies should be aware of and respect the distinct nature ofthese Anti-Doping Regulations implementing the Code and the fact that theseregulations represent the consensus of a broad spectrum of stakeholders aroundthe world as to what is necessary to protect and ensure fair sport.
Fundamental Rationale for the Code and BWF's Anti-Doping Regulations
Anti-doping programs seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport.
This intrinsic value is often referred to as "the spirit of sport". It is the essence ofOlympism, the pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection ofeach person’s natural talents. It is how we play true.
The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and this isreflected in values we find in, and through sport, including:












Ethics, fair play and honesty
HealthExcellence in performance
Character and education
Fun and joy
Teamwork
Dedication and commitment
Respect for rules and laws
Respect for self and other Participants
CourageCommunity and solidarity

Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport.
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 20173

Scope of these Anti-Doping Regulations
These Anti-Doping Regulations shall apply to BWF and to each of its Members andAssociate Members.
These Anti-Doping Regulations also apply to Players, Player Support Personnel andother Persons, each of whom is deemed, as a condition of his/her membership,
accreditation and/or participation in the sport, to have agreed to be bound by theseAnti-Doping Regulations, and to have submitted to the authority of BWF to enforce
these Anti-Doping Regulations and to the jurisdiction of the hearing panels specified
in Article 8 and Article 13 to hear and determine cases and appeals brought underthese Anti-Doping Regulations:a.

all Player and Player Support Personnel who are members of BWF Members,
or of any BWF Associate Members, or of any member or affiliateorganization of any BWF Member or BWF Associate Member (including any
clubs, teams, associations or leagues);b.

all Player and Player Support Personnel participating in such capacity in
Events, Competitions and other activities organized, convened, authorized
or recognized by BWF, or any Member or Associate Member, or any member
or affiliate organization of any Member or Associate Member (including any
clubs, teams, associations or leagues), wherever held;

Within the overall pool of Players set out above who are bound by and required tocomply with these Anti-Doping Regulations, the following Players shall beconsidered to be International-Level Players for purposes of these Anti-Doping
Regulations, and therefore the specific provisions in these Anti-Doping Regulations
applicable to International-Level Players (as regards Testing but also as regards
TUEs, whereabouts information, results management, and appeals) shall apply tosuch Players:‐

Players who compete in any International Events sanctioned or organized by
the BWF or where the BWF is the ruling body.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 2017

4

ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING
Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping ruleviolations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.10 of these Anti-Doping
Regulations.
ARTICLE 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS
The purpose of Article 2 is to specify the circumstances and conduct whichconstitute anti-doping rule violations. Hearings in doping cases will proceed basedon the assertion that one or more of these specific regulations have been violated.
Players or other Persons shall be responsible for knowing what constitutes an antidoping rule violation and the substances and methods which have been included on
the Prohibited List.
The following constitute anti-doping rule violations:
2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites orMarkers in a Player’s Sample
2.1.1 It is each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited
Substance enters his or her body. Players are responsible for any
Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present
in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault,
negligence or knowing Use on the Player’s part be demonstrated inorder to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1.

[Comment to Article 2.1.1: An anti-doping rule violation is committed under this Article
without regard to a Player’s Fault. This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions
as “Strict Liability”. A Player’s Fault is taken into consideration in determining theConsequences of this anti-doping rule violation under Article 10.
This principle has
consistently been upheld by CAS.]

2.1.2
Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article
2.1 is established by any of the following: presence of a Prohibited
Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Player’s A Sample where
the Player waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is notanalyzed; or, where the Player’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysisof the Player’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited
Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Player’s A
Sample; or, where the Player’s B Sample is split into two bottles andthe analysis of the second bottle confirms the presence of theProhibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the firstbottle.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 20175

[Comment to Article 2.1.2:
The Anti-Doping Organization with results management
responsibility may, at its discretion, choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if thePlayer does not request the analysis of the B Sample.]

2.1.3 Excepting those substances for which a quantitative thresholdis specifically identified in the Prohibited List, the presence of any
quantity of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a
Player’s Sample shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation.
2.1.4
As an exception to the general rule of Article 2.1, theProhibited List or International Standards may establish special criteria
for the evaluation of Prohibited Substances that can also be produced
endogenously.
2.2 Use or Attempted Use by a Player of a Prohibited Substance ora Prohibited Method[Comment to Article 2.2: It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a
Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means. As
noted in the Comment to Article 3.2, unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping
rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by otherreliable means such as admissions by the Player, witness statements, documentary
evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, including data collected as part of
the Player Biological Passport, or other analytical information which does not otherwise
satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under
Article 2.1. For example, Use may be established based upon reliable analytical data fromthe analysis of an A Sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample) or fromthe analysis of a B Sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory
explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample.]

2.2.1 It is each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited
Substance enters his or her body and that no Prohibited Method isUsed. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, negligence or
knowing Use on the Player’s part be demonstrated in order to establish
an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a
Prohibited Method.
2.2.2
The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a
Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. It issufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used
or Attempted to be Used for an anti-doping rule violation to becommitted.
[Comment to Article 2.2.2: Demonstrating the "Attempted Use" of a Prohibited Substanceor a Prohibited Method requires proof of intent on the Player’s part. The fact that intent
may be required to prove this particular anti-doping rule violation does not undermine theStrict Liability principle established for violations of Article 2.1 and violations of Article 2.2 inrespect of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 2017

6

A Player’s “Use” of a Prohibited Substance constitutes an anti-doping rule violation unlesssuch substance is not prohibited Out-of-Competition and the Player’s Use takes place Outof-Competition. (However, the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites orMarkers in a Sample collected In-Competition is a violation of Article 2.1 regardless of whenthat substance might have been administered).]

2.3

Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection

Evading Sample collection, or without compelling justification refusing or
failing to submit to Sample collection after notification as authorized in theseAnti-Doping Regulations or other applicable anti-doping Regulations.
[Comment to Article 2.3: For example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation of “evading
Sample collection” if it were established that a Player was deliberately avoiding a Doping
Control official to evade notification or Testing. A violation of “failing to submit to Sample
collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the Player, while"evading" or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Player.]

2.4

Whereabouts Failures

Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in theInternational Standard for Testing and Investigations, within a twelve-month
period by a Player in a Registered Testing Pool.
2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any part of Doping
Control
Conduct which subverts the Doping Control process but which would nototherwise be included in the definition of Prohibited Methods. Tampering
shall include, without limitation, intentionally interfering or attempting tointerfere with a Doping Control official, providing fraudulent information to an
Anti-Doping Organization, or intimidating or attempting to intimidate apotential witness.
[Comment to Article 2.5: For example, this Article would prohibit altering identification
numbers on a Doping Control form during Testing, breaking the B bottle at the time of B
Sample analysis, or altering a Sample by the addition of a foreign substance. Offensive
conduct towards a Doping Control official or other Person involved in Doping Control which
does not otherwise constitute Tampering shall be addressed in the disciplinary regulations ofsport organizations.]

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 2017

7

2.6

Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method
2.6.1
Possession by a Player In-Competition of any Prohibited
Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by a Player Out-ofCompetition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method
which is prohibited Out-of-Competition unless the Player establishes
that the Possession is consistent with a Therapeutic Use Exemption(“TUE”) granted in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptablejustification.
2.6.2 Possession by a Player Support Person In-Competition of any
Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by aPlayer Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substanceor any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition inconnection with a Player, Competition or training, unless the Player
Support Person establishes that the Possession is consistent with a
TUE granted to a Player in accordance with Article 4.4 or otheracceptable justification.

[Comment to Articles 2.6.1 and 2.6.2:
Acceptable justification would not include, forexample, buying or Possessing a Prohibited Substance for purposes of giving it to a friend or
relative, except under justifiable medical circumstances where that Person had a physician’sprescription, e.g., buying Insulin for a diabetic child.][Comment to Article 2.6.2: Acceptable justification would include, for example, a team
doctor carrying Prohibited Substances for dealing with acute and emergency situations.]

2.7 Trafficking or Attempted
Substance or Prohibited Method

Trafficking

in

any

Prohibited

2.8 Administration or Attempted Administration to any Player InCompetition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, or
Administration or Attempted Administration to any Player Out-ofCompetition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Methodthat is prohibited Out-of-Competition
2.9 Complicity
Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any othertype of intentional complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation,
Attempted anti-doping rule violation or violation of Article 10.12.1 by another
Person.
2.10 Prohibited Association
Association by a Player or other Person subject to the authority of an AntiDoping Organization in a professional or sport-related capacity with any Player
Support Person who:

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 20178

2.10.1 If subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization, isserving a period of Ineligibility; or
2.10.2 If not subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization
and where Ineligibility has not been addressed in a results management
process pursuant to the Code, has been convicted or found in a criminal,
disciplinary or professional proceeding to have engaged in conduct which
would have constituted a violation of anti-doping regulations if Codecompliant regulations had been applicable to such Person. The
disqualifying status of such Person shall be in force for the longer of six
years from the criminal, professional or disciplinary decision or theduration of the criminal, disciplinary or professional sanction imposed; or
2.10.3 Is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual describedin Article 2.10.1 or 2.10.2.
In order for this provision to apply, it is necessary that the Player or other
Person has previously been advised in writing by an Anti-Doping Organization
with jurisdiction over the Player or other Person, or by WADA, of the Player
Support Person’s disqualifying status and the potential Consequence ofprohibited association and that the Player or other Person can reasonably avoid
the association. The Anti-Doping Organization shall also use reasonable efforts
to advise the Player Support Person who is the subject of the notice to thePlayer or other Person that the Player Support Person may, within 15 days,
come forward to the Anti-Doping Organization to explain that the criteria
described in Articles 2.10.1 and 2.10.2 do not apply to him or her.
(Notwithstanding Article 17, this Article applies even when the Player Support
Person’s disqualifying conduct occurred prior to the effective date provided in
Article 20.7.)
The burden shall be on the Player or other Person to establish that any
association with Player Support Personnel described in Article 2.10.1 or 2.10.2
is not in a professional or sport-related capacity.
Anti-Doping Organizations that are aware of Player Support Personnel whomeet the criteria described in Article 2.10.1, 2.10.2, or 2.10.3 shall submit that
information to WADA.
[Comment to Article 2.10:
Players and other Persons must not work with coaches,trainers, physicians or other Player Support Personnel who are Ineligible on account of ananti-doping rule violation or who have been criminally convicted or professionally disciplined
in relation to doping. Some examples of the types of association which are prohibited
include: obtaining training, strategy, technique, nutrition or medical advice; obtaining
therapy, treatment or prescriptions; providing any bodily products for analysis; or allowing
the Player Support Person to serve as an agent or representative. Prohibited associationneed not involve any form of compensation.]

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 20179

ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING
3.1

Burdens and Standards of Proof

BWF shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation
has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether BWF has established ananti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel
bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This
standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability
but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where these Anti-Doping
Regulations place the burden of proof upon the Player or other Person
alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut apresumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of
proof shall be by a balance of probability.
[Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by BWF is comparable tothe standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct.]3.2

Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions

Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliablemeans, including admissions. The following regulations of proof shall beapplicable in doping cases:[Comment to Article 3.2: For example, BWF may establish an anti-doping rule violation
under Article 2.2 based on the Player’s admissions, the credible testimony of third Persons,reliable documentary evidence, reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample asprovided in the Comments to Article 2.2, or conclusions drawn from the profile of a series of
the Player’s blood or urine Samples, such as data from the Player Biological Passport.]

3.2.1 Analytical methods or decision limits approved by WADA after
consultation within the relevant scientific community and which havebeen the subject of peer review are presumed to be scientifically valid.
Any Player or other Person seeking to rebut this presumption ofscientific validity shall, as a condition precedent to any such challenge,
first notify WADA of the challenge and the basis of the challenge. CAS
on its own initiative may also inform WADA of any such challenge. At
WADA’s request, the CAS panel shall appoint an appropriate scientificexpert to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge. Within 10
days of WADA’s receipt of such notice, and WADA’s receipt of the CAS
file, WADA shall also have the right to intervene as a party, appear
amicus curiae, or otherwise provide evidence in such proceeding.
3.2.2 WADA-accredited laboratories, and other laboratories approved
by WADA, are presumed to have conducted Sample analysis andcustodial procedures in accordance with the International Standard forLaboratories. The Player or other Person may rebut this presumption
by establishing that a departure from the International Standard forLaboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201710

Analytical Finding. If the Player or other Person rebuts the preceding
presumption by showing that a departure from the International
Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably havecaused the Adverse Analytical Finding, then BWF shall have the burden
to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical
Finding.
[Comment to Article 3.2.2: The burden is on the Player or other Person to establish, by abalance of probability, a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories that
could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. If the Player or other Person
does so, the burden shifts to BWF to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing
panel that the departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding.]

3.2.3
Departures from any other International Standard or otheranti-doping rule or policy set forth in the Code or these Anti-Doping
Regulations which did not cause an Adverse Analytical Finding or otheranti-doping rule violation shall not invalidate such evidence or results.
If the Player or other Person establishes a departure from another
International Standard or other anti-doping rule or policy which could
reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation based on an
Adverse Analytical Finding or other anti-doping rule violation, then
BWF shall have the burden to establish that such departure did notcause the Adverse Analytical Finding or the factual basis for the antidoping rule violation.
3.2.4 The facts established by a decision of a court or professional
disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subjectof a pending appeal shall be irrebuttable evidence against the Player orother Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts unless thePlayer or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles
of natural justice.
3.2.5 The hearing panel in a hearing on an anti-doping rule violation
may draw an inference adverse to the Player or other Person who isasserted to have committed an anti-doping regulation violation basedon the Player’s or other Person’s refusal, after a request made in areasonable time in advance of the hearing, to appear at the hearing(either in person or telephonically as directed by the hearing panel)and to answer questions from the hearing panel or BWF.
ARTICLE 4 THE PROHIBITED LIST
4.1

Incorporation of the Prohibited List

These Anti-Doping Regulations incorporate the Prohibited List, which is
published and revised by WADA as described in Article 4.1 of the Code.
[Comment to Article 4.1:
www.wada-ama.org ]The current Prohibited List is available on WADA's website at

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201711

4.2 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods Identified on
the Prohibited List
4.2.1

Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods

Unless provided otherwise in the Prohibited List and/or a revision, theProhibited List and revisions shall go into effect under these AntiDoping Regulations three months after publication by WADA, without
requiring any further action by BWF or its Members or Associate
Members. All Players and other Persons shall be bound by theProhibited List, and any revisions thereto, from the date they go into
effect, without further formality. It is the responsibility of all Players
and other Persons to familiarize themselves with the most up-to-dateversion of the Prohibited List and all revisions thereto.
4.2.2

Specified Substances

For purposes of the application of Article 10, all Prohibited Substances
shall be Specified Substances except substances in the classes ofanabolic agents and hormones and those stimulants and hormone
antagonists and modulators so identified on the Prohibited List. The
category of Specified Substances shall not include Prohibited Methods.
[Comment to Article 4.2.2: The Specified Substances identified in Article 4.2.2 should notin any way be considered less important or less dangerous than other doping substances.
Rather, they are simply substances which are more likely to have been consumed by aPlayer for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance.]

4.3

WADA’s Determination of the Prohibited List

WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods
that will be included on the Prohibited List, the classification of substances
into categories on the Prohibited List, and the classification of a substance asprohibited at all times or In-Competition only, is final and shall not be subject
to challenge by a Player or other Person based on an argument that thesubstance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential
to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.
4.4

Therapeutic Use Exemptions (“TUEs”)
4.4.1 The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites orMarkers, and/or the Use or Attempted Use, Possession or
Administration or Attempted Administration of a Prohibited Substanceor Prohibited Method, shall not be considered an anti-doping ruleviolation if it is consistent with the provisions of a TUE granted inaccordance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use
Exemptions.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201712

4.4.2 If an International-Level Player is using a Prohibited Substanceor a Prohibited Method for therapeutic reasons:4.4.2.1 Where the Player already has a TUE granted by his or
her National Anti-Doping Organization for the substance or
method in question, that TUE is not automatically valid forinternational-level Competition. However, the Player may apply
to BWF to recognize that TUE, in accordance with Article 7 of theInternational Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions. If that
TUE meets the criteria set out in the International Standard for
Therapeutic Use Exemptions, then BWF shall recognize it for
purposes of international-level Competition as well.
If BWF considers that the TUE does not meet those criteria andso refuses to recognize it, BWF shall notify the Player and his or
her National Anti-Doping Organization promptly, with reasons.
The Player and the National Anti-Doping Organization shall have
21 days from such notification to refer the matter to WADA for
review in accordance with Article 4.4.6.
If the matter is referred to WADA for review, the TUE granted by
the National Anti-Doping Organization remains valid fornational-level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing (butis not valid for international-level Competition) pending WADA’s
decision.
If the matter is not referred to WADA for review, the TUE
becomes invalid for any purpose when the 21-day review
deadline expires.
[Comment to Article 4.4.2.1: Further to Articles 5.6 and 7.1(a) of the International
Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, BWF may publish notice on its website
www.bwfbadminton.org that it will automatically recognize TUE decisions (or categories ofsuch decisions, e.g., as to particular substances or methods) made by National Anti-Doping
Organizations. If a Player's TUE falls into a category of automatically recognized TUEs, thenhe/she does not need to apply to BWF for recognition of that TUE.
If BWF refuses to recognize a TUE granted by a National Anti-Doping Organization only
because medical records or other information are missing that are needed to demonstratesatisfaction of the criteria in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, thematter should not be referred to WADA. Instead, the file should be completed and resubmitted to BWF.]

4.4.2.2 If the Player does not already have a TUE granted by
his/her National Anti-Doping Organization for the substance or
method in question, the Player must apply directly to BWF for a
TUE in accordance with the process set out in the International
Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions using the form posted
on BWF’s website at www.bwfbadminton.org

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201713

If BWF denies the Player’s application, it must notify the Player
promptly, with reasons. If BWF grants the Player’s application,
it shall notify not only the Player but also his/her National AntiDoping Organization.
If the National Anti-Doping Organization considers that the TUE
granted by BWF does not meet the criteria set out in theInternational Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, it has
21 days from such notification to refer the matter to WADA for
review in accordance with Article 4.4.6.
If the National Anti-Doping Organization refers the matter to
WADA for review, the TUE granted by BWF remains valid forinternational-level Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing(but is not valid for national-level Competition) pending WADA’s
decision.
If the National Anti-Doping Organization does not refer thematter to WADA for review, the TUE granted by BWF becomesvalid for national-level Competition as well when the 21-day
review deadline expires.
[Comment to Article 4.4.2: BWF may agree with a National Anti-Doping Organization that
the National Anti-Doping Organization will consider TUE applications on behalf of BWF.]

4.4.3 If BWF chooses to test a Player who is not an InternationalLevel Player, BWF shall recognize a TUE granted to that Player by hisor her National Anti-Doping Organization. If BWF chooses to test a
Player who is not an International-Level or a National-Level Player,
BWF shall permit that Player to apply for a retroactive TUE for any
Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method that he/she is using fortherapeutic reasons.
4.4.4 An application to BWF for grant or recognition of a TUE must
be made as soon as the need arises and in any event (save inemergency or exceptional situations or where Article 4.3 of theInternational Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions applies) atleast 30 days before the Player’s next Competition.
BWF shall appoint a panel to consider applications for the grant or
recognition of TUEs (the “TUE Committee”). The TUE Committee shallpromptly evaluate and decide upon the application in accordance withthe relevant provisions of the International Standard for Therapeutic
Use Exemptions and any specific BWF protocols posted on its website.
Subject to Article 4.4.6 of these Regulations, its decision shall be thefinal decision of BWF, and shall be reported to WADA and otherrelevant Anti-Doping Organizations, including the Player's National
Anti-Doping Organization, through ADAMS, in accordance with theInternational Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions.
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201714

[Comment to Article 4.4.4: The submission of false or misleadingly incomplete informationin support of a TUE application (including but not limited to the failure to advise of theunsuccessful outcome of a prior application to another Anti-Doping Organization for such aTUE) may result in a charge of Tampering or Attempted Tampering under Article 2.5.
A Player should not assume that his/her application for grant or recognition of a TUE (or for
renewal of a TUE) will be granted. Any Use or Possession or Administration of a Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method before an application has been granted is entirely at thePlayer’s own risk.]

4.4.5
TUE

Expiration, Cancellation, Withdrawal or Reversal of a
4.4.5.1 A TUE
Regulations:grantedpursuant

to

these

Anti-Doping(a) shall expire automatically at the end of any term for which it
was granted, without the need for any further notice or otherformality;(b) may be cancelled if the Player does not promptly comply
with any requirements or conditions imposed by the TUE
Committee upon grant of the TUE;(c) may be withdrawn by the TUE Committee if it issubsequently determined that the criteria for grant of a TUE are
not in fact met; or(d) may be reversed on review by WADA or on appeal.
4.4.5.2 In such event, the Player shall not be subject to any
Consequences based on his/her Use or Possession or
Administration of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method
in question in accordance with the TUE prior to the effective dateof expiry, cancellation, withdrawal or reversal of the TUE.
The review pursuant to Article 7.2 of any subsequent Adverse
Analytical Finding shall include consideration of whether suchfinding is consistent with Use of the Prohibited Substance or
Prohibited Method prior to that date, in which event no antidoping rule violation shall be asserted.
4.4.6

Reviews and Appeals of TUE Decisions
4.4.6.1 WADA shall review any decision by BWF not to recognize
a TUE granted by the National Anti-Doping Organization that isreferred to WADA by the Player or the Player’s National AntiDoping Organization.
In addition, WADA shall review any

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201715

decision by BWF to grant a TUE that is referred to WADA by thePlayer’s National Anti-Doping Organization.
WADA may review any other TUE decisions at any time, whether
upon request by those affected or on its own initiative. If the
TUE decision being reviewed meets the criteria set out in theInternational Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, WADA
will not interfere with it. If the TUE decision does not meetthose criteria, WADA will reverse it.
4.4.6.2 Any TUE decision by BWF (or by a National Anti-Doping
Organization where it has agreed to consider the application on
behalf of BWF) that is not reviewed by WADA, or that isreviewed by WADA but is not reversed upon review, may be
appealed by the Player and/or the Player’s National Anti-Doping
Organization exclusively to CAS, in accordance with Article 13.
[Comment to Article 4.4.6.2: In such cases, the decision being appealed is the BWF’s TUE
decision, not WADA’s decision not to review the TUE decision or (having reviewed it) not toreverse the TUE decision. However, the deadline to appeal the TUE decision does not begin
to run until the date that WADA communicates its decision. In any event, whether thedecision has been reviewed by WADA or not, WADA shall be given notice of the appeal sothat it may participate if it sees fit.]

4.4.6.3 A decision by WADA to reverse a TUE decision may be
appealed by the Player, the National Anti-Doping Organization
and/or BWF exclusively to CAS, in accordance with Article 13.
4.4.6.4 A failure to take action within a reasonable time on aproperly submitted application for grant or recognition of a TUE
or for review of a TUE decision shall be considered a denial of
the application.
ARTICLE 5 TESTING AND INVESTIGATIONS
5.1

Purpose of Testing and Investigations

Testing and investigations shall only be undertaken for anti-doping purposes.
They shall be conducted in conformity with the provisions of the International
Standard for Testing and Investigations and the specific protocols of BWF
supplementing that International Standard.
5.1.1 Testing shall be undertaken to obtain analytical evidence as to
the Player’s compliance (or non-compliance) with the strict Codeprohibition on the presence/Use of a Prohibited Substance or
Prohibited Method. Test distribution planning, Testing, post-Testing
activity and all related activities conducted by BWF shall be inconformity with the International Standard for Testing andInvestigations.
BWF shall determine the number of finishingplacement tests, random tests and target tests to be performed, in
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201716

accordance with the criteria established by the International Standard
for Testing and Investigations. All provisions of the International
Standard for Testing and Investigations shall apply automatically inrespect of all such Testing.
5.1.2

Investigations shall be undertaken:
5.1.2.1
in relation to Atypical Findings, Atypical Passport
Findings and Adverse Passport Findings, in accordance with
Articles 7.4 and 7.5 respectively, gathering intelligence orevidence (including, in particular, analytical evidence) in orderto determine whether an anti-doping rule violation has occurredunder Article 2.1 and/or Article 2.2; and5.1.2.2
in relation to other indications of potential anti-doping
rule violations, in accordance with Articles 7.6 and 7.7,
gathering intelligence or evidence (including, in particular, nonanalytical evidence) in order to determine whether an antidoping rule violation has occurred under any of Articles 2.2 to
2.10.

5.1.3 BWF may obtain, assess and process anti-doping intelligencefrom all available sources, to inform the development of an effective,
intelligent and proportionate test distribution plan, to plan Target
Testing, and/or to form the basis of an investigation into a possible
anti-doping rule violation(s).
5.2

Authority to conduct Testing
5.2.1
Subject to the jurisdictional limitations for Event Testing set
out in Article 5.3 of the Code, BWF shall have In-Competition and Outof-Competition Testing authority over all of the Players specified in the
Introduction to these Anti-Doping Regulations (under the heading"Scope").
5.2.2
BWF may require any Player over whom it has Testing
authority (including any Player serving a period of Ineligibility) toprovide a Sample at any time and at any place.

[Comment to Article 5.2.2: Unless the Player has identified a 60-minute time-slot for
Testing between the hours of 11pm and 6am, or has otherwise consented to Testing duringthat period, BWF will not test a Player during that period unless it has a serious and specificsuspicion that the Player may be engaged in doping. A challenge to whether BWF had
sufficient suspicion for Testing in that period shall not be a defense to an anti-doping ruleviolation based on such test or attempted test.]

5.2.3 WADA shall have In-Competition and Out-of-Competition
Testing authority as set out in Article 20.7.8 of the Code.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201717

5.2.4
If BWF delegates or contracts any part of Testing to a
National Anti-Doping Organization (directly or through a Member
Association), that National Anti-Doping Organization may collectadditional Samples or direct the laboratory to perform additional typesof analysis at the National Anti-Doping Organization’s expense. If
additional Samples are collected or additional types of analysis are
performed, BWF shall be notified.
5.3

Event Testing
5.3.1
Except as provided in Article 5.3 of the Code, only a single
organization should be responsible for initiating and directing Testingat Event Venues during an Event Period. At International Events, thecollection of Samples shall be initiated and directed by BWF (or any
other international organization which is the ruling body for the Event).
At the request of BWF (or any other international organization which is
the ruling body for an Event), any Testing during the Event Period
outside of the Event Venues shall be coordinated with BWF (or the
relevant ruling body of the Event).
5.3.2
If an Anti-Doping Organization which would otherwise have
Testing authority but is not responsible for initiating and directing
Testing at an Event desires to conduct Testing of Players at the Event
Venues during the Event Period, the Anti-Doping Organization shallfirst confer with BWF (or any other international organization which is
the ruling body of the Event) to obtain permission to conduct andcoordinate such Testing.
If the Anti-Doping Organization is notsatisfied with the response from BWF (or any other internationalorganization which is the ruling body of the Event), the Anti-Doping
Organization may ask WADA for permission to conduct Testing and to
determine how to coordinate such Testing, in accordance with theprocedures set out in the International Standard for Testing andInvestigations. WADA shall not grant approval for such Testing before
consulting with and informing BWF (or any other internationalorganization which is the ruling body for the Event). WADA’s decision
shall be final and not subject to appeal. Unless otherwise provided in
the authorization to conduct Testing, such tests shall be consideredOut-of-Competition tests. Results management for any such test shallbe the responsibility of the Anti-Doping Organization initiating the test
unless provided otherwise in the regulations of the ruling body of the
Event.

5.4

Test Distribution Planning

Consistent with the International Standard for Testing and Investigations,and in coordination with other Anti-Doping Organizations conducting Testingon the same Players, BWF shall develop and implement an effective, intelligent
and proportionate test distribution plan that prioritizes appropriately between
disciplines, categories of Players, types of Testing, types of Samples collected,
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201718

and types of Sample analysis, all in compliance with the requirements of theInternational Standard for Testing and Investigations. BWF shall provide
WADA upon request with a copy of its current test distribution plan.
5.5

Coordination of Testing

Where reasonably feasible, Testing shall be coordinated through ADAMS oranother system approved by WADA in order to maximize the effectiveness ofthe combined Testing effort and to avoid unnecessary repetitive Testing.
5.6

Player Whereabouts Information
5.6.1 BWF shall identify a Registered Testing Pool of those Players
who are required to comply with the whereabouts requirements ofAnnex I to the International Standard for Testing and Investigations,and shall make available through ADAMS, a list which identifies those
Players included in its Registered Testing Pool either by name or byclearly defined, specific criteria. BWF shall coordinate with National
Anti-Doping Organizations the identification of such Players and thecollection of their whereabouts information.
BWF shall review andupdate as necessary its criteria for including Players in its Registered
Testing Pool, and shall revise the membership of its Registered Testing
Pool from time to time as appropriate in accordance with the set
criteria.
Players shall be notified before they are included in a
Registered Testing Pool and when they are removed from that pool.
Each Players in the Registered Testing Pool shall do the following, ineach case in accordance with Annex I to the International Standard for
Testing and Investigations: (a) advise BWF of his/her whereabouts on
a quarterly basis; (b) update that information as necessary so that itremains accurate and complete at all times; and (c) make him/herself
available for Testing at such whereabouts.
5.6.2 For purposes of Article 2.4, a Player’s failure to comply withthe requirements of the International Standard for Testing andInvestigations shall be deemed a filing failure or a missed test (asdefined in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations)where the conditions set forth in the International Standard for Testing
and Investigations for declaring a filing failure or missed test are met.
5.6.3 A Player in BWF’s Registered Testing Pool shall continue to be
subject to the obligation to comply with the whereabouts requirementsof Annex I to the International Standard for Testing and Investigations
unless and until (a) the Player gives written notice to BWF that he/she
has retired or (b) BWF has informed him or her that he/she no longer
satisfies the criteria for inclusion in BWF's Registered Testing Pool.
5.6.4 Whereabouts information relating to a Player shall be shared(through ADAMS) with WADA and other Anti-Doping Organizations
having authority to test that Player, shall be maintained in strict

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201719

confidence at all times, shall be used exclusively for the purposes set
out in Article 5.6 of the Code, and shall be destroyed in accordancewith the International Standard for the Protection of Privacy andPersonal Information once it is no longer relevant for these purposes.
5.7

Retired Players Returning to Competition
5.7.1 A Player in BWF’s Registered Testing Pool who has given noticeof retirement to BWF may not resume competing in International
Events or National Events until he/she has given BWF written notice of
his/her intent to resume competing and has made him/herself
available for Testing for a period of six months before returning toCompetition, including (if requested) complying with the whereabouts
requirements of Annex I to the International Standard for Testing andInvestigations. WADA, in consultation with BWF and the Player's
National Anti-Doping Organization, may grant an exemption to the sixmonth written notice rule where the strict application of that rulewould be manifestly unfair to a Player. This decision may be appealed
under Article 13. Any competitive results obtained in violation of this
Article 5.7.1 shall be Disqualified.
5.7.2
If a Player retires from sport while subject to a period of
Ineligibility, the Player shall not resume competing in International
Events or National Events until the Player has given six months priorwritten notice (or notice equivalent to the period of Ineligibility
remaining as of the date the Player retired, if that period was longer
than six months) to BWF and to his/her National Anti-Doping
Organization of his/her intent to resume competing and has madehim/herself available for Testing for that notice period, including (ifrequested) complying with the whereabouts requirements of Annex I
to the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.
5.7.3 A Player who is not in BWF’s Registered Testing Pool who hasgiven notice of retirement to BWF may not resume competing unlesshe/she notifies BWF and his/her National Anti-Doping Organization atleast six months before he/she wishes to return to Competition andmakes him/herself available for unannounced Out-of-Competition
Testing, including (if requested) complying with the whereabouts
requirements of Annex I to the International Standard for Testing andInvestigations, during the period before actual return to Competition.

5.8

Independent Observer Program

BWF and the organizing committees for BWF’s Events, as well as the Member
Associations
and the organizing committees for National Events, shallauthorize and facilitate the Independent Observer Program at such Events.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201720

ARTICLE 6 ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES
Samples shall be analyzed in accordance with the following principles:
6.1

Use of Accredited and Approved Laboratories

For purposes of Article 2.1, Samples shall be analyzed only in laboratories
accredited or otherwise approved by WADA. The choice of the WADAaccredited or WADA-approved laboratory used for the Sample analysis shallbe determined exclusively by BWF.
[Comment to Article 6.1: Violations of Article 2.1 may be established only by Sample
analysis performed by a laboratory accredited or otherwise approved by WADA. Violationsof other Articles may be established using analytical results from other laboratories so longas the results are reliable.]

6.2

Purpose of Analysis of Samples
6.2.1 Samples shall be analyzed to detect Prohibited Substances andProhibited Methods and other substances as may be directed by WADA
pursuant to the Monitoring Program described in Article 4.5 of theCode; or to assist BWF in profiling relevant parameters in a Player’surine, blood or other matrix, including DNA or genomic profiling; or for
any other legitimate anti-doping purpose. Samples may be collected
and stored for future analysis.

[Comment to Article 6.2.1: For example, relevant profile information could be used todirect Target Testing or to support an anti-doping rule violation proceeding under
Article 2.2, or both.]

6.2.2
BWF shall ask laboratories to analyze Samples in conformity
with Article 6.4 of the Code and Article 4.7 of the International
Standard for Testing and Investigations.
6.3

Research on Samples

No Sample may be used for research without the Player’s written consent.
Samples used for purposes other than Article 6.2 shall have any means ofidentification removed such that they cannot be traced back to a particular
Player.
6.4

Standards for Sample Analysis and Reporting

Laboratories shall analyze Samples and report results in conformity with theInternational Standard for Laboratories. To ensure effective Testing, theTechnical Document referenced at Article 5.4.1 of the Code will establish risk
assessment-based Sample analysis menus appropriate for particular sports
and sport disciplines, and laboratories shall analyze Samples in conformity
with those menus, except as follows:
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201721

6.4.1 BWF may request that laboratories analyze its Samples using
more extensive menus than those described in the TechnicalDocument.
6.4.2 BWF may request that laboratories analyze its Samples using
less extensive menus than those described in the Technical Document
only if it has satisfied WADA that, because of the particular
circumstances of its sport, as set out in its test distribution plan, lessextensive analysis would be appropriate.
6.4.3
As provided in the International Standard for Laboratories,
laboratories at their own initiative and expense may analyze Samples
for Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods not included on the
Sample analysis menu described in the Technical Document or
specified by the Testing authority. Results from any such analysis shallbe reported and have the same validity and consequence as any otheranalytical result.
[Comment to Article 6.4: The objective of this Article is to extend the principle of “intelligent
Testing” to the Sample analysis menu so as to most effectively and efficiently detect doping.
It is recognized that the resources available to fight doping are limited and that increasing
the Sample analysis menu may, in some sports and countries, reduce the number ofSamples which can be analyzed.]

6.5

Further Analysis of Samples

Any Sample may be stored and subsequently subjected to further analysis
for the purposes set out in Article 6.2: (a) by WADA at any time; and/or (b)by BWF at any time before both the A and B Sample analytical results (or A
Sample result where B Sample analysis has been waived or will not be
performed) have been communicated by BWF to the Player as the asserted
basis for an Article 2.1 anti-doping rule violation. Such further analysis of
Samples shall conform with the requirements of the International Standard
for Laboratories and the International Standard for Testing andInvestigations.

ARTICLE 7 RESULTS MANAGEMENT
7.1

Responsibility for Conducting Results Management
7.1.1 The circumstances in which BWF shall take responsibility for
conducting results management in respect of anti-doping rule violations
involving Players and other Persons under its jurisdiction shall be
determined by reference to and in accordance with Article 7 of the Code.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201722

7.1.2 The BWF Council shall appoint an External Judicial Experts
Group as described in the BWF Judicial Procedures.
To hear a case, up to three members of the External Judicial Experts
Group (which may or may not include the Chair) shall be appointed by
its Chair to form a Doping Hearing Panel and conduct a Provisional
Hearing (Article 7.9.3), an expedited final hearing (Article 7.9.3) or a
final hearing (Article 8.1.1) of a particular case.
7.2 Review of Adverse Analytical Findings From Tests Initiated by
BWF
Results management in respect of the results of tests initiated by BWF(including tests performed by WADA pursuant to agreement with BWF) shallproceed as follows:
7.2.1 The results from all analyses must be sent to BWF in encoded
form, in a report signed by an authorized representative of thelaboratory. All communication must be conducted confidentially and in
conformity with ADAMS.
7.2.2 Upon receipt of an Adverse Analytical Finding, BWF shallconduct a review to determine whether: (a) an applicable TUE has
been granted or will be granted as provided in the International
Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, or (b) there is any apparent
departure from the International Standard for Testing andInvestigations or International Standard for Laboratories that caused
the Adverse Analytical Finding.
7.2.3 If the review of an Adverse Analytical Finding under Article
7.2.2 reveals an applicable TUE or departure from the International
Standard for Testing and Investigations or the International Standard
for Laboratories that caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, the entire
test shall be considered negative and the Player, the Player’s National
Anti-Doping Organization and WADA shall be so informed.
7.3 Notification
Findings

After

Review

RegardingAdverseAnalytical

7.3.1 If the review of an Adverse Analytical Finding under Article
7.2.2 does not reveal an applicable TUE or entitlement to a TUE asprovided in the International Standard for Therapeutic Use
Exemptions, or departure from the International Standard for Testing
and Investigations or the International Standard for Laboratories thatcaused the Adverse Analytical Finding, BWF shall promptly notify thePlayer, and simultaneously the Player’s National Anti-Doping
Organization and WADA, in the manner set out in Article 14.1, of: (a)the Adverse Analytical Finding; (b) the anti-doping rule violated; (c)the Player’s right to promptly request the analysis of the B Sample or,
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201723

failing such request, that the B Sample analysis may be deemed
waived; (d) the scheduled date, time and place for the B Sample
analysis if the Player or BWF chooses to request an analysis of the B
Sample; (e) the opportunity for the Player and/or the Player’s
representative to attend the B Sample opening and analysis inaccordance with the International Standard for Laboratories if suchanalysis is requested; and (f) the Player’s right to request copies of the
A and B Sample laboratory documentation package which includes
information as required by the International Standard for Laboratories.
If BWF decides not to bring forward the Adverse Analytical Finding as
an anti-doping rule violation, it shall so notify the Player, the Player’s
National Anti-Doping Organization and WADA.
7.3.2 Where requested by the Player or BWF, arrangements shall bemade to analyze the B Sample in accordance with the International
Standard for Laboratories.
A Player may accept the A Sample
analytical results by waiving the requirement for B Sample analysis.
BWF may nonetheless elect to proceed with the B Sample analysis.
7.3.3 The Player and/or his representative shall be allowed to bepresent at the analysis of the B Sample. Also, a representative of BWF
as well as a representative of the Player’s Member Association shall beallowed to be present.
7.3.4 If the B Sample analysis does not confirm the A Sample
analysis, then (unless BWF takes the case forward as an anti-doping
rule violation under Article 2.2) the entire test shall be considerednegative and the Player, the Player’s National Anti-Doping
Organization and WADA shall be so informed.
7.3.5 If the B Sample analysis confirms the A Sample analysis, thefindings shall be reported to the Player, the Player’s National AntiDoping Organization and to WADA.
7.4

Review of Atypical Findings
7.4.1 As provided in the International Standard for Laboratories, insome circumstances laboratories are directed to report the presence ofProhibited Substances, which may also be produced endogenously, asAtypical Findings, i.e., as findings that are subject to further
investigation.
7.4.2 Upon receipt of an Atypical Finding, BWF shall conduct a
review to determine whether: (a) an applicable TUE has been granted
or will be granted as provided in the International Standard for
Therapeutic Use Exemptions, or (b) there is any apparent departurefrom the International Standard for Testing and Investigations orInternational Standard for Laboratories that caused the AtypicalFinding.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201724

7.4.3 If the review of an Atypical Finding under Article 7.4.2 reveals
an applicable TUE or a departure from the International Standard for
Testing and Investigations or the International Standard forLaboratories that caused the Atypical Finding, the entire test shall beconsidered negative and the Players, the Player’s National Anti-Doping
Organization and WADA shall be so informed.
7.4.4 If that review does not reveal an applicable TUE or a departurefrom the International Standard for Testing and Investigations or theInternational Standard for Laboratories that caused the AtypicalFinding, BWF shall conduct the required investigation or cause it to be
conducted. After the investigation is completed, either the AtypicalFinding will be brought forward as an Adverse Analytical Finding, in
accordance with Article 7.3.1, or else the Player, the Player’s National
Anti-Doping Organization and WADA shall be notified that the AtypicalFinding will not be brought forward as an Adverse Analytical Finding.
7.4.5 BWF will not provide notice of an Atypical Finding until it hascompleted its investigation and has decided whether it will bring theAtypical Finding forward as an Adverse Analytical Finding unless one of
the following circumstances exists:
7.4.5.1 If BWF determines the B Sample should be analyzed
prior to the conclusion of its investigation, it may conduct the
B Sample analysis after notifying the Player, with such notice toinclude a description of the Atypical Finding and the information
described in Article 7.3.1(d)-(f).
7.4.5.2
If BWF is asked (a) by a Major Event Organization
shortly before one of its International Events, or (b) by a sportorganization responsible for meeting an imminent deadline forselecting team members for an International Event, to disclose
whether any Player identified on a list provided by the Major
Event Organization or sport organization has a pending AtypicalFinding, BWF shall so advise the Major Event Organization or
sports organization after first providing notice of the AtypicalFinding to the Player.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 2017

25

7.5
Review of Atypical Passport Findings and Adverse Passport
Findings
Review of Atypical Passport Findings and Adverse Passport Findings shall takeplace as provided in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations
and International Standard for Laboratories. At such time as BWF is satisfied
that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred, it shall promptly give the Player(and simultaneously the Player’s National Anti-Doping Organization andWADA) notice of the anti-doping rule violation asserted and the basis of that
assertion.
7.6

Review of Whereabouts Failures

BWF shall review potential filing failures and missed tests, as defined in theInternational Standard for Testing and Investigations, in respect of Players who
file their whereabouts information with BWF, in accordance with Annex I to theInternational Standard for Testing and Investigations. At such time as BWF issatisfied that an Article 2.4 anti-doping rule violation has occurred, it shallpromptly give the Players (and simultaneously the Player’s National AntiDoping Organization and WADA) notice that it is asserting a violation of Article
2.4 and the basis of that assertion.
7.7 Review of Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations Not Covered by
Articles 7.2–7.6
BWF shall conduct any follow-up investigation required into a possible antidoping rule violation not covered by Articles 7.2- 7.6. At such time as BWF issatisfied that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred, it shall promptly give
the Player or other Person (and simultaneously the Player’s or other Person’s
National Anti-Doping Organization and WADA) notice of the anti-doping ruleviolation asserted and the basis of that assertion.
7.8

Identification of Prior Anti-Doping Rule Violations

Before giving a Player or other Person notice of an asserted anti-doping ruleviolation as provided above, BWF shall refer to ADAMS and contact WADA andother relevant Anti-Doping Organizations to determine whether any prior antidoping rule violation exists.
7.9

Provisional Suspensions
7.9.1 Mandatory Provisional Suspension: If analysis of an A
Sample has resulted in an Adverse Analytical Finding for a Prohibited
Substance that is not a Specified Substance, or for a Prohibited
Method, and a review in accordance with Article 7.2.2 does not reveal
an applicable TUE or departure from the International Standard for
Testing and Investigations or the International Standard forLaboratories that caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, a Provisional

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201726

Suspension shall be imposed upon or promptly after the notification
described in Articles 7.2, 7.3 or 7.5.
7.9.2 Optional Provisional Suspension: In case of an Adverse
Analytical Finding for a Specified Substance, or in the case of any
other anti-doping rule violations not covered by Article 7.9.1, BWF
may impose a Provisional Suspension on the Player or other Person
against whom the anti-doping rule violation is asserted at any timeafter the review and notification described in Articles 7.2–7.7 and prior
to the final hearing as described in Article 8.
7.9.3 Where a Provisional Suspension is imposed pursuant to Article
7.9.1 or Article 7.9.2, the Player or other Person shall be given either:(a) an opportunity for a Provisional Hearing either before or on atimely basis after imposition of the Provisional Suspension; or (b) an
opportunity for an expedited final hearing in accordance with Article 8
on a timely basis after imposition of the Provisional Suspension.
Furthermore, the Player or other Person has a right to appeal from theProvisional Suspension in accordance with Article 13.2 (save as set out
in Article 7.9.3.1).
7.9.3.1
The Provisional Suspension may be lifted if thePlayers demonstrates to the hearing panel that the violation is
likely to have involved a Contaminated Product. A hearing
panel’s decision not to lift a mandatory Provisional Suspension
on account of the Player’s assertion regarding a Contaminated
Product shall not be appealable.
7.9.3.2
The Provisional Suspension shall be imposed (orshall not be lifted) unless the Player or other Person establishes
that: (a) the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has no
reasonable prospect of being upheld, e.g., because of a patent
flaw in the case against the Player or other Person; or (b) the
Player or other Person has a strong arguable case that he/shebears No Fault or Negligence for the anti-doping rule violation(s)asserted, so that any period of Ineligibility that might otherwise
be imposed for such a violation is likely to be completely
eliminated by application of Article 10.4; or (c) some other facts
exist that make it clearly unfair, in all of the circumstances, toimpose a Provisional Suspension prior to a final hearing inaccordance with Article 8. This ground is to be construed
narrowly, and applied only in truly exceptional circumstances.
For example, the fact that the Provisional Suspension would
prevent the Player or other Person participating in a particularCompetition or Event shall not qualify as exceptional
circumstances for these purposes.
7.9.4 If a Provisional Suspension is imposed based on an A Sample
Adverse Analytical Finding and subsequent analysis of the B Sample
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201727

does not confirm the A Sample analysis, then the Player shall not be
subject to any further Provisional Suspension on account of a violationof Article 2.1. In circumstances where the Player (or the Player’s team)has been removed from a Competition based on a violation of Article
2.1 and the subsequent B Sample analysis does not confirm the A
Sample finding, then if it is still possible for the Player or team to bereinserted, without otherwise affecting the Competition, the Player orteam may continue to take part in the Competition. In addition, thePlayer or team may thereafter take part in other Competitions in thesame Event.
7.9.5 In all cases where a Player or other Person has been notified ofan anti-doping rule violation but a Provisional Suspension has not been
imposed on him or her, the Player or other Person shall be offered theopportunity to accept a Provisional Suspension voluntarily pending theresolution of the matter.
[Comment to Article 7.9: Players and other Persons shall receive credit for a Provisional
Suspension against any period of Ineligibility which is ultimately imposed. See Articles
10.11.3.1 and 10.11.3.2.]

7.10 Resolution Without a Hearing
7.10.1
A Player or other Person against whom an anti-doping ruleviolation is asserted may admit that violation at any time, waive ahearing, and accept the Consequences that are mandated by these AntiDoping Regulations or (where some discretion as to Consequences exists
under these Anti-Doping Regulations) that have been offered by BWF.
7.10.2
Alternatively, if the Player or other Person against whom ananti-doping rule violation is asserted fails to dispute that assertion within
the deadline specified in the notice sent by the BWF asserting theviolation, then he/she shall be deemed to have admitted the violation, tohave waived a hearing, and to have accepted the Consequences that aremandated by these Anti-Doping Regulations or (where some discretionas to Consequences exists under these Anti-Doping Regulations) thathave been offered by BWF.
7.10.3
In cases where Article 7.10.1 or Article 7.10.2 applies, ahearing before a hearing panel shall not be required. Instead BWF shallpromptly issue a written decision confirming the commission of the antidoping rule violation and the Consequences imposed as a result, andsetting out the full reasons for any period of Ineligibility imposed,
including (if applicable) a justification for why the maximum potential
period of Ineligibility was not imposed. BWF shall send copies of thatdecision to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal
under Article 13.2.3, and shall Publicly Disclose that decision inaccordance with Article 14.3.2.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201728

7.11 Notification of Results Management Decisions
In all cases where BWF has asserted the commission of an anti-doping ruleviolation, withdrawn the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation, imposed a
Provisional Suspension, or agreed with a Player or other Person on theimposition of Consequences without a hearing, BWF shall give notice thereofin accordance with Article 14.2.1 to other Anti-Doping Organizations with aright to appeal under Article 13.2.3.
7.12 Retirement from Sport
If a Player or other Person retires while BWF is conducting the results
management process, BWF retains jurisdiction to complete its results
management process. If a Player or other Person retires before any results
management process has begun, and BWF would have had results
management authority over the Player or other Person at the time the Playeror other Person committed an anti-doping rule violation, BWF has authority
to conduct results management in respect of that anti-doping rule violation.
[Comment to Article 7.12: Conduct by a Player or other Person before the Player orother Person was subject to the jurisdiction of any Anti-Doping Organization would
not constitute an anti-doping rule violation but could be a legitimate basis fordenying the Player or other Person membership in a sports organization.]
ARTICLE 8 RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING
8.1

Principles for a Fair Hearing
8.1.1 When BWF sends a notice to a Player or other Person assertingan anti-doping rule violation, and the Player or other Person does notwaive a hearing in accordance with Article 7.10.1 or Article 7.10.2,
then the case shall be referred to the BWF Doping Hearing Panel forhearing and adjudication.
8.1.2 Hearings shall be scheduled and completed within a reasonable
time. Hearings held in connection with Events that are subject to theseAnti-Doping Regulations may be conducted by an expedited process
where permitted by the hearing panel.

[Comment to Article 8.1.2: For example, a hearing could be expedited on the eve of amajor Event where the resolution of the anti-doping rule violation is necessary to determine
the Player’s eligibility to participate in the Event, or during an Event where the resolution of
the case will affect the validity of the Player’s results or continued participation in the
Event.]

8.1.3 The BWF Doping Hearing Panel shall determine the procedure
to be followed at the hearing using the principles enshrined in the BWF
Judicial Procedures.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201729

8.1.4
WADA and the Member Association of the Player or other
Person may attend the hearing as observers. In any event, BWF shallkeep WADA fully apprised as to the status of pending cases and theresult of all hearings.
8.1.5 The BWF Doping Hearing Panel shall act in a fair and impartial
manner towards all parties at all times.
8.2

Decisions
8.2.1 At the end of the hearing, or on a timely basis thereafter, theBWF Doping Hearing Panel shall issue a written decision that includes
the full reasons for the decision and for any period of Ineligibility
imposed, including (if applicable) a justification for why the greatest
potential Consequences were not imposed.
8.2.2 The decision may be appealed to the CAS as provided in
Article 13. Copies of the decision shall be provided to the Player orother Person and to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right toappeal under Article 13.2.3.
8.2.3 If no appeal is brought against the decision, then (a) if thedecision is that an anti-doping rule violation was committed, thedecision shall be Publicly Disclosed as provided in Article 14.3.2; but(b) if the decision is that no anti-doping rule violation was committed,
then the decision shall only be Publicly Disclosed with the consent of
the Player or other Person who is the subject of the decision. BWF
shall use reasonable efforts to obtain such consent, and if consent isobtained, shall Publicly Disclose the decision in its entirety or in suchredacted form as the Player or other Person may approve.
The principles contained at Article 14.3.6 shall be applied in cases
involving a Minor.

8.3

Single Hearing Before CAS

Cases asserting anti-doping rule violations may be heard directly at CAS,
with no requirement for a prior hearing, with the consent of the Player, BWF,
WADA, and any other Anti-Doping Organization that would have had a rightto appeal a first instance hearing decision to CAS.
[Comment to Article 8.3: Where all of the parties identified in this Article are satisfied that
their interests will be adequately protected in a single hearing, there is no need to incur the
extra expense of two hearings. An Anti-Doping Organization that wants to participate in the
CAS hearing as a party or as an observer may condition its approval of a single hearing on
being granted that right.]

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201730

ARTICLE 9 AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
An anti-doping rule violation in Individual Sports in connection with an InCompetition test automatically leads to Disqualification of the result obtainedin that Competition with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture ofany medals, points and prizes.
[Comment to Article 9: For Team Sports, any awards received by individual players will be
Disqualified. However, Disqualification of the team will be as provided in Article 11. Insports which are not Team Sports but where awards are given to teams, Disqualification orother disciplinary action against the team when one or more team members havecommitted an anti-doping rule violation shall be as provided in the applicable Regulations of
the International Federation.]

ARTICLE 10SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS

10.1 Disqualification of Results in the Event during which an AntiDoping Rule Violation Occurs
An anti-doping rule violation occurring during or in connection with an Eventmay, upon the decision of the ruling body of the Event, lead to
Disqualification of all of the Player’s individual results obtained in that Event
with all Consequences, including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes,
except as provided in Article 10.1.1.
Factors to be included in considering whether to Disqualify other results in an
Event might include, for example, the seriousness of the Player’s anti-doping
rule violation and whether the Players tested negative in the other
Competitions.
[Comment to Article 10.1: Whereas Article 9 Disqualifies the result in a single Competitionin which the Players tested positive (e.g., the 100 meter backstroke), this Article may leadto Disqualification of all results in all races during the Event (e.g., the FINA WorldChampionships).]

10.1.1
If the Player establishes that he or she bears No Fault or
Negligence for the violation, the Player’s individual results in the other
Competitions shall not be Disqualified, unless the Player’s results in
Competitions other than the Competition in which the anti-doping ruleviolation occurred were likely to have been affected by the Player’s
anti-doping rule violation.
10.2 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or Possessionof a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method
The period of Ineligibility for a violation of Articles 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6 shall be as
follows, subject to potential reduction or suspension pursuant to Articles
10.4, 10.5 or 10.6:

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201731

10.2.1

The period of Ineligibility shall be four years where:

10.2.1.1
The anti-doping rule violation does not involve a
Specified Substance, unless the Player or other Person canestablish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.
10.2.1.2
The anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified
Substance and BWF can establish that the anti-doping ruleviolation was intentional.
10.2.2 If Article 10.2.1 does not apply, the period of Ineligibility shallbe two years.
10.2.3 As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term “intentional” ismeant to identify those Players who cheat.
The term therefore
requires that the Player or other Person engaged in conduct which heor she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that
there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or resultin an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.
An anti-doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical
Finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shallbe rebuttably presumed to be not intentional if the substance is aSpecified Substance and the Player can establish that the Prohibited
Substance was Used Out-of-Competition. An anti-doping rule violation
resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which isonly prohibited In-Competition shall not be considered intentional if
the substance is not a Specified Substance and the Player canestablish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition
in a context unrelated to sport performance.
10.3 Ineligibility for Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations
The period of Ineligibility for anti-doping rule violations other than asprovided in Article 10.2 shall be as follows, unless Articles 10.5 or 10.6 areapplicable:
10.3.1For violations of Article 2.3 or Article 2.5, the period of
Ineligibility shall be four years unless, in the case of failing to submit
to Sample collection, the Player can establish that the commission of
the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional (as defined in Article
10.2.3), in which case the period of Ineligibility shall be two years.
10.3.2 For violations of Article 2.4, the period of Ineligibility shall be
two years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one year,
depending on the Player’s degree of Fault. The flexibility between two
years and one year of Ineligibility in this Article is not available toPlayers where a pattern of last-minute whereabouts changes or otherconduct raises a serious suspicion that the Player was trying to avoid
being available for Testing.
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201732

10.3.3 For violations of Article 2.7 or 2.8, the period of Ineligibility
shall be a minimum of four years up to lifetime Ineligibility, dependingon the seriousness of the violation. An Article 2.7 or Article 2.8
violation involving a Minor shall be considered a particularly serious
violation and, if committed by Player Support Personnel for violations
other than for Specified Substances, shall result in lifetime Ineligibility
for Player Support Personnel. In addition, significant violations ofArticle 2.7 or 2.8 which may also violate non-sporting laws andregulations, shall be reported to the competent administrative,
professional or judicial authorities.
[Comment to Article 10.3.3: Those who are involved in doping Players or covering up
doping should be subject to sanctions which are more severe than the Player who test
positive. Since the authority of sport organizations is generally limited to Ineligibility for
accreditation, membership and other sport benefits, reporting Player Support Personnel tocompetent authorities is an important step in the deterrence of doping.]

10.3.4 For violations of Article 2.9, the period of Ineligibility imposed
shall be a minimum of two years, up to four years, depending on theseriousness of the violation.
10.3.5 For violations of Article 2.10, the period of Ineligibility shallbe two years, subject to reduction down to a minimum of one year,
depending on the Player or other Person’s degree of Fault and othercircumstances of the case.
[Comment to Article 10.3.5: Where the “other Person” referenced in Article 2.10 is anentity and not an individual, that entity may be disciplined as provided in Article 12.]10.4 Elimination of the Period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault
or Negligence
If a Player or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or shebears No Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of
Ineligibility shall be eliminated.
[Comment to Article 10.4: This Article and Article 10.5.2 apply only to the imposition of
sanctions; they are not applicable to the determination of whether an anti-doping ruleviolation has occurred. They will only apply in exceptional circumstances, for example wherea Player could prove that, despite all due care, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor.
Conversely, No Fault or Negligence would not apply in the following circumstances:(a) a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional
supplement (Players are responsible for what they ingest (Article 2.1.1) and have been
warned against the possibility of supplement contamination);(b) the Administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Player’s personal physician ortrainer without disclosure to the Player (Players are responsible for their choice of medical
personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any Prohibited
Substance); andBWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201733

(c) sabotage of the Player’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or other Person within thePlayer’s circle of associates (Players are responsible for what they ingest and for the conductof those Persons to whom they entrust access to their food and drink).
However, depending on the unique facts of a particular case, any of the referenced
illustrations could result in a reduced sanction under Article 10.5 based on No Significant
Fault or Negligence.]

10.5 Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility based on No Significant
Fault or Negligence
10.5.1
Reduction of Sanctions for Specified Substances
Contaminated Products for Violations of Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6.
10.5.1.1

orSpecified Substances

Where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified
Substance, and the Player or other Person can establish No
Significant Fault or Negligence, then the period of Ineligibility
shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of
Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years of Ineligibility,
depending on the Player’s or other Person’s degree of Fault.
10.5.1.2

Contaminated Products

In cases where the Player or other Person can establish No
Significant Fault or Negligence and that the detected Prohibited
Substance came from a Contaminated Product, then the period
of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and noperiod of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years Ineligibility,
depending on the Player’s or other Person’s degree of Fault.
[Comment to Article 10.5.1.2: In assessing that Player’s degree of Fault, it would, forexample, be favorable for the Player if the Player had declared the product which was
subsequently determined to be contaminated on his or her Doping Control form.]

10.5.2 Application of No Significant Fault or Negligence beyond theApplication of Article 10.5.1
If a Player or other Person establishes in an individual case where
Article 10.5.1 is not applicable that he or she bears No Significant Fault
or Negligence, then, subject to further reduction or elimination asprovided in Article 10.6, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility
may be reduced based on the Player or other Person’s degree of Fault,
but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half ofthe period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable.
If the otherwise
applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under
this Article may be no less than eight years.
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201734

[Comment to Article 10.5.2: Article 10.5.2 may be applied to any anti-doping rule violation
except those Articles where intent is an element of the anti-doping rule violation (e.g.,
Article 2.5, 2.7, 2.8 or 2.9) or an element of a particular sanction (e.g., Article 10.2.1) or a
range of Ineligibility is already provided in an Article based on the Player or other Person’s
degree of Fault.]

10.6 Elimination, Reduction, or Suspension of Period of Ineligibility
or other Consequences for Reasons Other than Fault
10.6.1Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing AntiDoping Rule Violations
10.6.1.1
BWF may, prior to a final appellate decision under
Article 13 or the expiration of the time to appeal, suspend a partof the period of Ineligibility imposed in an individual case inwhich it has results management authority where the Player orother Person has provided Substantial Assistance to an AntiDoping Organization, criminal authority or professional
disciplinary body which results in: (i) the Anti-Doping
Organization discovering or bringing forward an anti-doping ruleviolation by another Person, or (ii) which results in a criminal ordisciplinary body discovering or bringing forward a criminal
offense or the breach of professional Regulations committed byanother Person and the information provided by the Person
providing Substantial Assistance is made available to BWF. Aftera final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration oftime to appeal, BWF may only suspend a part of the otherwise
applicable period of Ineligibility with the approval of WADA. The
extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility
may be suspended shall be based on the seriousness of theanti-doping rule violation committed by the Player or other
Person and the significance of the Substantial Assistanceprovided by the Player or other Person to the effort to eliminate
doping in sport. No more than three-quarters of the otherwise
applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended. If theotherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the nonsuspended period under this Article must be no less than eight
years.
If the Player or other Person fails to continue tocooperate and to provide the complete and credible Substantial
Assistance upon which a suspension of the period of Ineligibility
was based, BWF shall reinstate the original period of
Ineligibility. If BWF decides to reinstate a suspended period of
Ineligibility or decides not to reinstate a suspended period of
Ineligibility, that decision may be appealed by any Person
entitled to appeal under Article 13.
10.6.1.2
To further encourage Player and other Persons toprovide Substantial Assistance to Anti-Doping Organizations, at
the request of BWF or at the request of the Players or other
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201735

Person who has (or has been asserted to have) committed ananti-doping rule violation, WADA may agree at any stage of theresults management process, including after a final appellate
decision under Article 13, to what it considers to be an
appropriate suspension of the otherwise-applicable period of
Ineligibility and other Consequences.
In exceptional
circumstances, WADA may agree to suspensions of the period of
Ineligibility and other Consequences for Substantial Assistancegreater than those otherwise provided in this Article, or even no
period of Ineligibility, and/or no return of prize money or
payment of fines or costs. WADA’s approval shall be subject toreinstatement of sanction, as otherwise provided in this Article.
Notwithstanding Article 13, WADA’s decisions in the context of
this Article may not be appealed by any other Anti-Doping
Organization.
10.6.1.3 If BWF suspends any part of an otherwise applicablesanction because of Substantial Assistance, then noticeproviding justification for the decision shall be provided to theother Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal under
Article 13.2.3 as provided in Article 14.2. In unique
circumstances where WADA determines that it would be in thebest interest of anti-doping, WADA may authorize BWF to enter
into appropriate confidentiality agreements limiting or delaying
the disclosure of the Substantial Assistance agreement or thenature of Substantial Assistance being provided.
[Comment to Article 10.6.1: The cooperation of Player, Player Support Personnel and other
Persons who acknowledge their mistakes and are willing to bring other anti-doping ruleviolations to light is important to clean sport. This is the only circumstance under the Codewhere the suspension of an otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is authorized.]

10.6.2 Admission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in the Absence of
Other Evidence
Where a Player or other Person voluntarily admits the commission ofan anti-doping rule violation before having received notice of a Sample
collection which could establish an anti-doping rule violation (or, in thecase of an anti-doping rule violation other than Article 2.1, before
receiving first notice of the admitted violation pursuant to Article 7)
and that admission is the only reliable evidence of the violation at thetime of admission, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but
not below one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable.
[Comment to Article 10.6.2: This Article is intended to apply when a Player or other Person
comes forward and admits to an anti-doping rule violation in circumstances where no AntiDoping Organization is aware that an anti-doping rule violation might have been committed.
It is not intended to apply to circumstances where the admission occurs after the Player orother Person believes he or she is about to be caught. The amount by which Ineligibility is

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201736

reduced should be based on the likelihood that the Player or other Person would have beencaught had he/she not come forward voluntarily.]10.6.3 Prompt Admission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation after being
Confronted with a Violation Sanctionable under Article 10.2.1 or Article
10.3.1
A Player or other Person potentially subject to a four-year sanction
under Article 10.2.1 or 10.3.1 (for evading or refusing Sample
Collection or Tampering with Sample Collection), by promptly
admitting the asserted anti-doping rule violation after being confronted
by BWF, and also upon the approval and at the discretion of both
WADA and BWF, may receive a reduction in the period of Ineligibility
down to a minimum of two years, depending on the seriousness of theviolation and the Players or other Person’s degree of Fault.
10.6.4

Application of Multiple Grounds for Reduction of a Sanction

Where a Player or other Person establishes entitlement to reduction insanction under more than one provision of Article 10.4, 10.5 or 10.6,
before applying any reduction or suspension under Article 10.6, theotherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be determined inaccordance with Articles 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5. If the Player orother Person establishes entitlement to a reduction or suspension of
the period of Ineligibility under Article 10.6, then the period of
Ineligibility may be reduced or suspended, but not below one-fourth ofthe otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility.
[Comment to Article 10.6.4: The appropriate sanction is determined in a sequence of four
steps. First, the hearing panel determines which of the basic sanctions (Articles 10.2, 10.3,
10.4, or 10.5) apply to the particular anti-doping rule violation. Second, if the basic sanction
provides for a range of sanctions, the hearing panel must determine the applicable sanction
within that range according to the Player or other Person’s degree of Fault. In a third step,
the hearing panel establishes whether there is a basis for elimination, suspension, or
reduction of the sanction (Article 10.6).
Finally, the hearing panel decides on thecommencement of the period of Ineligibility under Article 10.11. Several examples of how
Article 10 is to be applied are found in Appendix 2.]

10.7 Multiple Violations
10.7.1
For a Player or other Person’s second anti-doping ruleviolation, the period of Ineligibility shall be the greater of:(a)six months;(b)
one-half of the period of Ineligibility imposed for the firstanti-doping rule violation without taking into account any
reduction under Article 10.6; or

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201737

twice the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable to thesecond anti-doping rule violation treated as if it were a first
violation, without taking into account any reduction under
Article 10.6.

(c)

The period of Ineligibility established above may then be further
reduced by the application of Article 10.6.
10.7.2A third anti-doping rule violation will always result in a
lifetime period of Ineligibility, except if the third violation fulfills thecondition for elimination or reduction of the period of Ineligibility under
Article 10.4 or 10.5, or involves a violation of Article 2.4. In theseparticular cases, the period of Ineligibility shall be from eight years tolifetime Ineligibility.
10.7.3An anti-doping rule violation for which a Player or other
Person has established No Fault or Negligence shall not be considereda prior violation for purposes of this Article.
10.7.4

Additional Regulations for Certain Potential Multiple Violations

10.7.4.1
For purposes of imposing sanctions under Article
10.7, an anti-doping rule violation will only be considered asecond violation if BWF can establish that the Players or other
Person committed the second anti-doping rule violation after thePlayers or other Person received notice pursuant to Article 7, orafter BWF made reasonable efforts to give notice of the firstanti-doping rule violation. If BWF cannot establish this, theviolations shall be considered together as one single first
violation, and the sanction imposed shall be based on theviolation that carries the more severe sanction.
10.7.4.2 If, after the imposition of a sanction for a first antidoping rule violation, BWF discovers facts involving an antidoping rule violation by the Players or other Person which
occurred prior to notification regarding the first violation, then
BWF shall impose an additional sanction based on the sanctionthat could have been imposed if the two violations had been
adjudicated at the same time. Results in all Competitions datingback to the earlier anti-doping rule violation will be Disqualified
as provided in Article 10.8.
10.7.5 Multiple Anti-Doping Rule Violations during Ten-Year Period
For purposes of Article 10.7, each anti-doping rule violation must takeplace within the same ten-year period in order to be considered multiple
violations.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201738

10.8 Disqualification of Results in Competitions Subsequent toSample Collection or Commission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation
In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition
which produced the positive Sample under Article 9, all other competitive
results of the Player obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected(whether In-Competition or Out-of-Competition), or other anti-doping ruleviolation occurred, through the commencement of any Provisional
Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise,
be Disqualified with all of the resulting Consequences including forfeiture ofany medals, points and prizes.
[Comment to Article 10.8: Nothing in these Anti-Doping Regulations precludes clean
Players or other Persons who have been damaged by the actions of a Person who hascommitted an anti-doping rule violation from pursuing any right which they would otherwise
have to seek damages from such Person.]

