Or, he's an example of consequences for actions. His actions were playing under an influence, and his consequence is that it's going to take time for him to fix his rating.Greg Hogue is a perfect example of the problems with FargoRate when it comes to changes in skill level. I didn't listen to the podcast, but it sounds like he may have played thousands of games under the influence of meth. Now he's off meth and playing better. It will take years for his rating to reflect anything like his true skill level.
Hogue finished 17th at the US Open alongside 800-rated players like Wu Kun Lin, Oi, Feijen, Ko Pin Yi, and so on. Who are you going to believe, his 699 rating or your lying eyes?
Now is this an extreme case? Sure. But it's emblematic of the (reasonable) choice made to prioritize stability over responsiveness. There are pros and cons to every model and it's not nitpicky to suss them out.
You're a perfect example of someone who just doesn't agree with Fargo but can't come up with a solid reason why it's bad (even with using lots of big words).