Talk:Kenya's Brigid Kosgei sets new world record at Chicago Marathon

Pacesetters
Maybe my edit summary was ambiguous, but correct, the pacesetters are not competitors. But even open events use pacesetters which are not entered to achieve results for themselves. See this photo of Kosgei at the London Marathon (a sanctioned race) with a pacer. You can see his name tag says "Pace4" unlike Kosgei who has her name. I do think that they have to run the race from the start, which makes it less of an issue for men's open races because who could possibly be pacing them 20 miles into the race? I honestly don't know if they let fresh runners join in midway in Kipchoge's run, but I didn't see that in any source. But he had an inordinate number of pacers and they ran in a V formation ahead of Kipchoge. I suspect he was all alone at the end. --SVTCobra 20:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel we didn't do as well as we might have on the Kipchoge article; it seems we really ought to have made very clear just what were the features of the event that didn't conform to the IAAF rules. Besides not being an open race.  One-or-more of the sources gave me the impression the pacers weren't strictly according to Hoyle, which might still be true depending on what constraints (if any) the IAAF places on how that's allowed to be done.  One of the sources mentioned he was provided with refreshments by someone on a bicycle, which I thought they were implying wasn't sanctioned either.  But we'd really have to read the IAAF rules carefully. --Pi zero (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , this may well be true. Unfortunately, I think we are in a position where we have to gloss over some things. For instance, in the resubmitted Syria article, I don't mention the Russia and Iran aspects of the power dynamics there. There is only so deep we can go without ruining ourselves in research and review thereof. I don't know how long IAAF rules are, but I imagine it is best described as a book. --SVTCobra 22:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm direly familiar with the need to limit breadth-of-research when covering current events. It's just that in this particular case, this particular detail is one that niggled at me even during review, and I'm wondering if we should have let it bother us enough to pursue further while there was still time. --Pi zero (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (The point may be moot, though; a bit of digging suggests the information may really be quite difficult to find.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)