10.9 Allocation of CAS Cost Awards and Forfeited Prize Money
The priority for repayment of CAS cost awards and forfeited prize money
shall be: first, payment of costs awarded by CAS; second, reallocation of
forfeited prize money to other Players; and third, reimbursement of theexpenses of BWF.
10.10

Financial Consequences
Where a Players or other Person commits an anti-doping rule violation,
BWF may, in its discretion and subject to the principle ofproportionality, elect to a) recover from the Players or other Person
costs associated with the anti-doping rule violation, regardless of theperiod of Ineligibility imposed and/or b) fine the Players or other
Person in an amount up to $20,000 U.S. Dollars, only in cases where
the maximum period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable has alreadybeen imposed.
The imposition of a financial sanction or the BWF's recovery of costs
shall not be considered a basis for reducing the Ineligibility or othersanction which would otherwise be applicable under these Anti-Doping
Regulations or the Code.

10.11

Commencement of Ineligibility Period

Except as provided below, the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of
the final hearing decision providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived
or there is no hearing, on the date Ineligibility is accepted or otherwise
imposed.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201739

10.11.1

Delays Not Attributable to the Player or other Person

Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process orother aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the Players or other
Person, BWF may start the period of Ineligibility at an earlier datecommencing as early as the date of Sample collection or the date on
which another anti-doping rule violation last occurred. All competitive
results achieved during the period of Ineligibility, including retroactive
Ineligibility, shall be Disqualified.
[Comment to Article 10.11.1: In cases of anti-doping rule violations other than under
Article 2.1, the time required for an Anti-Doping Organization to discover and develop facts
sufficient to establish an anti-doping rule violation may be lengthy, particularly where thePlayer or other Person has taken affirmative action to avoid detection.
In thesecircumstances, the flexibility provided in this Article to start the sanction at an earlier dateshould not be used.]

10.11.2

Timely Admission

Where the Player or other Person promptly (which, in all events, for aPlayer means before the Player competes again) admits the antidoping rule violation after being confronted with the anti-doping ruleviolation by BWF, the period of Ineligibility may start as early as thedate of Sample collection or the date on which another anti-doping
rule violation last occurred. In each case, however, where this Article
is applied, the Player or other Person shall serve at least one-half ofthe period of Ineligibility going forward from the date the Player orother Person accepted the imposition of a sanction, the date of ahearing decision imposing a sanction, or the date the sanction isotherwise imposed. This Article shall not apply where the period of
Ineligibility has already been reduced under Article 10.6.3.
10.11.3
ServedCredit for Provisional Suspension or Period of Ineligibility

10.11.3.1
If a Provisional Suspension is imposed andrespected by the Player or other Person, then the Player or other
Person shall receive a credit for such period of Provisional
Suspension against any period of Ineligibility which may
ultimately be imposed. If a period of Ineligibility is served
pursuant to a decision that is subsequently appealed, then thePlayer or other Person shall receive a credit for such period of
Ineligibility served against any period of Ineligibility which may
ultimately be imposed on appeal.
10.11.3.2
If a Player or other Person voluntarily accepts a
Provisional Suspension in writing from BWF and thereafter
respects the Provisional Suspension, the Player or other Person
shall receive a credit for such period of voluntary Provisional
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201740

Suspension against any period of Ineligibility which may
ultimately be imposed. A copy of the Player or other Person’s
voluntary acceptance of a Provisional Suspension shall be
provided promptly to each party entitled to receive notice of anasserted anti-doping rule violation under Article 14.1.
[Comment to Article 10.11.3.2: A Player’s voluntary acceptance of a Provisional Suspension
is not an admission by the Player and shall not be used in any way as to draw an adverse
inference against the Player.]10.11.3.3
No credit against a period of Ineligibility shall begiven for any time period before the effective date of theProvisional Suspension or voluntary Provisional Suspension
regardless of whether the Player elected not to compete or wassuspended by his or her team.
10.11.3.4
In Team Sports, where a period of Ineligibility is
imposed upon a team, unless fairness requires otherwise, theperiod of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the final hearing
decision providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived, on
the date Ineligibility is accepted or otherwise imposed. Any
period of team Provisional Suspension (whether imposed or
voluntarily accepted) shall be credited against the total period of
Ineligibility to be served.
[Comment to Article 10.11: Article 10.11 makes clear that delays not attributable to thePlayer, timely admission by the Player and Provisional Suspension are the only justifications
for starting the period of Ineligibility earlier than the date of the final hearing decision.]

10.12

Status During Ineligibility
10.12.1

Prohibition Against Participation During Ineligibility

No Players or other Person who has been declared Ineligible may,during the period of Ineligibility, participate in any capacity in aCompetition or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or
rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by any Signatory,
Signatory's member organization, or a club or other member
organization of a Signatory’s member organization, or in Competitions
authorized or organized by any professional league or any
international or national level Event organization or any elite or
national-level sporting activity funded by a governmental agency.
A Player or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility longer thanfour years may, after completing four years of the period of
Ineligibility, participate as a Player in local sport events not sanctioned
or otherwise under the jurisdiction of a Code Signatory or member of a
Code Signatory, but only so long as the local sport event is not at alevel that could otherwise qualify such Players or other Person directly
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201741

or indirectly to compete in (or accumulate points toward) a national
championship or International Event, and does not involve the Playeror other Person working in any capacity with Minors.
A Player or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility shall remainsubject to Testing.
[Comment to Article 10.12.1: For example, subject to Article 10.12.2 below, an Ineligible
Player cannot participate in a training camp, exhibition or practice organized by his or her
Member Association or a club which is a member of that Member Association or which isfunded by a governmental agency. Further, an Ineligible Player may not compete in a nonSignatory professional league (e.g., the National Hockey League, the National Basketball
Association, etc.), Events organized by a non-Signatory International Event organization ora non-Signatory national-level event organization without triggering the Consequences set
forth in Article 10.12.3. The term “activity” also includes, for example, administrative
activities, such as serving as an official, director, officer, employee, or volunteer of theorganization described in this Article. Ineligibility imposed in one sport shall also berecognized by other sports (see Article 15.1, Mutual Recognition).]10.12.2

Return to Training

As an exception to Article 10.12.1, a Player may return to train with ateam or to use the facilities of a club or other member organization of
BWF’s member organization during the shorter of: (1) the last twomonths of the Player’s period of Ineligibility, or (2) the last onequarter of the period of Ineligibility imposed.
[Comment to Article 10.12.2: In many Team Sports and some individual sports (e.g., ski
jumping and gymnastics), a Player cannot effectively train on his/her own so as to be readyto compete at the end of the Player’s period of Ineligibility. During the training period
described in this Article, an Ineligible Player may not compete or engage in any activity
described in Article 10.12.1 other than training.]

10.12.3

Violation of the Prohibition of Participation During Ineligibility

Where a Player or other Person who has been declared Ineligible violates
the prohibition against participation during Ineligibility described in
Article 10.12.1, the results of such participation shall be Disqualified anda new period of Ineligibility equal in length up to the original period of
Ineligibility shall be added to the end of the original period of
Ineligibility. The new period of Ineligibility may be adjusted based on
the Player or other Person’s degree of Fault and other circumstances of
the case. The determination of whether a Player or other Person has
violated the prohibition against participation, and whether an adjustment
is appropriate, shall be made by the Anti-Doping Organization whose
results management led to the imposition of the initial period of
Ineligibility. This decision may be appealed under Article 13.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201742

Where a Player Support Person or other Person assists a Person in
violating the prohibition against participation during Ineligibility, BWF
shall impose sanctions for a violation of Article 2.9 for such assistance.
10.12.4

Withholding of Financial Support during Ineligibility

In addition, for any anti-doping rule violation not involving a reduced
sanction as described in Article 10.4 or 10.5, some or all sport-related
financial support or other sport-related benefits received by such Person
will be withheld by BWF and its Member Associations.
10.13

Automatic Publication of Sanction

A mandatory part of each sanction shall include automatic publication, as
provided in Article 14.3.
[Comment to Article 10: Harmonization of sanctions has been one of the most discussed
and debated areas of anti-doping. Harmonization means that the same Regulations andcriteria are applied to assess the unique facts of each case. Arguments against requiringharmonization of sanctions are based on differences between sports including, for example,
the following: in some sports the Players are professionals making a sizable income fromthe sport and in others the Players are true amateurs; in those sports where a Player’s
career is short, a standard period of Ineligibility has a much more significant effect on thePlayers than in sports where careers are traditionally much longer. A primary argument infavor of harmonization is that it is simply not right that two Players from the same country
who test positive for the same Prohibited Substance under similar circumstances should
receive different sanctions only because they participate in different sports. In addition,
flexibility in sanctioning has often been viewed as an unacceptable opportunity for some
sporting organizations to be more lenient with dopers. The lack of harmonization of
sanctions has also frequently been the source of jurisdictional conflicts between
International Federations and National Anti-Doping Organizations.]

ARTICLE 11

CONSEQUENCES TO TEAMS

11.1 Testing of Teams
Where one member of a team (outside of Team Sports) has been notified ofan anti-doping regulation violation under Article 7 in connection with an
Event, the ruling body for the Event shall conduct appropriate Target Testingof all members of the team during the Event Period.
11.2 Consequences for Teams
11.2.1An anti-doping rule violation committed by a member of ateam (such as the Thomas Cup, Uber Cup, Sudirman Cup,
Suhandinata Cup) in connection with an In-Competition test
automatically leads to Disqualification of the result obtained by theteam in that Competition, with all resulting consequences for the teamand its members, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201743

11.2.2 An anti-doping regulation violation committed by a memberof a team occurring during or in connection with an Event may lead to
Disqualification of all of the results obtained by the team in that Event
with all consequences for the team and its members, including
forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes, except as provided in Article
11.2.3.
11.2.3
Where a Player who is a member of a team committed ananti-doping regulation violation during or in connection with one
Competition in an Event, if the other member(s) of the teamestablish(es) that he/she/they bear(s) No Fault or Negligence for that
violation, the results of the team in any other Competition(s) in that
Event shall not be Disqualified unless the results of the team in theCompetition(s) other than the Competition in which the anti-doping
rule violation occurred were likely to have been affected by thePlayer’s anti-doping rule violation.
11.2.4In doubles Competitions, the partner of the Player who isfound to have committed an anti-doping regulation violation shall incur
the same penalty (such as disqualification, loss of ranking points andprize money) as the Player who is found to have committed theregulation violation. The partner of the Player who is found to havecommitted an anti-doping regulation violation shall not be penalized
for any other doubles Competition in which he/she has a different
partner.
ARTICLE 12
BODIES

SANCTIONS AND COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST SPORTING

12.1 BWF has the authority to withhold some or all funding or other nonfinancial support to Member Associations that are not in compliance withthese Anti-Doping Regulations.
12.2 Member Associations shall be obligated to reimburse BWF for all costs(including but not limited to laboratory fees, hearing expenses and travel)
related to a violation of these Anti-Doping Regulations committed by a Playeror other Person affiliated with that Member Association.
12.3 BWF may elect to take additional disciplinary action against Member
Associations with respect to recognition, the eligibility of its officials andPlayers to participate in International Events and fines based on thefollowing:
12.3.1
Four or more violations of these Anti-Doping Regulations(other than violations involving Article 2.4) are committed by Players
or other Persons affiliated with a Member Association within a 12month period in testing conducted by BWF or Anti-Doping
Organizations other than the Member Association or its National AntiDoping Organization. In such event BWF may in its discretion elect to:
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201744

(a) ban all officials from that Member Association for participation in
any BWF activities for a period of up to two years and/or (b) fine theMember Association in an amount up to $100,000 U.S. Dollars. (Forpurposes of this Rule, any fine paid pursuant to Rule 12.3.2 shall becredited against any fine assessed.)
12.3.1.1
If four or more violations of these Anti-Doping
Regulations (other than violations involving Articles 2.4) arecommitted in addition to the violations described in Article
12.3.1 by Players or other Persons affiliated with a Member
Association within a 12-month period in Testing conducted by
BWF or Anti-Doping Organizations other than the Member
Association or its National Anti-Doping Organization, then BWF
may suspend that Member Association’s membership for aperiod of up to 4 years.
12.3.2More than one Player or other Person from a Member
Association commits an Anti-Doping Rule violation during an
International Event.
In such event BWF may fine that Member
Association in an amount up to $30,000 U.S. Dollars.
12.3.3 A Member Association has failed to make diligent efforts tokeep the BWF informed about a Player’s whereabouts after receiving arequest for that information from BWF. In such event BWF may fine
the Member Association in an amount up to $30,000 U.S. Dollars per
Player in addition to all of the BWF costs incurred in Testing that
Member Association’s Players.
ARTICLE 13

APPEALS

13.1 Decisions Subject to Appeal
Decisions made under these Anti-Doping Regulations may be appealed as set
forth below in Article 13.2 through 13.7 or as otherwise provided in theseAnti-Doping Regulations, the Code or the International Standards. Suchdecisions shall remain in effect while under appeal unless the appellate bodyorders otherwise. Before an appeal is commenced, any post-decision review
provided in the Anti-Doping Organization's regulations must be exhausted,
provided that such review respects the principles set forth in Article 13.2.2
below (except as provided in Article 13.1.3).
13.1.1

Scope of Review Not Limited

The scope of review on appeal includes all issues relevant to thematter and is expressly not limited to the issues or scope of review
before the initial decision maker.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201745

13.1.2

CAS Shall Not Defer to the Findings Being Appealed

In making its decision, CAS need not give deference to the discretion
exercised by the body whose decision is being appealed.
[Comment to Article 13.1.2: CAS proceedings are de novo. Prior proceedings do not limit
the evidence or carry weight in the hearing before CAS.]

13.1.3

WADA Not Required to Exhaust Internal Remedies

Where WADA has a right to appeal under Article 13 and no other party
has appealed a final decision within BWF’s process, WADA may appeal
such decision directly to CAS without having to exhaust other remedies
in BWF’s process.
[Comment to Article 13.1.3: Where a decision has been rendered before the final stage of
BWF’s process (for example, a first hearing) and no party elects to appeal that decision to
the next level of BWF’s process (e.g., the Managing Board), then WADA may bypass theremaining steps in BWF’s internal process and appeal directly to CAS.]

13.2 Appeals from Decisions Regarding Anti-Doping Rule Violations,
Consequences, Provisional Suspensions, Recognition of Decisions andJurisdiction
A decision that an anti-doping rule violation was committed, a decision
imposing Consequences or not imposing Consequences for an anti-doping
rule violation, or a decision that no anti-doping rule violation was committed;-

a decision that an anti-doping rule violation proceeding cannot go forward
for procedural reasons (including, for example, prescription);-a decision by WADA not to grant an exception to the six months noticerequirement for a retired Player to return to Competition under Article
5.7.1;-

a decision by WADA assigning results management under Article 7.1 of
the Code;-a decision by BWF not to bring forward an Adverse Analytical Finding oran Atypical Finding as an anti-doping rule violation, or a decision not to go
forward with an anti-doping rule violation after an investigation under
Article 7.7;-

a decision to impose a Provisional Suspension as a result of a Provisional
Hearing; BWF’s failure to comply with Article 7.9;-

a decision that BWF lacks jurisdiction to rule on an alleged anti-doping
rule violation or its Consequences;

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201746

-a decision to suspend, or not suspend, a period of Ineligibility or toreinstate, or not reinstate, a suspended period of Ineligibility under Article
10.6.1;-

a decision under Article 10.12.3;-

and a decision by BWF not to recognize
Organization’s decision under Article 15;

another

Anti-Doping

may be appealed exclusively as provided in Articles 13.2 – 13.7.
13.2.1 Appeals Involving International-Level Players or International
EventsIn cases arising from participation in an International Event or in cases
involving International-Level Players, the decision may be appealed
exclusively to CAS.
[Comment to Article 13.2.1: CAS decisions are final and binding except for any review
required by law applicable to the annulment or enforcement of arbitral awards.]

13.2.2

Appeals Involving Other Players or Other Persons

In cases where Article 13.2.1 is not applicable, the decision may be
appealed to a national-level appeal body, being an independent andimpartial body established in accordance with Regulations adopted by
the National Anti-Doping Organization having jurisdiction over thePlayer or other Person. The Regulations for such appeal shall respect
the following principles: a timely hearing; a fair and impartial hearing
panel; the right to be represented by counsel at the Person's own
expense; and a timely, written, reasoned decision. If the National
Anti-Doping Organization has not established such a body, the decision
may be appealed to CAS in accordance with the provisions applicablebefore such court.
13.2.3

Persons Entitled to Appeal

In cases under Article 13.2.1, the following parties shall have the rightto appeal to CAS: (a) the Player or other Person who is the subject ofthe decision being appealed; (b) the other party to the case in which
the decision was rendered; (c) BWF; (d) the National Anti-Doping
Organization of the Person’s country of residence or countries where
the Person is a national or license holder; (e) the International
Olympic Committee or International Paralympic Committee, asapplicable, where the decision may have an effect in relation to the
Olympic Games or Paralympic Games, including decisions affecting
eligibility for the Olympic Games or Paralympic Games; and (f) WADA.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201747

In cases under Article 13.2.2, the parties having the right to appeal to
the national-level appeal body shall be as provided in the National
Anti-Doping Organization's Regulations but, at a minimum, shall
include the following parties: (a) the Player or other Person who is the
subject of the decision being appealed; (b) the other party to the casein which the decision was rendered; (c) BWF; (d) the National AntiDoping Organization of the Person’s country of residence; (e) theInternational Olympic Committee or International Paralympic
Committee, as applicable, where the decision may have an effect inrelation to the Olympic Games or Paralympic Games, including
decisions affecting eligibility for the Olympic Games or Paralympic
Games; and (f) WADA. For cases under Article 13.2.2, WADA, theInternational Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic
Committee, and BWF shall also have the right to appeal to CAS withrespect to the decision of the national-level appeal body. Any party
filing an appeal shall be entitled to assistance from CAS to obtain all
relevant information from the Anti-Doping Organization whose decision
is being appealed and the information shall be provided if CAS sodirects.
Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the only Person who may
appeal from a Provisional Suspension is the Player or other Person
upon whom the Provisional Suspension is imposed.
13.2.4 Cross Appeals and other Subsequent Appeals Allowed
Cross appeals and other subsequent appeals by any respondent named
in cases brought to CAS under the Code are specifically permitted. Any
party with a right to appeal under this Article 13 must file a cross appeal
or subsequent appeal at the latest with the party’s answer.
[Comment to Article 13.2.4:
This provision is necessary because since 2011, CAS
Regulations no longer permit a Player the right to cross appeal when an Anti-Doping
Organization appeals a decision after the Player’s time for appeal has expired. This
provision permits a full hearing for all parties.]

