Should they keep them out of the Tour?

I think they should, it was a tighter race throughout and I'm not just talking about CSC vs Evans.

I don't think they use time bonus enough, or they don't use them in the way that they could to make it more competitive. I think they should experiment with time bonus in such a way that someone who has better sprinting ability than a normal GC contender could possibly factor into the yellow jersey. I think of it this way. There are three classes of abilities in a cyclist:
1) Climbing
2) Time Trialing
3) Sprinting

Abilities 1 and 2 are both important for GC contenders. Ability 3 is usually not a factor. I would like to see GC determined by a balance of all 3 abilities.

Is this realistically possible? I don't know.

i don't like time bonuses. live with what ya get. they can make way too big an impact in a close race. it's an artificial input to the system

At the start of the Tour, I didn't like the fact that they did away with the time bonus. By the end of the race, I'd changed my mind, because (being a woman) I'm allowed to do that. :D

At the start of the Tour, I didn't like the fact that they did away with the time bonus. By the end of the race, I'd changed my mind, because (being a woman) I'm allowed to do that. :D

I agree, and I don't the being a woman part! I didn't like the fact that they had done away with them until 5-6 days in. I could see riders were really having to fight for time, and I like that.

Personally, I like time bonuses, to give a little more motivation/reward to winning a stage.

Personally, I like time bonuses, to give a little more motivation/reward to winning a stage.

+1.

To the extent there's been any recurrent critisicm of this year's Tour, its the lack of attacks. Many people bemoan the fact that Evans sat in the entire race and almost won without ever really contesting a stage.

A 20 second time bonus at the top of L'Alpe on Stage 17, might have changed the dynamics a bit.

Reasonable time bonuses for stage winners certainly increase the incentive to attack. And they also increase, not decrease, the cahnce of a close race, because riders that are behind on GC have a chance to make up more ground by taking stage wins.

And to address the "artificial construct" argument, all the rules are artificial constructs. Unless you want to run it like RAAM, and just make it one stage total elapsed time for 3 weeks, everything the organizers do in setting the lengths of stages, where stages finish, etc. is an artificial construct, that affects the cnahces of various riders.

And in this case, time bonuses are a time honored artificial construct.

+1.

Reasonable time bonuses for stage winners certainly increase the incentive to attack. And they also increase, not decrease, the chance of a close race, because riders that are behind on GC have a chance to make up more ground by taking stage wins.

That was one of my reasons for liking them at the start. I never cared for the "sharing" that went on when 2 guys finished a mountain stage together, one rider being "given" the win while the other was satisfied to gain time. He could gain even more by grabbing the extra time bonus!

Then as the Tour went on, I kept thinking, "Why bonus a rider who's already winning a stage?"

This fence is awful easy to hop over. :D

+1.

To the extent there's been any recurrent critisicm of this year's Tour, its the lack of attacks. Many people bemoan the fact that Evans sat in the entire race and almost won without ever really contesting a stage.

A 20 second time bonus at the top of L'Alpe on Stage 17, might have changed the dynamics a bit.

Reasonable time bonuses for stage winners certainly increase the incentive to attack. And they also increase, not decrease, the cahnce of a close race, because riders that are behind on GC have a chance to make up more ground by taking stage wins.

I really like no time bonuses. Make it a total time race. That makes a lot of sense and made it easier to follow.

To liken it to Evans strategy well... Evans rode for 2nd place. He didn't ride to win. He sat back and rode a calculated race to do what he could to minimize his time without having to attack, team issues not withstanding. No attack, no risk, no win. Them's the breaks.

Sastre rode well, went on the attack, and had a team to back him up. It was the right combination for this year. Next year, I expect that other teams will learn from what CSC did and the race will be more interesting.

But Evans? He rode for 2nd, not to win.

^ Point being if there was 20 seconds available to the stage winner, Evans would have to calculate that in his decision whether to let Sastre go, and whether to attack the rest of the chase group to get the 8 seconds for second place.

So the time bonuses change the calculations slightly toward favoring more aggressive riding.

If there aren't time bonuses, then they need to stop the "everyone in the peleton gets the same time" rule too.

I might agree that everyone keeping a different time for every stage would be a book keeping nightmare, but frankly, why should the first place rider busting his gut to win the stage get the same time as the guy riding the tail end of the peleton across the line 20 seconds later?

If we really want the best all around cyclist, let's include sprinters too... The current process almost exclusively favors climbers and time trialers.

Personally, I like time bonuses, to give a little more motivation/reward to winning a stage.

i think winning a stage is pretty good motivation to win a stage

+1.

To the extent there's been any recurrent critisicm of this year's Tour, its the lack of attacks. Many people bemoan the fact that Evans sat in the entire race and almost won without ever really contesting a stage.

A 20 second time bonus at the top of L'Alpe on Stage 17, might have changed the dynamics a bit.

Reasonable time bonuses for stage winners certainly increase the incentive to attack. And they also increase, not decrease, the cahnce of a close race, because riders that are behind on GC have a chance to make up more ground by taking stage wins.

evans' sitting in had nothing to do with time bonuses. that's the way he rides. he did the same thing last year when there were time bonuses. so in his case, it's a non-issue

i don't think a time bonus on top of l'alpe would have made any difference at all. evans couldn't catch sastre no matter what. bonuses had nothing to do with it

time bonuses can make a race close by letting those behind close the difference quickly. the lack of time bonuses can keep a race close by not allowing someone to build a gigantic lead. that argument goes both ways

And to address the "artificial construct" argument, all the rules are artificial constructs. Unless you want to run it like RAAM, and just make it one stage total elapsed time for 3 weeks, everything the organizers do in setting the lengths of stages, where stages finish, etc. is an artificial construct, that affects the cnahces of various riders.

And in this case, time bonuses are a time honored artificial construct.

while, in the extreme, every rule is an artificiality, i think that's taking it a bit far. time bonuses are an artificiality in that you do nothing extra to earn extra time. if i give my best and you beat me by 5 seconds, why should that magically become 25 seconds? you want 25 seconds out of me, then try and take it out of me. you sound like you don't like the idea of the race being simple elapsed time for 3 weeks. i don't have a problem with that idea

Evans rode for 2nd place. He didn't ride to win. He sat back and rode a calculated race to do what he could to minimize his time without having to attack, team issues not withstanding. No attack, no risk, no win.

His approach ended up only good for 2nd place, but believe me, he fully intended to win and his strategy was designed to get him the win. Everything was calculated to the nanosecond and if the last TT has followed usual form (Evans about 2 mins faster than Sastre over a 60K TT), he would have.

I say, bring back the bonuses to encourage attacks. This year's tour was close, but it had a remarkable shortage of GC contenders going out on the attack.

On the "purity" argument of no time bonuses, I don't get it. The rule where everyone gets the same time if you finish in a pack is anything but pure - why should the guy sucking wheel the whole race at the very back of the peleton get the same time as the guy who wins the race and finishes 30 seconds ahead? There are tens of rules like this.

- Mark

If there aren't time bonuses, then they need to stop the "everyone in the peleton gets the same time" rule too.
...

I have to disagree here. Vs. might like all the crashes that would result, but there would be carnage in the peloton on sprint stages if they did away with that rule.

i'll make another point here. i think no time bonuses is part of the reason you saw such a tactically-driven race this year. no, i'm not saying it was everything. closely-matched competitors was the main reason. but the fact that there was no free time given to any of those closely-matched people made the race more strategically run than others

.....On the "purity" argument of no time bonuses, I don't get it. The rule where everyone gets the same time if you finish in a pack is anything but pure - why should the guy sucking wheel the whole race at the very back of the peleton get the same time as the guy who wins the race and finishes 30 seconds ahead? There are tens of rules like this.

- Mark

while it's a safety issue, i agree it's a problem. you want to do away with this rule? okay by me. gonna result in a lot more crashes, to be sure, but if you know and accept that, then by all means change this rule.

and, not to hijack the thread, but a lot of this discussion goes to the heart of the TTT. if i'm a GC contender on a good team, why shouldn't i be given all the time i can put into everybody else? and if i'm a GC contender who can't afford good teammates, why should i be knocked out of contention early and punished just because my team is weak, especially if i may be the strongest guy in the race?

It's really hard to be fair in an individual when part of the timing is based on a team event. While the TTT was great to watch, I think the Tour is better without it.

It's really hard to be fair in an individual when part of the timing is based on a team event. While the TTT was great to watch, I think the Tour is better without it.

couldn't have said it better myself. i love watching a TTT; i think it's absolutely fascinating. but until a fair way is found to inject its results into a race, i think the tour should not have it

i'm sure you know, zorro, that this attitude will probably get us branded as heretics, fallen from the true faith, considered unclean, and no one will talk to us anymore :lol:

On the "purity" argument of no time bonuses, I don't get it. The rule where everyone gets the same time if you finish in a pack is anything but pure - why should the guy sucking wheel the whole race at the very back of the peleton get the same time as the guy who wins the race and finishes 30 seconds ahead? There are tens of rules like this.

- Mark

The rule for same time goes way back to when getting times on all riders would have been difficult at best.

But it has been kept for a very different reason. If you have over 100 riders finishing in a pack and all those riders are fighting for each second you will get riders seriously injured if not killed on a regular basis. The trend is in fact the other direction with the nulification distance being extended from 1 to 2 or 3 kms.

+1.

To the extent there's been any recurrent critisicm of this year's Tour, its the lack of attacks. Many people bemoan the fact that Evans sat in the entire race and almost won without ever really contesting a stage.

A 20 second time bonus at the top of L'Alpe on Stage 17, might have changed the dynamics a bit.

Reasonable time bonuses for stage winners certainly increase the incentive to attack. And they also increase, not decrease, the cahnce of a close race, because riders that are behind on GC have a chance to make up more ground by taking stage wins.

Seemed to me there were more successful attacks in the early stages this year. Perhaps it was course design, but perhaps the lack of the big time bonuses at stage wins also played a part. We did not have the teams of the riders only 10-20 seconds down trying to get their guy there for a chance to win the stage and take Yellow (assuming that guys that high in the standing are respectable enough that they will not be allowed off the front).

I think the intermediate bonuses with none at the end for the first few stages might be interesting. Or perhaps selected stages.

It's really hard to be fair in an individual when part of the timing is based on a team event. While the TTT was great to watch, I think the Tour is better without it.

Where a TTT fits really has changed with changing attitudes. I went back and looked at some of the Tours from when Merckx was riding and found one of the TTTs only had a time bonus, 20 seconds for the winning team if I remember. Others in trying to figure out the leaders for Yellow seemed to not count at all, only for team position it seemed! Yet teams rode to win! Not today. Only 20 seconds and many teams would worry only about elimination times.

I don't have a solution, wish I did.

My point was not to say that riders sharing times in a pack finish was a bad idea - I agree it's a good idea for safety reasons. Likewise the rule about crashes in the last 3K of a sprint stage.

My point was that the rules are anything but "pure time" to begin with, so I don't get the "purity" argument that time bonuses can't be awarded for high finishes. If it improves the competition and makes for more interesting racing, I don't see the issue at all.

Same with TTT. Lance said it best....something like "Here we had a wildly popular form of racing that was liked by the fans and racers, and that added a nice twist while tested a different aspect of biker's skill. So guess what they did? They took it out of the tour." Like the Tour isn't already a team sport??? Ridiculous. Another silly "purity of competition" argument.

What we seem to have this year is a form of racing where tiny time gaps are all but insurmoutable for day after day because for someone to go out and attempt to bridge the gap is too risky. Anything that will provide more benefit for the risk-takers is good in my book.

- Mark

I understand safety, but the core of my issue is this...

You can always tell a great climber by the difference in the times on a mountain stage.

You can always tell a great time trialer by the difference in the times on a time trial stage.

You can't tell jack by the difference in times on a sprinters' stage because there is no difference. :D

I think in an ideal world this should be somehow resolved.

Sprinting occurs in mountain stages too. If there were no time bonuses in 2004, we wouldn't have seen all those exciting mountain stage finishes (Armstrong won ... 3 or 4 sprint finishes that year?)

I understand safety, but the core of my issue is this...

You can always tell a great climber by the difference in the times on a mountain stage.

You can always tell a great time trialer by the difference in the times on a time trial stage.

You can't tell jack by the difference in times on a sprinters' stage because there is no difference. :D

I think in an ideal world this should be somehow resolved.

You can tell the better sprinter by the placing. The times mean almost nothing when the pack stays together as times have nothing to do with how you did on the stage, so no point taking them.

My point was not to say that riders sharing times in a pack finish was a bad idea - I agree it's a good idea for safety reasons. Likewise the rule about crashes in the last 3K of a sprint stage.

My point was that the rules are anything but "pure time" to begin with, so I don't get the "purity" argument that time bonuses can't be awarded for high finishes. If it improves the competition and makes for more interesting racing, I don't see the issue at all.

Same with TTT. Lance said it best....something like "Here we had a wildly popular form of racing that was liked by the fans and racers, and that added a nice twist while tested a different aspect of biker's skill. So guess what they did? They took it out of the tour." Like the Tour isn't already a team sport??? Ridiculous. Another silly "purity of competition" argument.

What we seem to have this year is a form of racing where tiny time gaps are all but insurmoutable for day after day because for someone to go out and attempt to bridge the gap is too risky. Anything that will provide more benefit for the risk-takers is good in my book.

- Mark

I agree. There is one point where I'd make a refinement. There is a difference between 'purity' and 'fairness'. One can argue against time bonuses on purity, but how on fairness? But one can argue against the TTT on fairness. It increases the advantages of the team with more money. If that goes too far, if only a couple of teams with deep pockets have any chance it does hurt the sport.

Of course with the TTT we find good strongmen who can help in that are valuable, while otherwise climbers become almost the only important support riders. Then we might be back to the same, just that the deep pocket teams are buying up the climbers.

Personally I think the TTT improves things, forcing teams who want to compete in the GC to have riders who are at least passable in the areas covered by the TTT. I think it just needs some tuning, that including limits and perhaps a bit more consideration to the course.


Oh and one problem as I see it for risk takeres is the peleton is so much bigger. Far more teams, far more riders. That means there are far more riders to chase down a break. In the old days if a break of a dozen strong riders, including a coiuple of GC contenders, let's say containing riders from 8 teams gets a gap going over a small climb, that group has a chance. About 6 teams won't be chasing (figuring 2 teams have men in, but GC contenders in the peleton). That might leave 10 to chase. If 3 of those are out of things and not interested things get interesting. Today there are 22 teams if 6 are not chasing because of the same break and 3 are disinterested 13 are still chasing. No chance. Absolutely no chance for a significant time difference.

But nothing can be done about this, the number of teams in hte Tour will not decrease.

no time bonus keep what you earn

no time bonus keep what you earn

Again, how does someone who sucks wheel all race and finishes 106th in the peleton deserve to "earn" the exact same time as the stage winner who rode his heart out by sprinting the last 1K and finishes 25 seconds ahead.

- Mark

My point was not to say that riders sharing times in a pack finish was a bad idea - I agree it's a good idea for safety reasons. Likewise the rule about crashes in the last 3K of a sprint stage.

My point was that the rules are anything but "pure time" to begin with, so I don't get the "purity" argument that time bonuses can't be awarded for high finishes. If it improves the competition and makes for more interesting racing, I don't see the issue at all.

