The Patrick Lefevere Depreciation Thread

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
You've got to be kidding right? After literally spending the whole night arguing about people cherry picking quotes to prove a point he goes and deletes the one line from the quote that might work against him... that's ridiculous. I'd be very interested to hear how he defends that.
 
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.
No I did not watch the interview. His interviews are mostly in Flemish which I do not understand. I am perfectly capable of understanding the transcripts though. I will admit there is a slight chance of not getting the 100% full picture by missing his body language and tone and we could be doing him some injustice by not watching the interview. And if it was his first incident it would be reasonable to give him benefit of doubt. But these incidents just seem to keep pouring and I don't think he deserves a full-time investigation by forum posters each time he babbles yet another stupidity. After so much trash coming out of his mouth in the recent months it is to be expected that average forum poster will "jump to conclusions" after just reading the transcript. And more often than not, these conclusions will be correct.
 
You've got to be kidding right? After literally spending the whole night arguing about people cherry picking quotes to prove a point he goes and deletes the one line from the quote that might work against him... that's ridiculous. I'd be very interested to hear how he defends that.
Oh I don't think we will hear much from him for a while...
 
No I did not watch the interview. His interviews are mostly in Flemish which I do not understand. I am perfectly capable of understanding the transcripts though. I will admit there is a slight chance of not getting the 100% full picture by missing his body language and tone and we could be doing him some injustice by not watching the interview. And if it was his first incident it would be reasonable to give him benefit of doubt. But these incidents just seem to keep pouring and I don't think he deserves a full-time investigation by forum posters each time he babbles yet another stupidity. After so much trash coming out of his mouth in the recent months it is to be expected that average forum poster will "jump to conclusions" after just reading the transcript. And more often than not, these conclusions will be correct.
The irony in your post " I don't think he deserves a full-time investigation by forum posters."
 
The problem with Lefevere is how he always speaks about other people in a demeaning manner.

He could say he doesn't have the resources (financials, time) to run a Women's Team and that would be perfectly fine. I even agree with the message that pushing teams for creating a female counterpart for their male squads is wrong. Instead, he attacks Belgian cyclists and talks about social welfare...
 
Plot twist:

I got a message from Patrick Lefevere, and he wants me to post it in full in this topic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear all,

I just read the whole topic on the cyclingnews forum and I feel regret. I will, as the forum wishes, erect a woman's team in 2022.
Sportive director will be Iljo Keisse, who is nearing the end of a succesful career and knows how to dealwith women:


Trainer / performance coach will be Mario Cipollini, a rider with great experience training women:


My own role will be limited to be a people's manager, negotiating contracts and, from time to time, point out if a rider is too fat.

I hope, with this message, to satisfy the forum mob.

yours sincere,

Patrick Lefevere
 
Reactions: Boes and Roku
@Roku

If the tone would be less feisty it would still count as a lame excuse. Why are you against pushing the pro teams to have a women counterpart? That should likely be made mandatory in 2021? If you want to get a pro licence you need to have both men and woman team.

@Hugh Januss

Hard to judge not knowing the whole story. Based on everything that was said and done in the past couple of months. Both likely acted unprofessional.

Currently i would say Lefevere is a bit feisty in the comments section. Beyond that i would say people are just making things up. Like the "charity" remark in regards to women. In reality that remark should likely be perceived as a remark in regard to money. If you judge from everything that was said and don't just take things out out context. Like saying i am not a charity hence i won't pay Sam full salary. In that case nobody would claim Lefevere hates men. If he would make a long speech before saying the word charity explaining how he feels Sam did him wrong.

Anyway i doubt women want to be perceived like that. That is to be portrayed as being offended by Lefevere charity remark.
 
The guy was not born in an age/environment where being politically correct was expected of someone in his position. He is not a wordsmith so there is no reason to treat his mumblings as such. When he says he's not the OCMW, he is saying he's not in the business of handing out money. There is no deeper meaning here.