13.3 Failure to Render a Timely Decision
Where, in a particular case, BWF fails to render a decision with respect towhether an anti-doping rule violation was committed within a reasonable
deadline set by WADA, WADA may elect to appeal directly to CAS as if BWF
had rendered a decision finding no anti-doping rule violation. If the CAS
hearing panel determines that an anti-doping rule violation was committed
and that WADA acted reasonably in electing to appeal directly to CAS, then
WADA’s costs and attorney fees in prosecuting the appeal shall bereimbursed to WADA by BWF.
[Comment to Article 13.3: Given the different circumstances of each anti-doping ruleviolation investigation and results management process, it is not feasible to establish a fixed
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201748

time period for BWF to render a decision before WADA may intervene by appealing directly
to CAS. Before taking such action, however, WADA will consult with BWF and give BWF an
opportunity to explain why it has not yet rendered a decision.]

13.4 Appeals Relating to TUEs
TUE decisions may be appealed exclusively as provided in Article 4.4.
13.5 Notification of Appeal Decisions
Any Anti-Doping Organization that is a party to an appeal shall promptly
provide the appeal decision to the Player or other Person and to the otherAnti-Doping Organizations that would have been entitled to appeal under
Article 13.2.3 as provided under Article 14.2.
13.6 Appeal from Decisions Pursuant to Article 12
Decisions by BWF pursuant to Article 12 may be appealed exclusively to CAS
by the Member Association.
13.7 Time for Filing Appeals
13.7.1

Appeals to CAS

The time to file an appeal to CAS shall be twenty-one (21) days fromthe date of receipt of the decision by the appealing party. The above
notwithstanding, the following shall apply in connection with appeals
filed by a party entitled to appeal but which was not a party to theproceedings that led to the decision being appealed:a) Within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision, suchparty/ies shall have the right to request a copy of the case filefrom the body that issued the decision;b) If such a request is made within the fifteen-day period, then theparty making such request shall have twenty-one days fromreceipt of the file to file an appeal to CAS.
The above notwithstanding, the filing deadline for an appeal filed by
WADA shall be the later of:a) Twenty-one (21) days after the last day on which any otherparty in the case could have appealed; orb) Twenty-one (21) days after WADA’s receipt of the complete filerelating to the decision.
13.7.2

Appeals Under Article 13.2.2

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201749

The time to file an appeal to an independent and impartial bodyestablished at national level in accordance with regulations establishedby the National Anti-Doping Organization shall be indicated by thesame regulations of the National Anti-Doping Organization.
The above notwithstanding, the filing deadline for an appeal orintervention filed by WADA shall be the later of:(a) Twenty-one (21) days after the last day on which any otherparty in the case could have appealed, or(b) Twenty-one (21) days after WADA’s receipt of the complete filerelating to the decision.
ARTICLE 14

CONFIDENTIALITY AND REPORTING

14.1 Information Concerning Adverse Analytical Findings, AtypicalFindings, and Other Asserted Anti-Doping Rule Violations
14.1.1
Persons

Notice of Anti-Doping Rule Violations to Players and otherNotice to Players or other Persons of anti-doping rule violations
asserted against them shall occur as provided under Articles 7 and 14of these Anti-Doping Regulations. Notice to a Players or other Person
who is a member of a Member Association may be accomplished bydelivery of the notice to the Member Association who shall provide the
BWF with signed acknowledgement from the Player that the Player hasreceived the notification.
14.1.2 Notice of Anti-Doping Rule Violations to National Anti-Doping
Organizations and WADA
Notice of the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation to National AntiDoping Organizations and WADA shall occur as provided under Articles
7 and 14 of these Anti-Doping Regulations, simultaneously with thenotice to the Player or other Person.
14.1.3

Content of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation Notice

Notification of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 shall
include: the Player’s name, country, sport and discipline within the
sport, the Player’s competitive level, whether the test was InCompetition or Out-of-Competition, the date of Sample collection, theanalytical result reported by the laboratory, and other information as
required by the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.
Notice of anti-doping rule violations other than under Article 2.1 shall
include the rule violated and the basis of the asserted violation.
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201750

14.1.4

Status Reports

Except with respect to investigations which have not resulted in noticeof an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 14.1.1, National
Anti-Doping Organizations and WADA shall be regularly updated on thestatus and findings of any review or proceedings conducted pursuant
to Article 7, 8 or 13 and shall be provided with a prompt written
reasoned explanation or decision explaining the resolution of thematter.
14.1.5

Confidentiality

The recipient organizations shall not disclose this information beyond
those Persons with a need to know (which would include theappropriate personnel at the applicable National Olympic Committee,
Member Association, and team in a Team Sport) until BWF has madePublic Disclosure or has failed to make Public Disclosure as required in
Article 14.3.
14.1.6 BWF shall ensure that information concerning Adverse Analytical
Findings, Atypical Findings, and other asserted anti-doping rule violations
remains confidential until such information is Publicly Disclosed in accordancewith Article 14.3, and shall include provisions in any contract entered into
between BWF and any of its employees (whether permanent or otherwise),contractors, agents and consultants, for the protection of such confidential
information as well as for the investigation and disciplining of improper
and/or unauthorised disclosure of such confidential information.
14.2 Notice of Anti-Doping Rule Violation Decisions and Request forFiles
14.2.1 Anti-doping rule violation decisions rendered pursuant to
Article 7.11, 8.2, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.12.3 or 13.5 shall include thefull reasons for the decision, including, if applicable, a justification for
why the greatest possible Consequences were not imposed. Where
the decision is not in English or French, BWF shall provide a short
English or French summary of the decision and the supporting reasons.
14.2.2An Anti-Doping Organization having a right to appeal adecision received pursuant to Article 14.2.1 may, within fifteen days ofreceipt, request a copy of the full case file pertaining to the decision.
14.3 Public Disclosure
14.3.1 The identity of any Players or other Person who is asserted by
BWF to have committed an anti-doping rule violation may be Publicly
Disclosed by BWF only after notice has been provided to the Players or
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201751

other Person in accordance with Article 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 or 7.7 andsimultaneously to WADA and the National Anti-Doping Organization of
the Players or other Person in accordance with Article 14.1.2.
14.3.2 No later than twenty days after it has been determined in a
final appellate decision under Article 13.2.1 or 13.2.2, or such appeal
has been waived, or a hearing in accordance with Article 8 has been
waived, or the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has not beentimely challenged, BWF must Publicly Report the disposition of thematter, including the sport, the anti-doping rule violated, the name of
the Players or other Person committing the violation, the Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method involved (if any), and theConsequences imposed. BWF must also Publicly Report within twenty
days the results of final appeal decisions concerning anti-doping ruleviolations, including the information described above.
14.3.3 In any case where it is determined, after a hearing or appeal,that the Player or other Person did not commit an anti-doping ruleviolation, the decision may be Publicly Disclosed only with the consent
of the Player or other Person who is the subject of the decision. BWF
shall use reasonable efforts to obtain such consent. If consent isobtained, BWF shall Publicly Disclose the decision in its entirety or insuch redacted form as the Player or other Person may approve.
14.3.4
Publication shall be accomplished at a minimum by placing
the required information on the BWF’s website or publishing it throughother means and leaving the information up for the longer of one
month or the duration of any period of Ineligibility.
14.3.5 Neither BWF, nor its Member Associations, nor any official ofeither body, shall publicly comment on the specific facts of any
pending case (as opposed to general description of process andscience) except in response to public comments attributed to thePlayers or other Person against whom an anti-doping rule violation isasserted, or their representatives.
14.3.6The mandatory Public Reporting required in Article 14.3.2
shall not be required where the Player or other Person who has beenfound to have committed an anti-doping rule violation is a Minor. Any
optional Public Reporting in a case involving a Minor shall be
proportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case.
14.4 Statistical Reporting
BWF shall publish at least annually a general statistical report of its Doping
Control activities, with a copy provided to WADA. BWF may also publish
reports showing the name of each Player tested and the date of each Testing.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201752

14.5 Doping Control Information Clearinghouse
To facilitate coordinated test distribution planning and to avoid unnecessary
duplication in Testing by the various Anti-Doping Organizations, BWF shallreport all In-Competition and Out-of-Competition tests on such Players to the
WADA clearinghouse, using ADAMS, as soon as possible after such tests havebeen conducted. This information will be made accessible, where appropriate
and in accordance with the applicable Regulations, to the Player, the Player’s
National Anti-Doping Organization and any other Anti-Doping Organizations
with Testing authority over the Player.
14.6 Data Privacy
14.6.1
BWF may collect, store, process or disclose personal
information relating to Players and other Persons where necessary andappropriate to conduct their anti-doping activities under the Code, theInternational Standards (including specifically the International
Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information) andthese Anti-Doping Regulations.
14.6.2 Any Participant who submits information including personal
data to any Person in accordance with these Anti-Doping Regulations
shall be deemed to have agreed, pursuant to applicable dataprotection laws and otherwise, that such information may be collected,
processed, disclosed and used by such Person for the purposes of theimplementation of these Anti-Doping Regulations, in accordance with
the International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal
Information and otherwise as required to implement these Anti-Doping
Regulations.
ARTICLE 15

APPLICATION AND RECOGNITION OF DECISIONS

15.1 Subject to the right to appeal provided in Article 13, Testing, hearing
results or other final adjudications of any Signatory which are consistent with
the Code and are within that Signatory’s authority shall be applicableworldwide and shall be recognized and respected by BWF and all its Member
Associations.
[Comment to Article 15.1: The extent of recognition of TUE decisions of other Anti-Doping
Organizations shall be determined by Article 4.4 and the International Standard for
Therapeutic Use Exemptions.]

15.2 BWF and its Member Associations shall recognize the measures taken
by other bodies which have not accepted the Code if the Regulations of thosebodies are otherwise consistent with the Code.
[Comment to Article 15.2: Where the decision of a body that has not accepted the Code isin some respects Code compliant and in other respects not Code compliant, BWF and its
Member Associations shall attempt to apply the decision in harmony with the principles of
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201753

the Code. For example, if in a process consistent with the Code a non-Signatory has founda Player to have committed an anti-doping rule violation on account of the presence of a
Prohibited Substance in his or her body but the period of Ineligibility applied is shorter thanthe period provided for in these Anti-Doping Regulations, then BWF shall recognize thefinding of an anti-doping rule violation and may conduct a hearing consistent with Article 8
to determine whether the longer period of Ineligibility provided in these Anti-Doping
Regulations should be imposed.]

15.3 Subject to the right to appeal provided in Article 13, any decision of
BWF regarding a violation of these Anti-Doping Regulations shall berecognized by all Member Associations, which shall take all necessary action
to render such decision effective.
ARTICLE 16
INCORPORATION OF BWF ANTI-DOPING REGULATIONSAND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBER ASSOCIATIONS
16.1 All Member Associations and their members shall comply with theseAnti-Doping Regulations. All Member Associations and other members shall
include in their regulations the provisions necessary to ensure that BWF may
enforce these Anti-Doping Regulations directly as against Players under theiranti-doping jurisdiction (including National-Level Players). These Anti-Doping
Regulations shall also be incorporated either directly or by reference into
each Member Association’s Regulations so that the Member Association may
enforce them itself directly as against Players under its anti-doping
jurisdiction (including National-Level Players).
16.2 All Member Associations shall establish Regulations requiring all
Players and each Player Support Personnel who participates as coach,trainer, manager, team staff, official, medical or paramedical personnel in aCompetition or activity authorized or organized by a Member Association or
one of its member organizations to agree to be bound by these Anti-Doping
Regulations and to submit to the results management authority of the AntiDoping Organization responsible under the Code as a condition of suchparticipation.
16.3 All Member Associations shall report any information suggesting or
relating to an anti-doping rule violation to BWF and to their National AntiDoping Organizations, and shall cooperate with investigations conducted by
any Anti-Doping Organization with authority to conduct the investigation.
16.4 All Member Associations shall have disciplinary Regulations in place toprevent Player Support Personnel who are Using Prohibited Substances or
Prohibited Methods without valid justification from providing support toPlayers under the jurisdiction of BWF or the Member Association.
16.5 All Member Associations shall be required to conduct anti-doping
education in coordination with their National Anti-Doping Organizations.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 2017

54

ARTICLE 17

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONSNo anti-doping rule violation proceeding may be commenced against a Player orother Person unless he or she has been notified of the anti-doping rule violation asprovided in Article 7, or notification has been reasonably attempted, within ten
years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred.
ARTICLE 18

BWF COMPLIANCE REPORTS TO WADA

BWF will report to WADA on BWF’s compliance with the Code in accordance with
Article 23.5.2 of the Code.
ARTICLE 19

EDUCATION

BWF shall plan, implement, evaluate and monitor information, education andprevention programs for doping-free sport on at least the issues listed at Article
18.2 of the Code, and shall support active participation by Players and Player
Support Personnel in such programs.
ARTICLE 20
REGULATIONSAMENDMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF ANTI-DOPING

20.1 These Anti-Doping Regulations may be amended from time to time by
BWF.
20.2 These Anti-Doping Regulations shall be interpreted as an independentand autonomous text and not by reference to existing law or statutes.
20.3 The headings used for the various Parts and Articles of these AntiDoping Regulations are for convenience only and shall not be deemed part ofthe substance of these Anti-Doping Regulations or to affect in any way thelanguage of the provisions to which they refer.
20.4 The Code and the International Standards shall be considered integral
parts of these Anti-Doping Regulations and shall prevail in case of conflict.
20.5 These Anti-Doping Regulations have been adopted pursuant to theapplicable provisions of the Code and shall be interpreted in a manner that is
consistent with applicable provisions of the Code. The Introduction shall beconsidered an integral part of these Anti-Doping Regulations.
20.6 The comments annotating various provisions of the Code and theseAnti-Doping Regulations shall be used to interpret these Anti-Doping
Regulations.
20.7 These Anti-Doping Regulations have come into full force and effect on
1 January 2015 (the “Effective Date”). They shall not apply retroactively tomatters pending before the Effective Date; provided, however, that:

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201755

20.7.1 Anti-doping rule violations taking place prior to the Effective
Date count as "first violations" or "second violations" for purposes ofdetermining sanctions under Article 10 for violations taking place after
the Effective Date.
20.7.2 The retrospective periods in which prior violations can beconsidered for purposes of multiple violations under Article 10.7.5 andthe statute of limitations set forth in Article 17 are procedural
regulations and should be applied retroactively; provided, however,that Article 17 shall only be applied retroactively if the statute oflimitations period has not already expired by the Effective Date.
Otherwise, with respect to any anti-doping rule violation case which ispending as of the Effective Date and any anti-doping rule violationcase brought after the Effective Date based on an anti-doping ruleviolation which occurred prior to the Effective Date, the case shall begoverned by the substantive anti-doping regulations in effect at thetime the alleged anti-doping rule violation occurred unless the panel
hearing the case determines the principle of “lex mitior” appropriately
applies under the circumstances of the case.
20.7.3 Any Article 2.4 whereabouts failure (whether a Filing Failure
or a Missed Test, as those terms are defined in the International
Standard for Testing and Investigations) prior to the Effective Dateshall be carried forward and may be relied upon, prior to expiry, in
accordance with the International Standard for Testing andInvestigation, but it shall be deemed to have expired 12 months after
it occurred.
20.7.4 With respect to cases where a final decision finding an antidoping rule violation has been rendered prior to the Effective Date, but
the Player or other Person is still serving the period of Ineligibility as of
the Effective Date, the Player or other Person may apply to the AntiDoping Organization which had results management responsibility forthe anti-doping rule violation to consider a reduction in the period of
Ineligibility in light of these Anti-Doping Regulations. Such applicationmust be made before the period of Ineligibility has expired. The
decision rendered may be appealed pursuant to Article 13.2. These
Anti-Doping Regulations shall have no application to any case where a
final decision finding an anti-doping rule violation has been rendered
and the period of Ineligibility has expired.
20.7.5For purposes of assessing the period of Ineligibility for asecond violation under Article 10.7.1, where the sanction for the first
violation was determined based on regulations in force prior to the
Effective Date, the period of Ineligibility which would have beenassessed for that first violation had these Anti-Doping Regulations
been applicable, shall be applied.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 2017

56

ARTICLE 21

INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE

21.1 The official text of the Code shall be maintained by WADA and shall be
published in English and French. In the event of any conflict between the
English and French versions, the English version shall prevail.
21.2 The comments annotating various provisions of the Code shall be used
to interpret the Code.
21.3 The Code shall be interpreted as an independent and autonomous text
and not by reference to the existing law or statutes of the Signatories orgovernments.
21.4 The headings used for the various Parts and Articles of the Code arefor convenience only and shall not be deemed part of the substance of theCode or to affect in any way the language of the provisions to which theyrefer.
21.5 The Code shall not apply retroactively to matters pending before thedate the Code is accepted by a Signatory and implemented in its regulations.
However, pre-Code anti-doping rule violations would continue to count as"first violations" or "second violations" for purposes of determining sanctions
under Article 10 for subsequent post-Code violations.
21.6 The Purpose, Scope and Organization of the World Anti-Doping
Program and the Code and Appendix 1, Definitions, and Appendix 2,
Examples of the Application of Article 10, shall be considered integral parts of
the Code.
ARTICLE 22
ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PLAYERSAND OTHER PERSONS
22.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Players
22.1.1 To be knowledgeable of and comply with these Anti-Doping
Regulations.
22.1.2

To be available for Sample collection at all times.

