Also of note is that David Walsh is now squarely and finally chiming in. Recall that Walsh was the most staunch of advocates for Team Sky, Bradley Wiggins (until he wasn't) and now Chris Froome (which he still is). As of today, the lastest from Walsh, with his inside view to Team Sky, is that the team, Froome and team doctor Derick McLeod "addressed [Froome's] respiratory problems (before the Vuelta stage in question) by increasing the number of puffs from the inhaler ... but since being caught inhaling on camera during the second stage of the 2014 Criterium du Dauphine, he had decided against using his inhaler in races ... that evening at the finish (of the Vuelta stage in question), wanting to show he was healthy, [Froome] took two or three puffs from his inhaler hoping he would cough less or not at all through the post-race interviews."
This irrational explanation begs a few questions. (1) Why would Froome take a few puffs directly before going into doping control? (2) Had he ever taken a few puffs in a similar situation in any of his previous races and then passed doping control? (3) Did anyone with a video camera or phone camera capture these puffs on film? Surely, with the press swarming him post-stage SOMEBODY captured the moment, right? (4) Why wouldn't Froome still be hacking up the vestiges of being asthamtic during the stage if, indeed, he took no puffs during the stage but did so after? (5) Or, did he use the puffer during the stage even though he supposedly made the decision to never use it again in competition?
The convoluted contradictions of the above quoted statement versus what we've been told during the past few days are many. The chasm between reality and the spin we're being fed today is broader than the Grand Canyon. The questions I pose above are just a few that quickly came to mind. Never mind so many others that have already been asked but not answered. Never mind the complete inconsistencies between Froome's lab stress test results regarding his sweat rate and the massive dehydration that supposedly occurred on a cool, rainy day. Never mind that the sport scientist who performed that lab stress test could only shrug his shoulders and say the Vuelta stage must have been some wild, one-off metabolic anomaly.
Just how many caveats and excuses and wild ass reasons is the general public supposed to believe?
Occam's Razor comes to mind. It speaks to the law of parsimony, that any example of animal behavior should be interpreted at its simplest, most immediate level. It is a philosophical principle, and it is this. When there are competing explanations for an occurrence, the simpler (or simplest) one is typically both better and more accurate. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.
How many assumptions are we being told to make with Chris Froome?