Yes, they are elite runners.
What you seem unable to grasp is that acceleration is a major contributor to 100m from the blocks--acceleration from ZERO velocity. Distance runners have relatively none--and why should they?
Or, in other words, WHY do you think that a sustained, low-power aerobic activity correlates to meaningful acceleration? Or even to meaningful top speed, which is also dependent on power?
Alternatively, you could agree that they have less-than-mediocre acceleration, but that they are able to maintain their top speed very well--however, that argument would fail because their top speed is abysmal by sprinting standards--more than 20% worse than the best elites, more than 10% worse than mediocre sprinters.
And I can guarantee you that their acceleration is MUCH worse than 20% worse than that of the best elites. Take 10.00 as an elite time, add something more than 20%, and you have 12.5, which they would be lucky to run.
Finally, it's not just about power development--there is serious form that goes into running a good 100m. No distance runner is capable of achieving that form, which means that they will be relatively even worse than you think. That puts them between 12.5-13.0; probably closer to 12.5 for certain athletes.
But again: WHO CARES, unless they are running against other similarly-situated athletes?