[Comment to Article 22.1.2: With due regard to a Player’s human rights and privacy,
legitimate anti-doping considerations sometimes require Sample collection late at night or
early in the morning. For example, it is known that some Players use low doses of EPO
during these hours so that it will be undetectable in the morning.]

22.1.3 To take responsibility, in the context of anti-doping, for what
they ingest and Use.
22.1.4 To inform medical personnel of their obligation not to Use
Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods and to take
BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 201757

responsibility to make sure that any medical treatment received does
not violate these Anti-Doping Regulations.
22.1.5 To disclose to their National Anti-Doping Organization and to
BWF any decision by a non-Signatory finding that the Player
committed an anti-doping rule violation within the previous ten years.
22.1.6 To cooperate with Anti-Doping Organizations investigating
anti-doping rule violations.
22.1.7 Failure by any Player to cooperate in full with Anti-Doping
Organizations investigating anti-doping rule violations may result incharges under BWF's Disciplinary Regulations.
22.2 Roles and Responsibilities of Player Support Personnel
22.2.1 To be knowledgeable of and comply with these Anti-Doping
Regulations.
22.2.2 To cooperate with the Players Testing program.
22.2.3 To use his or her influence on Player values and behavior tofoster anti-doping attitudes.
22.2.4 To disclose to his or her National Anti-Doping Organizationand to BWF any decision by a non-Signatory finding that he or she
committed an anti-doping rule violation within the previous ten years.
22.2.5 To cooperate with Anti-Doping Organizations investigating
anti-doping rule violations.
22.2.6 Failure by any Player Support Personnel to cooperate in fullwith Anti-Doping Organizations investigating anti-doping rule violations
may result in charges under BWF's Disciplinary Regulations.
22.2.7 Players Support Personnel shall not Use or Possess any
Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method without valid justification.
22.2.8 Use or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited
Method by a Player Support Personnel without valid justification may
result in charges under BWF's Disciplinary Regulations.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective date – 1 January 2015 – Amended 25 May 2017

58

APPENDIX 1

DEFINITIONSADAMS: The Anti-Doping Administration and Management System is a Web-based
database management tool for data entry, storage, sharing, and reporting designed
to assist stakeholders and WADA in their anti-doping operations in conjunction withdata protection legislation.
Administration:
Providing, supplying, supervising, facilitating, or otherwise
participating in the Use or Attempted Use by another Person of a Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method. However, this definition shall not include theactions of bona fide medical personnel involving a Prohibited Substance or
Prohibited Method used for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes or otheracceptable justification and shall not include actions involving Prohibited Substances
which are not prohibited in Out-of-Competition Testing unless the circumstances asa whole demonstrate that such Prohibited Substances are not intended for genuine
and legal therapeutic purposes or are intended to enhance sport performance.
Adverse Analytical Finding: A report from a WADA-accredited laboratory or other
WADA-approved laboratory that, consistent with the International Standard forLaboratories and related Technical Documents, identifies in a Sample the presenceof a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers (including elevatedquantities of endogenous substances) or evidence of the Use of a Prohibited
Method.
Adverse Passport Finding: A report identified as an Adverse Passport Finding as
described in the applicable International Standards.
Doping Hearing Panel: A hearing panel constituted of up to three members of theExternal Judicial Experts Group (which may or may not include the Chair) appointed
by its Chair to conduct a Provisional Hearing (Article 7.9.3), an expedited final
hearing (Article 7.9.3) or a final hearing (Article 8.1.1) of a particular case.
Anti-Doping Organization: A Signatory that is responsible for adopting Regulations
for initiating, implementing or enforcing any part of the Doping Control process.
This includes, for example, the International Olympic Committee, the International
Paralympic Committee, other Major Event Organizations that conduct Testing attheir Events, WADA, International Federations, and National Anti-Doping
Organizations.
Attempt: Purposely engaging in conduct that constitutes a substantial step in acourse of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of an anti-doping ruleviolation. Provided, however, there shall be no anti-doping rule violation based
solely on an Attempt to commit a violation if the Person renounces the Attemptprior to it being discovered by a third party not involved in the Attempt.
Atypical Finding: A report from a WADA-accredited laboratory or other WADAapproved laboratory which requires further investigation as provided by the

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201759

International Standard for Laboratories or related Technical Documents prior to thedetermination of an Adverse Analytical Finding.
Atypical Passport Finding: A report described as an Atypical Passport Finding as
described in the applicable International Standards.
CAS: The Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Code: The World Anti-Doping Code.
Competition: A single race, match, game or singular sport contest. For example, abasketball game or the finals of the Olympic 100-meter race in athletics. For stage
races and other sport contests where prizes are awarded on a daily or other interim
basis the distinction between a Competition and an Event will be as provided in the
General Competition Regulations of the BWF.
Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations (“Consequences”): A Player's or other
Person's violation of an anti-doping rule may result in one or more of the following:(a) Disqualification means the Player’s results in a particular Competition or Eventare invalidated, with all resulting Consequences including forfeiture of any medals,
points and prizes; (b) Ineligibility means the Player or other Person is barred on
account of an anti-doping rule violation for a specified period of time fromparticipating in any Competition or other activity or funding as provided in
Article 10.12.1; (c) Provisional Suspension means the Player or other Person isbarred temporarily from participating in any Competition or activity prior to the final
decision at a hearing conducted under Article 8; (d) Financial Consequences meansa financial sanction imposed for an anti-doping rule violation or to recover costs
associated with an anti-doping rule violation; and (e) Public Disclosure or Public
Reporting means the dissemination or distribution of information to the generalpublic or Persons beyond those Persons entitled to earlier notification in accordancewith Article 14. Teams in Team Sports may also be subject to Consequences asprovided in Article 11 of the Code.
Contaminated Product: A product that contains a Prohibited Substance that is notdisclosed on the product label or in information available in a reasonable Internet
search.
Disqualification: See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations above.
Doping Control: All steps and processes from test distribution planning through toultimate disposition of any appeal including all steps and processes in between suchas provision of whereabouts information, Sample collection and handling, laboratory
analysis, TUEs, results management and hearings.
Event: A series of individual Competitions conducted together under one rulingbody (e.g., the Olympic Games, FINA World Championships, or Pan American
Games).

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201760

Event Venues: Those venues so designated by the ruling body for the Event.
Event Period: The time between the beginning and end of an Event, as establishedby the ruling body of the Event.
External Judicial Experts Group: A pool of judicial experts appointed by the BWF
Council and described in the BWF Judicial Procedures.
Fault: Fault is any breach of duty or any lack of care appropriate to a particularsituation. Factors to be taken into consideration in assessing a Player or other
Person’s degree of Fault include, for example, the Player’s or other Person’s
experience, whether the Player or other Person is a Minor, special considerations
such as impairment, the degree of risk that should have been perceived by thePlayer and the level of care and investigation exercised by the Player in relation towhat should have been the perceived level of risk. In assessing the Player’s orother Person’s degree of Fault, the circumstances considered must be specific andrelevant to explain the Player’s or other Person’s departure from the expected
standard of behavior. Thus, for example, the fact that a Player would lose theopportunity to earn large sums of money during a period of Ineligibility, or the factthat the Player only has a short time left in his or her career, or the timing of the
sporting calendar, would not be relevant factors to be considered in reducing theperiod of Ineligibility under Article 10.5.1 or 10.5.2.
[Comment: The criteria for assessing a Player’s degree of Fault is the same under all
Articles where Fault is to be considered. However, under Article 10.5.2, no reduction of
sanction is appropriate unless, when the degree of Fault is assessed, the conclusion is that
No Significant Fault or Negligence on the part of the Player or other Person was involved.]

Financial Consequences: see Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations, above.
In-Competition: “In-Competition” means the period commencing twelve hours
before a Competition in which the Player is scheduled to participate through the endof such Competition and the Sample collection process related to such Competition.
[Comment: An International Federation or ruling body for an Event may establish an “InCompetition” period that is different than the Event Period.]

Independent Observer Program: A team of observers, under the supervision of
WADA, who observe and provide guidance on the Doping Control process at certain
Events and report on their observations.
Individual Sport: Any sport that is not a Team Sport.
Ineligibility: See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations above.
International Event: An Event or Competition where the International Olympic
Committee, the International Paralympic Committee, an International Federation, a

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201761

Major Event Organization, or another international sport organization is the rulingbody for the Event or appoints the technical officials for the Event.
International-Level Player: Players who compete in sport at the international level,
as defined by each International Federation, consistent with the International
Standard for Testing and Investigations. For the sport of Badminton, InternationalLevel Players are defined as set out in the Scope section of the Introduction tothese Anti-Doping Regulations.
[Comment: Consistent with the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, theInternational Federation is free to determine the criteria it will use to classify Players as
International-Level Players, e.g., by ranking, by participation in particular International
Events, by type of license, etc. However, it must publish those criteria in clear and concise
form, so that Players are able to ascertain quickly and easily when they will become
classified as International-Level Players. For example, if the criteria include participation incertain International Events, then the International Federation must publish a list of thoseInternational Events.]

International Standard: A standard adopted by WADA in support of the Code.
Compliance with an International Standard (as opposed to another alternative
standard, practice or procedure) shall be sufficient to conclude that the procedures
addressed by the International Standard were performed properly. International
Standards shall include any Technical Documents issued pursuant to theInternational Standard.
Major Event Organizations:
The continental associations of National Olympic
Committees and other international multi-sport organizations that function as theruling body for any continental, regional or other International Event.
Marker: A compound, group of compounds or biological variable(s) that indicates
the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.
Member Association (including Associate Member): A national or regional entity
which is a member of or is recognized by BWF as the entity governing BWF's sport
in that nation or region.
Metabolite: Any substance produced by a biotransformation process.
Minor: A natural Person who has not reached the age of eighteen years.
National Anti-Doping Organization: The entity(ies) designated by each country as
possessing the primary authority and responsibility to adopt and implement antidoping Regulations, direct the collection of Samples, the management of test
results, and the conduct of hearings at the national level. If this designation has notbeen made by the competent public authority(ies), the entity shall be the country’s
National Olympic Committee or its designee.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201762

National Event: A sport Event or Competition involving International- or NationalLevel Players that is not an International Event.
National-Level Player: Players who compete in sport at the national level, as
defined by each National Anti-Doping Organization, consistent with theInternational Standard for Testing and Investigations.
National Olympic Committee: The organization recognized by the International
Olympic Committee. The term National Olympic Committee shall also include the
National Sport Confederation in those countries where the National Sport
Confederation assumes typical National Olympic Committee responsibilities in theanti-doping area.
No Fault or Negligence: The Player or other Person's establishing that he or she did
not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even withthe exercise of utmost caution, that he or she had Used or been administered theProhibited Substance or Prohibited Method or otherwise violated an anti-doping
rule. Except in the case of a Minor, for any violation of Article 2.1, the Player mustalso establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system.
No Significant Fault or Negligence: The Player or other Person's establishing that
his or her Fault or negligence, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances andtaking into account the criteria for No Fault or negligence, was not significant inrelationship to the anti-doping rule violation. Except in the case of a Minor, for any
violation of Article 2.1, the Player must also establish how the Prohibited Substanceentered his or her system.
[Comment: For Cannabinoids, a Player may establish No Significant Fault or
Negligence by clearly demonstrating that the context of the Use was unrelated tosport performance.]
Out-of-Competition: Any period which is not In-Competition.
Participant: Any Player or Player Support Person.
Person: A natural Person or an organization or other entity.
Player: Any Person who competes in sport at the international level (as defined byeach International Federation), or the national level (as defined by each National
Anti-Doping Organization). An Anti-Doping Organization has discretion to apply
anti-doping Regulations to a Player who is neither an International-Level Players
nor a National-Level Player, and thus to bring them within the definition of“Players.” In relation to Players who are neither International-Level nor NationalLevel Players, an Anti-Doping Organization may elect to: conduct limited Testing or
no Testing at all; analyze Samples for less than the full menu of Prohibited
Substances; require limited or no whereabouts information; or not require advanceTUEs. However, if an Article 2.1, 2.3 or 2.5 anti-doping rule violation is committed
by any Player over whom an Anti-Doping Organization has authority who competes

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201763

below the international or national level, then the Consequences set forth in the
Code (except Article 14.3.2) must be applied. For purposes of Article 2.8 and
Article 2.9 and for purposes of anti-doping information and education, any Person
who participates in sport under the authority of any Signatory, government, orother sports organization accepting the Code is a Players.
[Comment: This definition makes it clear that all International- and National-Level Players
are subject to the anti-doping rules of the Code, with the precise definitions of internationaland national-level sport to be set forth in the anti-doping Regulations of the International
Federations and National Anti-Doping Organizations, respectively. The definition also allows
each National Anti-Doping Organization, if it chooses to do so, to expand its anti-doping
program beyond International- or National-Level Players to competitors at lower levels ofCompetition or to individuals who engage in fitness activities but do not compete at all.
Thus, a National Anti-Doping Organization could, for example, elect to test recreational-levelcompetitors but not require advance TUEs. But an anti-doping rule violation involving an
Adverse Analytical Finding or Tampering results in all of the Consequences provided for in
the Code (with the exception of Article 14.3.2). The decision on whether Consequences
apply to recreational-level Players who engage in fitness activities but never compete is left
to the National Anti-Doping Organization. In the same manner, a Major Event Organization
holding an Event only for masters-level competitors could elect to test the competitors but
not analyze Samples for the full menu of Prohibited Substances. Competitors at all levels ofCompetition should receive the benefit of anti-doping information and education.]

Player Biological Passport: The program and methods of gathering and collating
data as described in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations andInternational Standard for Laboratories.
Player Support Personnel: Any coach, trainer, manager, agent, team staff, official,
medical, paramedical personnel, parent or any other Person working with, treatingor assisting a Player participating in or preparing for sports Competition.
Possession: The actual, physical Possession, or the constructive Possession (whichshall be found only if the Person has exclusive control or intends to exercise control
over the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or the premises in which a
Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method exists); provided, however, that if the
Person does not have exclusive control over the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited
Method or the premises in which a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method
exists, constructive Possession shall only be found if the Person knew about thepresence of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method and intended to exercise
control over it. Provided, however, there shall be no anti-doping rule violation
based solely on Possession if, prior to receiving notification of any kind that the
Person has committed an anti-doping rule violation, the Person has taken concrete
action demonstrating that the Person never intended to have Possession and hasrenounced Possession by explicitly declaring it to an Anti-Doping Organization.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this definition, the purchase (including
by any electronic or other means) of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method
constitutes Possession by the Person who makes the purchase.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201764

[Comment: Under this definition, steroids found in a Player's car would constitute a
violation unless the Player establishes that someone else used the car; in thatevent, the Anti-Doping Organization must establish that, even though the Player did
not have exclusive control over the car, the Player knew about the steroids andintended to have control over the steroids. Similarly, in the example of steroids
found in a home medicine cabinet under the joint control of a Player and spouse,
the Anti-Doping Organization must establish that the Player knew the steroids werein the cabinet and that the Player intended to exercise control over the steroids.
The act of purchasing a Prohibited Substance alone constitutes Possession, even
where, for example, the product does not arrive, is received by someone else, or issent to a third party address.]
Prohibited List:
Methods.

The List identifying the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited

Prohibited Method: Any method so described on the Prohibited List.
Prohibited Substance: Any substance, or class of substances, so described on theProhibited List.
Provisional Hearing: For purposes of Article 7.9, an expedited abbreviated hearing
occurring prior to a hearing under Article 8 that provides the Player with notice andan opportunity to be heard in either written or oral form.
[Comment: A Provisional Hearing is only a preliminary proceeding which may not
involve a full review of the facts of the case. Following a Provisional Hearing, thePlayer remains entitled to a subsequent full hearing on the merits of the case. By
contrast, an “expedited hearing,” as that term is used in Article 7.9, is a full hearing
on the merits conducted on an expedited time schedule.]
Provisional Suspension: See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule Violations above.
Publicly Disclose or Publicly Report:
Violations above.

