No, I'm not saying that a group of mediocre 5K runners could beat a group of Cat 1 cyclists at cycling. I'm saying that mediocre 5K runners represent the same level of overall achievement that Cat 1 cyclists represent, but in different sports. Actually, I think that the 5k runners might be more accomplished. I'm basing this on the fact that Cat 1 cyclists are the cream of a exceedingly small population of serious US cyclists. I would guess that the 14:30 guys represent the same (or probably much smaller) percentage of the much larger serious-runner population.
I mean, do you really think that an Olympic gold medal in fencing or rowing or xc skiing or horseback riding is as difficult to get as a gold medal in any running event? If we assume for argument that all sports require equal amounts of dedication and training, then the sport with the largest population of participants is clearly the most "difficult" to succeed in.
I've always been a little irritated by niche sports where to have success (i.e. to be "Cat 1") you only have to be the best of a relatively small number of competitors. It's especially irritating if that small number of competitors tend to draw from a narrow and wealthy socio-economic class. That probably makes me petty. But it doesn't make me wrong.