No, there are not more honorable ways to win, at least within major limits. I really don't like the idea because it's pretty much used to intentionally devalue the efforts and skills of certain kinds of riders. What makes cycling so great is that there are so many different ways to win a race - TT types who call sprinters and sprinting tactics dishonorable are, IMO, selfish and lacking in appreciation for the subtleties and nuance of the sport. If cycling were about brute strength, it would be boring and there would be a lot fewer competitors. Winning solo requires enormous strength, winning from a break requires strength and the savvy to recognize your strengths and how to use them against your breakaway companions, winning from a field sprint requires clever tactics, good positioning, a good turn of speed and near-perfect timing. These are all worthy ways to win.

By the way, this goes both ways - sprinters who think that breakaways and riders who have the strength to win solo shouldn't be allowed are jerks. But how often does this happen? Mostly, the anger seems to come from riders who think that having a bigger aerobic engine and working like a dog entitles them to a win or high placing. But cycling is beautiful because you are not entitled to anything. You win by crossing the line first. If you can't do that, then that's it. That's cycling. Hey, maybe I'm biased - I'm a criterium and circuit racer by disposition - but I recognize that bias.

And for what it's worth, that doesn't mean that I support boring races. Races won in field sprints or from breaks can both be incredibly boring, or they can be active and exciting, depending upon how they are raced, what tactics are used, etc. I would rather my races be exciting, but when you come right down to it, that's secondary. People want to win, and they're going to do whatever they think gives them the best chance of winning. They might guess wrong, especially if they are inexperienced, but that's how it goes.