See Consequences of Anti-Doping Rule

Regional Anti-Doping Organization:
A regional entity designated by member
countries to coordinate and manage delegated areas of their national anti-doping
programs, which may include the adoption and implementation of anti-doping
Regulations, the planning and collection of Samples, the management of results,
the review of TUEs, the conduct of hearings, and the conduct of educational
programs at a regional level.
Registered Testing Pool: The pool of highest-priority Players established separately
at the international level by International Federations and at the national level by
National Anti-Doping Organizations, who are subject to focused In-Competition andOut-of-Competition Testing as part of that International Federation's or National
Anti-Doping Organization's test distribution plan and therefore are required to

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201765

provide whereabouts information as provided in Article 5.6 of the Code and theInternational Standard for Testing and Investigations.
Sample or Specimen: Any biological material collected for the purposes of Doping
Control.
[Comment: It has sometimes been claimed that the collection of blood Samples violates
the tenets of certain religious or cultural groups. It has been determined that there is nobasis for any such claim.]

Signatories: Those entities signing the Code and agreeing to comply with the Code,as provided in Article 23 of the Code.
Specified Substance: See Article 4.2.2.
Strict Liability: The rule which provides that under Article 2.1 and Article 2.2, it is
not necessary that intent, Fault, negligence, or knowing Use on the Player’s part bedemonstrated by the Anti-Doping Organization in order to establish an anti-doping
rule violation.
Substantial Assistance: For purposes of Article 10.6.1, a Person providing
Substantial Assistance must: (1) fully disclose in a signed written statement all
information he or she possesses in relation to anti-doping rule violations, and(2) fully cooperate with the investigation and adjudication of any case related tothat information, including, for example, presenting testimony at a hearing if
requested to do so by an Anti-Doping Organization or hearing panel. Further, theinformation provided must be credible and must comprise an important part of any
case which is initiated or, if no case is initiated, must have provided a sufficientbasis on which a case could have been brought.
Tampering: Altering for an improper purpose or in an improper way; bringing
improper influence to bear; interfering improperly; obstructing, misleading or
engaging in any fraudulent conduct to alter results or prevent normal proceduresfrom occurring.
Target Testing: Selection of specific Players for Testing based on criteria set forthin the International Standard for Testing and Investigations.
Team Sport:
Competition.

A sport in which the substitution of players is permitted during a

Testing:
The parts of the Doping Control process involving test distribution
planning, Sample collection, Sample handling, and Sample transport to thelaboratory.
Trafficking: Selling, giving, transporting, sending, delivering or distributing (orPossessing for any such purpose) a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method(either physically or by any electronic or other means) by a Player, Player Support

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201766

Person or any other Person subject to the jurisdiction of an Anti-Doping
Organization to any third party; provided, however, this definition shall not include
the actions of "bona fide" medical personnel involving a Prohibited Substance used
for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes or other acceptable justification, andshall not include actions involving Prohibited Substances which are not prohibited in
Out-of-Competition Testing unless the circumstances as a whole demonstrate such
Prohibited Substances are not intended for genuine and legal therapeutic purposesor are intended to enhance sport performance.
TUE: Therapeutic Use Exemption, as described in Article 4.4.
UNESCO Convention:
The International Convention against Doping in Sportrd
adopted by the 33 session of the UNESCO General Conference on 19 October,2005 including any and all amendments adopted by the States Parties to theConvention and the Conference of Parties to the International Convention against
Doping in Sport.
Use: The utilization, application, ingestion, injection or consumption by any means
whatsoever of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.
WADA: The World Anti-Doping Agency.
[Comment: Defined terms shall include their plural and possessive forms, as well as thoseterms used as other parts of speech].

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201767

APPENDIX 2

EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 10

EXAMPLE 1.
Facts: An Adverse Analytical Finding results from the presence of an anabolic
steroid in an In-Competition test (Article 2.1); the Player promptly admits the antidoping rule violation; the Player establishes No Significant Fault or Negligence; andthe Player provides Substantial Assistance.
Application of Consequences:1.
The starting point would be Article 10.2. Because the Player is deemed tohave No Significant Fault that would be sufficient corroborating evidence (Articles
10.2.1.1 and 10.2.3) that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional, theperiod of Ineligibility would thus be two years, not four years (Article 10.2.2).
2.
In a second step, the panel would analyze whether the Fault-related
reductions (Articles 10.4 and 10.5) apply. Based on No Significant Fault or
Negligence (Article 10.5.2) since the anabolic steroid is not a Specified Substance,
the applicable range of sanctions would be reduced to a range of two years to one
year (minimum one-half of the two year sanction). The panel would then determine
the applicable period of Ineligibility within this range based on the Player’s degreeof Fault. (Assume for purposes of illustration in this example that the panel would
otherwise impose a period of Ineligibility of 16 months.)
3.
In a third step, the panel would assess the possibility for suspension or
reduction under Article 10.6 (reductions not related to Fault). In this case, only
Article 10.6.1 (Substantial Assistance) applies. (Article 10.6.3, Prompt Admission,
is not applicable because the period of Ineligibility is already below the two-year
minimum set forth in Article 10.6.3.) Based on Substantial Assistance, the period
of Ineligibility could be suspended by three-quarters of 16 months.* The minimum
period of Ineligibility would thus be four months.
(Assume for purposes ofillustration in this example that the panel suspends ten months and the period of
Ineligibility would thus be six months.)
4.
Under Article 10.11, the period of Ineligibility, in principle, starts on the dateof the final hearing decision. However, because the Player promptly admitted theanti-doping rule violation, the period of Ineligibility could start as early as the dateof Sample collection, but in any event the Player would have to serve at least onehalf of the Ineligibility period (i.e., three months) after the date of the hearing
decision (Article 10.11.2).
5.
Since the Adverse Analytical Finding was committed in a Competition, thepanel would have to automatically Disqualify the result obtained in that Competition(Article 9).

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 2017

68

6.
According to Article 10.8, all results obtained by the Player subsequent to thedate of the Sample collection until the start of the period of Ineligibility would also
be Disqualified unless fairness requires otherwise.
7.
The information referred to in Article 14.3.2 must be Publicly Disclosed,
unless the Player is a Minor, since this is a mandatory part of each sanction (Article
10.13).
8.
The Player is not allowed to participate in any capacity in a Competition orother sport-related activity under the authority of any Signatory or its affiliates
during the Player’s period of Ineligibility (Article 10.12.1). However, the Player
may return to train with a team or to use the facilities of a club or other member
organization of a Signatory or its affiliates during the shorter of: (a) the last twomonths of the Player’s period of Ineligibility, or (b) the last one-quarter of theperiod of Ineligibility imposed (Article 10.12.2). Thus, the Player would be allowed
to return to training one and one-half months before the end of the period of
Ineligibility.
EXAMPLE 2.
Facts: An Adverse Analytical Finding results from the presence of a stimulant which
is a Specified Substance in an In-Competition test (Article 2.1); the Anti-Doping
Organization is able to establish that the Player committed the anti-doping ruleviolation intentionally; the Player is not able to establish that the Prohibited
Substance was Used Out-of-Competition in a context unrelated to sport
performance; the Player does not promptly admit the anti-doping rule violation as
alleged; the Player does provide Substantial Assistance.
Application of Consequences:1.
The starting point would be Article 10.2.
Because the Anti-Doping
Organization can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was committed
intentionally and the Player is unable to establish that the substance was permitted
Out-of-Competition and the Use was unrelated to the Player’s sport performance(Article 10.2.3), the period of Ineligibility would be four years (Article 10.2.1.2).
2.
Because the violation was intentional, there is no room for a reduction basedon Fault (no application of Articles 10.4 and 10.5). Based on Substantial Assistance,
the sanction could be suspended by up to three-quarters of the four years.* The
minimum period of Ineligibility would thus be one year.
3.
Under Article 10.11, the period of Ineligibility would start on the date of the
final hearing decision.
4.
Since the Adverse Analytical Finding was committed in a Competition, thepanel would automatically Disqualify the result obtained in the Competition.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201769

5.
According to Article 10.8, all results obtained by the Player subsequent to thedate of Sample collection until the start of the period of Ineligibility would also be
Disqualified unless fairness requires otherwise.
6.
The information referred to in Article 14.3.2 must be Publicly Disclosed,
unless the Player is a Minor, since this is a mandatory part of each sanction (Article
10.13).
7.
The Player is not allowed to participate in any capacity in a Competition orother sport-related activity under the authority of any Signatory or its affiliates
during the Player’s period of Ineligibility (Article 10.12.1). However, the Player
may return to train with a team or to use the facilities of a club or other member
organization of a Signatory or its affiliates during the shorter of: (a) the last twomonths of the Player’s period of Ineligibility, or (b) the last one-quarter of theperiod of Ineligibility imposed (Article 10.12.2). Thus, the Player would be allowed
to return to training two months before the end of the period of Ineligibility.
EXAMPLE 3.
Facts: An Adverse Analytical Finding results from the presence of an anabolic
steroid in an Out-of-Competition test (Article 2.1); the Player establishes No
Significant Fault or Negligence; the Player also establishes that the Adverse
Analytical Finding was caused by a Contaminated Product.
Application of Consequences:1.
The starting point would be Article 10.2. Because the Player can establish
through corroborating evidence that he did not commit the anti-doping ruleviolation intentionally, i.e., he had No Significant Fault in Using a Contaminated
Product (Articles 10.2.1.1 and 10.2.3), the period of Ineligibility would be two years(Articles 10.2.2).
2.
In a second step, the panel would analyze the Fault-related possibilities for
reductions (Articles 10.4 and 10.5). Since the Player can establish that the antidoping rule violation was caused by a Contaminated Product and that he acted with
No Significant Fault or Negligence based on Article 10.5.1.2, the applicable range
for the period of Ineligibility would be reduced to a range of two years to a
reprimand. The panel would determine the period of Ineligibility within this range,
based on the Player’s degree of Fault. (Assume for purposes of illustration in thisexample that the panel would otherwise impose a period of Ineligibility of fourmonths.)3.
According to Article 10.8, all results obtained by the Player subsequent to thedate of Sample collection until the start of the period of Ineligibility would be
Disqualified unless fairness requires otherwise.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201770

4.
The information referred to in Article 14.3.2 must be Publicly Disclosed,
unless the Player is a Minor, since this is a mandatory part of each sanction (Article
10.13).
5.
The Player is not allowed to participate in any capacity in a Competition orother sport-related activity under the authority of any Signatory or its affiliates
during the Player’s period of Ineligibility (Article 10.12.1). However, the Player
may return to train with a team or to use the facilities of a club or other member
organization of a Signatory or its affiliates during the shorter of: (a) the last twomonths of the Player’s period of Ineligibility, or (b) the last one-quarter of theperiod of Ineligibility imposed (Article 10.12.2). Thus, the Player would be allowed
to return to training one month before the end of the period of Ineligibility.
EXAMPLE 4.
Facts:A Player who has never had an Adverse Analytical Finding or been
confronted with an anti-doping rule violation spontaneously admits that she Usedan anabolic steroid to enhance her performance.
The Player also provides
Substantial Assistance.
Application of Consequences:1.
Since the violation was intentional, Article 10.2.1 would be applicable and thebasic period of Ineligibility imposed would be four years.
2.
There is no room for Fault-related reductions of the period of Ineligibility (noapplication of Articles 10.4 and 10.5).
3.
Based on the Player’s spontaneous admission (Article 10.6.2) alone, theperiod of Ineligibility could be reduced by up to one-half of the four years. Basedon the Player’s Substantial Assistance (Article 10.6.1) alone, the period of
Ineligibility could be suspended up to three-quarters of the four years.* Under
Article 10.6.4, in considering the spontaneous admission and Substantial Assistance
together, the most the sanction could be reduced or suspended would be up to
three-quarters of the four years. The minimum period of Ineligibility would be oneyear.
4.
The period of Ineligibility, in principle, starts on the day of the final hearing
decision (Article 10.11).
If the spontaneous admission is factored into the
reduction of the period of Ineligibility, an early start of the period of Ineligibility
under Article 10.11.2 would not be permitted. The provision seeks to prevent a
Player from benefitting twice from the same set of circumstances. However, if theperiod of Ineligibility was suspended solely on the basis of Substantial Assistance,
Article 10.11.2 may still be applied, and the period of Ineligibility started as early as
the Player’s last Use of the anabolic steroid.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201771

5.
According to Article 10.8, all results obtained by the Player subsequent to thedate of the anti-doping rule violation until the start of the period of Ineligibility
would be Disqualified unless fairness requires otherwise.
6.
The information referred to in Article 14.3.2 must be Publicly Disclosed,
unless the Player is a Minor, since this is a mandatory part of each sanction (Article
10.13).
7.
The Player is not allowed to participate in any capacity in a Competition orother sport-related activity under the authority of any Signatory or its affiliates
during the Player’s period of Ineligibility (Article 10.12.1). However, the Player
may return to train with a team or to use the facilities of a club or other member
organization of a Signatory or its affiliates during the shorter of: (a) the last twomonths of the Player’s period of Ineligibility, or (b) the last one-quarter of theperiod of Ineligibility imposed (Article 10.12.2). Thus, the Player would be allowed
to return to training two months before the end of the period of Ineligibility.
EXAMPLE 5.
Facts:A Player Support Person helps to circumvent a period of Ineligibility imposed on aPlayer by entering him into a Competition under a false name. The Player Support
Person comes forward with this anti-doping rule violation (Article 2.9)
spontaneously before being notified of an anti-doping rule violation by an AntiDoping Organization.
Application of Consequences:1.
According to Article 10.3.4, the period of Ineligibility would be from two up to
four years, depending on the seriousness of the violation. (Assume for purposes ofillustration in this example that the panel would otherwise impose a period of
Ineligibility of three years.)
2.
There is no room for Fault-related reductions since intent is an element of
the anti-doping rule violation in Article 2.9 (see comment to Article 10.5.2).
3.
According to Article 10.6.2, provided that the admission is the only reliable
evidence, the period of Ineligibility may be reduced down to one-half. (Assume forpurposes of illustration in this example that the panel would impose a period of
Ineligibility of 18 months.)
4.
The information referred to in Article 14.3.2 must be Publicly Disclosed
unless the Player Support Person is a Minor, since this is a mandatory part of eachsanction (Article 10.13).

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201772

EXAMPLE 6.
Facts: A Player was sanctioned for a first anti-doping rule violation with a period of
Ineligibility of 14 months, of which four months were suspended because of
Substantial Assistance.
Now, the Player commits a second anti-doping ruleviolation resulting from the presence of a stimulant which is not a Specified
Substance in an In-Competition test (Article 2.1); the Player establishes No
Significant Fault or Negligence; and the Player provided Substantial Assistance. If
this were a first violation, the panel would sanction the Player with a period of
Ineligibility of 16 months and suspend six months for Substantial Assistance.
Application of Consequences:1.
Article 10.7 is applicable to the second anti-doping rule violation because
Article 10.7.4.1 and Article 10.7.5 apply.
2.

Under Article 10.7.1, the period of Ineligibility would be the greater of:
(a)
(b)

(c)

six months;
one-half of the period of Ineligibility imposed for the first anti-doping
rule violation without taking into account any reduction under Article
10.6 (in this example, that would equal one-half of 14 months, which
is seven months); or
twice the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable to the second antidoping rule violation treated as if it were a first violation, without
taking into account any reduction under Article 10.6 (in this example,
that would equal two times 16 months, which is 32 months).

Thus, the period of Ineligibility for the second violation would be the greater of (a),(b) and (c), which is a period of Ineligibility of 32 months.
3.
In a next step, the panel would assess the possibility for suspension or
reduction under Article 10.6 (non-Fault-related reductions). In the case of thesecond violation, only Article 10.6.1 (Substantial Assistance) applies. Based on
Substantial Assistance, the period of Ineligibility could be suspended by threequarters of 32 months.* The minimum period of Ineligibility would thus be eightmonths. (Assume for purposes of illustration in this example that the panel
suspends eight months of the period of Ineligibility for Substantial Assistance, thus
reducing the period of Ineligibility imposed to two years.)
4.
Since the Adverse Analytical Finding was committed in a Competition, thepanel would automatically Disqualify the result obtained in the Competition.
5.
According to Article 10.8, all results obtained by the Player subsequent to thedate of Sample collection until the start of the period of Ineligibility would also be
Disqualified unless fairness requires otherwise.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201773

6.
The information referred to in Article 14.3.2 must be Publicly Disclosed,
unless the Player is a Minor, since this is a mandatory part of each sanction (Article
10.13).
7.
The Player is not allowed to participate in any capacity in a Competition orother sport-related activity under the authority of any Signatory or its affiliates
during the Player’s period of Ineligibility (Article 10.12.1). However, the Player
may return to train with a team or to use the facilities of a club or other member
organization of a Signatory or its affiliates during the shorter of: (a) the last twomonths of the Player’s period of Ineligibility, or (b) the last one-quarter of theperiod of Ineligibility imposed (Article 10.12.2). Thus, the Player would be allowed
to return to training two months before the end of the period of Ineligibility______________________________*
Upon the approval of WADA in exceptional circumstances, the maximum
suspension of the period of Ineligibility for Substantial Assistance may be greaterthan three-quarters, and reporting and publication may be delayed.

BWF Anti-Doping Regulations – Effective Date – 1 January 2015 - – Amended 25 May 201774