As for women's teams. I think it being made mandatory would be a good thing, because it would be the same for all teams. I can see Lefevere not being eager to be the one to slice up his budget, when direct competitors aren't doing that either and are putting every dime they have into their men's squad. The problem then becomes, whether there are enough women's cyclist at the moment to field an entire professional peloton for every WT race. Or should women's races have smaller teams? I think that might be an interesting solution during a transitional period. A team shouldn't be forced to hire amateurs of whom there is no indication how they would react to life as a pro athlete, or how they would develop as one.
 
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.
So your interest here is... pedantry?
 
@Roku

If the tone would be less feisty it would still count as a lame excuse. Why are you against pushing the pro teams to have a women counterpart? That should likely be made mandatory in 2021? If you want to get a pro licence you need to have both men and woman team.
IMHO that's ridiculous. Why should teams be forced to invest in a category they are not interested in?

Should any female pro team that don't have a male counterpart be forced to set up a men's team as well? Should be also mandatory to create a Ciclo-cross and a Mountain Bike team? Or a Senior (+45 or whichever age) team? I'm pretty sure no one would consider that.

The hypocrisy of gender equality as a "quota" is terribly wrong.
 
The problem with Lefevere is how he always speaks about other people in a demeaning manner.

He could say he doesn't have the resources (financials, time) to run a Women's Team and that would be perfectly fine. I even agree with the message that pushing teams for creating a female counterpart for their male squads is wrong. Instead, he attacks Belgian cyclists and talks about social welfare...
The funny thing is that plenty more objectionable figures in sport (I'm assuming Lefevre at least isn't a fascist for example) are capable of keeping their views mostly to themselves or giving noncommittal answers. I can only assume that Lefevre thinks he's in such an untouchable position at Quickstep and in Belgian/world cycling that he can say whatever he wants. And he's probably right, unfortunately.
 
It would be stupid to make women's teams mandatory for men's WT teams. Right now there are no reason to have 18 or more WWT teams, cause there isn't a calendar for it, and I'll assume that most of the men's teams would want to be a part of it. The WWT will already be expanded to possibly 15 teams next year. Furthermore if every WT team set up a women's team (8 of them will have one next year, and at least six of them will be WWT teams), it would just hurt some of the well working teams that already exist.
 
Reactions: Roku
So your interest here is... pedantry?
What's pedantic about stating that PL said A and not B?

If you (and any other member of this forum) want to dislike PL, would you rather base yourself on what he actually said, or rather on something that somebody has invented (for whatever reason, be it not capable of deciphering PL his mumble, or, on purpose, misinterpreting his mumble)?
It's quite hilaric that you are directing your energy towards me, someone who merely pointed out that CN misinterpreted / mis-translated PL his words. Don't shoot the messenger.

All I am saying is, and this is applicable to all media (and science): check your original sources before you get infuriated reading secondary and tertiary sources, especially if those sources seem to develop a certain agenda.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
It would be stupid to make women's teams mandatory for men's WT teams. Right now there are no reason to have 18 or more WWT teams, cause there isn't a calendar for it, and I'll assume that most of the men's teams would want to be a part of it. The WWT will already be expanded to possibly 15 teams next year. Furthermore if every WT team set up a women's team (8 of them will have one next year, and at least six of them will be WWT teams), it would just hurt some of the well working teams that already exist.
The women's does not have to be a WWT - It could be a Pro-Conti or even continental - All men's WT teams should have a CONTI team - And the WT team should have first crack at riders from their CONTI team.
 
Reactions: IndianCyclist
The women's does not have to be a WWT - It could be a Pro-Conti or even continental - All men's WT teams should have a CONTI team - And the WT team should have first crack at riders from their CONTI team.
That could also be a way to do it.

In the last few years quite a lot of men's teams have set up a women's team, so there seems to be a development in that area already. And if it continues by itself, then it would become bad PR for DQS and others if they didn't have one, and thus making it mandatory would be redundant anyway.

