Publications

The 2026 edition of the Tour De France (the Tour) brought the sport of road cycling back into the spotlight due to doping controversies. However, unlike the infamous events of the sport’s past, this controversy was not due to what the doping tests found but rather how they were conducted. The race’s top two competitors, Jonas Vingegaard (Vingegaard) and Tadej Pogacar (Pogacar), were both subject to overnight anti-doping testing on the eve of Stage 15, one of the race’s most anticipated days of competition. This drew significant attention and outrage from competitors and fans alike, not only because of the unorthodox and unprecedented testing protocol, but also due to the race-ending crash suffered by Vingegaard the following day. Later reports have since indicated that five other teams were subject to overnight testing at some point during the race.

Pundits speculated that the disturbance in sleep, compounded by the immense fatigue typical of such a brutal event, impacted Vingegaard’s concentration and contributed to the crash. Fans have noted that Vingegaard, a two-time winner of the Tour, has otherwise never failed to complete the Tour, nor has he ever failed to achieve a podium finish at the event. Commentary following the event ranged from criticism of the International Testing Agency (ITA) for conducting such a burdensome test, to fellow riders and fans suggesting that the test should have been refused.

Source of authority

One of the major hurdles in navigating anti-doping policy lies in the hierarchy of policy-making authority. While almost all sporting codes and governing bodies fall under the jurisdiction of the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) and accordingly adopt WADA’s International Standards for Testing and Investigations (ITSI), this is rarely done with total uniformity. That is, minor changes to the rules have often been made by the various codes and governing bodies when adopting the WADA ISTI.

In the case of Vingegaard and Pogacar, they were subject not only to the WADA ISTI, but also the Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) of the international governing body for cycling, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), as well as French domestic law.

In accordance with UCI ADR Article 5.2.2, any rider under its authority may be required to provide a sample at any time and at any place.1 Additionally, under WADA ISTI Article 4.5.5, testing is to generally take place between 6am and 11pm unless one of two conditions apply:

i. The athlete stipulates a 60 minute timeslot from 5am; or

ii. Valid grounds exist for overnight testing between 11pm and 6am (the Overnight Window).

In furtherance of this general rule, the UCI, in comment to Article 5.2.2, has undertaken to not test a rider during the Overnight Window unless “it has a serious and specific suspicion that the rider may be engaged in doping”. This is echoed in French domestic law, which is also applicable, given the Tour de France largely takes place on French soil. The ‘Code du Sport’ requires the presence of “serious and consistent suspicions” that an athlete has, or will, violate anti-doping rules or poses a risk to evidence. French law also requires judicial authorisation before a test can be conducted during the Overnight Window, which is a hurdle not found in the other relevant policies.

The need for overnight testing

The testing of Vingegaard and Pogacar was unprecedented – with Vingegaard himself admitting that he did not initially think it was allowed. However, it is not without sound reason. Following the doping scandals of the infamous ‘Lance Armstrong era’ of cycling, the UCI established the Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC), who conducted an “…independent investigation into the causes of the pattern of doping that developed within cycling and allegations which implicate the UCI and other governing bodies and officials over ineffective investigation of such doping practices”.

The CIRC report was published in March 2015 and amongst a host of other findings, it noted that the Overnight Window (identified in the report as the ‘no testing window’) “…helps riders who micro-dose from being caught”.

Micro-dosing, as the CIRC report defines it, involves an athlete taking “small, barely detectable amounts of a substance”. The report acknowledges that this can allow dopers to keep their blood parameters constant and enables them to avoid detection. When the report was published, the primary concern regarding micro-dosing was with respect to the use of erythropoietin (EPO). However, if one is willing to be speculative, it is not hard to image that, in the roughly ten years since the publishing of the report, pharmacology has most certainly advanced significantly such that a newer substance that can be effectively micro-dosed may well exist. Accordingly, the report recommended that the UCI should make greater use of the “serious and specific suspicion” exemption to article 5.2 of its own Anti-Doping Rules.

What counts as “suspicion” and did it apply to Vingegaard and Pogacar?

The UCI ADR does not expressly define the criteria for “serious and specific suspicion”. To gain further clarity, it is necessary to return to the WADA ISTI. While the WADA ISTI does not define “serious and specific suspicion”, it does detail how testing is prioritised and targeted.

Testing prioritisation relates to sports and events, and is done with consideration of the event level (international, national, etc) and the type of sport (for example, a National Anti-Doping Organisation may prioritise resources to Olympic sports over non-Olympic sports.

Target testing is likely relevant to the case of Vingegaard and Pogacar. The WADA ISTI stipulates that, once prioritisation has been established, anti-doping organisations may consider conducting targeted testing, noting that random testing does not ensure that the appropriate athletes will be tested enough. Under Article 4.5.2, athletes who compete internationally at high level events will be considered for targeted testing by international bodies, with consideration for rankings and other suitable criteria. For National Anti-Doping Organisations, targeted athletes may include those who are part of national teams for major events, who receive public funding, or who train or compete abroad.

Given their rankings in the Tour de France at the time of the overnight test (second and first respectively) as well as their exceptional performance history, Vingegaard and Pogacar almost certainly fit the criteria for ‘targeted athletes’.

The WADA ISTI also provides further factors that may be considered in determining targeted testing. Such factors include:

1. prior anti-doping violations;

2. sports performance history;

3. moving to or training in a remote location and financial incentives for improved performance.

The list is non-exhaustive, and though it does not specifically define “serious and specific suspicion”, it does provide an initial guide as to the considerations that may be made when anti-doping organisations conduct overnight testing.

The question remains – why were Vingegaard and Pogacar tested, or rather, what specifically were the suspicions? The information submitted to the French judiciary has not been made publicly available, however, a recent statement by UCI president David Lappartient sheds light on the matter. Lappartient has stated that the testing was “not suspicion about any rider, but it’s a global message to the bunch.” Such a statement, while it may quell any scepticism regarding the legitimacy of the performances by Vingegaard and Pogacar, does not settle the overall controversy. Instead, it highlights some significant issues with respect to athlete rights in the anti-doping process.

Overnight testing and athlete rights

Notable commentary following the testing of Vingegaard and Pogacar at the 2026 Tour suggested that the two ought to have refused to comply with the test, or that they should have ‘slept through’ the knock on the door and ‘accidentally’ missed the test. Such defiance sounds noble in theory, but is it advisable?

The relevant policies are inescapably clear on this issue. Under the UCI ADR, it is an anti-doping violation to evade, refuse or fail to submit to sample collection. It is noted that a violation of ‘failing to submit’ may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct by an athlete, while ‘evading’ or ‘refusing’ sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the athlete. Similarly, WADA’s ISTI holds that an athlete may not refuse to submit to a sample collection on the basis that it is not being conducted during the usual hours of 6am and 11pm.

As they stand, the rules are not clear as to the consequences for those athletes who may genuinely sleep through or otherwise miss an overnight test. It may be debatable whether such an instance would amount to a ‘Missed Test’, as defined in the WADA International Standards for Results Management (ISRM). Under WADA’s ISRM, a ‘Missed Test’ typically applies to a failure to comply with ‘Whereabouts’ obligations. An athlete may only be declared to have committed a ‘Missed Test’ where each of the following can be established:

1. The athlete was notified that they were designated to be included in a ‘registered testing pool’, and that failure to be available during the 60-minute timeslot specified by the athlete would see them liable for a ‘Missed Test’;

2. A test was attempted during the specified 60-minute timeslot by visiting the place nominated by the athlete;

3. Reasonable steps were taken to find the athlete, short of giving them advanced notice;

4. Subsequent attempts have also failed, after the athlete was notified of the first failed attempt; and

5. The athlete’s non-availability during the specified 60-minute timeslot was at least negligent – negligence will be presumed upon proof of the above factors, though is rebuttable by the athlete by establishing that a failure to be available for the test, or to update their ‘Whereabouts’ information, was not due to negligent behaviour.

The key obstacle in navigating this framework is that overnight testing does not occur during an athlete’s specified 60-minute timeslot. If overnight testing is to become a more frequently used weapon in the fight against doping, greater clarity is needed to enable athletes to understand their responsibilities and the consequences should they fail to meet them.

Further concerns regarding athlete rights were raised by the reasons, or perhaps the lack thereof, for the testing conducted on Vingegaard and Pogacar. Indeed, the comments by Lappartient would indicate that little, if any, consideration was given to the threshold requirement of “serious and specific suspicion”. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to question whether athletes have any right to refuse or challenge the test.

On this matter the relevant rules are again quite clear. The UCI ADR states that a challenge to whether sufficient suspicion existed to justify testing during the Overnight Window shall not be a defence to an anti-doping rule violation based on such test or attempted test. It is important to note that anti-doping rule violations are not only limited to testing positive for prohibited substances, but also includes, as noted above, evading, refusing or failing to submit to a test. The rules, as they stand, offer athletes effectively no capacity to challenge overnight testing and athletes must, accordingly, ensure compliance should they find themselves subject to such testing.

Considerations

The overnight doping control testing of Vingegaard and Pogacar at the 2026 Tour is significant in several ways. It is potentially the beginning of a new phase in the effort to keep sport ‘clean’, with testing authorities willing to impose themselves to ever greater extents to prevent the use of prohibited substances.

Athletes ought to remind themselves of the intricacy of anti-doping policy and be aware of the jurisdiction/s that they are under when competing and the specific rules/laws which apply to the governance of their sport and the nature of the event involved in.

For athletes competing in Australia, anti-doping policy is governed by Sports Integrity Australia (SIA) under Australian National Anti-Doping Policy (ANADP). Athletes should know if the governing body of their sport has chosen to adopt and, importantly, if SIA has approved any variations to the ANADP to facilitate the adoption of the framework.

It is also a stark reminder to athletes of the power possessed by these authorities, and the lack of autonomy that athletes have under the current framework. The case of Vingegaard and Pogacar reveals that compliance is the only option available to athletes subject to anti-doping testing.

Final considerations including evaluating the risk of abuse of process in doping control, noting the comments of Lappartient indicating that the threshold of “serious and specific suspicion” was seemingly neither observed by the ITA, nor enforced by French authorities. Without effective checks on the jurisdiction of anti-doping authorities, athletes, and possibly the reputation of sport and competition generally, stands to suffer. Policy makers ought to consider if further parameters are appropriate to confine the power of anti-doping bodies.

The impact of the overnight testing conducted on Vingegaard and Pogacar will undoubtedly impact the evolution of anti-doping policy and enforcement – both in Australia and internationally. We will keep you updated as to all developments as they arise.

This article was published on 18 September 2026 by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers and is based on the relevant state of the law (legislation, regulations and case law) at that date for the jurisdiction in which it is published. Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. If you ever need legal advice or want to discuss a legal problem, please contact us to see if we can help. You can reach us on 1800 059 278 or via the Contact us page on our website. (www.codea.com.au). If you or a loved one has been injured, use our Personal injury Claim Check now.