Same with TTT. Lance said it best....something like "Here we had a wildly popular form of racing that was liked by the fans and racers, and that added a nice twist while tested a different aspect of biker's skill. So guess what they did? They took it out of the tour." Like the Tour isn't already a team sport??? Ridiculous. Another silly "purity of competition" argument.

What we seem to have this year is a form of racing where tiny time gaps are all but insurmoutable for day after day because for someone to go out and attempt to bridge the gap is too risky. Anything that will provide more benefit for the risk-takers is good in my book.

- Mark

they took the TTT out of the race, and later altered how the time gaps work, because the people running the race couldn't come up with a fair way to include it in the tour. it's popular with me, too. i love watching it. i don't think it should be in the tour in its present form

the time gaps were insurmountable? we must've watched different tours. in the last week there were 5 people within one minute of the lead. there were seven different yellow jersey wearers. the race went down to the next-to-last day before it was decided. and the guy in fourth at the start of that day was considered the favorite. insurmountable time gaps? you're kidding, right?

My point was not to say that riders sharing times in a pack finish was a bad idea - I agree it's a good idea for safety reasons. Likewise the rule about crashes in the last 3K of a sprint stage.

My point was that the rules are anything but "pure time" to begin with, so I don't get the "purity" argument that time bonuses can't be awarded for high finishes. If it improves the competition and makes for more interesting racing, I don't see the issue at all....

- Mark

i think the 3K rule is a good idea, but it's for safety reasons. giving a guy at the top of the l'alpe a free 20 seconds has nothing to do with safety. they're not the same thing.

and don't overestimate the 3K rule, either. if there's a clear gap somewhere in the bunch, you don't get the same time as the winner, you get the time of your group. if you crash in the last 3K, you don't get the time of the winner, you get the time of the group you were in when the crash happened. of course, the peleton may be only one large bunch, but if so, the last guy is still coming across a whole lot faster than 20 seconds back.

and again, i don't like 'pure time' in the TTT. i think it punishes the teams that can't buy the talent to win a TTT. so if you wanna call all this a 'fairness' issue, i can live with that. you beat me by one second up the galibier? so why should that suddenly become 21 seconds? you didn't beat me well enough to get all that much time. i fought you until the last second. so you get one second

i think the 3K rule is a good idea, but it's for safety reasons. giving a guy at the top of the l'alpe a free 20 seconds has nothing to do with safety. they're not the same thing.

and don't overestimate the 3K rule, either. if there's a clear gap somewhere in the bunch, you don't get the same time as the winner, you get the time of your group. if you crash in the last 3K, you don't get the time of the winner, you get the time of the group you were in when the crash happened. of course, the peleton may be only one large bunch, but if so, the last guy is still coming across a whole lot faster than 20 seconds back.

and again, i don't like 'pure time' in the TTT. i think it punishes the teams that can't buy the talent to win a TTT. so if you wanna call all this a 'fairness' issue, i can live with that. you beat me by one second up the galibier? so why should that suddenly become 21 seconds? you didn't beat me well enough to get all that much time. i fought you until the last second. so you get one second

As in the final stage. Sastre actually lost a few seconds to Evans because of a visable gap in the peloton, not that it made a lick of difference though.

Of course it keeps these sprint finishes under control to finish with the same time, they are chaotic as is, can you imagine the carnage of the sprinters with the GC guys all fighting to stay near the front :rolleyes:

http://www.themonkeycage.org/bikecrash.jpg

As in the final stage. Sastre actually lost a few seconds to Evans because of a visable gap in the peloton, not that it made a lick of difference though.

