For what it's worth, here is some anecdotal analysis...

The more legitimate links that a site has, the less likely that they will be penalized by a "bowling" incident.

I have seen the negative effect of a Google bowling incident affect only one site that we monitor (of hundreds). That site had very little established link popularity when the incident happened, and the downdraft happened at the Jagger, Sept 22, 2005 update. Haven't seen it happen since with any site we monitor.

For sites with substantial link popularity, we have seen "bowling" to be of no consequence. It might even backfire as a subversive tactic when used against a well-established site, simply adding to their overall link popularity.

This might support the "authority" concept as a defense. I'd call it more of an "established site" defense. An "authority site" can mean very different things to different people.

I can't say that I have seen any purposeful subversion attempts, but I don't doubt that people have tried to do it. To me, "bowling" seems to be more the result of scraper sites using other search results as their "content". It's astonishing how many of these sites exist. Are they just vehicles for paid text link placements? Or just AdSense magnets? I'd say a little of both, once you look at them. They often have elements of both.

It is encouraging to see that Google/Cutts has recognized the subversive aspects of this, and adjusted accordingly.

Bottom line...skip the link games. Establish links with other subject-relevant sites (reciprocal or not, it does not matter), continuously. Over time, this has proven to be extraordinarily stable.