philrides said:to put a finish line at the bottom of a technical descent. Name any race where there is a finish line at the bottom of a technical descent. That's for mountain biking.
The difference is that you must take especially crazy risks to reach the finish line without giving up time. It's not a choice if you want to win. It's too risky for the riders, and would result in fatalities/broken bones/blood at a much higher rate than we already see.
If you are a bad descender, you will not do well in many races including the Tour. You must be a good descender - and lucky - to win already. The question is: where do you draw the line?
Keep the finish lines 10K from the descents, and then the riders have more of a choice how to approach the descent.
It's not for mountain biking if it's on a well-surfaced road. I've seen two crashes on the descents in the past two days (Voekler didn't crash). If you are a bad descender then practice or go one step further and ride the descents before the race. It's a skill that anyone can learn and if they did they'd understand taking crazy risks is dangerous and not the fastest approach. It's the equivalent of a racing driver saying he pushed too hard in qualifying. In Contador's interview he said he didn't take any unnecessary risks yet was still the first of the main bunch to reach the bottom.
If you believe that these descents are too dangerous and the riders have to take unnecessary risks then we have to exclude descending altogether because the Schelcks aren't the ones that have to take risks on the descents. That honour is held by the Cavendish's that are forced to gain at least a couple of minutes on everyone just to stay in the race.