Of course it keeps these sprint finishes under control to finish with the same time, they are chaotic as is, can you imagine the carnage of the sprinters with the GC guys all fighting to stay near the front :rolleyes:

http://www.themonkeycage.org/bikecrash.jpg

You can bet that if things were within a few seconds Sastre would not have lost those seconds. But with real gaps in time the smart thing for the last Km is to drop back and be sure to stay out of any crash. Lose a few seconds, no problem. Fail to finish, problem.

the time gaps were insurmountable? we must've watched different tours. in the last week there were 5 people within one minute of the lead. there were seven different yellow jersey wearers. the race went down to the next-to-last day before it was decided. and the guy in fourth at the start of that day was considered the favorite. insurmountable time gaps? you're kidding, right?

The competition in this year's tour was good because there were some very closely-matched riders. But even with this closeness, we had a lot of perfunctory stages and very little attacking done by the GC contendors. Really, the entire 3-week race was decided by one GC contendor making one couple minute attack on one stage. And holding it during the time trial.

- Mark

i think winning a stage is pretty good motivation to win a stage

Ah, podium kisses...

Hmmm...I was going to write the definitive treatise on why time bonuses should be included, but I just couldn't come up with a good argument. In fact, the opposite is true:

1) Obviously, winning a stage is glory enough.
2) For most stages, time-bonuses are irrelevant (sprinters' stages, 'breakaway' stages)
3) Even for second and third place on mountain stages, if you have a gap, you're going to go for as much time as possible, and so the bonus isn't going to affect your 'motivation'. If you don't have a gap, letting someone come around at the last moment to get 8" hardly adds excitement to the race.

I'm coming around here. Suzie, is this what it feels like to be a woman?

Incidentally, doesn't Cadel win in 2007 without time-bonuses (assuming the exact same results).

Seemed to me there were more successful attacks in the early stages this year. Perhaps it was course design, but perhaps the lack of the big time bonuses at stage wins also played a part. We did not have the teams of the riders only 10-20 seconds down trying to get their guy there for a chance to win the stage and take Yellow (assuming that guys that high in the standing are respectable enough that they will not be allowed off the front).

I think the intermediate bonuses with none at the end for the first few stages might be interesting. Or perhaps selected stages.


The race organizers implemented a rule that the names of the actual members of a break would not be announced to the team cars/directors until a certain amount of time had transpired, the exact amount of which I'm not certain.

Also with Boonen and Petacchi absent you didn't have such strong teams with their focus on ensuring that the stage ended in a bunch sprint. Plus with the yellow jersey changing hands from team to team so often in the early stages the team holding the jersey was usually responsible for riding on the front of the peloton and their motivations changed as the jersey switched from team to team.

With the aggressive stand that Le Tour has taken against doping, it only makes sense to suspend time bonuses. They don't void a result until the 'a' test is confirmed (see Ricco, stage 6 winner), so they're not taking chances with redistributed bonuses having GC implications.

Ah, podium kisses...

Hmmm...I was going to write the definitive treatise on why time bonuses should be included, but I just couldn't come up with a good argument. In fact, the opposite is true:

1) Obviously, winning a stage is glory enough.
2) For most stages, time-bonuses are irrelevant (sprinters' stages, 'breakaway' stages)
3) Even for second and third place on mountain stages, if you have a gap, you're going to go for as much time as possible, and so the bonus isn't going to affect your 'motivation'. If you don't have a gap, letting someone come around at the last moment to get 8" hardly adds excitement to the race.

I'm coming around here. Suzie, is this what it feels like to be a woman?

Incidentally, doesn't Cadel win in 2007 without time-bonuses (assuming the exact same results).


:lol: If you're thinking of crossing over, they probably have a forum for that too. Welcome to the club of "those who change their minds all the time."

With the aggressive stand that Le Tour has taken against doping, it only makes sense to suspend time bonuses. They don't void a result until the 'a' test is confirmed (see Ricco, stage 6 winner), so they're not taking chances with redistributed bonuses having GC implications.

I don't know if you're joking or not, but that is a good point!

I don't know if you're joking or not, but that is a good point!

Not joking (just this once, I swear!), and gratzi!

