I agree in general the discussion I've seen on the internet is full of inane bashing. From SF's perspective it must be pretty hard to take, that you've trained hard and played by the rules set forth by the governing body (I don't think that is in question unless I've missed something) and nonetheless the overwhelming response is negative.
I think questions aimed at whether the rules and regulations need further examination / amendment are fine to ask... but there is a person at the center of it, which I think often gets forgotten in internet frenzies like this has become.
To me, do I think SF picked a sport that rewarded her physiology... yes. I don't think that's a question, she would certainly be a fine master's sprinter in an open field of men and women. The question then is whether or not she has an unfair advantage. I think she has an uncommon body type for a female cyclist, but not unheard of. How few women in the US get into cycling to start with, beyond that how many into a specialization like track sprinting. A very small % so not seeing a lot of variety of body types is not much of an argument. (I bring that up since the internet seems so focused on how much larger SF is than the other ladies on the podium) Some very, very large men are track sprinters, who would look downright out of place on a podium with smaller, more traditional cyclists, but should you punish them because they chose the right discipline? If SF had chose to focus on hill climb nationals I doubt this would be a discussion we were having... so is it because she is good at picking her battles why we're here?
Fwiw I don't know any answers... I'm just a dude behind a keyboard who has too much time to read the internet. But everyone who competed at Worlds agreed to compete under the IOC's rules, right?