Where are these numbers of Tucker? I don't see them on his twitter feed. Not at Alpe's link, nor at sportsscientists.com
In any case, I see a lot of "I'm so depressed, I give up, he's not going to be banned." I'm not buying that. Froome can do many seemingly impossible things, but he can't reinvent the science of salbutamol. You can drop tired, physically inferior riders, you can't drop scientific facts. Nothing that has been made public so far indicates that he will avoid a ban--including a lot of empirical data. If Froome is exonerated, and the details aren't published, there will be very justifiable accusations that the system is rigged. If he does publish the details, he will be inviting rebuttals from many scientists, including this one.
The only sop I see Froome getting is that a ban will be proactive, allowing him to keep the Giro. That can easily be rationalized by the rules, and I don't think Haas wants to nullify the Giro unless there is a compelling reason why a ban has to be back-dated. Then the main question is whether the decision will come before the Tour. If it doesn't, again, there will be very justifiable complaints that the system is rigged. Nine months is enough time.
Let's not forget that the purpose of a doping ban is not just to nullify results obtained when the rider tested positive. It's also intended to prevent him from getting other results later, even when he hasn't tested positive. Without this penalty, a rider would have little to lose by doping, if he thought he couldn't win a particular race without doing so. A message is supposed to be sent that you have a lot more to lose than just the race you doped in. By delaying the decision to after the Giro, that message has already been compromised to some extent, and if it's delayed till after the Tour, it will be compromised further.
If Froome had admitted to inhaling too much, and could perhaps provide some evidence of that, I think just stripping him of the Vuelta, without further penalty, might be justifiable, though it would be a more lenient sentence than what others have received. But he's insisted he didn't inhale too much, which puts him in a situation where lack of an explanation has to result in a serious ban. It was his choice to make this full exoneration vs. a very stiff penalty. I think allowing him to ride the Giro and maybe the Tour has seriously undercut that. He's basically been allowed to gamble with house money.