Tour de France’s final stage in Paris shortened due to “exceptional circumstances” caused by wildfires

@Rendel Harris It looks like UKAD exonerated her, but that wasn't good enough for WADA, which decided that the source could not be unambiguously identified. So "the authorities" are really two authorities that disagree.

@Rendel Harris : cutting some corners, it's a watered down form of strict -or rather: absolute- liability. The only thing that needs to be established is that a situation 'x' (such as the presence of a prohibited substance) occurred. Whether it was intentional, whether someone was negligent or not, whether the concentration was such that it could not foreseeably have had any effect....none of those things matter in the least once the objective fact has been established. The only defence that appears to be open is conclusive proof that the substance was inadvertently ingested through contaminated foodstuffs and that the defendant could not have been aware of this. That's an almost impossible burden of proof.

@Xenophon2 Yes, strict liability exists for a reason, and as you say, professional athletes treat keeping on top of everything as part of the job, and allow time and money for them/their team to double check purchases and keep appropriate records etc. My issue is that the punishment should reflect how plausible it was that it were an accident, as well as any theoretical advantages. They should also consider the financial position of the athlete. Someone who lives well from prize money and lucrative sponsorship deals should reasonably be expected to have more resources to protect themselves from accidental ingestion, and they'll also be able to weather a suspension. I'm assuming there's not much money in paracycling, so a two year suspension is severe. I'd have thought a year more than sufficient to make a point.

@wtjs

@mitsky A force spokesperson said the distance he gave was “significantly less than the car he reported earlier had given him” This confirms my oft-repeated statement that the people the police really dislike and will try every dodge to prosecute are not offenders but those who report offences they don't want to know about (which is pretty much any offence by drivers such as No MOT for years, handheld mobile use, unbroken white line offences, red light offences), especially if the police are presented with indisputable evidence- they REALLY hate that! These two offences are at the same position and in the same direction ttps://upride.cc/incident/kn21axh_lancspolice_closepass/ ttps://upride.cc/incident/px12dnv_stagecoach41_closepass/ Needless to say, Lancashire Constabulary ignored both of them. The police reference numbers for the reports are (just for the record) are LANCSPE-188202 17.3.25 (this is the report to LC's DoItOnline portal where incidents are always rapidly closed by an un-named officer, which I submitted because there was, as expected, no response at all from OpSnap Lancs.) and APL198377 23.7.26 (this is the OpSnap type of reference). Police corruption is rife in the UK!

Usually, there's a valid engineering reason behind things being the way they are and barring a genius who invents something truly innovative that can be backed up by data most of these outlying designs are either rubbish or bring nothing (except weight). Thanks for showing but I'l pass.

I don't understand how the authorities can say they accept the substance was ingested inadvertently when at the same time banning her for not being able to say from whence the substance came? One would have thought to prove the first proposition one would need proof of the second. Not in any way suggesting she is guilty of deliberate doping, but it doesn't seem logical.

This ruling needs to be challenged and overturned. "Cyclist who reported bad driving told to pay £1,200 over bad riding ... police said the video also captured him "riding without due care and attention" as he approached a parked car and an oncoming vehicle. A force spokesperson said the distance he gave was "significantly less than the car he reported earlier had given him"." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cd9w2l2wqvdo

It's extremely unfortunate in this case but the problem is, if the rules are any different, they'll immediately be exploited. Professional athletes go to incredible lengths with their nutrition and supplement purchases, to the extent that they only source from providers that do their own checking + that they keep sealed samples of the batches they purchase. For someone who doesn't have an entire team behind him/her that's just not feasible. I personally know someone who got 'caught' and fined + suspended, also with a dose that was 'sub physiologic concentration' but nothing to be done. No idea about the source. 6 months later it turned out that the 'bio' farmer where he purchased meat got caught for having administered hormonal substances to his cattle. But nothing to be done, he had to prove that the stuff that he had ordered at the time was contaminated. All costs for analysis of course to be borne by him. Where I am even recreational riders like myself -could never have made a living out of riding, never came even close to being good enough- are subject to tests and after a completely non-competitive gravel event that to me was strictly for fun even I got selected for testing. Strange feeling, having to pee in a cup with a guy watching. Anyway, it was negative.

@OnYerBike That is absolutely insane. How can you be fined for close passing a car coming the other way when you're on your side of the white line? When there is no mandatory or suggested rule regarding how closely a cyclist can pass a car? Cars pass each other like that all the time, if they didn't the roads would literally grind to a halt. If the cyclist is close passing the oncoming car whilst on their own side of the road, why isn't the car driver being fined for close passing the cyclist? The cyclist should appeal as the magistrates are clearly wrong in their interpretation of the law.