We already know that Canyon-SRAM is setting up a development team for next season, and Cogeas - Mettler has pledged to do the same, if they join the WWT. Whether every WWT team would be able to secure funding for that, is doubtful though, but some of them definitely should be.
 
Reactions: yaco
The guy was not born in an age/environment where being politically correct was expected of someone in his position. He is not a wordsmith so there is no reason to treat his mumblings as such. When he says he's not the OCMW, he is saying he's not in the business of handing out money. There is no deeper meaning here.

As for women's teams. I think it being made mandatory would be a good thing, because it would be the same for all teams. I can see Lefevere not being eager to be the one to slice up his budget, when direct competitors aren't doing that either and are putting every dime they have into their men's squad. The problem then becomes, whether there are enough women's cyclist at the moment to field an entire professional peloton for every WT race. Or should women's races have smaller teams? I think that might be an interesting solution during a transitional period. A team shouldn't be forced to hire amateurs of whom there is no indication how they would react to life as a pro athlete, or how they would develop as one.
Well something like 35 percent of "pro" women already ride without pay. So they are technically amateurs anyway.

I probably wouldn't "force" every WT team to field both men's and women's teams, but it just seems like the right thing to do unless money is so tight that it's something that would bankrupt the whole operation.

I'd probably like to see fewer men's WT teams, frankly, and more wildcards in big races.
 
The women's does not have to be a WWT - It could be a Pro-Conti or even continental - All men's WT teams should have a CONTI team - And the WT team should have first crack at riders from their CONTI team.
That would be good in a perfect world but money would be an issue too. Vaughters already has trouble getting sponsers. now imagine trying to get it for more riders and staff.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Lizzie Deignan weighs in on this discussion:
She was presented with the charity quote it seems, the exact part of the transcript that was totally lost in translation and/or willingly taken out of the context.
PL isn’t doing a woman’s team because of “charity”, he doesn’t do it because HE FEELS it’s an uncertain return on investment, while he already has a full-time job running a very certain ROI which is his team he’s managing for the last 20 years, plain and simple.
But it’s nice clickbait to spin a story about PL saying something denigrating about woman cycling, so women and the cycling community can feel offended once again.
 
PL isn’t doing a woman’s team because of “charity”, he doesn’t do it because HE FEELS it’s an uncertain return on investment, while he already has a full-time job running a very certain ROI which is his team he’s managing for the last 20 years, plain and simple.
Of course there would be a risk involved. Isn't there always when you start something new? He just isn't interested, and honestly, that's cool with me; wouldn't want someone to run a team - of any level - because they felt like they were being forced to do so. I'm glad the people who have started/are starting women's teams (and devo teams) do so because they want to, not because they have to.
 
Reactions: Volderke
That would be good in a perfect world but money would be an issue too. Vaughters already has trouble getting sponsers. now imagine trying to get it for more riders and staff.
LS would weigh in here and say thet since Vaughters has already runied one women's team, there would be no reason for him to do it again.

She was presented with the charity quote it seems, the exact part of the transcript that was totally lost in translation and/or willingly taken out of the context.
PL isn’t doing a woman’s team because of “charity”, he doesn’t do it because HE FEELS it’s an uncertain return on investment, while he already has a full-time job running a very certain ROI which is his team he’s managing for the last 20 years, plain and simple.
But it’s nice clickbait to spin a story about PL saying something denigrating about woman cycling, so women and the cycling community can feel offended once again.
Surely if your main focus is to make money, you shouldn't be involved with sports anyway and certainly not cycling.
 
Reactions: RedheadDane
I'm not exactly a big fan of Lefevre, but it has to be said that his full quote is a lot less controversial than the missused clickbait quote. To all the media outlets out there, you don't have to missquote him, he'll say something crazy every few weeeks anyway.
Sadly it has to be said that the lack of TV coverage makes female cycling a lot less attractive for sponsors, once there is more TV coverage/live coverage for all the big races you will probably get more big sponsor entering women's cycling.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts