hmmmm....
many of the competitors at the ironman level call it a running race.
the swim is a wake up, the bike is a fuel up, and the run is the race.
just another spin on the event.
I actually think its the distance of the tri that determines what is most important.
At the oly level I believe the bike is the most important.
If you can decently get through the swim, haul apples on the bike and then maintain an average speed on the run you will be in the top of the field.
Even if you decently get through the swim, suck at the bike and then haul on the run, you'll never make up the time you lost on the bike on your run.
If you suck on the swim and are awesome on the bike and run you'll also be at the top of the pack.
The swim is so short-even at the ironman level-compared to the grandiosity of the rest of the race that you really do need to be a strong biker and decent runner as a triathlete. We swimmers get stiffed.
That said, I think that FF might be right on the ironman level. The bike is VERY long but long enough that it evens the playing field a bit on the average speed. Even if you're a great cyclist you can't go 112 miles super fast. Your average will probably be about 19. Even if you're a sucky cyclist you probably won't go much below 14 mph average. Theres not a huge margin of speed or time lost there. The run though is a full on marathon! If you make it that far, that alone will weed out the rest of the players and it really then does become the running race.
just my .02 only based on my experience:
My first oly I had shin splints and didn't train to run at all. I jammed on the swim, had an 18mph average on 25 miles of hills and then I SUCKED on the run. I think I got over an hour for a 10K. I still got in the top 5.
My second oly I'd not been training as much on my bike due to time factors but I was running more. I jammed on the swim, sucked on the bike (16mph) and then went 51min on the run. I wasn't even in the top TEN on that one. I got passed royally on the bike and couldn't catch them on the run.