Doping

"Crossing an ethical line" is bullshit. There are no grey areas, they either broke the rules or they didn't and, as no charges have been brought by UKAD, WADA or the UCI, they didn't break the rules.

Only if you assume that 'the rules' are the only ethical standard around, but they're not. It's perfectly possible for someone to do something wrong for which no crime or offence is defined on the statute book. You can say, technically, that they haven't 'committed a crime' in that case if you assume that crimes are only defined by law, but I think most people would probably accept that you can use the term 'crime' loosely for things that the law hasn't captured.

In terms of judicial proceedings, of course, you're right that what matters is whether they broke the rules or not, and it is obviously useful to stick to prosecuting people only for what's been agreed in law, not least because different people's 'ethical lines' are widely different, but changing awareness of what is ethical or not can also lead to changes in law.

I do think it's a fallacy to say that 'as no charges have been brought by UKAD, WADA or the UCI, they didn't break the rules'--the reason why no charges have been brought may just be because there's a lack of evidence. I mean, they still don't seem to have been able to see through the concealment the Jiffy bag provided. :)