I really don't think there's anything to argue out of or into, matt. Nor am I quite sure why you're getting so worked up about this one word (when it wasn't even yours in the first place). Of course it's an endurance race. Of course it therefore is limited in who can take part. If it's pedantic of me to point this out, your pedantry is arguing over what counts as "fit" and "inclusive" has exc eeded even mine!
Pedantry ... hmm ... I do hate pointless pedantry, but I generally turn the other cheek.
But pedantry would apply to you pointing out a factual error in Byron's post or mine. In this case you're just giving an opinion about whether this event is "inclusive"; which is rather tricky, because its not an absolute/digital/yes-no quality.
That's what I was trying to say to you - inclusive is a purely relative term. Your criticism simply made no sense. It doesnt even count as pedantry!
I found your post flawed in other ways. You said TCR was only suitable for the "elite of the amateurs... to even contemplate it"; well I reckon I'm probably on the the bubble of the ability required to ride the 2014/15 editions (based on having ridden with at least 1 finisher). But I belong to a cycling club where almost everyone is faster than me - and its just one of hundreds of clubs in the country (not to mention those rides outside of the road-club system). So your assessment of even the *relative* inclusivity seems to be way off the mark.
Plus you clearly missed the point of Byron's post; it was nothing about ability, it was about budgets.
Hence I disputed your claim. If you want to call this "getting so worked up", that's your call.