King Boonen said:
Did you even read the abstract? The kids were not aware they had EIA until they were tested. If young Froome was like one of those kids, he wouldn’t know he had EIA, wouldn’t have used an inhaler, and wouldn’t years later be able to say he did. In fact, Froome has specifically said he uses it only for “great efforts”, implying that is the only time he has a problem. If he didn’t make such great efforts as a youth, how would he know?
A compromise is reached. A solution is found. The evidence is accepted. Froome is off the hook despite the inexplicable levels of Salbutamol. And we all go back to thinking we’re in the clean era of cycling again.
I think this is overly pessimistic. If a deal is made, it might be for, say, a six month back-dated suspension, as Benotti notes. He would lose the Vuelta, but return in early March, in time to prepare for the double. I think if Froome knows he can’t pass the lab test, he would accept that. A Giro-TDF would be a bigger deal than a Tour-Vuelta double, and he could always go for the Vuelta again in 2019.
More generally, I see only three reasons why this doesn’t go directly to CAS:
1) Froome is able to pass the lab test (unlikely)
2) WADA/UCI don’t agree to go directly to CAS (I can’t remember if both parties have to agree*)
3) A deal like the one suggested above is struck.
As corollaries, if there is an announcement soon that Froome wants to go to CAS directly, take that as meaning almost with certainty that he knows he can't pass the test. And conversely, if he goes ahead with the test, it very likely means a deal has been struck that Froome thinks is light enough to be worth taking.
*Edit: As far as I can tell, the athlete can appeal directly to CAS. While WADA or UCI can object, CAS itself rules on the objection. So at the very least, if Froome were to appeal directly to CAS and there was resistance, there would be a period of some time before it was decided the case could not go there.
When an objection to CAS jurisdiction is raised, the CAS Court Office or the Panel, if already constituted, shall invite the opposing party (parties) to file written submissions on jurisdiction. The Panel may rule on its jurisdiction either in a preliminary decision or in an award on the merits.
http://www.tas-cas.org/en/arbitration/code-procedural-rules.html
Would WADA/UCI object? On the one hand, Froome's being the biggest name in the sport, they would probably want the matter resolved at the highest level, with all possible arguments for and against entertained. OTOH, it will look bad if Froome goes for the Giro/Tour double with his status uncertain. Other contenders will be racing knowing that a second place might turn out to be a win, a fourth place a podium.
Wrt distinguishing inhaled vs. oral, to repeat, there’s no established test AFAIK. There are ways in principle to do it, but since some of any inhaled dose will probably be swallowed, it’s difficult. If you search through the WADA website, you will find projects of this kind, which means researchers are actively trying to devise a test, but have not yet created one that is accepted as WADA protocol. The bottom line is if there were a simple, approved test to distinguish the two, then it would be used routinely whenever an athlete exceeded the threshold, just as, e.g., when an athlete’s T/E ratio exceeds a threshold, the isotope test is applied.
That said, if the case does go to CAS, there will certainly be some attempt to apply a test of this kind to Froome’s samples. It's not necessary at CAS to refer only to accepted protocols, any evidence can be put on the table, with the arbiters being left to judge its value.