In terms of outcome, I think conditions would be unlikely even if no more is found than has already been admitted. Conditions are normally used where there are discreet clinical failings which can be addressed by, for example, further training, audit, or supervision from someone more experienced. It would be unusual - not impossible, but unusual - to use conditions for behavioural or attitudinal concerns.
I think the GMC would also be concerned about whether he would comply with conditions, given he has effectively ignored two warnings so far.
I stuck my flag in a 6-9 month suspension on the previous thread. I still think that's the most likely outcome, but I think the VICE article may - may! - have the potential to push it into erasure territory, particularly if it is established that he wrongfully shared confidential information. Clearly that last is pure speculation at this stage.
In practice, there may not be a lot of difference between suspension and erasure. A suspension would normally be reviewed before it finishes and then the onus is on the doctor to convince the next panel that they have mended their ways. As an illustration, there was a dentist suspended a few years ago initially for a few months (six possibly? I forget) for posting anti-Islamic comments who remains suspended now because, three or four years on, he has yet to convince a panel that the penny has dropped.
A suspension says that hte panel considers that the doctor is capable of returning to unrestricted practice, but that he/she isn't there yet, and the ball is entirely in their court as to whether they ever get there.