The Patrick Lefevere Depreciation Thread

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I see an Experza girl in 32nd in the only De Panne Experza did


So even being super charitable, Lefevere got that wrong as well

So, ok, I got that part wrong, so not making top-30 is equivalent to getting welfare.
Lefevere said he was watching the race and in the first group of 50, he didn't see anyone from his team.
In the end, someone from the team got 32nd.

That doesn't necessarily mean what Lefevere said is false: you can have a split in the peloton and a group of 50, and sometime after there can be regrouping, as the first 60 riders came (more or less) together across the finish line.
So the most likely scenario is that Lefevere's riders were all caught behind the split, and some made it back into the first group. Lefevere was talking about a moment in the race.
 
No matter what PL said and/or what he actually meant, if he has no interest in or vision for the sport, he shouldn't be forced to invest in women's cycling. Then it's better to leave it to other people who do have it.

There are already two successful teams for women riding on Specialized and now also a lot of other men's teams setting up female counterparts, so we don't really need DQS to enter the scene anyway. It wouldn't be bad for Belgian cycling though, cause their talent pool is a lot smaller than some of the other countries at the moment. Still there are at least six UCI/women's CT teams this season that are Belgian based and/or have a strong Belgian connection.
 
So now you are calling the person who wrote the article a liar? I wonder which will come first Lefevere's defamation suit against Cycling News or Cycling News' against you.
Well,

Before your reaction I already said CN was lying.
They wrongly suggested that Lefevere was talking about Belgians when he mentioned a first group of 50 without any of the riders from HIS Experza team (so nothing about Belgians).
CN spun that into Belgian riders and so were quick to suggest Lefevere forgot about e.g. Kopecky in that lead group.

So CN is lying and I'll stick to that. They'd be better off to rectify this, especially as they use it as ammunition to throw mud at Lefevere. And throwing mud is exactly what they despise in Lefevere, but now they are doing it themselves... The irony.
 
Lefevere said he was watching the race and in the first group of 50, he didn't see anyone from his team.
In the end, someone from the team got 32nd.

That doesn't necessarily mean what Lefevere said is false: you can have a split in the peloton and a group of 50, and sometime after there can be regrouping, as the first 60 riders came (more or less) together across the finish line.
So the most likely scenario is that Lefevere's riders were all caught behind the split, and some made it back into the first group. Lefevere was talking about a moment in the race.
and? any team can have a bad moment. I don't see how missing a split (if that actually happened) and then recovering to make it to the front group means that paying those riders is welfare
 
Well,

Before your reaction I already said CN was lying.
They wrongly suggested that Lefevere was talking about Belgians when he mentioned a first group of 50 without any of the riders from HIS Experza team (so nothing about Belgians).
CN spun that into Belgian riders and so were quick to suggest Lefevere forgot about e.g. Kopecky in that lead group.

So CN is lying and I'll stick to that. They'd be better off to rectify this, especially as they use it as ammunition to throw mud at Lefevere. And throwing mud is exactly what they despise in Lefevere, but now they are doing it themselves... The irony.
If you are talking about this years race Experza wasn't there so he had to be talking about Belgian riders? I don't speak Flemish so the original interview means very little to me, you're saying that Lefevere is just being misquoted? How about the shite talking of Bennett, was he just misquoted then too?
 
and? any team can have a bad moment. I don't see how missing a split (if that actually happened) and then recovering to make it to the front group means that paying those riders is welfare
Sure, but you have to ask yourself what the added value for sponsors of top WT teams in the men's category is when finishing outside the top 30 in women races. There is little to no extra exposure for them. Especially when during the race the riders aren't seen in the front of the race. The minimum for teams like Ineos, DQS, UAE,... is to be one of the better teams in the women's peloton, but for now there are too little top female riders to compete with the best teams.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Your "example" was some weird shrieking about a basketball team director or whatever? I have no idea what was the analogy you were trying to make.

Whatever it is, it simply doesn't mean Lefevere stated that running a women pro cycling is charity or should be done by the OCMW or whatever.

He's very clear the reason he won't do it is because there isn't domestic talent.



I'm sorry I lost a bit of the post on the copy paste but how on earth does that change the meaning of the comment?

Do you agree with me that Lefevere's comments were a bit blunt but eminently potable and totally understandable after all? I'm at a loss here. Either you agree with yourself or with that comment -- that I selected because it was the most upvoted one. Which is it?
I'm going to try to explain this one last time even if you apparently lack basic reading and understanding capabilities, after all I'm not a social service on reading difficulties.

Is Levefre's overall point where he's coming from (no talent in Belgium etc.) understable? Yeah it's probably fair, I never claimed otherwise.
Is the OCMW bit disrespectful and unnecessary? Yes absolutely, in basical every context. I also gave an example of that.
Are you as a poster aware of that? Yes you are, despite your claims that this analogy is completely normal. And it's even more apparent because you have repeatedly left out the OCMW bit and even went so far to modify a reddit post ("I lost a bit in the copy paste." what an amusing lie, you deliberately deleted it) because you know it's the specific essence that makes this whole thing disrespectful.
Have some people in the media or elsewhere misquoted Levefre a bit on that? Yeah probably, I also never claimed otherwise.
Should he be the last person to complain about that given all the defamatory stuff he spouts? Yes absolutely. He's a wanker of the highest order and with all the skeleton in his closet should've long been booted into wasteland.
 
Sure, but you have to ask yourself what the added value for sponsors of top WT teams in the men's category is when finishing outside the top 30 in women races. There is little to no extra exposure for them. Especially when during the race the riders aren't seen in the front of the race. The minimum for teams like Ineos, DQS, UAE,... is to be one of the better teams in the women's peloton, but for now there are too little top female riders to compete with the best teams.
Isn't it up to sponsors to decide what value there is for them? And how much they have to invest to get that value?

It is a guess, but probably what Lefevere was putting into his team was not comparable to what a men's sponsor can put into a ladies team. So using his own disappointment (that's how it seems to me) of the results of his investment as some kind of argument against investing seems kind of odd.
 
Well if you had reasonable reading comprehension you could've read why because just after the paragraph you quoted I gave you an example. It's not my problem that people with severe cognitive issues can't read beyond two sentences.

Btw. I'm pretty sure you're quite aware that his OCMW metaphor leaves quite a sour taste because in all your quotes about what Levefre said you leave it out.



Point in case here, you try to make a point by quoting someone from reddit but end up modifying the quote just to leave out the bit that makes Levefre actually look the smug clown he is:


But hey, thanks for your "out of curiosity" work you did by bringing us modified reddit posts that suit your agenda. Although I think it's actually - check's notes - "troubling and worrying" that you feel the need to misquote stuff.
But I guess the old bad internet mob is at fault for actually misquoting social welfare quotes from a guy that is known for accurate statements and decency in media dealings.
Hahaha, busted! Well done, mate…

After so much preaching form @Bullrun about “lying” and “misrepresentation” he is the one who deliberately modifies a quote and when he is busted, he even denies it… This sure made my evening
 
Isn't it up to sponsors to decide what value there is for them? And how much they have to invest to get that value?

It is a guess, but probably what Lefevere was putting into his team was not comparable to what a men's sponsor can put into a ladies team. So using his own disappointment (that's how it seems to me) of the results of his investment as some kind of argument against investing seems kind of odd.
It is, but I can imagine that sponsors are going to have certain expectations for the women's team considering the success of the male counterpart. Likely Lefevere doesn't think he can fulfill these expectations because of a shortage of top female riders right now. Women's cycling is obviously growing but there is still a way to go before the pool of real good female riders is large enough to expect more WT teams to create a women's team as well.

Next to that Lefevere has his own ambitions too. I can't imagine him being happy having team that barely wins.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
Basically what Lefevere said is if there would be Remca he would totally do it.

P.S. As that doesn't sell all that good. Better to portray Lefevere as misogynist. Now if Lefevere is misogynist then i guess good call. If he is not then he will likely get punished in the future for the crime he didn't commit. That is rather disturbing.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Basically what Lefevere said is if there would be Remca he would totally do it.

P.S. As that doesn't sell all that good. Better to portray Lefevere as misogynist. Now if Lefevere is misogynist then i guess good call. If he is not then he will likely get punished in the future for the crime he didn't commit. That is rather disturbing.
He is a misogynist alright… no need for any additional evidence - just look at his statement re: Bennet and domestic abuse.
 
In that case he would likely used different analogy. That is he wouldn't try to portray domestic abuse as a bad thing. If he would believe domestic abuse is a good thing.

Abuse could be knowing Bennett is injured and making him participate races. Still Bennett is the one whose actions, participating in a national event, could make you believe he is not injured.

Looks more like an ending relationship to me then something more and deeper in that regard. Considering they played with each other balls.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
In that case he would likely used different analogy. That is he wouldn't try to portray domestic abuse as a bad thing. If he would believe domestic abuse is a good thing.

Abuse could be knowing Bennett is injured and making him participate races. Still Bennett is the one whose actions, participating in a national event, could make you believe he is not injured.

Looks more like an ending relationship to me then something more and deeper in that regard. Considering they played with each other balls.
Only Lefevere has "played with balls" Bennett has been silent through the entire ordeal while Lefevere has aired every bit of dirty laundry he can grasp. What has Bennett done besides change teams? Not that that isn't enough to incur the wrath of Lefevere.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Well,

Before your reaction I already said CN was lying.
They wrongly suggested that Lefevere was talking about Belgians when he mentioned a first group of 50 without any of the riders from HIS Experza team (so nothing about Belgians).
CN spun that into Belgian riders and so were quick to suggest Lefevere forgot about e.g. Kopecky in that lead group.

So CN is lying and I'll stick to that. They'd be better off to rectify this, especially as they use it as ammunition to throw mud at Lefevere. And throwing mud is exactly what they despise in Lefevere, but now they are doing it themselves... The irony.
Ah but you see you throw mud too, so you are doing exactly what you criticise the great man Patrick Lefevre for. Proven wrong by your own logic, I am very intelligent.

You and other members of the fan club (your 'reasonable' act isn't very good) are hitting all the cliches in here. Taken out of context, misquoted, you don't understand, he can say what he wants, you're just as bad as him, he's the real victim.
 
how about Ronaldo? Cristiano that is...he decided he was done with Juventus, what did Agnellis do? they are far richer and far more powerful, billionaires...meant nothing, he was done and he was sold to Manchester

how about lebron? he is notorious of getting certain players signed to way better contracts than they deserve

lets not venture that far, how about Sagan? how many people does he drag with himself to a new team? like 15 lmao - and thats Total? isnt that like a huge oil company or something

if Pogacar decided he wanted 6 slovenians in his TdF team or else - what do you think would happen

how often does a new coach bring in not only new staff with him (that the owner has to pay for on top of paying departing staff) but also his favourite players?

stars have huge power because there is nobody you can replace them with and no matter how much you dislike it, you cannot replace lefevere with another guy, there is no other guy

btw i believe Dolan has been off the personel decisions for quite some time, other than being a celebrity owner i dont think he does any basketball stuff anymore
If I was trying to defend Lefevre I probably wouldn't use the Ronaldo comparison, but hey you said it.
 
and? any team can have a bad moment. I don't see how missing a split (if that actually happened) and then recovering to make it to the front group means that paying those riders is welfare
And? Lefevere merely used this as an example that his current (or previous) experiences sponsoring a woman’s team weren’t giving him much joy, and clearly says he sponsors to see results. Don’t convince me. Convince him that he should have joy and that his own feelings are deceiving him, and that results shouldn’t matter.
 
Ah but you see you throw mud too, so you are doing exactly what you criticise the great man Patrick Lefevre for. Proven wrong by your own logic, I am very intelligent.

You and other members of the fan club (your 'reasonable' act isn't very good) are hitting all the cliches in here. Taken out of context, misquoted, you don't understand, he can say what he wants, you're just as bad as him, he's the real victim.
When something is totally misquoted and used to attack a person, it has to be rectified. Don’t try to suggest this is defending someone’s character or whatever, and don’t try to mention that misquoting in the same line as “defending the victim etc.”, I am not doing that.
Rectifying that misquote and pointing it out is simply truth seeking and trying to get the debate on course again. If that’s a cliche, I’m sorry. I stick to facts, rather than fairytales. There is enough to be found to dislike Patrick Lefevere, no need to invent anything more.
 
Only Lefevere has "played with balls" Bennett has been silent through the entire ordeal while Lefevere has aired every bit of dirty laundry he can grasp. What has Bennett done besides change teams? Not that that isn't enough to incur the wrath of Lefevere.
From the podcast: Bennett sent a message to Lefevere (his boss) that he would call him after his training ride in June to talk about his knee problem. Bennett never called back, and, until this day, hasn’t spoken to Lefevere. That’s what made me very angry, Lefevere said (who indicated he was still waiting for that call).
I guess the call won’t come anymore.
Ps: don’t shoot me for merely sharing what PL said in interviews. Shoot him (not in a literal way ofcourse).
 
Reactions: Carrick-On-Seine
The outrage is about his demeanour. He has full liberty to invest or not to invest in whatever he likes. He even has full liberty to insult anyone and anything he does not think is worthy of investing. The other side of this coin is, that forum users have full liberty to think he is an a** if they dislike his demeanour...
Did you watch the interview ? Demeanour is often determined by tone and choice of words - Hard to make a definitive statement on tone if you failed to watch the interview.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS