Last two world tour bike races I watched - the winners could have been riding 20 year old steel frames, while everyone else was riding the best of the best CF had to offer, and still won with a big margin. Pogs and Vingo would have won Strade and Tirrento on steel framed bikes while everyone else was riding their Dogma's.
The latest tech, marginal gains, gram shavings, aero... if all the riders were riding round tubed steel framed bikes - the results of the races would be the same, the best man or woman would win.
I think that's what gets lost in cycling - it's about the human, not really the machine. TT's and track racing, sure, the equipment makes a difference. Pro tour racing, drafting in a peloton, with everyone on essentially +/- equal bikes, the equipment impact isn't really that important. The strongest rider or team will win.
The first gen CF frames, the first adopters may have had an advantage over teams still riding alloy bikes - but once everyone switched over - it's essentially a non issue.
I'm not anti CF or a luddite. My issue is the cost of getting new people/kids into the sport. My 13 year old son is an avid rider - BMX, MTB, Road - you almost have to take a second mortgage out on the house to keep up with the costs of generic cycling, let alone racing gear.