Hmm. I don't see that the sources in this article are being used to drive a synthesis, and I've never claimed that anything was "against the rules". There are no rules. However I did point out that so-called reliable secondary sources may not be always be reliable. As it happens the (unreliable) BBC source I referred-to was the content of that evening's news broadcast and therefore rather transient and not exactly citable anyway. The BBC's news ticker page covering the TdF was running entirely in km and km/h that day (and every other day), ITV4's live coverage was mostly in km and km/h (with just a few "that's 10 miles" type of comments interjected presumably to aid the one viewer who was too thick to work out what a "kill-Ommeter" was), and British Eurosport's live coverage was entirely in km and km/h. As you'd expect. My comment was only intended to show that sometimes articles need more than the recommended amount of primary sourcing just to avoid the tendency of secondary sources to translate stuff. No - I'd not expect anything "could be written based on it".