3:1! Could it be?
Probably not. I haven't tried to run down the source cited for this, but I'm guessing that it is looking at our "gross" growth in WU's, and not the "net" WU's that the race ROE call for by subtracting out our huge "handicap." E.e., count that "handicap" and 3:1 might well be plausible. And those are meaningful numbers for the long haul, if we can keep all the recent additions to the TeAm, but they don't count for the race. So in that sense, the poster was probably a little misinformed.
-baz