With the aggressive stand that Le Tour has taken against doping, it only makes sense to suspend time bonuses. They don't void a result until the 'a' test is confirmed (see Ricco, stage 6 winner), so they're not taking chances with redistributed bonuses having GC implications.

Hadn't thought of that. And it does have a very clear chance of impacting the race in ways far clearer and different from just DQing the doper. Of course other things caould have a much larger impact, E.g. 2 riders on a break working as a team for time and one turns out to be a doper, or a rider blowing up trying to match someone on a climb where the someone later is DQ'd. Either woul daccount for much more time.

But the time bonus, small as it is would be far clearer and looking at this years standing could result in the Yellow changing hands during the night between riders neither of which was doping.

If there aren't time bonuses, then they need to stop the "everyone in the peleton gets the same time" rule too.

I might agree that everyone keeping a different time for every stage would be a book keeping nightmare, but frankly, why should the first place rider busting his gut to win the stage get the same time as the guy riding the tail end of the peleton across the line 20 seconds later?

I agree. With no time bonuses, on a flat stage there's no real reason to try to win. Sure, you get the glory, I suppose, but there's no tangible benefit, no effect on the standings. It turns the flat stages into the equivalent of exhibition games.

Hadn't thought of that. And it does have a very clear chance of impacting the race in ways far clearer and different from just DQing the doper. Of course other things caould have a much larger impact, E.g. 2 riders on a break working as a team for time and one turns out to be a doper, or a rider blowing up trying to match someone on a climb where the someone later is DQ'd. Either woul daccount for much more time.

But the time bonus, small as it is would be far clearer and looking at this years standing could result in the Yellow changing hands during the night between riders neither of which was doping.

It's like, where do you draw the line? A rider is in a 2 man break on a mountain stage with a doper. They finish 3 minutes up on the pack, then the doper get's DQ'd. Perhaps if he hadn't been doping, would he have had the power output to break away with the non-doper? Does this taint the non-doper's lead over the field?

I agree. With no time bonuses, on a flat stage there's no real reason to try to win. Sure, you get the glory, I suppose, but there's no tangible benefit, no effect on the standings. It turns the flat stages into the equivalent of exhibition games.


It's rare that riders of GC consequence are involved in a field sprint. Even if they decided to risk it, most wouldn't be within shouting distance of the Cavendish/Friere/Zabel/McEwen crowd, making it a poor choice on a risk/reward basis.

It's rare that riders of GC consequence are involved in a field sprint. Even if they decided to risk it, most wouldn't be within shouting distance of the Cavendish/Friere/Zabel/McEwen crowd, making it a poor choice on a risk/reward basis.

Only 2 eventual winners have won a flat stage after stage 10 (actually it is about stage 6) since WW II.

Yes they are the obvious 2. I think there are 4 or 5 total. Interestingly if I recall correctly except for one of the flat stage wins by GC winners were either very early or the final stage.

It's like, where do you draw the line? A rider is in a 2 man break on a mountain stage with a doper. They finish 3 minutes up on the pack, then the doper get's DQ'd. Perhaps if he hadn't been doping, would he have had the power output to break away with the non-doper? Does this taint the non-doper's lead over the field?

The line has always been drawn that it does not matter, other riders results stand. Actually not all that much of a problem as for going with a doper is little different than going with a fresher rider just looking for a stage win.

The issue with time bonuses is that the Tour has to do something. Redistribute or not? Come to think of it same for points. That could be a problem as it effects the standings after the fact. Imagine the Green Jersey is close and one rider is up by 6 points. Going in to the final sprint he knows all he needs to do is stay on make sure no riders finish between him and the rider in second.

Now imagine Cavendish gets DQ'd after the fact. It has a major effect on the scoring. What should be done? What is fair?

What happens to stage wins, officially, if the stage winner is later busted? Do they consider it no stage winner, or does 2nd place get the stage win statistically?

The rider in second is usually granted the win but I see that various sites are still showing the actual results so who knows. Maybe they get adjusted when the dust settles.